Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0000 Meadowland DrivePLANING COMMISSION JULY 9 1991 It was also noted that any subsequent requests for development will always be handled as a PCD with total acreage considered. Mr. Austin moved the Planning Commission approve the preliminary Pla application of Haro d Bensen for subdivision of a 3.63 acre parcel containing a Planned Commercial Development consisting of two (2) commercial buildings and 16 residential units into two (2) lots of 1.41 acres (commercial buildings) and 2.22 acres (residential buildings) as depicted on a plan entitled "Prelimi- nar Site Plan for Hal Bensen, No. 1 Executive Drive, South Burlington. Vermont", prepared by Vermont Land Surveyors and dated 5 8 90 with the following stipulations: 1) As expressed by the applicant, the applicant shall replace dead landscaping and install new landscaping as outlined in the letter from Four Seasons dated 6/19/91. The applicant shall post a 3-year bond to cover the new landscaping prior to recording. 2) The applicant shall record a pedestrian easement on lot 1 which allows employees of businesses on lot 2 to walk over lot 1 to access the bank and post office. This easement shall be approved by the Citv Attorney and shall be recorded in the South Burlington land records prior to recording the Revised Final Plat. The easement shall be shown on the Final Plat. 3) The applicant shall record appropriate legal documents which clarify that the uses on lots 1 and 2 were originally created as a Planned Commercial Development and that any subsequent review and approvals by the Planning Commission shall take into account the entire 3.62 PCD and uses thereon. 4) The applicant shall submit the Revised Final Plat application within 12 months or this approval is null and void. Mr. Craig seconded. Motion passed . `f-/ 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Continued Preliminary Plat application of Green Acres, Inc., for subdivision of 263 acres off Hinesburg Road in South Burlington into 11 lots of 10.1, 10.1, 10.1, 10.1, 10.5, 10.8, 10.8, 12.1, 12.4, 12.5, and 145.8 acres, Green Acres property: Mr. Sheahan stepped down during this discussion as he is an abutting property owner: Mr. Jacob showed the extension of Swift Street on the plan. It would dead end in a cul-de-sac until the remaining land is de- veloped and a road goes through to Williston. M PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 9. 1991 Mr. Craig asked the status of the land where the road would go. Mr. Jacob said it is a right-of-way. South Burlington would have a say as to where the road goes. There would be an offer of dedication made. Mr. Craig said he wanted to be sure the City isn't getting into a trap some time in the future. Mr. Jacob noted that the driveways for lots 1-4 would come off the cul-de-sac. He showed the stream whose direction would change to run along this property. Mr. Weith suggested that lot 6 access off the right-of-way. Mr. Jacob said they had no objec- tion to that. A 4-way intersection for lots 7,8, 9, and 10 would be created with lots 7 and 9 and lots 8 and 10 sharing an access aligned across from each other. Mr. Weith has suggested a height limitation. He was not happy with using 39feet on lot #2 and suggested 391ofeet. Mr. Weith noted they hay picked a point even with the tree line in back. He thought it was important to preserve the full expanse of the view. ` - . Mr. Austin noted that a PUD requires innovation in design and he wasn't sure this met that requirement. Mr. Craig noted that the large lot would have to remain as one lot because of the terms of the PCD. Mr. Jacob raised the question of planting that might block the view of residents. Mr. Howell said he was not so much concerned with buildings as with lights from the buildings and would like to be protected from that. Mr. Sheahan said he would like to see a berm to the north of the homes. He didn't want it to interfere with their views but should shield them from noise of parking and lights. He asked that sightings be done to determine the height of the berm. Mr. Sheahan also noted the building envelope on lot #3 is very close to three residences. Mr. Sheahan asked if a cul-de-sac is legal in a PCD. He said the regulations allow them only in residential areas. Mr. Jacob said they have been granted all over the City. Mr. Davis noted there is a building almost in his yard and he is already bothered by lights from Digital at night. Mr. Sperry, representing some of the residential neighbors, noted that all land west of the stream is prime AG soils and he was concerned that Act 250 won't allow development there. He also asked if the building envelopes for lots 2, 3, and 4 are "cast in concrete". Mr. Burgess noted they are the maximum allowable. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 9. 1991 Mr. Reed noted this is the first concern Green Acres has shown for the residential neighbors. He appreciated that and said he would also like to see a berm. Mr. Sperry said he was concerned with lot 5 as no building en- velope is shown. Mr. Brainard noted that the edge of a commer- cial building could be 150 feet from his property line. Mr. Sperry asked if the envelope could be put near the road. Mr. Jacob said they would want to do that anyway. Mr. Brainard said that lot #3 will arouse the most resistance as it is very close to the residences. Mr. Craig raised the question of the ditch. The drainage pattern was outlined. Mr. Jacob said that Dick Ward is satisfied to leave the other ditch as is now that the water has been redirect- ed. Mr. Reed noted that where the old and new ditches meet, there is no obstacle to water running into the new ditch. Any volume of flowing water will go into both watercourses and within a few years water will be flowing back in the ditch. Mr. Burgess stressed that the Commission will be very concerned with what happens to those watercourses. Mr. Craig said he would he happy to see it filled in the way is was previously. uitiCr �ununissiun members agreed. Mr. Jacob noted they are working with a wetlands expert and will report the findings when available. Regarding the pedestrian easement, Mr. -Jacob showed a possible extension following the brook. The recreation path people want a different route, but the applicant sees a problem with liability with the quarry. Mr. Jacob said they don't want to divide a possible joining of two lots with a recreation path. Mr. Craig felt the Commission should get feedback from the Natural Resource Committee. Mr. Jacob noted the property is located in the Airport noise cone. Mr. Weith noted the Commission needs a survey plat of all eleven lots . Mr. Jacob said this is being done. Mr. Weith said the Hinesburg Road sidewalk policy would require the applicant to pay $27,000. A sidewalk will eventually be put down on Hinesburg Road. Mr. Goodrich asked if they could build it themselves. Mr. Weith said he would check with Sonny Audette. For traffic projections, the applicant has used 1992 as a base year with 1997 as the year of buildout. The intersection would require a traffic light for the "build" phase. Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Road would be at capacity as would Williston Road/Hinesburg Road for the design year (1997). 5 PLANNING COMMISSION JULY � 1991 Mr. Craig asked if Mr. Leiner had seen the report. Mr. Weith said he has it but hasn't reviewed it yet. Mr. Craig noted that the Swift Street Extension at Hinesburg Road would require a left and right turn lane at buildout and also a signal. He asked if the applicant would bond for the cost of the signal. The applicant felt that would be required by the Agency of Transportation. It was also noted that the air quality report requires that when there are 1000 parking spaces, the left and right turn lanes must be in. Mr. Craig noted that Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Road and Williston Road/Hinesburg Road are over capacity today. In 1997, they will become a disaster. He said he had a hard time adding this impact to those two intersections. He didn't feel this development should be responsible for solving it all, but he didn't know what the City's plans are for those two locations. Mr. Weith noted that Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Road is in the impact fee plan. Money is being collected to contribute toward the City's share of improvements. He didn't know when those would occur. Mr. Jacob noted this development requires Council approval and felt this issue could be raised then. Mr. Weith said he would check with the State but he didn't think the State had any plans at present. He noted that Williston Road improvements are not being designed by the State. Mr. Poger said that when Corporate Way opens, which should be soon, both of those intersections will become a disaster. Mr. Burgess then outlined the Commissions concerns: landscaping on the property line traffic (Craig Leiner's comments) City Council's reaction to the intersections the elevation of buildings moving the whole development 100 feet or so to the east where water will go on the property (what happens to the ditch) building envelope on lot 5 possibly moving further north Mr. Reed noted that at the last hearing, the developer was asked to come in with a more innovative design. He felt it looked almost like the same thing. Mr. Burgess said it can be debated whether the applicant is meeting the intent of the regulations. Mr. Reed noted the buildings are placed where they have the most impact on visibility. He said his other concern is the largest lot and with people saying zoning can change in the future and that lot can be developed. Mr. Burgess stressed that it is the intention of the Planning Commission that this not happen. Mr. Sperry felt the problems with lot #3 could be solved a number of ways. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 9 1991 Mr. Austin moved to continue the hearing until August 6: 1991. Mr. Craig seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Site Plan application of Thomas Kleh for conversion of a 20,500 square foot building to restaurant (75 seats) and indoor recreation use (miniature golf), 1205 Airport Parkway. Mr. Burgess noted this used to be the Offset House. Mr. Kleh said he would put in a pizza restaurant with a softball batting cage, miniature golf, and driving range, all indoors. Mr. Weith noted there is no traffic overlay in this area of the City. Mr. Kleh said the road is level in front for 200 yards from the hill. There is plenty of visibility. Mr. Kleh showed the location of the dumpster and said it will be enclosed. Ms. Peacock asked if parking spaces will be delineated. Mr. Kleh said he hoped to pave it in the future but it will stay gravel now. The three handicapped spaces will be paved. Mr. Austin moved the Planning Commission approve the Site Plan applicaton of Thomas Kleh for conversion of _a 20,500 square foot building to a restaurant 75 seats and indoor recreation use as depicted on a Plan entitled "Airport Industrial Park, Lots 5 & 6. formerly the Offset House, Site Plan".- Prepared by Gunner McCain and dated 6_/14/90, last revised 6/19/91 with the following stipu- lations: 11 This approval is conditional on a maximum restaurant seating capacity of 75 seats. Any increase in seating shall be approved by the Planning Commission. 2) The Planning Commission waives the 600 landscaping require- ment since the site is presently well landscaped and of good appearance. 3) A sewer allocation of 2,250 gPd is granted. The applicant shall pay the $2.50 per gallon fee prior to issuance of a zon- ing/building permit. ,4) The Plan shall be revised prior to permit to address the following: a) The plan shall show the gravel embankment on the northwesL. side of the building and adjust the parking area accordingly. ,b) The Ulan shall show the dumpster location and appropriate -.creeping. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION 24 February 1987 page 4 8. The applicant shall provide the City Planner prior to permit noise data to show that the applicant will u comply with Table II, art 3 of the South Bur in ton Zoning Ordinance. If the Planner does not find TuE"ompliance, this approval is null and voi . 9. Quarry activity shall commence within 6 months or this approval is null and void. Mrs. Peacock seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 3. Site Plan application of Dennis Blodgett for conversion of ex- isting ui in o office space and demolition of 4 struc ures at 1340-42 Shelburne Rd. Mr. Levigen explained that the 2 parcels total 7.3 acres. Only 2.77 acres are being considered for this proposal. Mr. Bbdgett proposes to use the existing building for his insurance offices. He will demolish the sheds, clean up the site, and put in a gravel drive. The historic house will be preserved. 10 parking spaces are pro- vided. Mr. Blodgett has 3 employees. Mr. Dooley asked where the access would be for the lower lot. Mr. Levigne said probably through the Holmes Rd. Extension. He said they are asking to keep the Shelburne Rd. access open until they develop further. Mr. Jacob said it was OK with him until there is any construction on thelot or on the other lot. Mrs. Lafleur noted that IDS will deed half of the Holmes Rd. Ext. right -of-way and Blodgett the other half, but Blodgett will have to build it because the Commission didn't require IDS to do so. She noted that Lakewood, the development acress the street, has planned to put in only a 3-way signal. Mr. Jacob said they must be told to put in a 4-way signal. Mr. Blodgett noted Lakewood had approached them about asking them to help pay to make it a 4-way signal. Mrs. Lafleur noted that when Holmes Rd. Ext. is built, the access to this development would have to be back far enough from the intersection. Mr. Jacob suggested letting the alplicant use the existing drive for renovation, etc. When that is complete, they should use a driveway from Holmes Rd. Mr. Dooley moved that the Planning Commission approve the site plan application of Dennis Blodgett or conversion of the existing sq. ft. building to ofFice space as depicted on a plan entitled -Site Plan - B o ge Deveiopment, Shelburne Road, oi h Buiiington Vermont" prepared y Wiemann-Lamp ere, dated February wi i�Fe llowinipulations: 1. All landscaping requirements are waived. r> { PLANNING COMMISSION 23 FEBRUARY 1988 PAGE 4 Water Dept. has to review the plans. There is still sewer capacity if they plan is submitted quickly. The Fire Chief wants 2 fire hydrants. An erosion study will be needed from Heindel & Noyse. Mr. Llewellyn questioned the possibility of a 50 ft. right of way instead of 60 ft. They would like to put in a pond, and 60 ft. won't allow for it. Members agreed they should move the houses back 5 feet and keep the 60 ft. right of way. 4. Consider requests•for 6 month extensions to site plan approval for the following: a) addition to 3060 Williston Rd. b) quarry operation on Green Acres, Hinesburg Rd. c) F.H. Adams, Burlington International Airport, 1200 Airport Drive. Mrs. Lafleur noted the quarry problem is due to Act 250 holdups. This would be their second extension. Mrs. Hurd moved to approve a six month extension to the site plan approval of a 5000 sq. ft. addition to the building at 3060 Williston Road as approved August 11, 1987. All stip- ulations in that approval remain in effect. The building permit shall be obtained within 6 months of February 11, 1988 or this approval is null and void. Mr. Burgess seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mrs. Hurd moved that the Planning Commission approve a 6 months extension to the site plan approval of Ralph Goodrich for operation of a quarry at Green Acres on Hinesburg Rd. as approved August 11, 1987. All stipulations in that approval remain in effect. The permit shall be obtained within 6 months of February 11, 1988 or this approval is null and void. Mr. Burgess seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mrs. Hurd moved that the Planning Commission approve a six months extension to the site plan approval of F.H. Adams for construction of a 9000 sq• ft. building at the Burlington International Airport for Federal Express as approved August 11, 1987. All stiuulations in that approval remain in effect. The permit shall be obtained within 6 months of February 11, 1988 or this approval is null and void. Mr. Burgess seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Other Business -Mr.-Burgess expressed concern with businesses that expand. He felt that the Commission should take care at approvals so a 9/4/86 Suggested Sti ulations Ralph Goodrich Construction Company Hinesburg Road Quarry Operation 1. That the access roads be limited to the two proposed. The access road off Hinesburg Road at the Semicon entrance, be constructed to conform with City specifications (installation of the base) both access roads shall be paved. Proper entrance security shall be installed. 2. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted to the Board prior to any commencement of activity at this site. The erosion control plan shall include the method of handling any water discharge from the quarry. 3. Management and control of this operation shall remain with the Ralph Goodrich Construction Company. Any transfer of management shall be subject to approval by the Board. 4. Quarrying limits be reference to the plan dated — any revisions shall be subject to review by the Board. 5. Quarrying practices shall be conducted on a 1 on 1 slope or less. 6. If for some reason the recharge source is disrupted and the pond does not fill, the slope will be covered with 6 inches of soil and the area seeded. Any other use of the quarry shall be subject to approval by the Board. 7. The hours of operation sha 1 be6Q AAM� to 6PM, Monday through Friday. (-j V ?e-r0dLd'f' & \" hol c s oc- Wee p-O 8. This project shall be subject to any State approvals or permits. 9. This proposal is subject to site plan review by the Planning Commission. Adaquate screening shall be planted along the Interstate. 10. Any bonding requirements shall be established by the Planning Commission and the City Engineer. 11. These stipulations are subject to review by the Board within one year after commencement of operation. 12. This permit and approval shall expire 10 years from this date. PLANNING COMMISSION 24 FEBRUAR( 1987 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on lTuesday, 24 February 1987, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Peter Jacob, Chairman; Judith Hurd, John Dooley, Catherine Peacock Also Present Jane Lafleur, City Planner; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Ralph Goodrich, Dick Painter, Ellen Walton, Scott Pennington, Dr. L. Coffin, Dr. R. Coffin, Bob Furlong, Mrs. Anderson, Dennis aodgett, Gary Levigne, Ross Anderson, Dick Trudell, Roland Boutin, Nick Hurt 1. Review Minutes of 3 February and 10 February 1987 Mrs. Hurd moved that the Minutes of 3 February be approved as written. Mr. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mrs. Hurd moved that the Minutes of 10 February be approved as written. Mr. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Site plan application of Ralph Goodrich for operation of a 16.5 acre quarry and construction of a 77UU77. a x access road at Green Acres, Hinesburg Rd. Mr. Trudell explained that there will be 3 phases to the quarrying. In Phase I, they will drain the existing quarry, establish a stock- piling area, and start to install the road. There will also be an archeological study. Erosion control devices will be part of this phase as well. It is estimated this phase will take about 2 years. In Phase II, they will continue to stockpile material and continue to develop- the road. This is the major part of the operation and will probably continue for about 8 years. In the final Phase, the stockpile area will be smoothed over, seeded and mulched. The pond will be allowed to refill, and the quarry walls will be smoothed out. Mr. Trudell said that during quarrying, the rock would not be visible above the tree line. Mrs. Lafleur said the road, which is the extension of Swift Street, will be an 80-foot right of way, built to commercial standards as far as the base goes. If any additional lot is developed, the road must become a 32 foot standard city road. Location of the road allows for future development off both sides of the road. She noted that the developer would prefer to build the road only to Muddy Brook; however, she felt that at some time it would make sense to swing north to connect to Brownell Rd. into Willikon. Landscaping, including street trees, should be required for control of noise and dust. She also recommended getting the land for the connecting road deeded or at least dedicated so there is no prob- lem down the line. Mr. Dooley asked when the city gets the rest of Swift St. Mrs. Lafleur said part of it comes with the Milot development. The remaining piece is still being farmed by the Hills. PLANNING COMMISSION 24 February 1987 page 2 Regarding drainage, the applicant has permission to lower the quarry and pump water into Muddy Book. This can't be done during quarry operation, so it will have to be pumped the other way. Mr. Dooley questioned noise standards, and Mrs. Lafleur said the ordinance is very out of date on this point. The applicant has agreed to get the standards interpolated to the city's terminology so that an assessment can be made. They have requested operations from 6 AM to 6 PM, and the Ordinance standards apply only from 9 PM to 7 AM. Mrs. Hurd expressed concern about water being pumped from the quarry and felt there was danger of a swamp being created in the area. Mr. Pennington asked about traffic flow. Mr. Trudell said they estimated 12 trucks per hour. Mr. Pennington noted that he often encounters trucks pulling onto Hinesburg Rd. With cars on the road going at 50 mph, a very dangerous situation exists which will be made worse with 12 more trucks per hour. Mrs. Lafleur said Craig Leiner had looked at the situation and felt acceleration lanes for trucks going north were not needed. Figures also do not show the need for a light at the intersection. Both Mr. Szymanski and Mr. Leiner agree there should be a "Yield" sign at the junction with Lane Press, and that Lane Press should have the right of way. Mr. Dooley questioned whether the developer should contribute to an intersection fund for future work at the Hinesburg Rd. intersection. Mrs. Lafleur said they will be re- quired to contribute to the Hinesburg Rd/Kennedy Drive improvement fund. Dr. Coffin asked if there is any further consideration being given to having them exit out to Brownell Rd. Mr. Trudell said that Brownell Rd. is one of their access points and is the first one that will be paved. That will be the major access until the other one is usable. Mrs. Walton stressed this is a residential neighborhood and hoped the Commission will consider noise level and the safety of children. Mr. Painter asked when commercial development of Green Acres will begin. Mr. Goodrich said as soon as someone wants to locate there. Mr. Furlong said he felt this is the worst thing that could hap- pen. The area is beginning to develop as a neighborhood. Mr. Jacob noted that the land is zoned Industrial, so the applicant has every right to use it in that way. Mrs. Anderson questioned whether blasting could dislodge a house. Mr. Goodrich said residents won't even notice when blasting occurs. Mrs. Anderson also felt that 6 AM to 6 PM was excessive for a residential neighborhood and that truck traffic would compete with traffic going to work. Commission members agreed they were also uncomfortable with those hours. Mrs. Peacock J PLANNING COMMISSION 24 February 1987 page 3 recommended 7 AM to 6 PM Monday -Friday and 8 AM to 6 PM on Sat- urday. Mrs. Hurd asked whether a bond is required to insure the land is put back in order after 10 years. Mr. Dooley said the Ordinance requires it. Mr. Goodrich emphasized that there will be no access to the quarry when work is not in progress and that the area will be chained off to keep trespassers out. Mr. Dooley moved that the Planning Commission approve the site plan application of Ralph Goodrich for expansion of the quarry operation at Green Acres] Hine s ur oa , as depicted on a three page set of ans en i e "GreenAcres: Quarry )eve o men prepare y Tru- dell Consulting Engineers, dated February with the o ow- ing szipuiaiions• 1. A landscapin�b_onnd in an amount determined by the City Planner, for p anting 3 to +zinc —caliper s ree rees aiong the access road, 60 feet on center shall e posteddprior to permit. The p ans s a e revised to show this landscapping, The trees snail be plan e efore the access road is used. 2. The 80-foot right-of-way for the planned Swift Street extension shall be deeded to the City. It sha-lT incude a portion approve e City Planner to connect o South Brownell Road.e oca- tion of the -ded orTion shall be established in the best way or a usable connecting roadbetween HinesburanH SouthBrowne oa s n ao service the needs o evelopmenton this prover v. 3. The access road shall be constructed with an 18 inch thick gravel oase plus a sand cusnion. it snail oe Z4 reet minimum paved wiatn and shall be upgraded to City standards upon any future evelopment of this area. 4. The intersection of the quarry road and the Lane Press Drive s all be signed so that quarry traffic yields To Lane ress vehicles. 5. A $1147 contribution shall be made toward the Hinesburg Rd/Kenned Drive intersection improvement unbased on EFe ib trip ends per our generated by this develoaELent. 6. A performance bond to guarantee site restoration in Phase III shall be posted in an amount determined by the City Planner prior to permit. 7. This a royal is conditional on the quarry operating solely be- ween the hours o an pm, Monday through Friday, and 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturday. I, -3- Qv1'trr 1 made, or deny it. Mr. Arnold Marek said the buildings we are developing could be indoor theater, retail business, car wash, hotel - wouldn't it be nicer to have something like this rather than retail. Mr. Dinklage said I withdraw the motion and I move that we table this appeal until the next meeting. This was seconded by Mr. Thibault and voted 3 -2 to table. Mr. Jarrett moved to send the communication to the Planning Commission asking them to consider mini -storage facilities as a Conditional use in C-1 District and to make anv other changes in Section 11.10 that would go along with Conditional use for mini -storage. This was seconded by Mr. Thibault and all voted aye. No. 2 Tabled Appeal of Green Acres, Inc. Ralph Goodrich Tabled appeal of Green Acres, Inc., Ralph Goodrich, Hinesburg Road Quarry. Mr. Ward asked the board if they had received the draft of Suggested Stipulations to discuss and make changes. After some discussions the stipulations were changed to read as follows: Ralph Goodrich Construction Company Hinesburg Road Quarry Operation Stipulations 1. That the access roads be limited to the two proposed. The access road off Hinesburg Road at the Semicon entrance, be constructed to conform with City specifications (installation of the base) both access roads shall be paved. Proper entrance security shall be installed. 2. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted to the Board prior to any commencement of activity at this site. The erosion control plan shall include the method of handling any water discharge from the quarry. 3. Management and control of this operation shall remain with Ralph Goodrich. Any transfer of management shall be subject to approval by the Board. 4. Quarrying limits be reference to the plan dated May 9, 1985. Any revisions shall be subject to review by the Board. 5. Quarrying practices shall be conducted according to standard accepted practices and that the resulting side walls be left nearly vertical. 6. If for some reason the recharge source is disrupted and the pond does not fill, the slope will be covered with 6 inches of soil and the area seeded. Any other use of the quarry shall be subject to approval by the Board. 7. The hours of operation shall be 6 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Saturday. 8. This project shall be subject to any State approvals or permits. -4- 9. This proposal is subject to site plan review by the Planning Commission. Adequate screening shall be planted along the Interstate. 10. Any bonding requirements shall be established by the Planning Commission and the City Engineer. 11. These stipulations are subject to review by the Board within one year after commencement of operation or at any time at the discretion of this board upon 30 days notice. Mr. Pennington asked if there was a need for two access roads and Mr. Goodrich said there was for convenience due to the number of trucks, closeness of work and competitiveness. Mr. Pennington asked if the Circumvential Highway had been approved and Mr. Jarrett advised him that the State is working on people to administer it right now. Mr. Pennington asked if there had been any consideration of wild life there. Mr. Ward said this will go to Act 250. Mr. Dinklage moved that the appeal be approved subject to the stipulations as changed this evening. This was seconded by Mr. Thibault and all voted aye. Mr. Jarrett did not vote due to conflict of interest as noted in the minutes of August 25, 1986. The minutes of August 25, 1986 were approved on a motion by M . Boehm, a second by Mr. Dinklage and a unanimous vote. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM �/ Clerk . _ ZO''t�111�1C�'�a'AR� �M\'til ��CF.� -- (�o�► �Cti -4- Mr. Ward said the area is zoned R-4 district. Section 9.20 Conditional uses sub section 9.205 - utility sub stations and transmission lines, Section 19.05 sub section 19.056 alterations, extension or changes of existing conditional uses. Proposed structure 12 KV addition. Mr. Graf said that because of conflict of interest he would like to sit out this appeal having been an employee of the Green Mountain Power. Mr. Ward said that there will be no transmission lines involved and this should be amended from the appeal. The structure is a 12 KV addition - application on file with this permit and will cost approximately $300,000. Mr. Hipp said that the load on Shelburne Road has been increasing over the past few years and we would like to construct a 12' x 14' structure to an existing subsection to relieve the circuits on Shelburne Road. This structure will be very small with no change in outline of the fence and would be pretty much invisible - the character of the neighborhood would not be affected - one side is the railroad track, behind is all land and the front is Queen City Park. There are no more than 5 or 6 houses in that area. There will be no increase in traffic in the area due to this addition and this would better serve the load in South Burlington. There will be no visible changes - will have underground cables. This wouldn't affect the outline of the sub -station in any way. The sub -station is 30' high and this structure will be 20' high. . The appeal was approved unanimously. No. 5 Appeal of Green Acres, Inc., Ralph Goodrich Appeal of Green Acres, Inc., Ralph Goodrich, seeking approval from Section 19.35 Removal of and filling with earth products, request is for permission to operate a commercial stone quarry, estimating the removal of 4.6 million yards from an area of approximately 40 acres, from a parcel containing 300 acres, lcoated at 1150 - 1170 Hinesburg Road bounded by lands of Semicon, Inc., Homer Dubois and William Mikell. Mr. Ward said this area is zoned A -I Section 19.35 Removal/filling of earth products requires approval by Board. Existing quarry - approximately 6 acres in size at a depth of 40 feet - proposed quarry approximately 40 acres at a depth of 55 feet. Estimated stone removal of 4.6 million yards - total parcel 300 acres, 269 within city - 22 in Williston. Quarry to be claimed as a lake - length of operation approximately 10 years. Mr. Goodrich started by showing slides showing center of Semicon Access Road and Green Acres to the right and explained that the Planning Commission had made the statement that from the time Mitel built the building this would be the Access Road for Swift Street and extension to Williston. He also explained that a right of way was granted to the City of South Burlington that passes on the south side of the quarry and Brownell Road is the Access Road. He also said that the Circumvential Highway which is to be built in the near future will be passing through this area. After some discussion of the slides -5- Mr. Jarrett said due to conflict of interest he would not vote on this matter but would like to participate in the discussions of this appeal. Mr. Graf said he would like to accept his position and all voted aye. Mr. Goodrich asked if the City Engineer had written the Board members a letter and Mr. Ward said they had. (See letter attached) Mr. Goodrich said that the land that surrounds the area around the existing quarry is 270 acres. The quarry setback proposed is 50' back from the Interstate Highway. Present elevation depth of excavation is approximately 326'- Muddy Brook is about 310' and we are proposing to have a 355' elevation all around. The existing quarry high ground is about 370' around - the quarry elevation of water is 366'. There will be no effects on public health and safety. As far as noise, dust and vibration - there will be no problem with any of these - we have a good delay system for blasting. Mr. Blais asked to what level of refinement on site will the crushing be. Mr. Goodrich said that a large part of it will be broken to a minus 4" base stone, 3/4" stone and 1/2" stone. We will have to remove the water and will lay a pipeline from the quarry along the road to Brownell. The exhaust into culvert will not affect erosion of Muddy Brook. The water quality is drinkable. Traffic will access onto Brownell Road and to Hinesburg Road. Mr. Dinklage asked if at this point Mr. Goodrich would have to get any further permission from Williston to access onto Brownell Road and he said they had no problem with this and that is when he learned about the Circumvential Highway. Mr. Goodrich said that the roadways in and out of there will be dust laid and probably be paved once the operation is started. We would have to install erosion control anywhere where we do any stripping. Along Muddy Brook there will be a need for erosion control. We are hopeful that we could complete the quarry operation in 10 years. Rehabilitation of site - the walls would be sloped back and seeded. A flowing well has filled the quarry naturally - we would be able to drill several more wells to add to the water. Hours of operation - we are asking for 12 hours a day, 6:OOAM - 6:OOPM. The proposed lake maximum area would be just under 44 acres lake levels - cubic yards of excavation total about 4.6 million yards. Mr. Thibault asked how high equipment will be and what type of on site utilities would be used and Mr. Goodrich replied that other than a crane there shouldn't be any height problems for aircraft. Mr. Dinklage asked if the blasting would interfere with radio equipment for aircraft and Mr. Goodrich said they would try to control this. Mr. Dinklage asked within what distance would you consider danger zone and Mr. Goodrich said 200' would not interfere. Mr. Thibault said under FAA would there be any lights or glare that would cause confusion to pilots. Mr. Goodrich said they wouldn't have any lights that would shine in anyone's eyes. Mr. Goodrich said that regarding provisions of suitable bond, he would assume that the city might accept a bond. Mr. Ward said that they haven't talked about it - normally if there is any city utility or roadway that's affected or anything that might have to be rebuilt we would consider accepting a bond. Mr. Dinklage said I have quite a list of things I would like to go over with Mr. Goodrich. I suggest that we make an extensive list of items we would like to make clear, that we ask the City Planning and Zoning staff to come back at a I subsequent meeting and discuss - question of dust control - what are standard operating procedures - roads will be paved, etc. Mr. Goodrich said that the crushing operation itself is basically clear and the access road is within the quarry itself. Mr. Blais said that he visited the Winooski quarry and found that living with the quarry wasn't a problem - dust was not a problem. Mr. Jarrett asked if Mr. Goodrich will operate the quarry himself. Mr. Goodrich said he probably will hire someone with major crushing equipment - we will not subordinate the management - we will be the manager. Mr. Graf asked after the quarrying operation is over and it's landscaped, whose going to operate the swimming hole. Mr. Goodrich said it would remain a private lake. Mr. Dinklage said I would like to make a list of items that we would like to have the city work on with us and present this to us as stipulations that would be good. 1. That the appeal provide screening from the Interstate would be approved by the City Engineer. 2. That the generation of dust be monitored by the city and when needed that sprinkling be employed to reduce dust generation. 3. That the discharge control plans be approved and monitored by the City Engineer, the State Water Resources Board and the Natural Resources Committee. 4. That the access road design and placement both off Hinesburg Road and )' Brownell Road be approved by the City Engineer and Planning Commission before operation commences. 5. That these stipulative requirements be reviewed by this board in 5 years for possible modification, if needed. 6. That an adequare spillway be constructed with the approval of the City Engineer. 7. That the entrance be controlled and secured. 8. That all roads used by trucks outside of the immediate quarry area will be paved. 9. That erosion control be provided on all sides of the project as approved by the City Engineer and monitored by the city of South Burlington and that the city identify the need for any bond and also that the plans for operation be reviewed with the Airport authorities - specifically regarding blasting and the use of lights on site at the quarry. 10. That operating be limited not to exceed 6:OOAM to 6:OOPM. 11. That the operation and management responsibility remain with the Goodrich Company and cannot be subordinated. 12. That blasting at the site be done with plans and methods approved by the ��� City Engineer. J r -7- 13. That the operation at the site shall not exceed a 10 year operation and at that time the City Engineer's recommendations be that the area be covered with 6 inches of soil and area seeded. 14. That the dust and noise control factor be added as one factor. 15. That the access be limited to 2 as described by Mr. Goodrich. Ms. Hurd asked why this appeal didn't need City Planning approval and Mr. Ward replied that quarrying does not need Planning Commission approval. Ms. Hurd said we ought to be very careful with this appeal - I am very concerned with the noise, traffic and would like to know if you are going to affect the woods at all. Mr. Goodrich said they will have to cut some trees but for the immediate future he didn't think they would see any difference other than the road access right of way. Mr. Blais asked who Mr. Goodrich had to satisfy at the State and Mr. Goodrich said Act 250 and Soil Conservation will be involved. Ms. Hurd asked what about the water table - would this quarry operation affect the water table and Mr. Goodrich said he didn't know - some springs have been affected but not wells. Mr. Painter asked if this is approved does that mean that Mr. Goodrich has the right to build an access road and Mr. Blais said that it is very important that the city take advange of this opportunity. Mr. Dinklage said that he would like to ask Mr. Goodrich what his status was with respect to Act 250 and Mr. Goodrich said he would know in about a week. Mr. Dinklage asked how the explosives would be stored and Mr. Goodrich said that they have to have a special license and these explosives are stored in bullet proof magazines. Ms. Walton said she lives on Ledge Knoll and is very concerned about how many trucks will be coming out, also about the blasting. Mr. Goodrich said that probably 5 or 6 trucks an hour. Terry Sheen said he borders Mr. Goodrich's property and he is concerned about the access road on Hinesburg Road and the amount of trucks that will be coming out. Mr. Remington said that it's a long term project and he is also concerned about traffic and the blasting. Mr. O'Kelly asked if this was a road that the city was going to put in anyway. Also what is the distance at which blasting can normally be heard. Mr. Goodrich said sometimes you won't hear it when you're standing next to it - I'm sure from the distance your home is to the quarry you won't hear it. Ms. Hurd asked the zoning board to ask our City Attorney to look into this. Mr. Blais said that we will meet again in two weeks to review these conditions to see if we have greater concerns to ask City Planning and the City Attorney to review.. Mr. Dinklage moved that this board indicate to the appealant by this straw vote that we are in conceptual actreement with what is bean¢ oronosed and that we ask the Zoning Administrator to draft into stipulations the comments, ideas, that have been discussed here tonight and that these be reviewed by the City Planner, City Attorney, City Engineer and the Planning Commission and that they be returned to us with their comments and that the draft of these stipulations be made available to anyone of the public who is interested prior to our next f I -8 meeting which is September 8th This was seconded by Mr. Graf. A straw vote was taken - Mr. Jarrett abstained from voting, Mr. Boehm voted nay, 4 others voted aye. Minutes of August 11, 1986 Mr. Dinklage asked that the word required be changed to recognized on Page 7 of the August 11, 1986 minutes. This was in a motion Mr. Dinklage made in the third paragraph. The minutes were approved as changed on a motion by Mr. Dinklage, a second by Mr. Thibault and a unanimous vote. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM. Clerk PLANNING COMMISSION 8 October 1991 Page 4 hr. Goldstein stated that he was told that the proposed use of mobile home sales is not permitted in the zoning district I-C therefore a variance must be obtained from the Zoning Board prior to the review of the Planning Commission. I We met with the Zoning Board on October 7th and was told that if the lot could be used for any other purpose,, they would not allow the use of a mobile home dealership. Mr. Burgess stated that the applicant is proposing an amendment to the zone to allow mobile home sales. Procedurally that requires us to hold a public hear- ing. After a _public hearing, we would forward it to the City Council who would hold a hearing and if they adopt it after the prescribed warning periods, then you would have a waiting period to have this zone change go into -effect. You would then qo to the Zoning Board and if they give you a conditional use approval, you would then come back to the Planning Commission and we might turn you down for traffic reasons or something else all of which would be unrelated to the zone. Even if 're do amend the zone and it is adopted, that is not a guarantee that there will be subsequent approval by the Planning Com- mission. Mr. Shumvay replied they would like to proceed with this request and withdrew their application. Mr. Weith stated he would warn a public hearing. 5. Continue Public Hearing: Preliminary plat application of Green Acres, Inc. for subdivision of 263 acres off Hinesburg Road in South Burlington into 11 lots of 10, 10.1, 10.1. 10.2. 10.3. 10.4. 10.8, 12-1, 12.5, 13.4. and 145.8 acres. hr. Sheahan stepped down from this application because he is an adjoining property owner. Mr. Jacob reviewed the October 8, 1991 Memorandum from Mr. Weith to the Plan- ning Commission. a) Pedestrian Path: The path is to serve as a recreational path for the neighbors and for the lots. Both the Recreation Committee and Natural Resources Committee have looked at this and there is a feeling this should be looped around the stream. The Recreational Path people want to connect it through to Butler Farms or Oak Creak. Natural Resources wants a general r.o.w. so the path can be added. We have no objection to giving a right of way on both sides of the stream. There will be a foot path with a foot bridge crossing the wetlands. We will give the City a r.o.v. to this path. Mr. Weith asked about the wetland zone 5 and 7. Mr. Jacob replied they would prefer to have a foot bridge made of wood over the wetlands area. ; rvr ;iai i sr4'. Y y�p��" ; -- •� * Vf'�Mp+N..,�*s�F3S' A. L� �. yea ��r, ;a:2r, .- �• . y�. lv • PLANNING COMMISSION 8 October 1991 Page 5 Mr. Sperry, representing abutting neighbors, stated there are concerns about the foot path and how it might invite motorcycles and 4-wheel all terrain vehicles. He asked if there would be.barricades to prevent this from happen- ing. Mr. Jacob replied his client would have no objection to having bar- ricades. Mr. Craig asked if you can. get to the path from Hinesburg Road. Mr. Jacob replied yes- _ Mr. Sperry stated that his clients have requested that if a path is approved, that there be a condition that wherever it accesses the public, that there be some measures to prevent people from going up and down this path with motor- cycles, all terrain vehicles and noisy bikes. Ms. Peacock stated it would be prtf6ature for the Planning Commission to say there must be a prohibition against motorized vehicles until we know if there. will be a problem or not. She said it would be a good idea to have the path connected to the rest of the recreation path of the City. Mr. Sperry asked if the applicant is proposing to install the berms and landscaping. Mr. Jacob replied they will landscape after they build the berms.. The landscaping has to be designed and looked over by Natural Resources to get. their approval, the layout has to be approved by them. The number of trees. and the type of trees all has to be done prior to final. - -- - Mr. Burgess --asked if they then were proposing to build the bermsbefore the_ landscaping. Mr. Jacob replied yes. Mr. Weith stated that at the last meeting we talked about whether it should be an unpaved path, a walking path or a paved path. We have two different recom- mendations. The Natural Resources Committee would like to see walking paths on both sides of the stream whereas the Recreation Path Committee would like to some day see a paved facility. At this time they are recommending that we only get the easement in place and staff has recommended that we get the generic easement at least on the north slie of the stream connecting to Hines- burg Road and also connecting to the 60 ft. r.o.v. at Ledge }moll. When we get to the point of implementation sometime in the future, that is when the exact location would be finalized after public hearing. b) Wetlands: A report has been prepared by Peter Spear, Natural Resources Consulting Service. Hr. Weith stated that he would like to see a foot bridge over the wetlands and asked whether the State would allow a 200 ft. bridge to gu through a wetland. Mr. Jacob said they have not brought this up to Natural Resources and will have to go back to them for their thoughts and comments. a PLANNING COMMISSION 8 October 1991 rage 6 c) ,Traffic: Mr. Jacob stated that Tyler Hart prepared the traffic survey. Mr. Weith stated the state is going to be doing some minor improvements to the intersection of Rt. 116/Kennedy Drive this fall that will improve it to a level of service E. Mr. Cimonetti stated that the City Council has identified traffic problems at each of the key intersections, Rt. 116/Kennedy Drive and Rt. '116/Williston Road fc4r the last five years. We have discussed improvements that would be independent of the impact of this project. The City has a'capital constsuci tion schedule just as the state has the 5-year capital plan and in neither case do you have to work on everything that is already on a list before -.some- thing else appears on the list nor are those items arranged in any kind of priority nor do any of the things on the list take priority over yet to be identified items that are not yet on the list. Those intersections have got to have improvements. Mr. Craig stated that with his discussions with Sonny he was left with the im- pression that for intersection improvements that that money wasn't necessary under the state's 5-year plan but there was an intersection improvement bucket that they worked out of every year. Mr. Cimonetti replied there are State monies for those kinds of improvements and they don't have to be identified in the capital program. Many of the bond issues that we have passed not only refer to specific street improvements but have language that says 'and other street and intersection improvements', and there are unexpended bonded funds within the city that can be applied to in- tersection improvements. Mr. Craig said that the City would begin to look more seriously at these traf- fic problems knowing that such a project was going to happen and it would put more stress on these intersections. he suggested that if the Commission were to pass this, to pass it with still the question of traffic being opened with preliminary. This would give a very strong signal as to where we are going and give both the administration and the Council an opportunity to respond as to what they could possibly do to solve this traffic problem before we get into the position of final approval. Mr. Cimonetti stated he would be amazed if either intersection improvement wasn't then identified and discussed in the budgeting process in preparation of the very next review of the capital budget of the City. Mr. Craig asked would there be some feedback as to where the administration and the Council stood prior to final to the Planning Commission. Mr. Cimonetti replied that if there was a preliminary so that there was a strong impetus to the planning process, then you are looking at the next fiscal , iBli! ?r PLANNING COMMISSION a:. 8 October 1991 'Page 7 .budget process. The process starts'next--month and becomes public with the hearings starting in January and is over in Hay. -The effect of those inter- sections would be discussed in that budget. Mr. Craig stated that he would like to have this discussed in front of the en- tire City Council and have a statement of intent. Mr. Meith stated this will be going to the Council after Planning Commission's approval of the preliminary plat. The Council does have to approve the developments in this district under normal zoning. Mr. Cimonetti stated that the City Council has recommended and it has been added to the official City Map a road that doesn't yet exist that would go from Rt. 116 on Hinesburg Road in the vicinity of the interstate near the in- terchange and would pass to the East of Old Farm Road and would connect into Kimball Avenue and Shunpike Road and it is intended to be currently on our plans and on the county's plans and it is intended to be a route that would keep traffic away from those two intersections. Mrs. Maher said she never heard of this before. Mr. Meith replied they had discussions about this road before when Pizzagalli came in to put up some office buildings at the interstate there. We had talked about a connector road. This was the last discussion about it. This is not on our official map nor in our plan. Mr. Cimonetti said not to depend on this road relieving the current condition of unsatisfactory services at those two intersections but recognize that it is another thing that -is --in -the-swim-for the future as the traffic builds as a result of this kind of development and other developments in that very desirable industrially zoned area of Chittenden County. Mr_ Austin sugges*ed ve approve this application with a condition that they can't put more than two structures on these lots until x happens and then x being one of those intersections is improved to a certain degree and then stage it in that fashion. Mr. Craig agreed with Mr. Austin on phasing the project to get the City's at- tention. Mr. Burgess stated Mr. Austin had an interesting suggestion to give this preliminary approval except for traffic and that would give the City impetus to look at the problem or solve the problem knowing it was pending. Mr. Reed stated that Mr. Austin's point should be very well taken. He feels phasing sakes sense because it is a reasonable approach in handling the traf- fic and making the improvements. a PLANNING COMMISSION .a October 1991 Page 8 Hr. Sheahan asked if Mr. Jacob had any maps on the berms. He wanted to see some specifics on landscaping and berm and stream proposals before this project rent beyond preliminary. Mr. Jacob replied the reason it hasn't been done so far is because they don't have preliminary approval. This would be very expensive to lay out and plan. After preliminary they make their plans and it has to be approved prior to final. d) View Protection (Building Height): Mr. Jacob stated they want to dig down on lots 2-and 3 about 20 feet to put up a building. It will look like a big bowl. Whey don't know if this is salable but they would like to come back, and discuss it with the Commission. Mr. Sheahan asked what would happen if you left lots 2 and 3 as open space and move those to the East thereby guaranteeing the view protection corridor. Mr. Jacob replied they would lose about 52 million dollars in sales if they move those lots. Mr. Jacob stated that there are several things that they would like to try to do but cannot under the present zoning. There is a possibility of cluster zoning where you cluster your buildings, 0 lot lines, or making the parcels smaller. Hr. Burgess asked what is an economical lot size, from a resale and from a purchase point of view. Mr. Jacob replied 3 to 5 acres and up. If you have a ten acre lot you can cluster three separate buildings.. Landscaping and layout are important. e) Berm/Drainageway: This has been answered previously. f) Sidewalk: We will put in whatever sidewalks that are needed. Mr. Craig stated there are two issues to consider: 1) phasing, and we should mention it at preliminary and address it iuily at final; and 2) to get some input from the City administration and Council as to what they plan to do to improve the traffic situation. There is also the details of what the berms and landscaping will be. There are several open issues for final. Mr. Reed expressed his concern with the view corridors and he would like the Commission to consider small design changes in the overall plan. Mrs. Maher asked Mr. weith if he could do some comparisons with other com- munities. One of the reasons the Planning Commission in the past never wanted to have a lot of smaller lots was because of the kind of uses that might be attracted which would be high generated. She asked if smaller industrial lots give you higher traffic generators: Mr. weith replied he would look into that. W PLANNING COMMISSION 8 October 1991 Page 9 Mr. Burgess stated they will talk about smaller lots next week at the work session and if they come to some consensus and get some agreement on what we want to do, we probably will include that as part of the zoning ordinance at the public hearing scheduled for November 12. Mr. Austin moved the South Burlinaton Plannina Commission approve the Prelimi- nary Plat application of Green Acres, Inc. for subdivision of 263 acres off Hinesburg Road into eleven (11) lots as depicted on a 12 page set of plan!,' the title page entitled "Subdivision Plat, Green Acres Industrial Park, Hines- burg Roads South Burlington, Vermont', prepared by Trudell Consulting.En- gineers, Inc. and dated 9i24191 with the following stipulations: 1_ In an effort to preserve the spectacular views of the Green Mountains from Route 116 as recommended in the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, the following conditions shall apply: a) Structures and landscaping on all lots and within the public r.o.w. shall be limited to a height above sea level of 393.5 feet plus 5.8 feet for every 1000 feet east of the eastern edge of pavement of Route 116. This restriction shall be attached through proper legal documents to lots cfeated by this subdivision. b) The above restriction does not apply to the area of lot *1 which is identified on Sheet SP3 as "No Height Restrictions'. c) The restriction specified in (a) -above does not apply to the area of lot *4 which is identified on Sheet SP3 as having a building height restriction of 378.0 elevation. __- d_)_ The above restriction does not apply to the 100 foot wide strip al0rnq trio `vvLi.c::. troursdary of the property from haute 1i4u east to the northeastern corner of the property located at 26 Knoll Circle. e) Sheets P1 through F-5 shall be revised prior to Final riat to indi- cate a soeciFs_ or variety of species of street trees which at ma- ture height will meet the height limitations described in (_a_)_ above. 2. Prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit or start of roadway or utility construction, the applicant shall post a 3-year landscaping bond in_an- amount equal to the value of the proposed street trees and proposed berm plantings. The amount shall t•e finalized prior to Final Plat review. PLANNING COMMISSION 8 October 1991 Page 10 3. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for any lot, or start of roadway or utility construction, all appropriate legal documents including easements (i.e., utility, sewer, drainage, sight -view, recreation path) and roadway i r.o.w.'s (i.e., irrevocable offers of dedications) shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and recorded in the South Burlington land records. 4. Prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit for any lot, or start of. roadway* or utility construction, bonds to cover the costs of roadway, utility, sidewalk, and relocated stream and berm construction shall be posted. The amount of -bonds shall be approved by the City Engineer. , 5. Access to lots 1,2,3 and 4 shall be via Vosburgh Lane. Access to lot 6 shall be from the proposed 60 foot sewer/roadway r.o.w. to the east. Access to lots 8 and 10 shall be provided by one shared curb cut on Swift Street Ex- tension. Access to lots 7 and 9 shall be provided by one shared curb cut on Swift Street. The plans shall be revised prior to Final Plat to indicate this. 6. The developer shall furnish the City with the name of the contractors doing the street vork and the architect and/or engineer vho will stake out and supervise the work at least 7 days prior to beginning of road construction. Upon completion of the work, the architect and/or engineer shall certify that the vork is in conformance with the approved plan, stipulations and any other requirements and/or change that the City requests. 7_ The applicant shall contribute $26,738 to the Hinesburg Road sidewalk fund based on 1,260 feet of frontage along Hinesburg Road. 8. As expressly represented by the applicant, it is proposed to relocate the stream over lots 1,2,3 and 6 to a newly constructed stream along the southern property line. The stream shall be designed to imeander and both ap- pear and function as a 'natural stream". The stream shall be located at least 50 feet north of the south property line. It shall be located at least 50 feet from the edge of wetland on lot 5. Detailed engineering drawings for the new stream shall be submitted prior to final plat review. The new stream shall be constructed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any lot and within a reasonable time period after start of utility or roadway con- struction. 9. The Planning Commission grants a sewer allocation of 15,000 qpd for the development and shall approve a phasing schedule prior to Final Plat. Each new building shall be required to pay the sewer allocation fee in effect based on the estimate of sewage treatment demand generated by the new building. 10. The final plat submission shall include a full set of plans including typical details and improvement plans for the Route 116/Swift Street Exkension intersection. J t PLANNING COMMISSION 8 October 1991 Page 11 11. As expressly represented by the applicant, the applicant is willing to dedicate to the City a pedestriakVrecreation path easement around the Quarry on lot 11 at some unspecified date in the future. This issue shall be ad- dressed at the time further subdivision or development is proposed for lot 11. 12. Manhole and drainage inlets shall be adjusted to grade using precast risers instead of bricks and mortar. 13. Sidevalk-thickness at driveways shall be 8 inches. 14. The plans shall be revised prior to Final Plat submission to address the following: a. The note identifying the height restrictions on lot #E4 on page SP3 shall indicate that the restriction applies to all structures and landscaping. b. The legend on page SP3 should include a symbol for street lights. C. Plan should show recreation path easement on both the south and north side of the relocated stream with connection to 60 foot r.o.w. off Knoll Circle and to Hinesburg Road. The issue of the applicant funding the construction o_f_a_ portion of the recreation path shall be finalized at Final Plat. 15. Legal documents (irrevocable offer of dedication: for the 80 foot r.o.w. future road connection over lot 11 shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and shall be recorded in the South Burlington -land records prior to recording the final plat. 16. A `Notice oZ t.o;tditlon' shall De reco1 acu i.a t;.c :wuLL Burlington land records prior to recording which states that all eleven lots were created as part of a planned industrial development (PIu) and that any subsequent development or subdivision will be reviewed as an amendment to the original eleven lot PID. This notice of condition shall be approved by the City Attor- ney. 17. The applicant shall pursue prior to final plat the option of construct- ing a bridge for a future recreation/pedestrian path over the wetland on Lots_ 5 and 7. The applicant and City Planner shall meet with the Natural Resources Committee prior to final plat to explain the concept and obtain comments and a recommendation from the Naturai Resources Committee. 18. The traffic issue and appropriate mitigation is unresolved at this time. This issue shall be finalized at final plat. Prior to iinai plat, staff, shall obtain an indication from Council on timing and funaina of necessary iRterse_c- tion improvements at Route 116/Kennedy Drive and Route liciWilliston Road. In Page 11 11. As expressly represented by the applicant, the applicant is willing to dedicate to the City a pedestriah/recreation path easement around the Quarry on lot 11 at some unspecified date in the future. This issue shall be ad- dressed at the time further subdivision or development is proposed for lot 11. 12. Manhole and drainage inlets shall be adjusted to grade using precast risers instead of bricks and mortar. 13. Sidewalk thickness at driveways shall be 8 inches. 14. The plans shall be revised prior to Final Plat submission to address the following: a_ The note identifying the height restrictions on lot #4 on page SP3 shall indicate that the restriction applies to all structures and landscaping. b. The legend on page SP3 should include a symbol for street lights. C. Plan should show recreation path easement on both the south and north side of the relocated stream with connection to 60 foot r.o.w. off Knoll Circle and to Hinesburg Road. The issue of'the applicant funding the construction of a_portion of the recreation path shall be finalized at Final Plat. 15. Legal documents (irrevocable offer of dedication: for the 80 foot r.o.w. future road connection over lot 11 shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and shall be recorded in the South Burlington land records prior to recording the final plat. 16. A `Notice oZ shah 6r recui acu ia. La.v SvuLa buriinoton land records prior to recording which states that all eleven lots were created as part of a planned industrial development (PID) and that any subsequent development or subdivision will be reviewed as an aaendment to the original eleven lot PID. This notice of condition shall be approved by the City Attor- ney. 17. The applicant shall pursue prior to iinai plat the option of construct- ing a bridge for a future recreation/pedestrian pain over the wetland on Lots 5 and 7. The applicant and City Planner shall meet with the Natural Resources Committee prior to final plat to explain the concept and obtain comments and a recommendation from the Natural Resources Committee. 18. The traffic issue and appropriate mitigation is unresolved at this time. This issue shall be finalized at final plat. Frio; to iinai plat, staff -shall obtain an indication from Council on timing and funairto o necessary ifltersec- tion improvements at Route 116iKennedy Drive and Route lit/Williston Road. In CITY COUNCIL 18 NOVEMBER 1991 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, 18 November 1991, at 7:00 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: Michael Flaherty, Chairman; John Dinklage, James Condos, William Cimonetti, Robert Chittenden Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Peg Picard, City Clerk; Joe Weith, City Planner; Albert Audette, Street Department; Stephen Stitzel, City Attorney; William Burgess, Mary -Barbara Maher, Terry Sheahan, Planning Commission; Chris Cavin, Jesse Craig, Michael Beaulieu, Jana Taylor, Robin Vanderpotten, Dan Swanson, Brendan Buckley, Geoff Hubette, Dick Trudell, Becky Pastner, Kristin Ely, Peg Strait, Patrick Moody, Dave MacLaughlin, Marta Taylor, Christina Spalding, Mary Spalding, Ralph Goodrich, Bill Robenstein, Norman Terreri Executive Session: Mr. Dinklage moved the Council meet in Executive Session to discuss litigation. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unan- imously. Regular Session: 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience (not related to Agenda Items): No issues were raised. 2. Public Hearing on Green Acres 11 Lot Industrial Subdivision, Hinesburg Road: Mr. Weith explained the process and the need for approval of the project by both the Planning Commission and City Council. The plan has received preliminary plat approval from the Commission. If the Council approve, the plan will move to final plat at the Commission; if there are no major changes, the plan can be approved there. Mr. Jacob then explained the plan. They will develop 10 lots now and come back later for the eleventh. The are proposing to eliminate a ditch and put in a meandering stream with a berm on each side. This stream will run into an existing pond. The landscaping bond will cover trees to be planted on the berm. They do not intend to put trees so high they block neighbors' views. Mr. Weith noted the applicant will have to submit a detailed engineering plan of the berm. CITY COUNCIL 18 November 1991 page 2 Mr. Jacob showed the accesses to the lots. The right of way for lots 8 & 10 will be along a dual driveway in order to eliminate a curb cut. The applicant has agreed to a deeded right of way to continue the road to Williston. It will be a movable right of way because the exact location of the road is not yet set. Regarding the pedestrian path, Mr. Jacob said they would rather not discuss the path around the quarry until that lot is up for development. There will be a recreation path easement on both sides of the stream and this will connect to the path off Knoll Circle. He suggested a footbridge over the wetlands to join into the path. Traffic: The intersection of Hinesburg/Kennedy/Williston Rd. is overburdened. Specifications of the Commission approval require the applicant to consider a phasing plan. Mr. Jacob felt this can be a problem because with a plan this size, they need to build as soon as possible. Mr. Jacob then addressed the view corridor/view protection. They originally felt they could dig down into the lots to build, but the engineering for that won't work. They have brought a zero lot line concept to the Commission which could allow views of mountains between buildings. Mr. Weith noted the Commission will need an indication from the Council as to whether intersection improvements are firmly planned. There is a requirement for the applicant to contribute to those improvements but the Commission needs to know if the improvements are planned in time to alleviate problems added to by this development. He noted a phasing plan could be required to tie into intersection improvements. Mr. Burgess said the Commission would need a firm position from the Council at the time of final plat. Mr. Cimonetti said he would ask that if any Commission stipula- tions are changed at final approval, the plan come back to the Council. Mr. Burgess felt the two bodies could meet jointly for Final Plat. Mr. Dinklage asked if there has been a professional analysis on drainage. Mr. Jacob said they have a wetlands analysis and will have a drainage plan done by final plat. He added that erosion control plans have been reviewed by the City Engineer. Mr. Dinklage said he didn't feel criteria c & d (drainage and traffic) had been satisfactorily addressed. Mr. Jacob said they have provided a complete traffic analysis. CITY COUNCIL 18 November 1991 page 3 Mr. Sheahan said he had not participated in Commission dis- cussions of the project since he is an abutting neighbor. As a resident, he expressed concerns of landowners that they will see too much of the project and they would prefer much higher berms. He also asked the legality of approving a project that will create a level of service "F". Mr. Hafter felt this was a question for Act 250. Mr. Moody, another neighbor, said he would like to see the project moved further north and east and include the large acreage currently being left open. He felt it doesn't make sense not to push the road through to Brownell Rd. as this would take pressure off Hinesburg Rd. Mr. Sheahan added that he would prefer nothing be built on lots 2 & 3 which would keep a view corridor open. Mr. Jacob said this is a $2,000,000 issue and it is impossible not to build on that land. Mr. Cimonetti moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Cimonetti moved to approve the plan as presented with the stipulation that if the Planning Commission changes any stipula- tions at Final Plat, the plan would come back to the City Council. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Mr. Dinklage said he is not satisfied that he understands the thinking that led the Commission to approve the plan, especially with regard to conditions b, c, and g. He said he was not com- fortable granting approval with an indeterminate height for the berm. Mr. Burgess acknowledged there are a lot of items where final details are not in place. He said he had no objection to a joint meeting with the Council or to forwarding Final Plat plans to the Council. The motion then passed 4-1, Mr. Dinklaqe opposin 3. First Reading of Ordinance to Permit Mobile Home Sales as a Conditional Use in the IC District, Schedule Public Hearing: Mr. Weith said he has no problem with the proposal. Mr. Dinklage moved to add to Section 13.20, Conditonal Uses, mobile home sales. Mr. Cimonetti seconded. Motion passed unanimouslv. Mr. Hafter recommended 16 December for the public hearing. CITY COUNCIL 18 November 1991 page 4 5. Legislative Redistricting: Mr. Cimonetti reported that the first of 3 public work sessions was held last week and there will be 2 more this week. There will be discussion proposals involving S. Burlington. On 18 December, there will be a public hearing in Montpelier on the committee's plan. He felt it is a misconception to think that in the redistricting process there won't be any districts completely in S. Burlington. He felt there were likely to be 3 completely in the city and then a shared district with some other municipality. 6. Proposed Formation of City Recreation Path committee: Ms. Cavin recommended a city committee to oversee the path. She suggested 5 members and suggested someone from Planning and the Recreation Department. Mr. O'Neill suggested a specific charge be given to the Committee. Mr. Dinklage moved to authorize the City Manager to draw up a charge and by laws and present them to the Council for approval. Mr. Condos seconded. Mr. Condos felt it was a good idea as the path will be a major piece of infrastructure in the city. The motion passed unanimously. 7. Recycling: Mr. Dinklage raised the question of discussions on mandatory recycling and asked for a thorough cost analysis of alternatives. He also asked for a phasing plan. 8. Minutes of 4 November 1991: Mr. Dinklage moved the Minutes of 4 November be approved as written. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Review Planning Commission agenda 11/19: No issues were raised. 10. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement orders were signed. 11. Liquor Control Board: Mr. Dinklage moved the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor PLANNING COMMISSION 8 October 1991 Page 4 Mr. Goldstein stated that he was told that the proposed use of mobile home sales is not permitted in the zoning district I-C therefore a variance must be obtained from the Zoning Board prior to the review of the Planning Commission. We met with the Zoninq Board on October 7th and was told that if the lot could be used for any other purpose, they would not allow the use of a mobile home dealership. Mr. Burgess stated that the applicant is proposing an amendment to the zone to allow mobile home sales. Procedurally that requires us to hold a public hear- ing. After a public hearing, we would forward it to the City Council who would hold a hearing and if they adopt it after the prescribed warning periods, then you would have a waiting period to have this zone change go into effect. You would then go to the Zoning Board and if they give you a conditional use approval, you would then come back to the Planning Commission and we might turn you down for traffic reasons or something else all of which would be unrelated to the zone. Even if we do amend the zone and it is adopted, that is not a guarantee that there will be subsequent approval by the Planning Com- mission. Mr. Shumway replied they would like to proceed with this request and withdrew their application. Mr. Weith stated he would warn a public hearing. 5. Continue Public Hearing: Preliminary plat application of Green Acres, Inc. for subdivision of 263 acres off Hinesburg Road in South Burlington into 11 lots of 10, 10.1, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.8, 12.1, 12.5, 13.4, and 145.8 acres. Nr. _Sheahan stepped down from this application because he is an adjoining property owner. Mr. Jacob reviewed the October 8, 1991 Memorandum from Mr. Weith to the Plan- ninq Commission. a; Pedestrian Path: The path is to serve as a recreational path for the neighbors and for the lots. Both the Recreation Committee and Natural Resources Committee have looked at this and there is a feeling this should be looped around the stream. The Recreational Path people want to connect it through to Butler Farms or Oak Creak. Natural Resources wants a general r.o.w. so the path can be added. We have no objection to giving a right of way on both sides of the stream. There will be a foot path with a foot bridge crossing the wetlands. We will give the City a r. o. w. to this path. Mr. Weith asked about the wetland zone 5 and 7. Mr. Jacob replied they would prefer to have a foot bridge made of wood over the wetlands area. PLANNING COMMISSION 8 October 1991 Page 5 Mr. Sperry, representing abutting neighbors, stated there are concerns about the foot path and how it might invite motorcycles and 4-wheel all terrain vehicles. He asked if there would be barricades to prevent this from happen- ing. Mr. Jacob replied his client would have no objection to having bar- ricades. Mr. Craig asked if you can get to the path from Hinesburg Road. Mr. Jacob replied yes. Mr. Sperry stated that his clients have requested that if a path is approved, that there be a condition that wherever it accesses the public, that there be some measures to prevent people from going up and down this path with motor- cycles, all terrain vehicles and noisy bikes. Ms. Peacock stated it would be for the Planning Commission to say there must be a prohibition against motorized vehicles until we know if there will be a problem or not. She said it would be a good idea to have the path connected to the rest of the recreation path of the City. Mr. Sperry asked if the applicant is proposing to install the berms and landscaping. Mr. Jacob replied they will landscape alter they build the berms. The landscaping has to be designed and looked over by Natural Resources to get their approval, the layout has to be approved by them. The number of trees and the type of trees all has to be done prior to final. Mr. Burgess asked if they then were proposing to build the berms before the landscaping. Mr. Jacob replied yes. Mr. Weith stated that at the last meeting we taikeo at•out whether it should be an unpaved path, a walking path or a paved path. We have two different recom- mendations. The Natural Resources Committee would like to see walking paths on both sides of the stream whereas the kecreation Path committee would like to some day see a paved facility. At this time they are recommending that we only get the easement in place and staff has recommended that we get the generic easement at least on the nortn side of the stream connecting to Hines- burg Road and also connecting to the 60 it. r.o.w. at Ledge knoll. When we get to the point of implementation sometime in the future, that is when the exact location would be finalized after public nearing. b) Wetlands: A report has been prepared by Feter Spear, Natural Resources Consulting Service. Mr. Weith stated that he would like to see a loot bridge over the wetlands and asked whether the State would allow a 2-00 ft. bridge to qu tnrough a wetland. Mr. Jacob said they have not brought this up tc. Natural fi-_sources and will have to qo back to them for their thouuht_- and comments. PLANNING COMMISSION 8 October 1991 Page 6 c) Traffic: Mr. Jacob stated that Tyler Hart prepared the traffic survey. Mr. Weith stated the state is going to be doing some minor improvements to the intersection of Rt. 116/Kennedy Drive this fall that will improve it to a level of service E. Mr. Cimonetti stated that the City Council has identified traffic problems at each of the key intersections, Rt. 116/Kennedy Drive and Rt. 116/Williston Road for the last five years. We have discussed improvements that would be independent of the impact of this project. The City has a capital construc- tion schedule just as the state has the 5-year capital plan and in neither case do you have to work on everything that is already on a list before some- thing else appears on the list nor are those items arranged in any kind of priority nor do any of the things on the list take priority over yet to be identified items that are not yet on the list. Those intersections have got to have improvements. Mr. Craig stated that with his discussions with Sonny he was left with the im- pression that for intersection improvements that that money wasn't necessary under the state's 5-year plan but there was an intersection improvement bucket that they worked out of every year. Mr. Cimonetti replied there are State monies for those kinds of improvements and they don't have to be identified in the capital program. Many of the bond issues that we have passed not only refer to specific street improvements but have language that says "and other street and intersection improvements", and there are unexpended bonded funds within the city that can be applied to in- tersection improvements. Mr. Craig said that the City would begin to loot: more seriously at these traf- fic problems knowing that such a project was going to happen and it would put more stress on these intersections. ie suggested that if the Commission were to pass this, to pass it with still the question of traffic being opened with preliminary. This would give a very strong signal as to where we are going and give both the administration and the Council an opportunity to respond as to what they could possibly do to solve this traffic problem before we get into the position of final approval. Mr. Cimonetti stated he would be amazed if either intersection improvement wasn't then identified and discussed in the budgeting process in preparation of the very next review of the capital budget of the City. Mr. Craig asked would there be Some feedback as to where the administration and the Council stood prior to final to the Fianning Commission. Mr. Cimonetti replied that if there was a prelimina:y so that there was a strong impetus to the planning process, then you ar_ iooking at the next fiscal { PLANNING COMMISSION 8 October 1991 Page 7 budget process. The process starts next month and becomes public with the hearings starting in January and is over in May. The effect of those inter- sections would be discussed in that budget. Mr. Craig stated that he would like to have this discussed in front of the en- tire City Council and have a statement of intent. Mr. Weith stated this will be going to the Council after Planning Commission's approval of the preliminary plat. The Council does have to approve the developments in this district under normal zoning. Mr. Cimonetti stated that the City Council has recommended and it has been added to the official City Map a road that doesn't yet exist that would go from Rt. 116 on Hinesburg Road in the vicinity of the interstate near the in- terchange and would pass to the East of Old Farm Road and would connect into Kimball Avenue and Shunpike Road and it is intended to be currently on our plans and on the county's plans and it is intended to be a route that would keep traffic away from those two intersections. Mrs. Maher said she never heard of this before. Mr. Weith replied they had discussions about this road before when Pizzagalli came in to put up some office buildings at the interstate there. We had talked about a connector road. This was the last discussion about it. This is not on our official map nor in our plan. Mr. Cimonetti said not to depend on this road relieving the current condition of unsatisfactory services at those two intersections but recognize that it is another thing that is in the swim for the future as the traffic builds as a result of this kind of development and other developments in that very jesirable industrially Zoned area of Chittender. County. Mr. Austin suggested we approve this application with a condition that they can't put more than two structures on these lots until x happens and then x being one of those intersections is improved to a certain degree and then stage it in that fashion. Mr. Craig agreed with Mr. Austin on phasing the project to get the City's at- tention. Mr. Burgess stated Mr. Austin had an interesting suggestion to give this preliminary approval except for traffic and that would give the City impetus to look at the problem or solve the problem knowing it was pending. M,. heed stated that Mr. Austin's point shouid be very well taken. He ieeis phasing makes sense because it is a reasonable approach in handling the traf- fic and making the improvements. PLANNING COMMISSION 8 October 1991 Page 8 i Mr. Sheahan asked if Mr. Jacob had any maps on the berms. He wanted to see some specifics on landscaping and berm and stream proposals before this project went beyond preliminary. Mr. Jacob replied the reason it hasn't been done so far is because they don't have preliminary approval. This would be very expensive to lay out and plan. After preliminary they make their plans and it has to be approved prior to final. d) View Protection (Building Height): Mr. Jacob stated they want to dig down on lots 2 and 3 about 20 feet to put up a building. It will look like a big bowl. They don't know if this is salable but they would like to come back and discuss it with the Commission. Mr. Sheahan asked what would happen if you left lots 2 and 3 as open space and move those to the East thereby guaranteeing the view protection corridor. Mr. Jacob replied they would lose about $2 million dollars in sales if they move those lots. Mr. Jacob stated that there are several things that they would like to try to do but cannot under the present zoning. There is a possibility of cluster zoning where you cluster your buildings, 0 lot lines, or making the parcels smaller. Mr. Burgess asked what is an economical lot size, from a resale and from a purchase point of view. Mr. Jacob replied 3 to 5 acres and up. If you have a ten acre lot you can cluster three separate buildings. Landscaping and layout are important. e) Berm/Grainageway: This has been answered previously. f) Sidewalk: We will put in whatever sidewalks that are needed. Mr. Craig stated there are two issues to consider: 1) phasing, and we should mention it at preliminary and address it fully at final; and 2) to get some input from the City administration and Council as to what they plan to do to improve the traffic situation. There is also the details of what the berms and landscaping will be. There are several open issues for final. Mr. Reed expressed his concern with the view corridors and tie would like the Commission to consider small design chang&s in the overall plan. Mrs. Maher asked Mr. Weith if he could do some comparisons with other com- munities. One of the reasons the Planning Commission in the past never wanted to have a lot of smaller lots was because of the kind of uses that might be attracted which would be high generated. she asked if smaller industrial lots give you higher traffic generators: tir. weith replied he would look into that. r PLANNING COMMISSION 8 October 1991 Page 9 hr. Burgess stated they will talk about smaller lots next week at the work session and if they come to some consensus and get some agreement on what we want to do, we probably will include that as part of the zoning ordinance at the public hearing scheduled for November 12. Mr. Austin moved the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the Prelimi- nary Plat application of Green Acres, Inc. for subdivision of 2,63 acres off Hinesburg Road into eleven (ll) lots as depicted on a 12 page set of plans, the title page entitled "Subdivision Plat, Green Acres Industrial Paris, Hines- burg Road, South Burlington, Vermont", prepared by Trudell Consulting En- gineers, Inc. and dated 9/24/91 with the following stipulations: 1_ in an effort to preserve the spectacular views of the Green Mountains from Route 116 as recommended in the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, the following conditions shall apply: a) Structures and landscaping on all lots and within the public r.o.w. shall be limited to a height above sea level of 353.5 feet plus b.6 feet for every 1000 feet east of the eastern edge of pavement of houte i16. This restriction shall be attached through proper legal documents to lots created by this subdivision. 11) The above restriction does not apply to the area of iot $1 which is identified on Sheet SP3 as "No Height Restrictions". c) The restriction specified in (a) above does not apply to the area of lot o4 which is identified on Sheet SP3 as having a building height restriction of 376.0 elevation. di The at•avr_ r-!�tr_ictaon do-s not apply to the 100 foot wide_str olvf: l� the : i, jL)U,,dal'y of LnE prOPEl ty 11 QM llVLIC Eu.3L to the northeastern corner of the property located at 26 Knoll (:irc1F_ ei Sneets ii tr,rough F-b shah be revised prior to Finai Piat to indi- cate _aspecif-s or variety of species of street trees which at ma- ture height will meet the height limitations described in (a) ahnv-. 2_ Prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit or start of roadway or utility construction, the applicant shall post a 3-year landscaping bond in an amount equal to the value of the proposed street trees and proposed berm plantings. The amourit shall be finalized prior to Final Plat review. PLANNING COMMISSION 8 October 1991 Page 10 3. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for any lot, or start of roadway or utility construction, all appropriate legal documents including easements (i.e., utility, sewer, drainage, sight -view, recreation path) and roadway r.o.w.'s (i.e., irrevocable offers of dedications) shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and recorded in the South Burlington land records. 4. Prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit for any lot, or start of roadway or utility construction, bonds to cover the costs of roadway, utility, sidewalk, and relocated stream and berm construction shall be posted. The amount of bonds shall be approved by the City Engineer. Access to lots 1.2.3 and 4 shall be via Vosburah Lane. Access shall be from the proposed 60 foot sewer/roadway r.o.w. to the east. Access to lots 8 and 10 shall be provided by one shared curb cut on Swift Street Ex- tension. Access to lots 7 and 9 shall be provided by one shared curb cut on Swift Street. The plans shall be revised prior to Final Plat to indicate this. 6. The developer shall furnish the City with the name of the contractors doing the street work and the architect and/or engineer who will stake out and supervise the work at least 7 days prior to beginning of road construction. Upon completion of the work, the architect and/or engineer shall certify that the work is in conformance with the approved plan, stipulations and any other requirements and/or change that the City requests. 7. The applicant shall contribute $26,738 to the Hinesburg Road sidewalk fund based on 1,260 feet of frontage along Hinesburg Road. 6. As expressly represented by the applicant, it is proposed to relocate the stream over lots 1,2,3 and 6 to a newly constructed stream along the southern property line. The stream shall be designed to meander and both ap- pear and function as a 'natural stream". The stream shall be located at least 50 feet north of the south property line. It shall be located at least 50 feet from the edge of wetland on lot 5. Detailed engineering drawings for the new stream shall be submitted prior to final plat review. The new stream shall be constructed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any lot and within a reasonable time period after start of utility or roadway con- struction. 9 The Planning Commission grants a sewer allocation of 15,000 gpd for the development and shall approve a phasing schedule prior to Final Plat. Each new building shall be required to pay the sewer aliocatior, fee in effect based on the estimate of sewage treatment demand generated by the new building. 10. The final plat submission shall include a lull set of plans including deal details and improvement plans for the Route 116/Swift Street Extension ic. tersection. PLANNING COMMISSION 8 October 1991 Page 11 11. As expressly represented by the applicant, the applicant is willing to dedicate to the City a pedestriab/recreation path easement around the Quarry on lot 11 at some unspecified date in the future. This issue shall be ad- dressed at the time further subdivision or development is proposed for lot 11. 12. Manhole and drainage inlets shall be adjusted to grade using precast risers instead of bricks and mortar. 13. Sidewalk thickness at driveways shall be 6 inches. 14. The plans shall be revised prior to Final Plat submission to address the following: a. The note identifying the height restrictions on lot #4 on page SP3 shall indicate that the restriction applies to all structures and landscaping. b. The legend on page SP3 should include a symbol for street lights. c. Plan should show recreation path easement on both the south and north side of the relocated stream with connection to 60 foot r.o.w. off Knoll Circle and to Hinesburg Foad. The issue of the applicant funding the construction of a_pn_tior, of the recreation oath shall be finalized at Final Plat. 15. Legal documents (irrevocable offer of dedication; for the 80 foot r. o. w. future road connection over lot 11 shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and shall be recorded in the South Burlington _land records prior to recording the final plat. 16. A `Notice of ko:,dition" sha­ :7 r�c6.:•_, L, ­ uLi, burlinaton land records prior to recordina which states that all eleven lots were created as part of a planned industrial development (Fib) and that any subsequent development or subdivision will be reviewed as an amendment to the original eleven lot PID. This notice of condition shall be spproved by the City Attor- ney. 17. The applicant shall pursue prior to iinai plat the option of construct- ing a bridge for a future recreation/pedestrian path over the wetland on Lots 5 and 7. The applicant and City Planner shall meet with the Natural Resources Committee prior to final plat to explain the concept ana obtain comments and a recommendation from the Naturai Resources Committee. 18. The traffic issue and appropriate mitigation is unresolved at this time. This issue shall be finalized at final plat. Trio. to i.Lnai piat, staff shall obtain an indication frorr. Council on timing and funoiLq o_ necessary intersec- tion improvements at Route 116ihennedy Drive and Route li6iWilliston Road. In PLANNING COMMISSION 8 October 1991 Page 12 addition, staff and applicant shall consider a phasina olan tied to specific intersection improvements and/or level of service and present recommendation(s) to Planning Commission at Final Plat. 19. The final plat application shall be submitted within 12 months or this approval is null and void. Ms. Peacock seconded. Motion passed unanimously. G. Section 19.152 - Density Calculations Mr. Weith reviewed Section 19.152 of the Zoning Regulations. A maximum den- sity range for PUDs is first subtracted out of the end development area multi- plied by the units per acre permitted. That sets the base density. Then un- der part b, you can go up to the normal density, the total acreage multiplied by the density, as long as they meet the requirements of FUDs. This section was included to apply to FUDs for all other districts other than the agricultural/residential district. Even though the ag/res district references this section, he doesn't think it originally was intended to. This provision is trying to set up some type of a density bonus provision where you set the base density and then you negotiate to get up to the higher end. In all of the districts where a fUL is ailowed other than the agires district, the FUD density is the same as a normal density. In R-7 you can develop at 7 units per acre under a standard subdivision but if you do a PUD, it is still 7 units per acre. Mr. Weith stated that in the agricultural/residential district the starting point is one unit per 10 acres and the ending point is either two units per acre or one unit per acre. The way that all of the developments have been ap- plied before is that we stc�rtec with this Section 19.152 and have assumed that the starting point is 2 units per acre minus the undeveloped area. What I would suggest when we amend this is that we put in a sentence that says this does not apply to the agricultural/residential district since that is treated differently. Mr. Weith stated that this section regarding the setting of a base density by subtracting undeveloped areas and setting a maximum density, should really only apply to PUDs and those districts where you don't have that base maximum bonus already built into the district. Mr. Burgess asked if that would apply to any district that might include any kind of a bonus. Mr. Weith stated yes. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Clerk TAX MAP #: 74-1-50 GRAND LIST #: 0860-01170-C FILE #: LOCATION: 1170 HINESBURG ROAD DATE APPLICATION PURPOSE FILE NAME: 12-8-81 SK-WITHDRAWN IND.& RES.DEV. GOODRICH, RALPH 6-19-84 DISCUSSION PUD if " 12-18-84 IVREZONING ifif 4-16-85 SK 18 LOT SUBDIVISION itif 8-25-86 APPROVAL-ZBA QUARRY GREEN ACRES, INC. 2-24-87 SP ifGREEN ACRES 2-23-88 6 MO. EXT. ifGREEN ACRES, INC. 11-7-89 SK 11 LOT SUBDIVISION GREEN ACRES,INC.2ND..... 4-10-90 PP-CONT'D It ifif " " if if 3-28-91 REQUEST TO ALTER STREAM -DENIED GREEN ACRES, INC. 4-23-91 if if 11 it it it it if 10-8-91 PP 11 LOT SUBDIVISION GREEN ACRES, INC.2ND...... 12-29-92 SK 13 LOT SUBD.& OFFICES GREEN ACRES, INC.3RD...... 6-28 94,...- PP " FP 13 12 LOT SUBDIVISION " -9-4 SK RESUBDIVISION GREEN ACRES, INC. 3RD...... 9-20-94 PP if if" " of 11-15-94 RFP if of 11 If if i City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 May 29, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich Green Acres, Inc. 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Green Acres Preliminary Plat application Dear Ralph: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 The Planning Commission approved your request to continue the above referenced application on July 9, 1991. This request was approved at the Commission's 5/28/91 meeting. You should submit a revised set of plans which address the Commission's concerns expressed at the 4/10/90 meeting. These concerns include the following: o Configuration of lots and building height restrictions to preserve views of Green Mountains from Route 116; o berm and plantings to buffer development from Ledgeknoll neighborhood, o dedication of pedestrian trail/recreation path easements, o traffic study, and o reserve 60 foot r.o.w. between lots 8 and 9 for future connection to the Pollack property. This information should be submitted by June 24, 1991 to allow sufficient review by staff. Please contact me if you have any questions. nncerely, e Weith, ity Planner JW/mcp cc: Peter Jacob City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7955 October 30, 1989 658-7958 Mark L. Sperry, Esq. Langrock, Sperry Parker & Wool P.O. Box 72". Burlington, Vermont 05402 Re: Green Acres Industrial Subdivision Dear Mr. Sperry: I am writing to inform you of a Sketch Plan application submitted by Mr. Ralph Goodrich for the above referenced project. The Planning Commission will be reviewing the Sketch Plan at its 11/7/89 meeting. In regards to the "Notice of Appearance and Request for Copies of Communications" which you submitted to the City in February, 1989, all applications, plans, pleadings, correspondence, etc,are matters of public record and may be reviewed at the South Burl- ington City Hall Monday through Friday between 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Copies of this information may be made at the City Hall at a cost of 50 cents per page. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Joe Weit.h, City Planner JW/mcp cc: Christopher L. Davis PLANNING COMMISSION 7 November 1989 page 2 he had no problem hooking up to the stockade fence so people can't access the motel pool through the neighbor's property. Ms. Peacock noted there had been a number of "for sale" cars on the road. Mr. Wilson said they were his cars and are now sold. Ms. Peacock moved the Planning Commission approve the Revised Final Plat application of Cooley -Wood Corporation for construction of a ten (10) room, second floor addition as depicted on a plan entitled "Ho -Hum Motel, Site Plan, Proposed 2nd Floor Addition to Back Building," prepared by Cooley -Wood Corporation and dated 9-14-89, last revised 9-29-89, with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall post a $6,000, 3-year landscaping bond prior to permit. 2. The plan shall be revised prior to recording to show an 8 foot high stockade fence along the entire length of the rear prperty line (McCarthy) 3. A sewer allocation of 1,600 gpd is granted based on 40 gpd per bed space (4 bed spaces per room). The sewer fee of $2.50 per gallon shall be paid prior to permit. 4. The REvised Final Plat shall be recorded within 90 days or this approval is null and void. Mr. Craiq seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Sketch plan application of Green Acres, Inc, for subdivision of a 282 acre parcel (260 acres in South Burlington) into 12 lots (11 lots in South Burlington), Hinesburg Road Mark Sperry identified as an attorney representing the interests of abutting landowners Ms. Pedersen located the parcel south of I-89, east of Hinesburg Rd, below Lane Press and Dyna power. It is in the I-Ag zone which allows 10 acre lots. They will be concentrating the majori- ty of the lots on the west side of the property with a 142 acre lot around the quarry. The lots will access through the road to Lane Press and Dynapower through the middle of the property. There will be 2 cul de sacs, one at lot 11, one at lots 2 & 3. Setbacks from residential zones are met. Mrs. Maher noted that the Environmental Board will request that a certain percentage remain open/farm land and asked if it was the developer's intention that the easternmost lot be used for that purpose. Ms. Pederson said yes, but not all of that lot. Mr. Craig questioned what would happen if those 142 acres got sold PLANNING COMMISSION 7 November 1989 page 3 and the new owner wanted to subdivide again. He also noted that part of the lot is in the Ag-Res District and asked why that is included in the I-Ag requirement calculations for the 20-acre average. Mrs. Maher asked if Mr. Goodrich had any plans for the quarry. Mr Goodrich said no and that he was willing to talk to the city about possibly giving it to the city. Mr. Craig asked if allowances have been made to extend the road to S. Brownell Rd. Ms. Pederson said no. Mr. Goodrich said the City Engineer recommended the plan they are presenting for the road. Mr. Burgesssaid the Commission is interested in that extension. Mr. Goodrich said he would listen to a proposal. Mrs. Maher sug- gested consulting with Terry Boyle, the City's consultant on the Southeast Quadrant to discuss possible placement of a road. Mr. Sperry presented a letter to the Commission on behalf of residents of the abutting properties. The letter indicated the residents feel the plan does not maximize open space and that the placement of the road down the middle of the property precludes maximizing land for agricultural uses. Mr. Sperry noted the Planning Commission has authority under a PID to modify plans and to make recommendations to the developer for modifications. Mr. Sheahan felt the applicant had lived up to the letter of the regulations but not the spirit. Mr. Burgess replied that the "spirit" was a compromise to allow at least one large lot with smaller lots. Mr. Ready said all of the small lots are right next to the residential area and the open area is away from the homes. He felt the "spirit" would be to flip flop this and leave the open area near the homes. Ms. Anderson asked what will go on the lots when they are devel- oped, specifically from the point of view of traffic, building heights, docking areas, etc. Mr. Goodrich hoped for something like Lane Press and Dynapower. Mr. Sperry stressed they are not trying to stop the project as they recognize the inevitable. They would like to work with Mr. Goodrich and with Terry Boyle and the Commission to come up with something to accommodate his clients' interests. He felt a lot could be done if the road were pushed further north. Mr. Schuele noted that since 1967, the City has listed the Quarry as a recreation/conservation site and he would like to see it kept alive with that designation. Ms. Walton noted this area is a beautiful part of the city and she would not like to see anything that would approximate a second Hinesburg Rd. out there. PLANNING COMMISSION 7 NOvember 1989 page 4 Mr. Abrams asked the Commission to consider the underlying water table when development of lots comes up. Mr. Craig asked what can be done to otect views on lots 2 and 3. He asked if height covenants can be gotten. Mr. Goodrich said the lot slopes so a building could be designed into the hill so only about 10-15 ft. need show. Mr. Craig felt any covenants should be enforceable by the city. Mrs. Maher said she would be willing to reduce setbacks to get building envelopes away from the residential lots. Mr. Burgess outlined the following for the City Planner to follow up on: traffic study, construction of a berm along the residential properties, including of pedestrian trails in any proposals, the designation of a portion of the land as a wetland and the designation of allowable building envelopes on each lot, access to lots 1 & 4 from the cul de sac to reduce curb cuts, the status of the quarry, view protection, connection of the road to S. Brown ell Rd. Commission reaction included the following observations: Mr. Burgess said he tended not to like the smaller lots. Ms. Peacock agreed and felt it was not an imaginative plan. She felt the road had to be planned to Williston. Mr. Belter suggested the applicant talk with the State Ag people to see what they will want. Ms. Pennington asked if Terry Boyle will be limited because of this plan. Mr. Burgess said the plan is not so far along that changes can't be made. Mr. Furlong asked what would happen to the large lot once it is used to calculate density for the other lots. Mr. Burgess said the Commission would have to insure via legal documents that the lot could not be subdivided again. Residenta again stressed that they hoped the Commission would ask Mr. Goodrich not to put all the industrial lots up against the residential area. 5. Revised Sketch Plan application of Design Development for a 1) boundary line adjustment and merger of 3 lots into 2 lots of 2.58 and .36 acres, and 2) construction of a 10-unit planned res- idential development on the 2.58 acre parcel Mr. Burroughs said the concern was that parking was too far from the building, so this has been moved closer. The circular flow of traffic is broken up with landscaped islands. Mr. DeGraff, son of the owner, said they are looking to sell of the diamond shaped peke of property to create the total acreage. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 November 27, 1990 Ms. Karen Pettersen Trudell Consulting Engineers P.O. Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: Green Acres, Hinesburg Road Dear Ms. Pettersen: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are the April 10, 1990 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please call if you have any questions. Si cer ly, Joe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl cc: Ralph Goodrich JW/mcp PRELIMINARY COMMENTS VERMONT TIRE SERVICE. WILLISTON ROAD 1. Property lines do not extend to granite curb as shown. 2. Site shall drain toward the south. 3. There should be a sidewalk across the frontage constructed on the Williston Road r.o.w. PILLSBURY MANOR III. WILLISTON ROAD 1. A single Williston Road access to serve these facilities would be a benefit for Williston Road traffic. 2. There should be a separation between the edge of road and the sidewalk. 3. All site drainage shall be intercepted by the existing 18 inch storm drain. 4. The dead end drive should have a turnaround. 5. The water supply for fire protection should be carefully evaluated as to the supply and reliability. The system would be improved if it were tied into Williston Road. GREEN ACRES, HINESBURG ROAD Plans are acceptable, however, a quick check of the proposed sewer appears that it can go gravity to the existing pumping station if a 10" or 12" pipe is used and installed at a minimum grade. 1 16101 GUY-fiff.VI TO: Planning Commission FROM: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative OfficeX� DATE: January 14, 1991 RE: Green Acres, Hinesburg Road On Monday, January 7, 1991, this office was informed that Ralph Goodrich was involved in excavation along the southerly line of his Hinesburg Road property which abuts Knoll Circle. On Monday, both Mr. Szymanski and myself have discussed this matter with Mr. Goodrich. He informs us that Mr. Dan Pillsbury leases his land for agicultural use. The area is very wet and Mr. Pillsbury wishes to continue using the land, which is the reason for the installation of a second drainage ditch. Both Mr. Szymanski and I have requested that Mr. Goodrich submit a plan of the proposal site work. He 4as contacted Trudell Engineering, and a plan should be available in a few days. Under Section 19.354 of the City's zoning regulation, approval is required by the City Manager. Since Mr. Szymanski has made a site visitation and discussed the plan with Mr. Goodrich the site work seems acceptable and presently seems to comply with all zoning regulations. RW/peh M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington City Council From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: Green Acres 11 Lot Industrial Subdivision, Hinesburg Road Date: November 14, 1991 This project consists of the subdivision of a 262.53 acre parcel into eleven (11) lots as a Planned Industrial Development (PID) located on Hinesburg Road south of Lane Press and north of the Ledgeknoll residential development. The Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan for this subdivision on November 7, 1989 and held public hearings on the preliminary plat application on April 10, 1990, July 9, 1991; August 6, 1991 and October 8, 1991. The preliminary plat was approved on October 8, 1991. A copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision are enclosed. Section 16.803(b) of the zoning regulations requires the Council to approve the development based on "all applicable criteria" related to P.I.D.'s. This provision is also included in Section 6.502(c) for approval of PUD's in the AgRes District. Staff reviewed the most recent application's to come before the Council which include Butler Farms, Oak Creek and Village at Dorset Park. In all three applications, the Council reviewed the proposed developments' compliance with the PUD criteria provided in Sec- tion 19.151. Therefore, as a matter of consistency, the Council should apply the criteria contained in Section 19.151 in its review of the Green Acres application. Section 19.151 is en- closed. General Information: The property is zoned Industrial and Agri- cultural (I -A) and is in an interim zoning district adopted by the City Council on June 25, 1990 which has a minimum lot size of 10 acres. The applicant proposes to do a Planned Industrial Development which is allowed in this zone on a parcel containing 80 acres or more. The property is bounded by Dynapower to the north, Muddy Brook and the Town of Williston to the east, residences to the south, and Hinesburg Road and several single-family residences to the west. The site slopes downward from Hinesburg Road. The western half of the property is primarily open with fields while the eastern half is primarily wooded. An old quarry exists on the site as well as a small pond. A stream (beginnings of Potash Brook) runs north -south in the center of the property. Two small tributaries lead into this stream. r Memorandum - Green Acres November 14, Page 2 City Council 11 lot Industrial Subdivision 1991 Minimum lot size/frontage: The zoning ordinance requires a 10 acre minimum lot size, however, the average size of all the lots must equal a minimum of 20 acres. The plan shows 10 lots each between 10 and 12.5 acres, and one 145.8 acre lot. The average lot size is 22 acres (based on total of 242.3 acres in I -AG zone). All lots meet the minimum lot frontage except for lots #2 and #3 which are located at the end of a cul-de-sac (Vosburgh Lane). The Planning Commission may reduce frontage requirements by 50% for lots on cul-de-sacs if it determines reduction would improve lot layout. Both of these lots do meet the 50% require- ment and were approved by the Planning Commission. Access: The plan shows an 80 foot wide r.o.w. with 32 foot wide paved road extending south-easterly from the Lane Press/Dynapower Road over the western portion of the Dynapower property onto Green Acres property and then extending eastward through the middle of the property ending in a cul-de-sac south west of the quarry. A 900 foot long road branches off to the south ending in a cul-de-sac near Ledgeknoll. The applicant is proposing a 60 foot sewer r.o.w. between lots #6 and #8 which could be used as access between Swift Street Exten- sion and the Pollack property to the north. Views: There are tremendous views of Mount Mansfield and the Green Mountains from Hinesburg Road. The Preliminary Plat in- cludes a formula for establishing maximum building and landscap- ing heights. The plan identifies an area of lot 1 where there would be no height restriction. This area is located behind the smaller developed properties along Route 16 and therefore would not significantly obstruct the views of the Green Mountains and foothills. The view protection restriction would also not apply to a 100 foot wide strip along the Ledgeknoll development in order to allow berming and landscaping to adequately screen the industrial development from the adjoining residential develop- ment. The view protection formula was originally established and agreed to by staff and the applicant's consultant. The applicant has recently indicated that he does not feel the height restriction is appropriate and would like it omitted or substantially revised to allow some obstruction of the view. An alternate to obstruct- ing the view is shifting the development to the east, where there is a substantial amount of land, in order to allow the same amount of development and also preserve the spectacular view. 2 I Memorandum - Green Acres November 14, Page 3 City Council 11 Lot Industrial Subdivision 1991 Pedestrian Path: The plans show a recreation path easement around the perimeter of the property. The applicant has agreed to providing an easement on both the north and south side of the proposed new stream along the boundary of the Ledgeknoll develop- ment. There shall be a connection to the 60 foot r.o.w. leading to Knoll Circle. There has been discussion of the applicant funding part of the construction of the recreation path in the vicinity of the Ledgeknoll development. This is to be resolved prior to final plat. The plans show the recreation path easement going through the wetlands on lots 5 and 7. The applicant has suggested building a footbridge through the wetland. This may be difficult and will most likely require a 404 permit and wetlands permit from the State ANR. The City should be assured that this footbridge will be allowed prior to approving the final plat. Wetlands: The applicant had a wetlands report prepared. This report concludes that none of the sides of the farm are wetland and that all of the farmed land, other than the main drainage running north -south through the farm, is prior converted. The term "Prior converted" is defined as wetlands which were both manipulated (drained or otherwise physically altered to remove excess water from the land) and cropped before December 23, 1985, to the extent that they no longer exhibit important wetland values. The applicant. will be seeking a 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers to cross the only wetland within their jurisdiction which is the main drainageway. Traffic: The following is a summary of LOS impacts at area intersections. The applicant's traffic analysis did not assume any development on lot 11. 1997 build 1997 1992 1997 without build with Intersection Base No build improvments improvements Kennedy/Rt. 116 F F F C Williston/Rt. 116 F F F C Williston/Dorset E F F Kennedy/Dorset F F F 3 l Memorandum - Green Acres November 14, Page 4 City Council 11 Lot Industrial Subdivision. 1991 The traffic impact analysis submitted by the applicant indicates that critical intersections are currently operating at an unac- ceptable LOS and are expected to continue operating at unaccept- able LOS in 1997 under both build and no -build conditions. Substantial improvements (additional approach lanes) are needed at the Route 116/Kennedy Drive and Route 116/Williston Road intersections in order to improve the LOS to C. Improvements which have been identified as beneficial for the Dorset Street intersection, but not incorporated into this analysis, include signal optimization, adding a northbound on -ramp at Exit 13 and connecting Corporate Way through to Route 116. The State District Engineer was contacted for information on the State's plans for improvments to the Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Road and Williston Road/Hinesburg Road intersections. The State plans on restriping the Hinesburg Road approaches so that there will be a left turn only lane and shared through/right turn lane. A new controller will also be installed and an advance left turn will be programmed in. These improvments are to be done this fall. He also indicated that the Williston Road/Hinesburg Road inter- section is not within the State/s jurisdiction and would therefore not be making any improvements to it. However, other State officials have indicated that this intersection could be incorporated into the Williston Road improvement project. This project is in the conceptual design phase and no construction start date has been specified. City staff has met with the applicant to discuss appropriate mitigation. The applicant and staff has agreed to a mitigation package and offers this for the Commission's consideration: o applicant install, prior to occupancy of first building, the necessary lane and taper improvements at the Route 116/Swift Street Extension intersection (shown on Sheet SP10). VAOT shall approve design prior to issuance of zoning/building permit.. o Prior to site plan approval for each lot, the signal warrant analysis shall be updated. When the signal is shown to be warranted at Route 116/Swift Street Extension, applicant shall install signal at specifica- tions approved by City. 4 Memorandum - Green Acres November 14, Page 5 City Council 11 Lot Industrial Subdivision 1991 o Each building shall be required to contribute to the 143:_ Qobu-xrg R� mad/Kennedy Drive impact fee based on P.M. peak hour trip ends to be generated by each use. Assuming an average building size of 72,000 square feet, each lot will be required to contribute approximately $13,000 to the fund. o Additionally, since a significant amount of project traf- fic will be going through the Williston Road/Route 116 intersection (43%), each new building should be required to contribute to the Williston Road Area 1 impact fee based on 43% of the P.M. peak hour trip ends. Under the current formula, each lot will be required to contribute approximately $4,000. Therefore, each lot will be con- tributing approximately $17,000 to the City for impact fees. The traffic issue and appropriate mitigation is unresolved at this time. This issue is to be finalized at final plat. Prior to final plat, staff is to obtain an indication from Council on timing and funding of necessary intersection improvements at Route 116/Kennedy Drive and Route 116/Williston Road. In addi- tion, staff and applicant are to consider a phasing plan tied to specific intersection improvements and/or level of service and present recommendations to Planning Commission at Final Plat. Sewer: Estimates indicate that this subdivision will require 15,000 gpd of sewer allocation. This is based on an average of 100 employees per lot with each employee requiring 15 gpd (this does not include lot 11). Berm/Drainageway: The applicant has submitted plans for a "natural" type stream with berms and plantings along the souther- ly boundary adjacent to the Ledge Knoll residential project. Details of the stream, berms and plantings will be required prior to Final Plat. Sidewalk: The applicant will be required to contribute $26,738 to the Hinesburg Road Sidewalk Fund based on the City's sidewalk policy - Hinesburg Road. 5 r Memorandum - City Council Green Acres 11 Lot Industrial Subdivision November 14, 1991 Page 6 Summary: Issues which need to be finalized prior to final plat approval include the following: o View protection o Traffic impact mitigation o Recreation path and footbridge through wetland o Applicant funding portion of recreation path construction o Sewer allocation phasing and deadlines o Engineering details of new stream, berms and landscaping 6 State of Vermont di 40 AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Environmental Conservation Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation Department of Environmental Conservation Air Pollution Control Division State Geologist 103 South Main Street, BLDG 3 So. - Natural Resources Conservation Council Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0402 (802) 244-8731 August 19, 1991 Mr. Ralph B . Goodrich Green Acres, Inc. P.O. Box 2123 South Burlington, Vermont 05401 RE: Permit #AP-90-052 to Construct and Operate 1, 819 Parking Spaces at the Green Acres Industrial Park as an Indirect Source Pursuant to the Vermont Air Pollution Control Regulations (Sections 5-501 and 5-503) Dear Mr. Goodrich: Pursuant to Section 5-503 (Indirect Sources) of the Vermont Air Pollution Control Regulations (Regulations) , the Agency of Natural Resources (Agency) has reviewed the carbon monoxide air pollution impact of automotive activity associated with 1,819 parking spaces at the Green Acres Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont. This office has determined that the proposed parking capacity will comply with all applicable State Air Pollution Control Regulations. Therefore, approval to construct and operate the parking facilities is hereby granted, subject to the permit conditions attached hereto and made a part hereof. Sincerely, Reginald A. LaRosa, Acting Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation By: Richard A. Valentinetti, Director Air Pollution Control Division 41 RAV/JLP:ljl Enclosures A., 14'A cc: Peter Guldberg, Tech Envirommntal: }' � •��+,..r y y} ` "+fir *? ,- ![•.f.i.�M.raiTR4�YiXt/1I.'IN,'N:1'r\.:IKit'Y ifi::�'.J,MJ+„1Y `rlr �''.l..' 'NIT i jiiitfj(� f ``i.'�1i�i l i.., f+..it-! i S I\;. t:i .L1i> aili'.U., rr. Waa.sr'.x..cae+,x±s,•..^+:.rr;�tarr:.4a.•aw*^car.: :ra �•r. �xrc Regional Offices - Barre/Essex Jct./Pittsford/N. Springfield/St..Jnhnchtlry #AP-90-052 State of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Department of Environmental Conservation Air Pollution Control Division Waterbury, Vermont AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PERMIT CONDITIONS Date Issued: August 19, 1991 Applicant: Green Acres, Inc. P.O. Box 2123 South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Source: Green Acres Industrial Park South Burlington, Vermont Approval is granted subject to the following permit conditions: (1) The Green Acres Industrial Park shall be constructed and operated in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to the Agency on January 15, 1991 and in accordance with the following permit conditions. (2) Traffic Network Improvements Improvements at the intersection of Hinesburg Road and Swift Street shall be implemented prior to completion of 1000 parking spaces. The improvements shall consist of (see Figure 1): (a) Widening the Swift Street approach to two lanes in order to provide dedicated right and left -turning lanes, (b) Widening of the northbound approach (Hinesburg Road) to provide a through lane and dedicated left -turning lane, and (c) Install and operate a traffic control signal. Page 2 of 4 (3) Ambient Air Monitoring The Agency intends to install and operate an ambient air monitoring system for the purpose of determining ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide at the intersection of Dorset Street and Williston Road located in South Burlington. The monitoring equipment and operating procedures will meet the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) Technical Services Section's (TSS) Ambient Air Monitoring Requirements. Green Acres, Inc. shall pay to the Agency as its total share of the costs for establishment and operation of the monitoring program the sum of $15,000.00 within 10 days of issuance of its Act 250 "Umbrella" permit or all other local approvals, whichever comes later. (4) Upon completion of each individual project involving the construction of parking spaces in the Green Acres Industrial Park, Green Acres, Inc. shall report to the Air Pollution Control Division (Attention: Air Quality Permit Assistant, Air Pollution Control Division, 103 South Main Street, Building 3 South, Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0402) the name of the project completed and the number and location of parking spaces constructed. An updated map of the area, showing the parking spaces, shall accompany these reports. (5) Issuance of this Permit shall not relieve any person from compliance with those portions of the Vermont Air Pollution Control Regulations requiring approval prior to commencing construction of any stationary source of air pollution. (6) Approval to construct shall become invalid if construction is not commenced within 30 months after issuance of this Permit, if construction is discontinued for a period of 30 months or more, or if construction is not completed by January 1, 1997. The Agency may extend the 30 month period upon a satisfactory showing that an extension is justified. The term "commence", as applied to the construction of the proposed parking facilities, shall have the meaning that the owner or operator either has all necessary preconstruction approvals or permits and either has: (a) Begun, or caused to begin, a continuous program, of actual on -site construction of the source, to be completed within a reasonable time; or (b) Entered into binding agreements or contractual obligations, which cannot be cancelled or modified without substantial loss to the owner or operator, or undertaken a program of actual construction of the source to be completed within a reasonable time. Page 3 of 4 (7) These Permit conditions shall be binding upon and enforceable against Green Acres, Inc. and all subsequent owners and/or operators of the Green Acres Industrial Park. (8) These Permit conditions may be modified for cause upon the filing of a written request with the Secretary of the Agency (Secretary) or upon the Secretary's own motion. Any modification shall be granted only with the written approval of the Secretary. If the Secretary determines that modification is appropriate, only the conditions subject to modification shall be re -opened. The filing of a request for modification does not stay any terms or conditions of this Permit. The Secretary may provide opportunity for public comment on any proposed modification of these conditions. If public comments are solicited, the Secretary shall follow the procedures set forth in Section 5-501(4) of the Air Pollution Control Regulations. (9) This Permit does not convey any property rights of any sort or any exclusive privilege, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights. (10) By acceptance of this Permit, Green Acres, Inc. agrees to allow representatives of the State of Vermont access to the property covered by the Permit, at reasonable times, for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the Vermont environmental and health statutes and regulations and with this Permit. Page 4 of 4 G R E E N A C R E S, I N C. 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 July.15, 1991 Mr. Richard A. Valentinetti Director, Air Pollution Control Division Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street Waterbury, VT 05671-0402 RE: Proposed Permit #AP-90-052 Green Acres Industrial Park Dear Mr. Valentinetti, I have received the proposed air pollution permit for the Green Acres Industrial Park and am writing to request a change in the final permit. I am asking that condition (3) be deleted from the final permit. I note first of all that condition (3) is not on the list of permit conditions recommended by your staff. While I can understand your concern about the relatively high 1-hour CO level that was predicted for the Williston/Dorset intersection in 1990, the plan to put in an expensive monitoring system does not make sense. The high CO concentration was not predicted for the future build case when Green Acres' traffic would be using the intersection. Worst case model predictions for that case are below 30 ppm. Thus, monitoring costs for an existing condition should be directed to those currently using the intersection, and not to a project whose completion is several years off. Also, my consultant informs me that the modeling work that was done has several layers of conservative assumptions built into it so that there is no chance of there actually being any existing violations of the 1-hour CO standard at the Williston/Dorset intersection. For these reasons, I am requesting that condition (3) be deleted. Should this idea not meet with your approval, it seems to me that any new monitoring system, and the payments to support it should be delayed until the new Essex Five Corners air monitoring system has Seen running for a year. The data from Five Corners may be adequate Eor the Agency to form an opinion about the conservatism in its modeling approach, without having to invest the time and resources in mother monitoring system. 'hank you for your consideration of these comments. incerely, x ph B. Goodrich 1 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission 66 PEARL STREET October 2, 1991 P.O. BOX 108 ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05453 802 658-3004 Joseph Weith, City Planner South Burlington City Hall 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Green Acres Traffic impact Study Dear Joe: I have reviewed the traffic impact study prepared for this proposed subdivision and have several comments. Although the revised traffic study is an improvement, I have a couple of outstanding concerns: 1. Trip generation: Tyler and I were unable to agree on the appropriate rate to use for estimating site -generated trips. I maintain that the Fifth edition (which is the most recent) of the ITE's "Trip Generation" should be used, and that the average rate should apply. We both reviewed the guidelines for using trip generation rates and came to different conclusions. 2. Cumulative impact: The revised impact study reports level of service for various intersections, including Dorset/Williston and Dorset/Kennedy. The study indicates that traffic operations are likely to deteriorate at several locations under future conditions, with or without this development. I believe that the Planning Commission needs to have a method of dealing with the cumulative traffic impacts so that each development can be responsible for its fair share of the cost of necessary intersection improvements. In the absence of such a method, there is no way this development can fairly contribute to mitigating its own traffic impacts. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, C Craig Leiner TranspVrtation Director greenac.ltr ... Serving the Municipalities of ... Bolton Burlington Charlotte Colchester Essex Junction Essex Town Hinesburg Huntington Jericho Milton Richmond St. George Shelburne So. Burlington Underhill Westford Williston Winooski �T TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. September 10, 1991 Mr. Joe Weith, City Planner 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Green Acres Traffic Report Dear Joe: This letter addresses your comments of July 31, 1991. 1. Agency of Transportation turning movement counts used for the study were for 1-11-89 at Williston Road and Route 116. A copy is enclosed. 2. On page 3 of the report, the assumed building area is 20 percent coverage. This does not allow for two story buildings on all lots. 3. No development was assumed for the remaining undeveloped land called lot 11. If development occurs on this lot a permit amendment will be filed. 4. I have revised the lane configuration table on page 19 to indicate that build conditions are assumed lane configurations after improvements. Also, the configurations for Route 116/ Kennedy Drive under build conditions are revised to be consistent with the recommendations on page 24. 5. Two new table were prepared to summarize the level of service results more clearly. These are tables 1 and 2. 6. The table on page 20 is correct with respect to AM and PM levels of service on the eastbound approach of Williston Road. 7. I have done a capacity analysis of the Kennedy Drive/Dorset Street and Williston Road/ Dorset Street intersections. The 1997 no -build and build scenarios use geometry and signal timing based on the Dorset Street widening project ( MEGC 5200(B)). Sheets 105 and 110 of the design plans indicate signal designs. Please note that volumes used in my analysis are peak hour volumes (DHV), while volumes used in signal P O. Box 308 14 Blair Park Road Williston, Vermont 05495 (802) 879-6331 Page 2 timing designs are average weekday for 1990. This will explain the poor performance of the intersection under conditions of my analysis. 8. All AADT figures for all locations were obtained from the A.O.T. and projected at a rate of 3.2 % per year. 9. I used 1992 as a baseline year because I felt that was the time frame when it would be reviewed. 10. I have had several discussions with Craig Leiner about the use of ITE trip generation figures for this report. In his letter of July 22, 1991 he suggests using figures based on the average trip rate from the fifth edition manual. My report used regression equation figures based on the fourth edition. I have been arguing that I should not have to revise the report based on the fifth edition figures for the following reasons: a. The final report has been reviewed and accepted by the Agency of Transportation with the figures from the fourth edition because the original report was started before the fifth edition was published. b. Rehashing the numbers is time consuming and expensive and unnecessary. C. I have reviewed a report entitled "Guidelines for Using Trip Generation Rates or Equations". This report suggests using the regression equation for industrial parks under 1,000,000 s.f. Furthermore, if a disagreement results it outlines steps to use to resolve a difference of opinion. In every step the solution favors using the equation over the average rate. The numbers I used are greater than the numbers derived from the regression equation and hence have a conservative factor built in. Using higher numbers will not change the conclusions that improvements are •needed. Conclusions In general the Green Acres project will require signalization of the Swift Street Extension/ Route 116 intersection with full build out. All of the other four intersections studied, do require improvements or will require improvements due to the normal growth in traffic. If the required improvements are made these intersections will operate with acceptable levels of service even with the Green Acres project. Page 3 If you have any question please call. Yours very truly, TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Ty er 4rt, P.E. i Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission 66 PEARL STREET P.O. BOX 108 ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05453 802 658-3004 July 22, 1991. Mr. Joseph Weith, City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Green Acres Industrial Lot Subdivision Dear Joe: I have reviewed the traffic study for the above -referenced project and have the following comments: 1. Based on the traffic distribution (pages 7 & 8), two additional inter- sections should be included in the analysis: Dorset -Kennedy and Dorset - Williston. Both of these locations are expected to receive large percentages of site -generated traffic. 2. The date of the traffic counts used (page 3) is not provided. The date and copies of the counts should be provided. 3. On pages 3 and 4, the Fourth Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual is referenced. The Fifth Edition is now available and should be used. Consequently, the AM trip generation should be 842 (not 777) and PM trip generation should be 871 (not 743). 4. On page 3, what is the source of the AADT's? 5. Existing Level of Service is not presented. Although 1992 conditions are close to "baseline," they do not represent existing conditions. 6. On page 20, the LOS for movements is presented; however, overall LOS is not given. 7. The chart on page 22 is irrelevant since it applies to arterials. An arterial analysis was not conducted for this report and is not needed. Overall, the information presented in the study is insufficient to reach any valid conclusions concerning the traffic impact of the proposed subdivision. Once the report has been revised, I can do another review. Sincerely, CRAIG T. INER TRANS ATION DIRECTOR CTL:bf ... Serving the Municipalities of ... Bolton Burlington Charlotte Colchester Essex Junction Essex Town Hinesburg Huntington Jericho Milton Richmond St. George Shelburne So. Burlington Underhill Westford Williston Winooski A Guidelines for Using Trip Generation Rates Or Equations An TTE Informational Report TTE Annual Meeting August 1990 Orlando, Florida By ITE Technical Committee 6A-32 Chairperson: Carl H. Buttke Guidelines for Using Trip Generation Rates or Equations An ITE Informational Report By ITE Technical Committee 6A-32 Chairperson, Carl H. Buttke This is an informational report of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. This report reflects research findings and the experiences of transportation engineering professionals. ITE informational reports are prepared for informational purposes only and do not include Institute recommendations on the best course of action or the preferred application of data, The members of ITE Technical Committee 6A-32 are Carl H. Buttke, P.E. (M) Chairperson; Eugene D. Arnold (M); William F. Bunte, P.E. (F), Juergen A. Fehr, P.E. (F); Allen Holden, Jr., P.E. (Ivl); Kenneth Machiewicz; Charles W. Manning (Ivl); James J. McDonnell, P.E. (F); David B. Miller, P.E. (Ivl); David S. Plummer, P.E. (M); James B. Saag, P.E. (F); John L. Sarna, P.E. (F); and Robert B. Shaw, P.E. (F). Members of the ITE Technical Council Department 6 Standing Committee are Brian S. Bochner, P.E. (F), Chairperson; Jon D. Fricker, P.E. (M), Assistant Chairperson; Marsha D. Anderson (M); Charles R. Goodman (A); Joseph W. Guyton, P.E. (F); Jerrold A. Kaplan, P.E. (M); David L. Rubin (lam; and Carol H. Walters, P.E. (Iv1). Additional members of the Department 6 Standing Committee at the time this report was developed included Dennis L. Christiansen, P.E. (M); Kay Colpius (M); and Arthur B. Sosslau, P.E. (F). This article provides guidance to users of the ITE Trip Generation report on the selection of the most appropriate method for estimating trip generation. Introduction The ITE Trip Generation report provides the user community with up to three methods of calculating forecasted trips at proposed developments. These methods are based on: o a plot of trip ends versus size of the independent variable for each study, o a regression equation based on this plot, and o the weighted trip generation rate (number of weighted trip ends per unit of the independent variable). Generally, every land use, independent variable, and time period combination in the Trip Generation report has a weighted trip generation rate. The plot and regression equation are provided only if sufficient data are available. Previous editions of the TIE Trip Generation report provided the weighted trip generation rate and a limited number of regression equations. Accordingly, the most common and accepted methodology used to calculate forecasted taps was based on the rate. However, since plots and re si n wuations can now be generated easily with the microcomputer, the fourth and fifth editions of the ITE Trip Generation report were written to contain as much information as possible about the data. Unfortunately, the fact -that engineering judgment is needed could date conflict, and differences of opinion may arise. A thorough understanding of the three methodologies and the application of certain guidelines may resolve many of these conflicts. Understanding the Methodologies Graphic Plot The most fundamental and elementary display of the available information is a plot of trip ends versus a related independent variable for each individual study (or observation). The graph is then entered with the value of the independent variable for the proposed development and the number of trip ends is estimated based simply on the existing data points. This method is reasonably accurate if there are sufficient data points to define a relationship between the two variables, especially in the area of the graph where the proposed development fits. Otherwise, the need for interpreting th data (e.g., discarding "erratic" data points) and for interpolating between data points results in a considerable chance for differences in opinion. Equation The next logical step is to assume that a specific mathematical relationship exists between trip ends and the related independent variable. Statistically, regression analysis provides a tool for developing an equation which defines the line which "best fits" through the data points. Use of the equation allows a direct calculation of forecasted trip ends based on the independent variable of the proposed development, thus eliminating differences of opinion arising from interpolating a plot of individual data points. The correlation coefficient (R) is a measure of the degree of association or closeness of the relation between variables. The coefficient of determination (R2) is the percent of the variance in the number of the trips associated with the variance in the size of the independent variable. Thus, an R value of 0.8 results in an R2 of 0.64 which is to say that 64 percent of the variance in the number of trips is accounted for by the variance in the size of the independent variable. Tinerefore, the closer the R2 value to 1.0, the better the relationship between the number of trips and size of the independent variable. Weighted Average Rate The traditional method of calculating forecasted trips is to apply a weighted average trip generation rate; i.e., multiplying the number of trip ends per unit of independent variable by the number of units of the independent variable associated with the proposed development. The standard deviation, when given, is a measure of how widely dispersed the data points are around the calculated average; the less dispersion (lower the number) the better. The approximated standard deviations were provided in the fourth edition for many land uses, independent variables, and trip time periods with twenty or more data points. In the fifth edition, standard deviations are provided for relationships with thrice or more data points. Graphically, use of the rate simply assumes a linear relationship between trip ends and the independent variable, with the straight line passing through the origin and having a slope equal to the rate. Methodology Selection Based on the above discussion, it is apparent that the real question is which of the latter, two methodologies should be used. Both offer advantages over estimating trip ends from a scattergram type of graph, as described in the first methodology. Furthermore, given a reasonable sample size and reasonable distribution of samples within a range of typical values of the independent variable, the regression equation describes a line that best fits the data points. The very basis of the forecasting procedure is the relationship found at existing sites. Finally, it is important to note that statistically there are confidence intervals associated with both the regression line and the rate line. The true data point lies within an interval or range of trip ends on both sides of the calculated line; the size of the interval depends on the stated degree of confidence. Consideration of these intervals may result in a finding of no significant difference between the lines as the intervals may overlap. The difference is clearly lessened if intervals are considered. Guidelines for Using Trip Generation Rates or Equations The following step-by-step procedure is suggested for determining whether the equation or the rate should be used. I. Calculate and compare the forecasted trips using both the regression equation and the trip rate. If the difference is minor or, more importantly, does not change the conclusion of any analyses using the forecast, then the question of which to use is irrelevant_ Therefore, use either the equation or the rate. It is suggested that a minor difference typically occurs when the forecasted trips calculated from the two methods are within 5% of each other (i.e., the difference divided by the average is less than or equal to 0.05). If the question of which to use is relevant, go to the second guideline. 2- Use the equation when there are at least 20 data points which are distributed over the range of values typically found for the independent variable, when there are few erratic data points (outliers), and when the y-intercept in the equation is zero or near zero (i.e., zero or close to zero trips are calculated when the size of the independent variable is zero). If these conditions are not met, then go to the third guideline. 3. Draw the line on the data plot which represents the trips calculated by the rate (this line will be included in fifth edition plots). Compare the lines representing the equation and the rate to determine which best fits the data points at the size of the independent variable in question. Use the equation or the rate whose line best fits the data points at the size of the independent variable in question. If neither line fits the data points or both fit equally well, go to the fourth guideline. 4. Review the standard deviation of the rate and the R-squared value of the equation. These measures provide information about how well the lines, in general, fit the data points. A low standard deviation of less than 110% of the average rate is good. A high R-squared value of more than 0.75 for the equation is good. Use the equation or the rate, depending on how well its measure satisfies these standards. If a decision still cannot be made, go to the fifth guideline. 5. Since there is no logical and valid basis for choosing between the rate and the equation, the user must choose the v method to use based only on one's best judgment, or collect an acceptable set of local data from which a local rate can be derived. The sample should include a minimum of three similar sites. Suggested Use The M Permanent Trip Generation Committee has examined each land use, independent variable, and day/time period and developed a set of suggested uses of rates, equations, or engineering judgment. A table is available from I M Headquarters which contains the suggested use of rates or equations. The suggested use is not to imply a recommended use or a standard. It is merely a suggestion by the committee, using its best judgment, to aid the user community in selecting a methodology. It is hoped that these guidelines will provide some uniformity in choices by different practitioners. In many cases, it is suggested that a rate or an equation be used for uses less than a certain size and the opposite (rate or equation) or engineering judgment be used above a certain size. The notation "< " refers to "less than or equal to" the size of independent variable and the notation " > " refers to "greater than " the size of the independent variable. In some cases, the suggested use is for a rate or an equation when either is appropriate. Guldennes for Using THR Generation Rates Versus Equations Fourth on ITE I np Ueneration Report ITE Technlcal Committee 6A-32,Chairperson: Carl H. Buttke The suggested use of rates versus equations as stated below is not to imply a recommended use or standard. It is merely a suggestion by Committee 6A-32, using its best judgement, to aid the user community in selecting a methodology. It is hoped that these guidelines will provide some uniformity in choices by different practitioners. In many cases, it is suggested that a rate or an equation be used for uses less than a certain size and the opposite (rate or equation) or engineering judgement be used above a certain size. The notation "<" refers to "less than or equal to" the size of independent variable and the notation ">" refers to "greater than" the size of the independent variable. In some cases, the suggested use is for a rate or equation when either is appropriate. CODE LAND USE IND. VAR. DAY & TIME EQUATION RATE JUDGEMENT 010 Water Port Ship Berths Weekday X 010 Water Port Acres Weekday X 021 Commercial Airports All All X 022 General Aviation Airports Employees Weekday X 022 General Aviation Airports Employees Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 022 General Aviation Airports Employees Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 022 General Aviation Airports Employees Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 022 General Aviation Airports Employees Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 022 General Aviation Airports Employees Saturday X 022 General Aviation Airports Employees Saturday Pk. Hr. X 022 General Aviation Airports Employees Sunday X 022 General Aviation Airports Employees Sunday Pk. Hr. X 022 General Aviation Airports Avg. Flights/day Weekday X 022 General Aviation Airports Avg. Flights/day Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 022 General Aviation Airports Avg. Flights/day Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 022 General Aviation Airports Avg. Flights/day Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 022 General Aviation Airports Avg. Flights/day Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 022 General Aviation Airports Avg. Flights/day Saturday X 022 General Aviation Airports Avg. Flights/day Saturday Pk. Hr. X 022 General Aviation Airports Avg. Flights/day Sunday X 022 General Aviation Airports Avg. Flights/day Sunday Pk. Hr. X 022 General Aviation Airports Based Aircraft Weekday X 022 General Aviation Airports Based Aircraft Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 022 General Aviation Airports Based Aircraft Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 022 General Aviation Airports Based Aircraft Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 022 General Aviation Airports Based Aircraft Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 022 General Aviation Airports Based Aircraft Saturday X 022 General Aviation Airports Based Aircraft Saturday Pk. Hr. X _ 022 General Aviation Airports Based Aircraft Sunday X 022 General Aviation Airports Based Aircraft Sunday Pk. Hr. X 110 General Light Industrial Employees Weekday X X 110 General Light Industrial Employees Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. <1600 >1600 CODE LAND USE IND. VAR. DAY i TIME EQUATION RATE JUDGEMENT 110 General Light Industrial Employees Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. <1600 >1600 110 General Light Industrial Employees Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. <1600 >1600 110 General Light Industrial Employees Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 110 General Light Industrial Employees Saturday >400 <400 110 General Light Industrial Employees Saturday Pk. Hr. X 110 General Light Industrial Employees Sunday X 110 General Light Industrial Employees Sunday Pk. Hr. X 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday X 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. <1000 >1000 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. <1000 >1000 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. <1000 >1000 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. <1000 >1000 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday X 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday Pk. Hr. X 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday X 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday Pk. Hr. X 110 General Light Industrial Acres Weekday >3 <3 110 General Light Industrial Acres Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. >3 <3 110 General Light Industrial Acres Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 110 General Light Industrial Acres Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. >3 <3 110 General Light Industrial Acres Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. >3 <3 110 General Light Industrial Acres Saturday X 110 General Light Industrial Acres Saturday Pk. Hr. X 110 General Light Industrial Acres Sunday X 110 General Light Industrial Acres Sunday Pk. Hr. X 120 General Heavy Industrial All All X 130 Industrial Park Employees Weekday X 130 Industrial Park Employees Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 130 Industrial Park Employees Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 130 Industrial Park Employees Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 130 Industrial Park Employees Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. <2000 >2000 130 Industrial Park Employees Saturday X 130 Industrial Park Employees Saturday Pk. Hr. X 130 Industrial Park Employees Sunday X X 130 Industrial Park Employees Sunday Pk. Hr. X 130 Industrial Park 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday <1200 >1200 130 Industrial Park 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 130 Industrial Park 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. <1000 >1000 130 Industrial Park 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 130 Industrial Park 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. <800 >800 130 Industrial Park 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday X 130 Industrial Park _ 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday Pk. Hr. X 130 Industrial Park 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday X X 130 Industrial Park 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday Pk. Hr. X 130 Industrial Park Acres Weekday X 130 Industrial Park Acres Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X CODE LAND USE IND VAR. DAY & TIME EQUATION RATE JUDGEMENT 130 Industrial Park Acres Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 130 Industrial Park Acres Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. <100 >100 130 Industrial Park Acres Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. <100 >100 130 Industrial Park Acres Saturday X 130 Industrial Park Acres Saturday Pk. Hr. X 130 Industrial Park Acres Sunday X 130 Industrial Park Acres Sunday Pk. Hr. X 140 Manufacturing Employees Weekday X 140 Manufacturing Employees Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 140 Manufacturing Employees Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 140 Manufacturing Employees Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 140 Manufacturing Employees Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 140 Manufacturing Employees Saturday X 140 Manufacturing Employees Saturday Pk. Hr. X 140 Manufacturing Employees Sunday X 140 Manufacturing Employees Sunday Pk. Hr. X 140 Manufacturing 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday X 140 Manufacturing 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. <400 >400 140 Manufacturing 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X X 140 Manufacturing 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. <400 >400 140 Manufacturing 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 140 Manufacturing 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday X 140 Manufacturing 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday Pk. Hr. X 140 Manufacturing 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday X 140 Manufacturing 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday Pk. Hr. X 140 Manufacturing Acres Weekday <20 >20 140 Manufacturing Acres Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. <20 >20 140 Manufacturing Acres Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. <20 >20 140 Manufacturing Acres Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. <20 >20 140 Manufacturing Acres Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. <20 >20 140 Manufacturing Acres Saturday X 140 Manufacturing Acres Saturday Pk. Hr. X 140 Manufacturing Acres Sunday X 140 Manufacturing Acres Sunday Pk. Hr. X 150 warehousing Employees Weekday <350 >350 150 Warehousing Employees Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 150 warehousing Employees Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 150 Warehousing Employees Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 150 Warehousing Employees Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. >350 <350 150 Warehousing Employees Saturday X 150 Warehousing Employees Saturday Pk. Hr. X 150 Warehousing Employees Sunday X 150 warehousing Employees Sunday Pk. Hr. X 150 Warehousing 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday >400 <400 150 warehousing 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. >400 <400 150 warehousing 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. >400 <400 150 Warehousing 1,000 G.S.F. .Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. >400 <400 CODE LAND USE IND, VAR, DAY i TIME EQUATION RATE JUDGEMENT 150 Warehousing 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. >400 <400 150 Warehousing 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday X 150 Warehousing 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday Pk. Hr. X 150 Warehousing 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday X 150 Warehousing 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday Pk. Hr. X 150 Warehousing Acres Weekday X 150 Warehousing Acres Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 150 Warehousing Acres Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 150 Warehousing Acres Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 150 Warehousing Acres Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 150 Warehousing Acres Saturday X 150 Warehousing Acres Saturday Pk. Hr. X 150 Warehousing Acres Sunday X 150 Warehousing Acres. Sunday Pk. Hr. X 151 Mini -Warehouse Employees All X 151 Mini -Warehouse 1,000 G.S.F. All X 151 Mini -Warehouse Storage Units All X 151 Mini -Warehouse Acres Weekday X 151 Mini -Warehouse Acres Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 151 Mini -Warehouse Acres Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 151 Mini -Warehouse Acres Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 151 Mini -Warehouse Acres Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 151 Mini -Warehouse Acres Saturday X 151 Mini -Warehouse Acres Saturday Pk. Hr. X 151 Mini -Warehouse Acres Sunday X 151 Mini -Warehouse Acres Sunday Pk. Hr. X 170 Utilities All All X 210 Single Family Detached Housing Dwelling Units Weekday X 210 Single Family Detached Housing Dwelling Units Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 210 Single Family Detached Housing Dwelling Units Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 210 Single Family Detached Housing Dwelling Units Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 210 Single Family Detached Housing Dwelling Units Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 210 Single Family Detached Housing Dwelling Units Saturday >200 <200 210 Single Family Detached Housing Dwelling Units Saturday Pk. Hr. >25 <25 210 Single Family Detached Housing Dwelling Units Sunday >50 <50 210 Single Family Detached Housing Dwelling Units Sunday Pk. Hr. >25 <25 210 Single Family Detached Housing Persons Weekday >1000 <1000 210 Single Family Detached Housing Persons Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 210 Single Family Detached Housing Persons Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 210 Single Family Detach-ed Housing Persons Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 210 Single Family Detached Housing Persons Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. >600 <600 210 Single Family Detached Housing Persons Saturday X 210 Single Family Detached Housing Persons Saturday Pk. Hr. X 210 Single Family Detached Housing Persons Sunday X CODE LAND USE IND, VAR, DAY i TIME EQUATION RATE JUDGEMENT 210 Single Family Detached Housing Persons Sunday Pk, Hr. X 210 Single Family Detached Housing Vehicle Weekday X 210 Single Family Detached Housing Vehicle Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. x 210 Single Family Detached Housing vehicle Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. >300 <300 210 Single Family Detached Housing Vehicle Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 210 Single Family Detached Housing vehicle Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. >300 <300 210 Single Family Detached Housing vehicle Saturday X 210 Single Family Detached Housing Vehicle Saturday Pk. Hr. >70 <70 210 Single Family Detached Housing Vehicle Sunday >70 <70 210 Single Family Detached Housing vehicle Sunday Pk. Hr. >70 <70 210 Single Family Detached Housing Acre All X 220 Apartment Dwelling Units Weekday >300 <300 220 Apartment Dwelling Units Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 220 Apartment Dwelling Units Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. <400 >400 220 Apartment Dwelling Units Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. >200 <200 220 Apartment Dwelling Units Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. >200 <200 220 Apartment Dwelling Units Saturday x 220 Apartment Dwelling Units Saturday Pk. Hr. >200 <200 220 Apartment Dwelling Units Sunday >300 <300 220 Apartment Dwelling Units Sunday Pk. Hr. x 220 Apartment Persons Weekday >700 <700 220 Apartment Persons Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. >100 <100 220 Apartment Persons Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. >100 <100 220 Apartment Persons Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. >100 <100 220 Apartment Persons Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. >100 <100 220 Apartment Persons Saturday x 220 Apartment Persons Saturday Pk. Hr. x 220 Apartment Persons Sunday x 220 Apartment Persons Sunday Pk. Hr. x 220 Apartment Vehicle Weekday >80 <80 220 Apartment Vehicle Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. x 220 Apartment Vehicle Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. x 220 Apartment Vehicle Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. x 220 Apartment Vehicle weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. x 220 Apartment Vehicle Saturday x 220 Apartment Vehicle Saturday Pk. Hr. x 220 Apartment Vehicle Sunday x 220 Apartment vehicle Sunday Pk. Hr. x 220 Apartment, Post-1973 Dwelling Units All x 221 Low -Rise Apartment All All x 222 High -Rise Apartment All All x 230 Residential Condominium Dwelling Units Weekday <400 >400 230 Residential Condominium Dwelling Units Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. <400 >400 CODE LAND USE IND. VAR DAY L TIME EQUATION RATE JUDGEMENT 260 Recreational Homes All All X 270 Residential P.U.D. Dwelling Units Weekday X 270 Residential P.U.D. Dwelling Units Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 270 Residential P.U.D. Dwelling Units Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 270 Residential P.U.D. Dwelling Units Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 270 Residential P.U.D. Dwelling Units Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 270 Residential P.U.D. Dwelling Units Saturday X 270 Residential P.U.D. Dwelling Units Saturday Pk. Hr. X 270 Residential P.U.D. Dwelling Units Sunday X 270 Residential P.U.D. Dwelling Units Sunday Pk. Hr. X 270 Residential P.U.D. Acres All X 310 Hotel Rooms Weekday >100 <100 310 Hotel Rooms Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. >100 <100 310 Hotel Rooms Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. >100 <100 310 Hotel Rooms Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 310 Hotel Rooms Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. >100 <100 310 Hotel Rooms Saturday >100 <100 310 Hotel Rooms Saturday Pk. Hr. X 310 Hotel Rooms Sunday >100 <100 310 Hotel Rooms Sunday Pk. Hr. X 310 Hotel Occupied Rooms All X 310 Hotel Employees All X 311 All Suites Hotel All All X 312 Business Hotel All All X 320 Motel Occupied Rooms Weekday X 320 Motel Occupied Rooms Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 320 Motel Occupied Rooms Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 320 Motel Occupied Rooms Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 320 Motel Occupied Rooms Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 320 Motel Occupied Rooms Saturday X X 320 Motel Occupied Rooms Saturday Pk. Hr. X 320 Motel Occupied Rooms Sunday X 320 Motel Occupied Rooms Sunday Pk. Hr. X 320 Motel Employees Weekday X 320 Motel Employees Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 320 Motel Employees Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 320 Motel Employees Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 320 Motel Employees Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. <40 >40 320 Motel Employees Saturday X 320 Motel Employees Saturday Pk. Hr. X 320 Motel Employees Sunday X 320 Motel Employees Sunday Pk. Hr. X CODE LAND USE IND. VAR. DAY G TIME EQUATION RATE JUDGEMENT 492 Racquet Club Employees All X 492 Racquet Club Members Weekday X 492 Racquet Club Courts Weekday X 492 Racquet Club Courts Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 492 Racquet Club Courts Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 492 Racquet Club Courts Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 492 Racquet Club Courts Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 492 Racquet Club Courts Saturday X 492 Racquet Club Courts Saturday Pk. Hr. X 492 Racquet Club Courts Sunday X 492 Racquet Club Courts Sunday Pk. Hr. X 492 Racquet Club 1,000 G.S.F. All X 501 Military Base Employees Weekday >2000 <2000 501 Military Base Vehicles Weekday >4000 <4000 520 Elementary School Employees Weekday X 520 Elementary School Employees Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 520 Elementary School Employees Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 520 Elementary School Employees Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 520 Elementary School Employees Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 520 Elementary School Students Weekday <1000 >1000 520 Elementary School Students Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 520 Elementary School Students Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 520 Elementary School Students Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. <1000 >1000 520 Elementary School Students Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. <1000 >1000 530 High School Students Weekday <1000 >1000 530 High School Students Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 530 High School Students Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 530 High School Students Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. <1600 >1600 530 High School Students Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. <1200 >1200 530 High School Students Saturday X 530 High School Students Saturday Pk. Hr. X 530 High School Students Sunday X 530 High School Students Sunday Pk. Hr. X 530 High School Employees Weekday <140 >140 530 High School Employees Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 530 High School Employees Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 530 High School Employees Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. <140 >140 530 High School Employees Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. <140 >140 530 High School Employees Saturday X 530 High School Employees Saturday Pk. Hr. X 530 High School Employees Sunday X 530 High School Employees Sunday Pk. Hr. X CODE LAND USE IND, VAR, DAY 6 TIME EQUATION RATE JUDGEMENT 540 Junior/Community College Students All x 540 Junior/Community College 1,000 G.S.F. X 540 Junior/Community College Employees X 550 University Students Weekday X 560 Church/Synagogue All All X 565 Day Care Center All All X 566 Cemeteries Acres All X 590 Library All All X 610 Hospital Employees Weekday >800 <800 610 Hospital Employees Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 610 Hospital Employees Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 610 Hospital Employees Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 610 Hospital Employees Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 610 Hospital Employees Saturday <800 >800 610 Hospital Employees Saturday Pk. Hr. X 610 Hospital Employees Sunday >800 <800 610 Hospital Employees Sunday Pk. Hr. X 610 Hospital 1,000G.S.F. Weekday >80 <80 610 Hospital 1,000'G:S.F. Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 610 Hospital 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 610 Hospital 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 610 Hospital 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 610 Hospital 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday X 610 Hospital 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday Pk. Hr. X 610 Hospital 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday >80 <80 610 Hospital 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday Pk. Hr. X 610 Hospital Beds Weekday >80 <80 610 Hospital Beds Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 610 Hospital Beds Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 610 Hospital Beds Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 610 Hospital Beds Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. <350 >350 610 Hospital Beds Saturday <350 >350 610 Hospital Beds Saturday Pk. Hr. X 610 Hospital Beds Sunday <350 >350 610 Hospital Beds Sunday Pk. Hr. <350 >350 620 Nursing Home Employees Weekday X 620 Nursing Home Employees Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 620 Nursing Home Employees Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 620 Nursing Home Employees Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 620 Nursing Home Employees Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X CODE LAND USE IND. VAR. DAY S TIME EQUATION RATE JUDGEMENT 330 Resort Hotel All All x 400 Recreational All All x 410 Park Employees All x 410 Park Acres All x 410 Park Parking Spaces All x 410 Park Picnic Sites All x 411 City Park All All x 412 County Park All All x 413 State Park All All x 414 slater Slide Park All All x 420 Marina Employees All x 420 Marina Boat Berths Weekday x 420 Marina Boat Berths All Other x 420 Marina Acres All x 430 Golf Course Employees All x 430 Golf Course Acres Weekday x 430 Golf Course Acres Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. x 430 Golf Course Acres Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. x 430 Golf Course Acres Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. x 430 Golf Course Acres Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. x - 430 Golf Course Acres Saturday x 430 Golf Course Acres Saturday Pk. Hr. x 430 Golf Course Acres Sunday x 430 Golf Course Acres Sunday Pk. Hr. x 430 Golf Course Parking Spaces All x 441 Live Theater Seats All x 443 Movie Theater W/O Matinee All All x 444 Movie Theater With Matinee All All x 450 Stadium All All x 452 Horse Race Track All All x 491 Tennis Courts All All x ODE LAND USE IND. VAR. DAY G TIME EOUATION RATE JUDGEMENT 230 Residential Condominium Dwelling Units Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. <400 >400 230 Residential Condominium Dwelling Units Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. <400 >400 230 Residential Condominium Dwelling Units Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. <400 >400 230 Residential Condominium Dwelling Units Saturday >200 <200 230 Residential Condominium Dwelling Units Saturday Pk. Hr. >200 <200 230 Residential Condominium Dwelling Units Sunday >200 <200 230 Residential Condominium Dwelling Units Sunday Pk. Hr. >50 <50 230 Residential Condominium Persons All >50 <50 230 Residential Condominium Vehicle Weekday >50 <50 231 Low -Rise Residential Condominium Dwelling Units All X 232 High -Rise Residential Condominium Dwelling Units All X 240 Mobile Home Park Dwelling Units All X 240 Mobile Home Park Persons Weekday X 240 Mobile Home Park Persons Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 240 Mobile Home Park Persons Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. <600 >600 240 Mobile Home Park Persons Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 240 Mobile Home Park Persons Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. <600 >600 240 Mobile Home Park Persons Saturday X 240 Mobile Home Park Persons Saturday Pk. Hr. <600 >600 240 Mobile Home Park Persons Sunday X 240 Mobile Home Park Persons Sunday Pk. Hr. X 240 Mobile Home Park Vehicle Weekday X 240 Mobile Home Park Vehicle Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 240 Mobile Home Park Vehicle Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 240 Mobile Home Park Vehicle Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 240 Mobile Home Park Vehicle Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 240 Mobile Home Park Vehicle Saturday X - 240 Mobile Home Park Vehicle Saturday Pk. Hr. X 240 Mobile Home Park Vehicle Sunday X 240 Mobile Home Park Vehicle Sunday Pk. Hr. X 240 Mobile Home Park Acres Weekday X 240 Mobile Home Park Acres Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 240 Mobile Home Park Acres Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 240 Mobile Home Park Acres Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 240 Mobile Home Park Acres Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 240 Mobile Home Park Acres Saturday X 240 Mobile Home Park Acres Saturday Pk. Hr. X 240 Mobile Home Park Acres Sunday X 240 Mobile Home Park Acres Sunday Pk. Hr. X 250 Retirement Community All All X 252 Congregate Care Facility All All X CODE LAND USE IND. VAR. DAY & TIME EQUATION RATE JUDGEMENT 820 Shopping Center 1,000 G.L.A. All X 831 Quality Restaurant 1,000 G.S.F. All X 831 Quality Restaurant Seats Weekday X 831 Quality Restaurant Seats Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 831 Quality Restaurant Seats Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 831 Quality Restaurant Seats. Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 831 Quality Restaurant Seats Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 831 Quality Restaurant Seats Saturday X 831 Quality Restaurant Seats Saturday Pk. Hr. X 831 Quality Restaurant Seats Sunday X 831 Quality Restaurant Seats Sunday Pk. Hr. X 832 High Turnover Restaurant All All x 833 Fast Food Restaurant W/O Window All All X 834 Fast Food Restaurant with Window All All X 841 New Car Sales All All x 844 Service Station Pumps All X 844 Service Station Stations All X 846 Car Nash All All X 848 Highway Oasis All All X 849 Truck Stop All All X 850 Supermarket 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday X 850 Supermarket 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 850 Supermarket 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 850 Supermarket 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 850 Supermarket 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 850 Supermarket 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday X 850 Supermarket 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday Pk. Hr. X 850 Supermarket 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday X 850 Supermarket 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday Pk. Hr. X 851 Convenience Market 1,000 G.S.F. All X 860 Wholesale Market All All X 870 Apparel Store 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. <5 >5 870 Apparel Store 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday. Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 890 Furniture Store 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday <60 >60 890 Furniture Store 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. <60 <60 >60 CODE LAND USE IND. VAR, DAY & TIME EQUATION RATE JUDGEMENT 750 Office Park Employees Sunday Pk. Hr. X 750 Office Park 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday X 750 Office Park 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 750 Office Park 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. <300 >300 750 Office Park 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. >270 <270 750 Office Park 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. >270 <270 750 Office Park 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday X 750 Office Park 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday Pk. Hr. X 750 Office Park 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday X 750 Office Park 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday Pk. Hr. X 750 Office Park Acres All X 760 Research Center Employees Weekday X 760 Research Center Employees Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 760 Research Center Employees Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 760 Research Center Employees Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 760 Research Center Employees Weekday Gen. PM Pk.�Hr. X 760 Research Center Employees Saturday X 760 Research Center Employees Saturday Pk. Hr. X 760 Research Center Employees Sunday X 760 Research Center Employees Sunday Pk. Hr. X 760 Research Center 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday <200 >200 760 Research Center 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. <400 >400 760 Research Center 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. <400 >400 760 Research Center 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 760 Research Center 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 760 Research Center 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday X 760 Research Center 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday Pk. Hr. X 760 Research Center 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday <200 >200 760 Research Center 1,000.G.S.F. Sunday Pk. Hr. X 760 Research Center Acres Weekday X 760 Research Center Acres Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 760 Research Center Acres Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 760 Research Center Acres Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 760 Research Center Acres Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 760 Research Center Acres Saturday X 760 Research Center Acres Saturday Pk. Hr. X 760 Research Center Acres Sunday X 760 Research Center Acres Sunday Pk. Hr. X 770 Business Park Employees Weekday <900 >900 770 Business Park Employees Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 770 Business Park Employees Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. <900 >900 770 Business Park Employees Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 770 Business Park Employees Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. <900 >900 770 Business Park Employees Saturday X 770 Business Park Employees Saturday Pk. Hr. X CODE LAND USE IND. VAR, DAY i TIME _ EQUATION RATE JUDGEMENT 620 Nursing Home Employees Saturday X 620 Nursing Home Employees Saturday Pk. Hr. X . 620 Nursing Home_ Employees Sunday X 620 Nursing Home Employees Sunday Pk. Hr. X 620 Nursing Home Beds, Weekday X 620 Nursing Home Beds Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 620 Nursing Home Beds Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 620 Nursing Home Beds Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 620 Nursing Home Beds Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 620 Nursing Home Beds Saturday X 620 Nursing Home Beds Saturday Pk. Hr. X 620 Nursing Home Beds Sunday X 620 Nursing Home Beds Sunday Pk. Hr. X 630 Clinic All All X 710 General Office Building 1,000 G.S.F. All <800 >800 710 General Office Building Employees All <1600 >1600 714 Corporate Headquarters Building All All X 720 Medical Office Building Employees All X 720 Medical Office Building 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday X 720 Medical Office Building 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 720 Medical Office Building 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 720 Medical Office Building 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 720 Medical Office Building 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 720 Medical Office Building 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday X 720 Medical Office Building 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday Pk. Hr. X 720 Medical Office Building 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday X 720 Medical Office Building 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday Pk. Hr. X 730 Government Office Building All All X 731 State Motor Vehicles Dept. All All X 732 U.S. Post Office All All X 740 Civic Center All All X 750 Office Park Employees Weekday X 750 Office Park Employees Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. <1600 >1600 750 Office Park Employees Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 750 Office Park Employees Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. <1600 >1600 750 Office Park Employees Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 750 Office Park Employees Saturday X 750 Office Park Employees Saturday Pk. Hr. X 750 Office Park Employees Sunday X CODE LAND USE IND, VAR, DAY G TIME EQUATIONRATE JUDGEMENT 770 Business Park Employees Sunday X 770 Business Park Employees Sunday Pk. Hr. 770 Business Park 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday x 770 Business Park 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. X 770 Business Park 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 770 Business Park 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 770 Business Park 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 770 Business Park 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday <600 >600 770 Business Park 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday Pk. Hr. X 770 Business Park 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday <600 >600 770 Business Park 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday Pk. Hr. X 770 Business Park Acres All x 810 General Merchandise 812 Building Matl. i Lumber Store 812 Building Matl. t Lumber Store 812 Building Matl. i Lumber Store 814 Specialty Retail. Center 815 Discount Store 815 Discount Store 815 Discount Store 815 Discount Store 815 Discount Store 815 Discount Store 815 Discount Store 815 Discount Store 815 Discount Store 816 Hardware/Paint Store 817 Nursery 817 Nursery 817 Nursery 817 Nursery 817 Nursery 817 Nursery 817 Nursery 817 Nursery 817 Nursery 817 Nursery 817 Nursery 1,000 G.S.F. All Employees All 1,000 G.S.F. All Acres All 1,000 G.S.F. 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday Pk. Hr. 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday Pk. Hr. All All Employees Weekday Employees Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. Employees Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. Employees Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. Employees Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. Employees Saturday Employees Saturday Pk. Hr. Employees Sunday Employees Sunday Pk. Hr. 1,000 G.S.F. All Acres All x X X X X X IMPROVEMENTS The following improvements shall be made with the impact fees and have been determined to be necessary with the proposed development. IMPACT AREA 1 $ 2.5m x 10% _ $250,000 1) Widen Williston Road to 5 lanes (Dorset to Hinesburg). $ 55,000 x 25% = $ 13,750 2) Set of traffic signals at intersection of Patchen Road and White Street. Crosswalks and pedestrian actuated signals. $445,000 x 10% _ $44,500 3) Improve Williston Road/Hinesburg Road Intersection, Add additional thru lanes to Williston Road - approaches. Add left turn lanes to Hinesburg Road approaches. Acquire land and relocate signals. $308,250 TOTAL IMPACT AREA 2 $ 45,000 4) Set of traffic signals at inter- section of Victoria Drive/ Williston Road or Elsom Parkway/ Williston Road to allow cars to exit out of Mayfair Park where movement is mainly to the west. $400,000 x 10% = $40,000 5) Geometric improvements including extra lanes at intersection of Airport Drive, Kennedy Drive and Williston Road. $ 40,000 6) A set of traffic signals at Kimball Avenue and Kennedy Drive. $ 10,000 7) Crosswalks and pedestrian actuated signals at Kennedy/Williston inter- section. 8) Widen Williston Road from Clinton Street to City line to 4 lanes (State). 9) Traffic signals at Shunpike - Williston Road intersection (State). $ 30,000 10) Right turn lane on Kennedy Drive at Kimball Avenue. $ 20,000 11) Addition of left turn lane on Shunpike Road at intersection with Williston Road. $185,000 TOTAL I 2 /xK h ' V Industrial Park (130) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 25 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 542 Directional Distribution: 21% entering, 79% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.91 0.17 - 2.85 1.10 Data Plot and Equation .14 nnn 0 1000 2000 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = [(1.027/X) + 0.00064]-1 3000 ------ Average Rate R2 = 0.88 Trip Generation, January 1 137 Institut T *Transportation Engineers 1"wx Al arr: 5/zc e/// A, X /sv.) _ 7-X , 1.4s /, /17 T 11 a 4* X 7; yoo _ i -r)e i n S a . co 06- 71y - COKP. #t-XP) OuA7rK Of-FicC O . 3 1140e.%d 0 - (- %// clvv 0' ` v//",7 7;�11-u - -r-r+7 1-,4G7- .� l/r%/GL J �"v.✓ �Ifo.4 "A / = � �7 6 60 jij �3 SD loc, 4-a t�- �y3 % o { &k/1 CT TOA AFic) CODE_ LAND USE IND. VAR. DAY 6 TIME EQUATION RATE JUDGEMENT 890 Furniture Store 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. <60 >60 890 Furniture Store 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. <60 >60 890 Furniture Store 1,000 G.S.F. Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. <60 >60 890 Furniture Store 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday x 890 Furniture Store 1,000 G.S.F. Saturday Pk. Hr. x 890 Furniture Store 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday x 890 Furniture Store 1,000 G.S.F. Sunday Pk. Hr. x 895 Video Arcade All All x 911 Walk -In Bank Employees Weekday x 911 Walk -In Bank Employees Weekday 7-9 AM Pk. Hr. x 911 Walk -In Bank Employees Weekday 4-6 PM Pk. Hr. X 911 Walk -In Bank Employees Weekday Gen. AM Pk. Hr. X 911 Walk -In Bank Employees Weekday Gen. PM Pk. Hr. X 911 Walk -In Bank Employees Saturday x 911 Walk -In Bank Employees Saturday Pk. Hr. x 911 Walk -In Bank Employees Sunday x 911 Walk -In Bank Employees Sunday Pk. Hr. x 911 Walk -In Bank 1,000 G.S.F. All x 912 Drive -In Bank All All x 913 Walk -In Savings t Loan All All x 914 Drive -In Savings & Loan All All x 930 Insurance Building All All x IN JSTRIAL PARK (130) ' 4'1 1 e// h � Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1,000 SQUARE FEET GROSS FLOOR AREA On a: WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC, ONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND 6 P.M. TRIP GENERATION RATES Average Vehicle Trip Ends (Weekday —Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 P.M.) per 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area Average Range of Standard Number of Average 1,000 Trip Rate Rates Deviation Studies Square Feet GFA 0.971 0.300-2.853 21 556.8 DATA PLOT AND EQUATION 2,000 1,800 ❑ 1,600 J(�• w P a- 1,400 J 1,200 = 1,000 w > ui 0 800 a 7�3 Cr w 600 Q ❑ II 400 ° ❑ t- 200 % ❑ ❑ 0. Ile 0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400 X = 1000 SQUARE FEET GFA ❑ ACTUAL DATA POINTS FITTED CURVE Fitted Curve Equation: T = [(1.04/X) + 0.000261-1 Rz = 0.914 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION: 21% enter, 79% exit. rp"" Trip Generation, September 1987/Institute of Transportation Engineers 151 LAND USE: 130 ' INDUSTRIAL PARK DESCRIPTION AND TRIP CHARACTERISTICS Industrial parks are areas containing a number of industrial or related facilities. They are character- ized by a mix of manufacturing, service and ware- house facilities with a wide variation in the propor- tion of each type of use from one location to another. Many inclUstrial parks contain highly diversified facilities —some with a large number of small busi- nesses and others with one or two dominant indus- tries. The number of employees in the industrial parks surveyed ranged from 65 to 5,300 with an average of 757. Gross square feet of floor area per employee averaged 529, or 1.89 employees per 1,000 gross square feet of building area, and 19 employees per acre of developed land. The industrial park surveyed ranged in size from 1.6 to 158 acres, with an average of approximately 40 acres. An analysis of correlation between average weekday vehicle trip ends and all measurable variables was made to determine the best variable for use in pre- dicting vehicle trip ends. From the data assembled to date, the number of employees has been found to have the highest correlation with average week- day vehicle trip ends. Gross square feet of floor area and total area occupied by the industrial park showed less correlation with average weekday vehicle trip ends. AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRANSIT TRIP ENDS 0.025/employee 0.048/1,000 square feet gross floor area 0.685/acre SOURCE NUMBERS 7, 10, 14, 68, 74, 85, 91, 100, 162, 184. Trip Generation, September 1987/Institute of Transportation Engineers 139 LAND USE: 110 GENERAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DESCRIPTION AND TRIP CHARACTERISTICS Light industrial facilities usually employ less than 500 persons and have an emphasis on other than manufacturing. Nevertheless, the distinction between light industrial and manufacturing (Land Use 140) land uses is sometimes vague. Light industries typ- ical of those included in this category are printing plants, material testing laboratories, assemblers of data processing equipment, and power stations. All of the light industries surveyed were free-stand- ing facilities devoted to one use. The number of employees ranged from 76 to 2260, with an average of 476. Average gross floor space per employee was 440 square feet --or 2.3 employees per 1,000 square feet of floor space. The employee density per acre of developed land was 17.4. Buildings ranged in size from 21,000 to 726,000 square feet. Since parking spaces are usually determined by the size of the building, it is recommended that they not be used as a predictive independent variable for calculating average weekday vehicle trip ends. Light industrial facilities usually generate trips at the same time as adjacent street traffic (7 to 9 A.M. and 4 to 6 P.M.). AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRANSIT TRIP ENDS No data available. DATA LIMITATIONS No data were available on vehicle occupancy for trips to and from light industrial areas. The average was approximately 1.3 persons per vehicle for all industrial uses. More information is needed concerning peak period directional distribution of traffic during shift changes, as well as vehicle occupancy. SOURCE NUMBERS 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 174, 179, 184, 191, 192 Trip Generation, September 1987/Institute of Transportation Engineers 99 I ( ( 9/3'?i /'�%�i ��/C�- wiT-N TYL�.r �.9/zT �' /'�Tt � ✓� cad Jr- -A� ,.e,44 IMPROVEMENTS The following improvements shall be made with the impact fees and have been determined to be necessary with the proposed development. IMPACT AREA 1 $ 2.5m x 10`/0 = $250,000 1) Widen Williston Road to 5 lanes (Dorset to Hinesburg). $ 55,000 x 25% = $ 13,750 2) Set of traffic signals at intersection of Patchen Road and White Street. Crosswalks and pedestrian actuated signals. $445,000 x 10% _ $44,500 3) Improve Williston Road/Hinesburg Road Intersection, Add additional thru lanes to Williston Road approaches. Add left turn lanes to Hinesburg Road approaches. Acquire land and relocate signals. $308,250 TOTAL IMPACT AREA 2 $ 45,000 4) Set of traffic signals at inter- section of Victoria Drive/ Williston Road or Elsom Parkway/ Williston Road to allow cars to exit out of Mayfair Park where movement is mainly to the west. $400,000 x 10% _ $40,000 5) Geometric improvements including extra lanes at intersection of Airport Drive, Kennedy Drive and Williston Road. $ 40,000 6) A set of traffic signals at Kimball Avenue and Kennedy Drive. $ 10,000 7) Crosswalks and pedestrian actuated signals at Kennedy/Williston inter- section. 8) Widen Williston Road from Clinton Street to City line to 4 lanes (State). 9) Traffic signals at Shunpike - Williston Road intersection (State). $ 30,000 10) Right turn lane on Kennedy Drive at Kimball Avenue. $ 20,000 11) Addition of left turn lane on Shunpike Road at intersection with Williston Road. $185,000 TOTAL 2 M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer Re: October 8, 1991 agenda items Date: October 4, 1991 2) GREEN ACRES INDUSTRIAL PARK, HINESBURG ROAD 1. Sewer manhole inverts may be poured concrete instead of brick. 2. Manhole and drainage inlets should be adjusted to grade using precast risers instead of bricks and mortar. The risers are available locally. 3. Sidewalk thickness at driveways shall be 8 inches. Memorandum - Planning October S, 1991 agenda items October 4, 1991 Page 3 5) GREEN ACRES 11 LOT INDUSRIAL SUBDIVISION _ HINESBURG ROAD This application for Preliminary Plat approval was continued to this meeting from the August 27, 1991 meeting to give the appli- cant additional time to provide the Commission with additional traffic data as requested. Pedestrian Path: Both the Natural Resources Committee and the Recreation Path Committee have been asked to comment on the path that is proposed by the applicant and would loop around the proposed natural stream along the southern boundary of the project. See enclosed memos for their comments. The Recreation Path Committee favors a 20 foot generic easement which could be converted to a recreation path in the future. They suggest an easement around the perimeter of the property with a north -south easement running along one of the subdivision lot lines. The Natural Resource Committee favors an unpaved recreational path along both sides of the proposed relocated stream forming a loop trail. The applicant favors no particular design and is looking for guidance from the Planning Commission. It is staff's recommendation that a generic easement be located on at least the north side of the relocated stream and that a connection be provided across the stream to the south to connect with the 60 foot easement to Knoll Circle. The pedestrian ease- ment should not cross the wooded wetland on lots 5 and 7 as presently shown. Instead, it should go around the sensitive area by skirting the wetland on lot 5 and going north along the bound- ary of lots five and seven. follow Swift Street Extension to the boundary of lots seven and nine and then go south to the ease- ment following the southerly boundary. Wetlands: The applicant has had a wetlands report prepared. A copy of this report is enclosed. This report concludes that none of the sides of the farm are wetland and that all of the farmed land, other than the main drainage running north -south through the farm, is prior converted. The term "Prior converted" is defined in the report. The applicant will now be seeking a permit from the Corps of Engineers to cross the only wetland within their jurisdiction which is the main drainageway. Traffic: The traffic analysis was revised to address some of my comments and also address the Dorset Street/Kennedy Drive and Dorset Street/Williston Road intersection as suggested by Craig Leiner. Enclosed is a letter from Craig Leiner. It is still Craig's opinion that the traffic analysis is inadequate in that it did not use ITE 5th edition average trip rates (about 100 more peak hour trip ends than used in the analysis). While the Memo- 3 Memorandum October 8, October 4, Page 4 - Planning 1991 agenda items 1991 applicant should have settled the trip ends with Craig Leiner and myself prior to doing the traffic analysis, I feel the numbers used in the analysis are reasonable. Provided below is a summary of LOS impacts at area intersections. It should be noted that the traffic analysis did not assume any development on lot 11. Therefore, it should be conditioned that the traffic analysis be updated prior to any development or additional subdivision of lot 11.. Intersection Kennedy/Rt. 116 Williston/Rt. 116 Williston/Dorset Kennedy/Dorset 1997 build 1992 1997 without Base No build improvements F F F F E F F F 1997 build with improvements C C F F F F As can be seen, the critical intersections are currently operat- ing at an unacceptable LOS and are expected to continue operating at unacceptable LOS in 1997 under both build and no -build condi- tions. Substantial improvements (additional approach lanes) are needed at the Route 116/Kennedy Drive and Route 116/Williston Road intersections in order to improve the LOS to C. Not too much more can be done to the Dorset Street intersections. Other improvements which have been identified as beneficial, but not incorporated into this analysis, include adding a northbound on - ramp at Exit 13 and connecting Corporate Waythroughto Route l_ �! 116. C (t✓1'"` Or�'��1 {t :� �,�� �'J �I(0-A The State District Engineer was contacted for information on the State's plans for improvements to the Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Road and Williston Road/Hinesburg Road intersections. At the Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Road intersection, the State plans on restriping the Hinesburg Road approaches so that there will be a left turn only lane and shared through/right turn lane. A new controller will also be installed and an advance left turn will be programmed in. These improvements are to be done this fall He also indicated that the Williston Road/Hinesburg Road inter- section is not within the State's jurisdiction and would there- fore not be making any improvements to it. However, other State 4 f Memorandum - Planning October 8, 1991 agenda items October 4, 1991 Page 5 officials have indicated that this intersection could be incorpo- rated into the Williston Road improvement project. This project is in the conceptual design phase and no construction start date has been specified. City staff has met with the applicant to discuss appropriate mitigation. The applicant and staff has agreed to a mitigation package and offers this for the Commission's consideration: o applicant install, prior to occupancy of first building, the necessary lane and taper improvements at the Route 116/Swift Street Extension intersection (shown on Sheet SP10). VAOT shall approve design prior to issuance of zoning/building permit. o Prior to site plan approval for each lot, the signal warrant analysis shall be updated. When the signal is shown to be warranted at Route 116/Swift Street Extension, applicant shall install signal at specifications approved by City. o Each building shall be required to contribute to the Hines- burg Road/Kennedy Drive impact fee based on P.M. peak hour trip ends to be generated by each use. Assuming an average building size of 72,000 square feet, each lot will be required to contribute approximately $13,000 to the fund. p Additionally, since a significant amount of project traffic will be going through the Williston Road/Route 116 inter- section (43%), each new building should be required to contribute to the Williston Road Area 1 impact fee based on 43% of the P.M. peak hour trip ends. Under the current formula, each lot will be required to contribute approxi- mately $4,000. Therefore, each lot will be contributing approximately $17,000 to the City for impact fees. The City will in turn add these improvement projects to the City's long term Capital Construction plan. This plan will be finalized next spring when the Council approves the Public Works long term construction plan and as the City formal- izes its Impact fee programs. View Protection (Building Height: The plan includes the recom- mended formula for establishing maximum building and landscaping heights. The plan identifies an area on lot 1 where there would be no height restriction. This area is located behind the smaller developed properties along Route 116 and therefore would not significantly obstruct the views of the Green Mountains and foothills. 5 Memorandum October 8, October 4, Page 6 - Planning 1991 agenda items 1991 The applicant should review the proposed street tree species and assure that the street trees will fit within the height limita- tions set by the formula. If a problem will arise, a smaller species (mature height) should be specified. Sewer: Staff estimates that this subdivision will require 15,000 gpd of sewer allocation. This is based on an average of 100 employees per lot with each employee requiring 15 gpd. (This does not include lot 11) The Planning Commission should consider phasing the use of this allocation. This would prevent the applicant from holding on to the unused allocation for an indefi- nite period of time. This situation is presently happening with the Bartlett Bay allocations where developers are sitting on allocations provided them while other developers are ready to build and there is no allocation available. Berm/DrainaQewav: The applicant has submitted plans for a "natural" type stream with berms and plantings along the southerly boundary adjacent to the Ledge Knoll residential project. Details of the stream, berms and plantings have not been submitted. These details should be reviewed by the natural Resources Committee and be submitted prior to final plat. In addition, a condition should be attached which requires the stream to be located and berms and landscaping installed when the road construction is done. Sidewalk: As has been discussed at previous meetings, the appli- cant would be required to contribute $26,738 to the Hinesburg Road Sidewalk Fund. If the applicant chooses to install the sidewalk, he would be required to install 1,783 linear feet. Sonny Auddette has recommended the fee be paid. -If the sidewalk is installed, he recommends starting on the south/west side of Hinesburg Road near Foxcroft and going south, including over the Interstate bridge. This might require adding on to the bridge. 0 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 December 3, 1991 Mr. Peter Jacob Janes & Jacob 205 Dorset Street. South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Green Acres Industrial Subdivision Dear Peter: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 This letter addresses the i,::: s which need to be resolved prior to submission of a final plat application for the above referenced project. Enclosed is the Findings of Fact and Deci- sion for the preliminary plat approval granted 10/8/91. 1. Traffic• a) Staff shall obtain an indication from Council on timing and funding of necessary intersection improvements at Route 116/Kennedy Drive and Route 116/Williston Road. City Manager, Charles Hafter, has informed me that these issues will be discussed when the Public Works Depart.- ment's capital budget and plan is submitted for review. Chuck anticipates 2 months. b) Staff and applicant shall consider a phasing plan tied to specific intersection improvements and present recommen- dations to Planning Commission at final plat. 2. Relocated Stream: Detailed engineering drawings for the relocated stream, berms and landscaping shall be submitted prior to final plat. 3. Sewer allocation:_ A phasing schedule for sewer allocation mustbe developed and approved. r Mr. Peter Jacob Green Acres Industrial Subdivision December 3, 1991 Page 2 k 4. Recreation Path: a) Issue of applicant funding portion of recreation path construction must be resolved. b) The applicant shall pursue prior to final plat the option of constructing a bridge for a future recreation/pedes- trian path over the wetland on lots 5 and 7. The appli- cant and City Planner shall meet with the Natural Re- sources Committee prior to final plat to explain the concept and obtain comments and a recommendation from the Natural Resources Committee. I suggest that the appli- cant also talk with officials of the State and Army Corps of Engineers to see if the construction of a recreation path bridge through a wetland will be approved. 5. Views: The approved preliminary plat includes a formula to protect the view from Hinesburg Road. If the applicant is un- willing to accept this condition, an alternative proposal should be made. 6. Other: The plans shall be revised prior to Final Plat submission to address the following: a) The note identifying the height restrictions on lot #4 on page SP3 shall indicate that the restriction applies to all structures and landscaping. b) The legend on page SP3 should include a symbol for street lights. c) Plan should show recreation path easement on both the south and north side of the relocated stream with connec- tion to 60 foot r.o.w. off Knoll Circle and to Hinesburg Road. Mr. Peter Jacob Green Acres Industrial Subdivision December 3, 1991 Page 3 d) Sheets P1 through P5 shall be revised prior to Final Plat to indicate a species or variety of species of streettrees which at mature height will meet the height limitations referenced in (5) above. Please contact me if you have any questions. i cerely, 1 jitey Planner JW/mcp cc: Ralph Goodrich �T TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. January 13, 1993 Mr. Joe Weith, City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Green Acres Traffic Study Dear Joe: Ralph Goodrich will be resubmitting a plan for Green Acres. As you recall, the traffic study for this project was completed June 14, 1991. You had additional comments on July 31, 1991, and I addressed those comments on Sept. 10, 1991. The Agency of Transportation completed their review on August 12, 1991. The redesign of the subdivision will not affect traffic projections or the total number of parking spaces, therefore the completed study is a fair representation of traffic conditions and improvements needed for the project. The needed improvements are as follows: 1. Minor geometric improvements and re -striping at Swift Street and Route 116 prior to any development, signalization when warranted. 2. Future phases will require improvements at Kennedy Drive and at Williston Road due to the normal growth in traffic. On September 9, 1991 we discussed these matters. At that meeting you mentioned figures of $ 85,000 for improvements at Kennedy Drive and $445,000 for improvements at Williston Road. I believe these figures are from a study done for City. It would seem appropriate to enter into direct negotiations with Ralph on money matters. It is our hope that we can build from the traffic study already done. The A.O.T. has suggested that we will not have to design the improvements at Swift and Route 116 until a firm proposal is known. Improvements will be designed for the actual project at what time. P. O. Box 308 14 Blair Park Road Williston, Vermont 05495 (802) 879-6331 Page 2 If this is not your understanding please let me know immediately. If you have questions please call. Yours very truly, TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Tyler Hart, P.E. cc: Don Allen Craig Leiner City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 April 15, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Green Acres, 12 Lot Subdivision, Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Goodrich: a ho ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 This letter is in regards to the above referenced project which was continued for an indefinite period of time by the Planning Commission on April 10, 1990. Your application was continued pending receipt of additional information. Since there has been no activity on this application since April 10, 1990, the Planning Commission will be placing this item on their June 5, 1991 agenda. We therefore request that you either formerly withdraw your request in letter format or submit the information requested by the Planning Commission. The letter of withdrawal or requested information must be submitted to this office by May 17, 1991. If you do not respond to this letter, the Planning Commission will make a determination on your application with the informa- tion it has available. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. cerely, oe Weith, City Planner JW/mcp Y TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. July 10, 1990 Mr. Joe Withe City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Green.Acres Development Dear Mr. Withe: On behalf of our client Mr. Ralph Goodrich, we are submitting the following for your review: 1. Traffic Impact Report 2. Preliminary Intersection Plan If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINE S. INC. � l� /o'hn P. Pitrowiski JPP/j lv Encl. cc: Ralph Goodrich P O. Box 308 14 Blair Park Road Williston, Vermont 05495 (802) 879-6331 NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTING SERVICES 67 West Shore Road Grand Isle, Vermont 05458 802-878-4800 Mr. Ralph Goodrich Ralph B. Goodrich Construction Co., Inc. P.O. Box 2123 South Burlington, VT 05401-2123 RE: Green Acres Development September 2-5, 1991 Dear Ralph: This letter reports on a series of investigat.ions that. Natural Resource Consulting Cervices (NRCS) performed at the above referenced site in South Burlington, Vermont. At various times in May and June 1990, and again variously the :fall of 1990 and July and September 1991, various NRCS ecologists and moil scientists visited the proposed Green Acres development east of Vermont. Route 116 in South Burlington, Vermont. We performed a number- of wetland investigations on the site. Wetlands atthis site were delineated to Carps of Engineers (COE) and Vermont st.andards as defined in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands January 1989. Section 404 of the Clears Water Act defines wetlands as "Those areas that. are inundated or, saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal cir'cumstar,ces does support., a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Three parameter's ar-e diagnostic for wetlands: the presence of hydric (wet.land) soils, a preponderance of hydr'ophytic vegetation (plants adapted for- c1r•owth in saturated conditions), a.(sd wetland hydrology. To be considered a wetland all three ar'iterii:j must be met on undisturbed sites. This site has been disturbed by farming for generations:. Recently the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regional office advised us that we may utilize the 1967 COE Manual in determining Wetland boundaries if we wish. In this case, because of COE determinations of Prior Conver-sion of f a-r med areas in the fall of 1990, we have opted to stay with the 1989 Federal Manual. The standard reference for determination of whether or not a plant species. is in fact a wetland species or not is: Reed, Porter B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northeast (Region 1). Biological Report 88 (2G. 1), USDI Fish c;ind Wildlife Service, Research and Development, Washington, DC. This report classifies all plants: into five Mr. indicator categories based upon their fcrquency of occurrence in NEW HAMPSHIRE ADDRESS: 31-A Fayette Street, Concord, NH 03301 603-228-4600 Mr. Ralph Goodrich September 25, 1991 Page 2 various habitat types. As shown on the accompanying map, I believe- the entire cropped portion of the site, other than the main drainage ditches, is upland as defined by the COE, especially regarding their - previously converted croplands determination, as detailed in Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 90-7, dated September 26, 1990. Under normal circumstances such as those under which the faun has been operated for generations and as now defined by the Corps of Engineers most of your land is prior converted cropland. "'Pr'ior converted cropland' -is defined by the SCS (Section 512.15 of the National Food Security Act Manual, August 1968) as wetlands which were both manipulated (drained or otherwise physically altered to remove excess water from the land) and cropped before 23 December• 1985, to the extent that they no longer - exhibit important wetland__m-alues•. Specifically, prior converted crcp-1and is inundated for no longer than 14 consecutive days during the growing season. Prior converted cropland generally does not include pothole or playa wetlands. In addition, wetlands that are seasonally flooded or ponded for 154 or more consecutive days during the growing season are not considered prior converted cropland." US Army Corps of Engineer, RGL No. 90-7, 26 September 1990. In order' to get a formal determination from the COE regarding their prior converted cropland status -,we filed a form 1026 with the U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) on August 6, 1991. Filing this document enabled the ASCS to request the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS) to make the formal determination. You qualify for this determination because many tunes during the period 1981- 1985, as well as previously and subsequently, you raised corn and other' row (commodity) crops, including soybeans, on the property. This is a technical determination and is simplified somewhat by this capacity of the land to grow these crops. The COE does not formally make the determination of prior converted cropland, they rely on their sister federal agencies- to make the determination. We have worked at some length and have used the offices of both the SCS and ASCS. On September 3, 1991, we received notification, from the District Conservationist of the Soil Conservation Service (the letter fr'orn Thomas Gould iE attached) that the subject 102.8 acres of field "are considered prior converted. " As a consequence, the attached rnap contains our approximations of the locations of the only remaining wetlands on the site, which NATURAI. RESOURCE CONSULTING SERVICES Mr. Ralph Goodrich September 25, 11391 Page 3 are either ditches or the dug pond. The SCS apparently made their, determination rased on aerial photographs and the corn and soybean planting record at the farm. They did notre-visit the site. Had they seen the extent of the drainage efforts at the farm, including ditches and subsurface drains, they probably would have concluded, as we have, that: 1) none of the sides of the farm are wetland, and that 2) all of the farmed land, other than the main drainage running north -south through the farm is prior converted. Our next step should be to notify the COE that we are seeking a Nationwide 26 permit to cross the only wetland within their jurisdiction an the fa-r-m- -the aforementioned main drainage. I will need an up-to-date roadway crossing plan which I will photo reduce to fill the C:GE's requirement. By cupy of this letter I am seeking this from Trudell Engineers. Because of the prior converted status of the adjacent area, I do not believe the COE will require data sheets for the road way crossings. If you have any question• regarding our findings or the next step, contact me. Thanking you in advance fo•r your continued cooperation an this important project, I -remain, Very truly yours, (?,V-L Iv, Peter W. Spear, CWB, CEP, CHEF' Principal PWS/pjw Attachment: cc: Richard Ti udell, P. E. NATURAI RESOURCE; CONSULTING SERVICES Winooski `` onservation district RR 4 Box 2292 Comstock Road Berlin, VT 05602--8927 (802) 828,4493 Mr. Peter W. Spear Natural Resource Consulting Services 67 West Shore Road Grand Isle, Vermont 0545e Dear Mr Spear, 12 Market Place Unit 9 Essex Junction, VT 0:452 (802) 951 -6423 September 3, 1991 As per your request to receive a personal letter- from the Soil (_:onservation Service regarding the wetland statute of Green Acres, Inc., I have enclosed a copy of the "OSCS Field History" sheet and aerial photograph of Green Acres. The "field sheet" as found in ASCS's records show only the L,iord "corn" under the year "81." I placed checks under oL'-it, years denoting when corn was planted and where - according to ASCS records. If ASC:S records are accurate, the 102.8 acres found in fields 1 through 8, as depicted on the enclosed inforniatluir, are considered prior converted. I hope this letter and enclosures answer your concern Sincerely, 1 0 k-v� N9-(-- Tom Gould District Conservationist Soil Conservation Service T"r -% oTfta•- �„ t�'' �6r �• we�►ems VC fin � P NATURAL RESot-IRcE CoNSUtLT 1NG- SERv 1cES Short r2J- ,�,NJ SsIc,VTOSyL$ OEM f . a0 swo"P.T PFO��y w4 '" ^-�P ro Scat „yvoC RM EXISTING SERER 1 I J_ � I CONSERVATION & I OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE DISTRICT j BURLINGTONPARPROPERTIES e I100 H/NESBURG LIMITED TNERSHIP ROAD PARTNERSHIP 1 PAINTER WILES 60 R.O.W. 80, Rj°fWE © II 10., AC. t 145.8 AC. ty INDUSTRIAL( O 110.8I AC. t I / / AGRICULTURAL I / I 1 �I I12.13 AC. t ❑5 \ \ DIsrRICr �10.49 AC. t j I AGRICULTURAL '/� `ti EXT. I & RURAL RES. - SWIFT STREET DISTRICT i / iL'DE q\ / 1 i 12.41 AC. tj 'l, .P J� C O � \"J 1 �10'S� r O �t 10.10 AC. t Y I a � L 100• CONSERVATION '-" 1 .79 AC. ZONE �1 rwrwNr LEGEND — — — — PROPERTY / LOT LINE ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY ------------------ WEnAN05 INwII r ❑/ , PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREA �-------------------J ��G� � CONSERVATION LONE GBpmc SCBM Feef 300 O 300 600 900 .00 U tt1RAL DISTRI I 0 ter- INDUS N RURAL RU6 TRRAL & urrrs OF -� �� I' I AGRICUL AL DISTRICT 1 RtXDTEAR I RESIDENTI A,RPMT APP�Iy9ME �- HOWEu 1 nv,i_0! �— �— +` INDUSTRIAL n SHEAHANDueors AGRICULTURAL11( DISTRIC—\ AGRICULTURAL & RURAL RES.' DISTRICT ACRES OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREAS O 6.1 ACRES - ❑2 10.1 ACRES I] 23.2 ACRES WESSEL r (] 16.7 ACRES --'--�— 1 I I] 26.4 ACRES TERRERf © 15.1 ACRES I] 18.0 ACRES Af3RAY5 ' I I] 12.9 ACRES I 1-I lel MESSEL 7.5 ACRES {/ 140.7 ACRES w MfNELI ( WILLISTON ) TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 14 Blalr Park Road Boa 308 Williston. VL D5495 879d771 im LOCHS MAP r WILLISTON 22.8 ACRES* Rem— > J Oy i 9CA<v ( WILLISTON ) J� i \ . I IVEb ECEd WILLISTON / SOUTH BURLlNG lON TOWN LINE OCT 0 3 1991 I CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE DISTRICT loo EACH City SIDE cxNrtRI1N[ rx eRUON of So. Burfingt n are`' GA GREEN ACRES L INDUSTRIAL PARK Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, Vt. OWNER GREEN ACRES INC. P.O. BOX 2123 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT. Sheet bile 05403 Master TOTAL AREA 286.1 ACRES t Site Plan AREA IN WILLISTON 22.8 ACRES * AREA IN SOUTH BURLINGTON 263.3 ACRES * Project number BBO9t-71 AREA IN AGRICULTURAL & RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 21 ACRES t Propct manages KAI Drawn "AM AREA IN INDUSRIAL / AGRICUIJURAL DISTRICT 242.3 ACRES * Dole 9/24/Vt Scale U Approved NUMBER OF LOTS ALLOWED 12 NOTE.- 242.3 ACRES IN INDUST / AGRIC. DISTRICT DIVIDED BY 20 ACRE AVERAGE LOT SIZE - 12 LOTS SP2 R = 839.78' S0.00' L 216.01' S6652'28"E MATCH IN iO EXISTING 3,' WOE EXISTING DRIVE EASEMENT EASEMENT IOCA TION AND 10' SNOW p. 1434'J4" STORAGE EASEMENTS R 789.78' (BOTH SIDES) AND L = 20092' 10' ELEC. EASEMENT FOR SIGN LIGHTING DE OIST. ' L 66.41' . ro' uccrmur \SLMTNT ro 9CN R 6/ R 412.19'2.19' L 50.08, DETAIL 1100 NINESBURC S ! ROAD PARTNERSHIP 11. 274. P. 362 NB Llr E i 587.08 NO HEIGHT RESTRICTION I L6 LB J LINE DATA LI N05-43.20-W 235.00' L2 N83V2'36E 19.62- L3 N0610'57"W 100.000 IA S83V2'36'W 19.62' L5 S8338'16"E 20.00' L6 N82'YO'59"E 194.17# L7 N0774134"W 12, 00' LB N83V4'40'E 247.00' L9 S67V9'55'W 9L65' LIO S83T9'08'W 241.95 LII S83'27'22"W 281.31' L12 S05'16'13"E 131.20 L13 N17'55'31'E 91.65' L14 S4777'17E It 7.66' L15 0,18433191 237.43' LIS S84'33'19"W 159.52' L17 S83'19.09"W 288.09- L18 N831D2'36"E 60.03' 09 S8453'19"W 60.00' L20 N60T6'07"E 67.65' L21 S70'2929E 67.65' L22 N83V2'36'E 105.21' L23 S07V4425"E 80.05' L24 S8453019"W 2.74' L25 S05'S8'37E 8001' PROPOSED RELOCATION OF 50' EASEMENT TO LANE PRESS REFER TO VOL. 219, P. 162 80' WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE CONVEYED To THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 60' WOE SEWER I- RO.W. TO BE CONVEYED TO CITY OF S. BURLINGTON I AREA : 0.98 ACRES I L22 - NA3,02'3fiT-j, O 10.49 Ac. 0� L4 L2 \LIB R.O. .O O } R.O.W. B �� t0.81 Ac. a7!• 25'x25.35.35' x ,� SIGHT -VIEW ]� -AT CORNERSEMENTS S LIB �\ CURVE DATA No DeltaB9G lli_ CI 44'39"09" 75.00 58.45 56.98 S4450'36"W C2 114'3954" 75.00 ISOM 126.28 S3448'53E C3 69'55'57' 75.00 91.54 85.97 N5253'11 E C4 35Y5'12• 540.00 336.97 331.53 S65'19'53'E C5 1154'11' 540.00 112,18 III.98 S89109'35E C6 4739*23" 460.00 J82.61 371.68 N7116'59"W C7 49.25'11' 41Z 19 355.53 344.61 N72V951'W C8 22914'24' 75.00 300.08 136.36 S5V6'41'E C9 49'25'11' 332.19 286.5.3 277.73 S72V9'51•E 60'x100' EXISTING PUMP STATION PARCEL VOL. 176 P. 510 -L5 -- 20' WIDE SEVER EASEMENT TO EXISTING PUMP STATION VOL. 176 P. 510 II_1 20' EA BURIINGTON PROPERTIF L1wTFD PARTNERSHIP y II PLAT 7W1. 200. A 71 III PEDESTRIAN SE S T � "4'r4� PWORCT LOCATION -.....-. WENT--.-.-- 1 1 � ` THE PARCEL ON THIS PLAT DEPICTED BY LOTS I THROUGH 10 WAS CONVEYED TO GREEN ACRES. INC. BY THE DEED 1N VOL. 91 PAGE 26 R OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS AND CONTAINS A TOTAL AREA OF 116.73 ACRES. THIS PARCEL IS BASED ON A TOTAL STATION CONTROL TRAVERSE, - EXISTING 15, WOE EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE FIELD. AND INFORMATION ABSTRACTED FROM PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT ,m THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS. THE PARCEL SHOWN AS "OTHER LANDS OF GREEN ACRES, INC.' IS TAKEN FROM CONTROLLED 50' VIDE 1 DRAINAGE EASEMENT 11 VOL. 176 P. 510 QUARRY AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY OF THE PROPERTY PREPARED IN 1985. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON 111E VFRMONT COORDINATE SYSTEM FROM N8}VZ�Jb.•E. -- SIGHTINGS MADE ON OCT. 25, 1985 FROM STATION 'HR 89 RESET 1981'. ITa3 og'3e'E - 5g7.p1.. _ pETA1L ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE TO IDENTIFY DELINEATE,ETC. EASEMOBSERVED -r RIGHTS -OF -WAY. LEASE LANDS, ENCROACHMENTS, ETC. OBSERVED IN TI$ RI E FIELD OR READILY FOUND IN THE LAND RECORDS. ADDITIONAL LOT '� ENCUMBRANCES MAY EXIST WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. I 'IQ \ 10 �1A THE AIRPORT APPROACH ZONE AS SHOWN IS BASED UPON DIMENSIONS 8 0 10.10 Ac.%0 FRONDED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AVIATION OF BURLINGTON 59216' 1 INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AS SCALED ONTO AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY OF THE t 111133 c.VICINITY IN 1981, n I Z \ SURVEY MARKERS SET BY THIS OFFICE ARE EITHER A ONE INCH DIAMETER I L23- IRON PIPE, THREE FEET LONG WITH A YELLOW PLASTIC PLUG WHICH READS, "TRUDELL CONSLT ENG', OR A FOUR INCH SQUARE CONCRETE MONUMENT, THREE FEET LONG WITH BEVELED TOP EDGES. 70141'• 5845319 W `,LO} 7 S84'5, W THE RIGHTS -OF -WAYS FOR SWIFT STREET EXTENSION AND FOR VOSBURGH EXTENSION 84539•E ---TEMPORARY \ CIRCLE ARE TO BE CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON. THE AREA OF SWIFT STREET EXTENSION AND VOSBURGH CIRCLE ON THE 60' Ct 1 N8453'I�E N 6I1.91' L?l EASEMENT TO CITY OF SUBDIVIDED GREEN ARES PARCEL IS 6.21 ACRES. VOL. 91, P,49 N8}•49'0 .E �O j DOS R.O.W. 2 !� p'Vy1 MAX. BUILDING BUILDING C5 LIS 6893 o SW TH BURLINGTON FOR CUL-DE-SAC THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTION ON ALL LOTS EXCEPT \ 216.00 12.41 Ac. 't HEIGHT C'` TO EL. J78.0 50' N10E- - . DRAINAGE p pON• I ; //p-� rn �' a 0.46 AC. WHERE NOTED IS DETERMINED BY THE FOLLOWING FORMULA; ADD THE PRODUCT OF 0.0058 TIMES THE DISTANCE FROM THE EASTERLY EDGE = �,x L9 + 70' WIDE �. m�' I EASEMENT O1V�yX 1 i 7 0 O n 0 10.IfT c. u u OF PAVEMENT ON ROUTE 116 TO THE REFERENCE ELEVATION OF 393.5 . 1 j $ �.a 'r;Sv EASEMENT_ o'y, O u 10.10 Ac. '0 8 20' PEI RNAN - 50' DE OR 1 LEGEND i y3g.y9 W BUILDING SETBACKS O 10.10 Ac. ni 2: EASEMENT -� ` EASEMENT 4 ROD �� 5j0V .3 $ ,W ®�a .', 200' CONSERVATION r... ..-.. 20' PEDESTRIAN \ RIGHT-OF-WAY 12.51 Ac. I: $ y ZONE AND DRAINAGE 1 H EASEMENT ... • IRON PIPE (FOUND) OTHER LANDS OF (66.0') < x w; ,^ I0.79 Ac. EASEMENT 100' WIDE Tv y� _ 1.- - 43'18•W 714.61' GREEN ACRES INC. PE TO SET 0 IRON PI BE i•1 !• _. CONSERVATION ZONE v�i 1 S83'I.QVp-k'.-_ -�"" .-"- 327.89 582' L17 V0.. 96, P. I29 - jy2.75• @T3.63�. _.. - \ 50' VIDE .._ Nx.. 713, P. 16e ■ CONCRETE MONUMENT (FOUND) �39809 I 6" CEDAR TREE DRAINAGE 3 O CONCRETE MONUMENT (TO BE SET) ~ Lit LID - $ EASEMENT � i lI 0 - DAVIS--- s eNEAMAN PENNINGTON -.. _. TOO' CONSERVATION ZONE �' L2 LINE DATA CHART REFERENCE __-- i ■ - VOL. 93 ( M I P. J16 _ Of MRPOR APPRDGH CONE C5 CURVE DATA CHART REFERENCE y f•1 7D•}Q•W BRAINARD S82 ! Nx. 211 L EDGE 4 .TT' TOM TANI PLOOF UONELL P. laa - v - • - " -EXISTING FENCE TINE ICI.. 94. P. 94 ICL. i 12. WP 26 DUARDIS Protect nee 01 I% 27a P. 528 VaL I?a P. 126 FIAT e0L. 197. P. 42 PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT GREEN ACRES INDUSTRIAL PARK _ 20' LEDGE KNOLL DEVELOPEMENT OF I LOCATION VARIES ALONG NATURAL STREAM ON SOU Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, Vt. BAR aMAU cAi BOUNDARY WFTIRN CONSERVATION ZONE OWNER. GREEN625ACRES IN'C. 625 HINESBURG ROAD Graphic Scat! P.O.BOX 2123 SOUTH BURLINGTON. VT, 05403 uExLCu6 rtt xo e0t 1♦ € sneee ena Plat of Survey Dar. 9/21/91 Scala 1'"'DTI Feet � rc e�yy',9� fhle 6aok 105 DNk- 41-Ot 300 0 300 600 900 1200 Sl� Q"��J � TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. _ ����Ds4rR�1on Revt4lgM 1 1 Dab ay �IW61NM,�,e� N Blak Parts 0.oed 9oa 3Da W14r9rk V4rmaW Osa95 9196331 1 TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 14 Blab Park Koad kEQEfVED 03 1991 City of �o. Burlington FTDeaription -- - Dale By R.AIi-9 Project liUe GREEN ACRES INDUSTRIAL PARK Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, Vt. ' Sheet title Subdivision Plat Project number- - 86091-4o Project manager KAP Drawn M'w Dale 9/24�1 _ Scale 1 �• Approved SPI LANGROCK SPERRY & MIDDLEBURY. PETER F. LANGROCK ELLEN MERCER FALLON WILLIAM B. MILLER, JR. JAMES W. SWIFT EMILY J. JOSELSON JOHN F. EVERS SUSAN M. MURRAY JOHN L. KELLNER MITCHELL L. PEARL KEVIN E. BROWN October 8, 1991 HAND -DELIVERED ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MIDDLEBURY: BURLINGTON; 15 S. PLEASANT STREET P.O. DRAWER 351 MIDDLEBURY, VERMONT 05753-0351 802-388-6356 FAX 802-388-6149 South Burlington Planning Commission c/o Mr. Joseph Weith, City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Green Acres Subdivision Dear Joe: 275 COLLEGE STREET P.O. Box 721 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0721 802-864-0217 FAX 802-8"-0137 BURLINGTON: MICHAEL W. WOOL MARK L. SPERRY LIAM L. MURPHY THOMAS Z. CARLSON ALISON J. BELL REPLY TO: BURLINGTON OFFICE At the last hearing on this application, the applicant presented a conceptual plan for a natural area just northerly of my clients' properties in the Ledge Knoll development and along the Green Acres southerly line. This plan included a meandering stream, berms, and associated landscaping and plantings. My clients make three requests in connection with this plan: 1. That the Planning Commission defer decision on whether to grant preliminary approval for this subdivision until a detail plan of the natural area is submitted by the applicant and a further hearing is held on the natural area itself. At present there is no detail on the location of the stream, finished contours proceeding northerly from the ledge Knoll line towards the stream (at present some of the grades are steep and precipitous because of the recent work done by Mr. Goodrich), the height and contour of the berms, nor is there any detailing whatever on the types, sizes, and placement of the trees and other plantings. The applicant should be required to have a qualified landscape architect prepare an appropriate plan. In addition, my clients continue to object to the so-called "nature trail" which is currently shown, because it will lead to Mr. Joseph Weith, City Planner October 8, 1991 Page Two uncontrolled activity near their property by motorcycles, all - terrain vehicles, and the like. 2. That a condition be imposed requiring the entire natural area, as finally approved by the Planning Commission, to be installed and constructed during the construction of the first roadway to be built by the developer. 3. That the Planning Commission obtain firm estimates of the cost of construction of the natural area, including the trees and other plantings, and that such amount be bonded before construction commences on any part of the subdivision improvements. On a minor and unrelated issue, the mailing of the notice of tonight's hearing was somewhat sporadic, coming to a few of my clients, but not to all of them, and no notice came to me. Could you kindly make sure we all get on the mailing list. Finally, on the traffic issue, I am enclosing seven copies of In re Pilgrim Partnership, a Vermont Supreme Court case, for your and the Planning Commissions' review. Sincerely yours, Mark L. perry Attorney for: Christopher Davis David and Cathy Howell Nancy Sheahan Scott and Robert Pennington Larry and Gianette Brainard MLS:dmg Enclosures did not meet criterion 8.C. The Board also found that plaintiffs failed to satisfy § 6086(a)(9)(K), which provides for the granting of permits to develop land adjacent to public lands when it is demonstrated that the development will not interfere with the public's use or enjoyment of or access to the public lands. The Board concluded that the White River qualifies as public lands and that the public's enjoyment of the river would be significantly diminished if the RV campground were allowed. In support of this conclusion, there was evidence that the segment of the river adjoining the project site is extensively used for various recreational pursuits, including fishing, canoeing, and swimming. Indeed, two public swimming areas are located near the project site. We find that there was sufficient evidence for the Board No. 88-545 In re Pilgrim Partnership June Term.1989 On Appeal from Environmental Board Leonard U. Wilson, Chairman Opinion Filed February 9, 1990 • Act 250 — Traffic Criterion 5 (traffic) does not require that the proposed project be the principal cause or original source of traffic problems, a project may be rejected simply because prior conditions are hazardous. • Act 250 — Co -applicants Environmental Board may require that owner of land over which a right of way passes be a co -applicant since it is likely that improve- ments to the right of way will have to be made in connection with the pending application. • Act 250 — Traffic %While an application may na be denied solely for the reasons set forth in mtcrion 5 (traffic), -reasonable conditions and requirements- may be attached to the permit to alle6iate the burdens created by the proposed project. Sidel S Associates, Waltsfleld, for appellant C. James Mathis, Lase Offices of Kurrle and Halpert, Montpelier, for appellee PRESENT: Allen, C1., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ. MORSE, J. Pilgrim Partnership appeals an order of the Environmental Board remanding Pilgrim's Act 250 land use permit application to the District Commission. On remand the Board required Pilgrim to submit a revised plan with appellee, A.G. Anderson, Inc., as a co -applicant The Board forbade Pilgrim from using a roadway to its warehouse until the Commission approved a revised plan pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(5) (criterion 5). We af- firm the remand but clarify that Pilgrim may show alter- native means of compliance with criterion 5. In 1986, Pilgrim acquired a lot and warehouse in Water- bury, Vermont A right of way crossing Anderson's property provides access to the Pilgrim property. Ander- son operates a number of businesses adjacent to and lo- cated on both sides of Pilgrim's property. Pilgrim needs a to reasonably conclude that plainti ffs had not met their bur- den regarding criterion 9(K). In light of the foregoing discussion, we need not review the Board's determination that the project did not conform with the regional plan, as required by criterion 10. Afrrrred. ,Votes to Test: * 10 V.S.A. § 6086 provides: "Before granting a per- mit, the board or district commission shall find that the subdivision or development: (8) Will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, aesthetics, historic sites or rare and irreplaceable natural areas." land use permit in order to store dry goods in its warehouse. In August, 1987, Pilgrim applied to the District En- vironmental Commission V for its permit, which was is- sued on December 1, 1987. Anderson appealed. The Board limited the appeal to consideration of so-called criterion 5, 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(5) — traffic safety — and whether Anderson was a necessary co -applicant under Board Rule 10(A). The evidence established that, even without added traf- fic over the Anderson right of way, the area was un- reasonably congested and unsafe. Anderson's businesses generate a total of about 550 vehicular trips (275 round trips) per day involving all kinds of vehicles from cars to tractor -trailers. The right of way is relatively narrow in places and includes a 57 degree curve. Depending on the size of the vehicles, there are times when they cannot pass one another within the right of way, especially at the curve. Against this crush of traffic, Pilgrim would add 30 vehicular trips a day or about 5% of the total. The Board concluded that adding more traffic to Anderson's right of way would violate criterion 5 because unsafe conditions already existed. As a result, the Board ruled that Anderson was a necessary co -applicant for the permit under Environmental Board Rule 10(A) because compliance with criterion 5 "must involve lands beyond [it) that are owned ... by Anderson." I. Pilgrim maintains that a mere 30 additional vehicular trips per day did not create the traffic congestion, and thus criterion 5 was not violated. We do not read criterion 5 so narrowly. Criterion 5 states: Before granting a permit, the board ... shall find that the ... development: (5) will na cause unreasonable congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to use of the highways ... existing or proposed. 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(5) (emphasis added). Criterion 5 does not require that proposed development be the principal cause or original source of traffic 66 1 VERMONT LAW NVEEK • Supreme Court Opinions February 9, 1990 0 problems. Several causes may contribute to a particular effect or result. The Board found that the development would contribute to the existing traffic problem. It would be absurd to perm it a hazardous condition to become more hazardous. One purpose of Act 250 is to insure that "lands and en- vironment are devoted to uses which are not detrimental to the public welfare and interests." 1969, No. 250 (Adj. Sess.), § 1; see In re Juster Associates, 136 VL 577, 580, 396 A.2d 1382, 1384 (1978); In re Great Eastern Build- ing Co.,132 Vt. 610, 614, 326 A.2d 152,154 (1974). Safe travel on this right of way is in the public interest. Exacer- bating the existing traffic hazard by allowing additional travel on Anderson's road would be detrimental to the public interest. Thus, the Board reasonably concluded that the development did not meet criterion 5. Nevertheless, as explained below, the Board may not deny an Act 250 permit solely on this basis. 10 V.S.A. § 6087(b). II. Pilgrim challenges the Board's determination that Anderson must be a co -applicant under Environmental Board Rule 10(A). That rule requires that the "record owner" of the tract of involved land be a co -applicant un- less good cause is shown for a waiver of the requirement. It goes on to empower the Board to require persons having a "substantial property interest" in the involved land to be- come co -applicants on a finding that the property interest "is of such significance that the application cannot be ac- cepted without their participation." The Board acted within its discretion to order that Anderson participate as a co -applicant during further proceedings before the Com- mission under Rule 10(A). Pilgrim's proposal used Anderson's road as access to its project and even Pilgrim admits that remedial measures regarding the road must be Laken. If Anderson is not the "record owner" of the in- volved land, it has a property interest of such significance that the Board could require Anderson to join in the ap- plication. We cannot accept, based on this record, that Pilgrim has shown good cause to waive Anderson's participation in the application. Although Pilgrim labels Anderson as an op- ponent, the record does not demonstrate that Anderson will refuse to participate in Pilgrim's application. If good cause arises because of Anderson's obstructiveness, Pilgrim can seek relief at that time. III. Finally, Pilgrim alleges that the Board has required it to v,iden the access road, using land owned by Anderson, and that such a requirement cannot be imposed for viola- tion of criterion 5. In this argument, Pilgrim relies on 10 V.S.A. § 6087(b) that provides that a permit may not be denied solely for the reasons set forth in criterion 5 but that "reasonable conditions and requirements" may beattached to alleviate the burdens created. It argues that a require- ment it cannot meet, for example, widening the road, is per se unreasonable and the equivalent of a denial and cannot stand. Pilgrim's argument is incomplete because it does not consider the effect of § 6086(c), which allows the Board tocondidon a permit on "such requirements and conditions as are allowable under the proper exercise of the police power and are appropriate with respect" to any of the criteria, including criterion 5. We are not prepared to define the limits of the police power on this record, espe- cially because Pilgrim is speculating on the requirements the Commission will impose. Pilgrim is correct that the Board appears to require Anderson to be a co -applicant because it found that the ex- isting road is inadequate to accommodate the traffic and improvements would involve other land owned by Ander- son. This language is not necessary to the Board's order that Anderson be a co -applicant and is premature. See In re R.E. Tucker, Inc.. 149 VL 551, 555, 547 A.2d 1314, (1988). It may be, based on evidence before the Commission, that the parties will come up with a method of curing the traffic hazards that does not involve use of more of Anderson's land and it also may be that more land is available. We believe that Pilgrim still has the right to propose alternatives, despite the Board's dicta, and thus must await the specific requirements imposed before fur- ther review is appropriate. AjYnned. No. 87-422 In re Robinson/Keir Partnership, Jack C. Keir & Jack C. Keir, Inc. May Term, 1989 On Appeal from Washington Superior Court Alden T. Bryan, J. Opinion Fled February 9, 1990 • Arbitration & Award — Role of Court Vermont has a strong tradition of upholding arbitration awards when- ever possible, but awards are not "rubber stamped" since such a prac- tice would cause litigants to hesitate in entrusting their disputes to arbitration. Court will vacate award when evidence clearly demonstrates that arbitrator exceeded his authority. • Arbitration & Award — Powers of Arbitrator Arbitrator's authority finds its source in the contract which consists of the agreement toarbitrate as supplemented by submissions that fur- ther define the issues. Submissions to arbitrators are construed as broadly as possible, with doubts to be resolved in favor of coverage. To determine if the arbitrator exceeded authority, the court must com- pare the arbitrator's award with the submissions of the panics. Valsangiacomo, Detora, McQuesten, Rose & Grearson, P.C., Barre, for plaintiff•appcllce William Alexander Fead, South Burlington, for defendant•appel- lint PRESENT: Allen, CJ., Peck, Gibson and Dooley, JJ., and Barney, CJ. (Ret.), Specially Assigned GIBSON, J. Lenord Robinson appeals from an order of the Washington Superior Court granting his partner, Jack Keir, the right to purchase Robinson's interest in their partnership, as provided in an arbitrator's award. We af- firm. February 9, 1990 1 VERMONT LAW WEEK • Supreme Court Opinions 67 MIDDLEBURY PETER F. LANGROCK ELLEN MERCER FALLON WILLIAM B. MILLER, JR. JAMES W. SWIFT EMILY J. JOSELSON JOHN F. EVERS SUSAN M. MURRAY JOHN L. KELLNER MITCHELL L. PEARL KEVIN E. BROWN October 8, 1991 HAND -DELIVERED t.,,ANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MIDDLEBURY: BURLINGTON: 15 S. PLEASANT STREET P.O. DRAWER 351 MIDDLEBURY, VERMONT 05753-0351 802-388-6356 FAx 802-388-6149 South Burlington Planning Commission c/o Mr. Joseph Weith, City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Green Acres Subdivision Dear Joe: 275 COLLEGE STREET P.O. Box 721 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0721 802-864-0217 FAx 802-864-0137 BURLINGTON: MICHAEL W. WOOL MARK L. SPERRY LIAM L. MURPHY THOMAS Z. CARLSON ALISON J. BELL REPLY TO: BURLINGTON OFFICE At the last hearing on this application, the applicant presented a conceptual plan for a natural area. just northerly of my clients' properties in the Ledge Knoll development and along the Green Acres southerly line. This plan included a meandering stream, berms, and associated landscaping and plantings. My clients make three requests in connection with this plan: 1. That the Planning Commission defer decision on whether to grant preliminary approval for this subdivision until a detail plan of the natural area is submitted by the applicant and a further hearing is held on the natural area itself. At present there is no detail on the location of the stream, finished contours proceeding northerly from the ledge Knoll line towards the stream (at present some of the grades are steep and precipitous because of the recent work done by Mr. Goodrich), the height and contour of the berms, nor is there any detailing whatever on the types, sizes, and placement of the trees and other plantings. The applicant should be required to have a qualified landscape architect prepare an appropriate plan. In addition, my clients continue to object to the so-called "nature trail" which is currently shown, because it will lead to Mr. Joseph Weith, City Planner October 8, 1991 Page Two uncontrolled activity near their property by motorcycles, all - terrain vehicles, and the like. 2. That a condition be imposed requiring the entire natural area, as finally approved by the Planning Commission, to be installed and constructed during the construction of the first roadway to be built by the developer. 3. That the Planning Commission obtain firm estimates of the cost of construction of the natural area, including the trees and other plantings, and that such amount be bonded before construction commences on any part of the subdivision improvements. On a minor and unrelated issue, the mailing of the notice of tonight's hearing was somewhat sporadic, coming to a few of my clients, but not to all of them, and no notice came to me. Could you kindly make sure we all get on the mailing list. Finally, on the traffic issue, I am enclosing seven copies of In re Pilgrim Partnership, a Vermont Supreme Court case, for your and the Planning Commissions' review. Sincerely yours, Mark L. perry Attorney for: Christopher Davis David and Cathy Howell Nancy Sheahan Scott and Robert Pennington Larry and Gianette Brainard MLS:dmg Enclosures did not meet criterion 8.C. The Board also found that plaintiffs failed to satisfy § 6086(a)(9)(K), which provides for the granting of permits to develop land adjacent to public lands when it is demonstrated that the development will not interfere with the public's use or enjoyment of or access to the public lands. The Board concluded that the White River qualifies as public lands and that the public's enjoyment of the river would be significantly diminished if the RV campground were allowed. In support of this conclusion, there was evidence that the segment of the river adjoining the project site is extensively used for various recreational pursuits, including fishing, canoeing, and swimming. Indeed, two public swimming areas are located near the project site. We find that there was sufficient evidence for the Board No. 88-545 In re Pilgrim Partnership June Term,1989 On Appeal from Environmental Board Leonard U. Wilson, Chairman Opinion Filed February 9, 1990 • Act 250 — Traffic Criterion 5 (traffic) does not require that the proposed project be the principal cause or original source of traffic problems, a project may be rejected simply because prior conditions are hazardous. • Act 250 — Co -applicants Environmental Board may require that owner of land over which a right of way passes be a co -applicant since it is likely that improve- ments to the right of way µill have to be made in connection with the pending application. • Act 250 — Traffic Whi]c an application may not be denied solely for the reasons set forth in criterion 5 (traffic), "reasonable conditions and requiremenu" may be attached to the permit to alleviate the burdens created by the proposed project. Sidel & Associates, Waltsfeld, for appellant C. James.%12this, Lars Offices of Kurrle and Halpert, Montpelier, for appellee PRESENT: Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ. MORSE, J. Pilgrim Partnership appeals an order of the Environmental Board remanding Pilgrim's Act 250 land use permit application to the District Commission. On remand the Board required Pilgrim to submit a revised plan with appellee, A.G. Anderson, Inc., as a co -applicant. The Board forbade Pilgrim from using a roadway to its warehouse until the Commission approved a revised plan pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(5) (criterion 5). We af- firm the remand but clarify that Pilgrim may show alter- native means of compliance with criterion 5. In 1986, Pilgrim acquired a lot and warehouse in Water- bury, Vermont. A right of way crossing Anderson's property provides access to the Pilgrim property. Ander- son operates a number of businesses adjacent to and lo- cated on both sides of Pilgrim's property. Pilgrim needs a to reasonably conclude that plainti ffs had not met their bur- den regarding criterion 9(K). In light of the foregoing discussion, we need not review the Board's determination that the project did not conform with the regional plan, as required by criterion 10. Armed. Notes to Test: * 10 V.S.A. § 6086 provides: "Before granting a per- mit, the board or district commission shall find that the subdivision or development: (8) Will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, aesthetics, historic sites or rare and irreplaceable natural areas." land use permit in order to store dry goods in its warehouse. In August, 1987, Pilgrim applied to the District En- vironmental Commission V for its permit, which was is- sued on December 1, 1987. Anderson appealed. The Board limited the appeal to consideration of so-called criterion 5, 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(5) — traffic safety — and Whether Anderson was a necessary co -applicant under Board Rule 10(A). The evidence established that, even without added traf- fic over the Anderson right of way, the area was un- reasonably congested and unsafe. Anderson's businesses generate a total of about 550 vehicular trips (275 round trips) per day involving all kinds of vehicles from cars to tractor -trailers. The right of way is relatively narrow in places and includes a 57 degree curve. Depending on the size of the vehicles, there are times when they cannot pass one another within the right of way, especially at the curve. Against this crush of traffic, Pilgrim would add 30 vehicular trips a day or about 5% of the total. The Board concluded that adding more traffic to Anderson's right of way would violate criterion 5 because unsafe conditions already existed. As a result, the Board ruled that Anderson was a necessary co -applicant for the permit under Environmental Board Rule 10(A) because compliance with criterion 5 "must involve lands beyond [it) that are owned ... by Anderson." Pilgrim maintains that a mere 30 additional vehicular trips per day did not create the traffic congestion, and thus criterion 5 was not violated. We do not read criterion 5 so narrowly. Criterion 5 states: Before granting a permit, the board ... shall find that the .. . development: (5) Will not cause unreasonable congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to use of the highways ... existing or proposed. 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(5) (emphasis added). Criterion 5 does not require that proposed development be the principal cause or original source of traffic 1J 66 1 VERMONT LAW WEEK • Supreme Court Opinions February 9, 1990 0 I& problems. Several causes may contribute to a particular effect or result The Board found that the development would contribute to the existing traffic problem. It would be absurd to permit a hazardous condition to become more hazardous. One purpose of Act 250 is to insure that "lands and en- vironment are devoted to uses which are not detrimental to the public welfare and interests." 1969, No. 250 (Adj. Sess.), § 1; see In re Jusier Associates, 136 VL 577, 580, 396 A.2d 1382, 1394 (1978); In re Great Eastern Build- ing Co.,132 Vt. 610, 614, 326 A.2d 152,154 (1974). Safe travel on this right of way is in the public interest Exacer- bating the existing traffic hazard by allowing additional travel on Anderson's road would be detrimental to the public interest. Thus, the Board reasonably concluded that the development did not meet criterion 5. Nevertheless, as explained below, the Board may not deny an Act 250 permit solely on this basis. 10 V.S.A. § 6087(b). II. Pilgrim challenges the Board's determination that Anderson must be a co -applicant under Environmental Board Rule 10(A). That rule requires that the "record owner" of the tract of involved land be a co -applicant un- less good cause is shown for a waiver of the requirement. It goes on to empower the Board to require persons having a "substantial property interest" in the involved land to be- come co -applicants on a finding that the property interest "is of such significance that the application cannot be ac- cepted without their participation." The Board acted within its discretion to order that Anderson participate as a co -applicant during further proceedings before the Com- mission under Rule 10(A). Pilgrim's proposal used Anderson's road as access to its project and even Pilgrim admits that remedial measures regarding the road must be taken. If Anderson is not the "record owner" of the in- volved land, it has a property interest of such significance that the Board could require Anderson to join in the ap- plication. We cannot accept, based on this record, that Pilgrim has shown good cause to waive Anderson's participation in the application. Although Pilgrim labels Anderson as an op- ponent, the record does not demonstrate that Anderson will refuse to participate in Pilgrim's application. If good cause arises because of Anderson's obstructiveness, Pilgrim can seek relief at that Lime. III. Finally, Pilgrim alleges that the Board has required it to widen the access road, using land owned by Anderson, and that such a requirement cannot be imposed for viola- tion of criterion 5. In this argument, Pilgrim relies on 10 V.S.A. § 6087(b) that provides that a permit may not be denied solely for the reasons set forth in criterion 5 but that "reasonable conditions and requirements" may be attached to alleviate the burdens created. It argues that a require- ment it cannot meet, for example, widening the road, is per se unreasonable and the equivalent of a denial and cannot stand. Pilgrim's argument is incomplete because it does not consider the effect of § 6086(c), which allows the Board to condition a permit on "such requirements and conditions as are allowable under the proper exercise of the police power and are appropriate with respect" to any of the criteria, including criterion 5. We are not prepared to define the limits of the police power on this record, espe- cially because Pilgrim is speculating on the requirements the Commission will impose. Pilgrim is correct that the Board appears to require Anderson to be a co -applicant because it found that the ex- isting road is inadequate to accommodate the traffic and improvements would involve other land owned by Ander- son. This language is not necessary to the Board's order that Anderson be a co -applicant and is premature. See In re R.E. Tucker, Inc., 149 VL 551, 555, 547 A.2d 1314, (1988). It may be, based on evidence before the Commission, that the parties will come up with a method of curing the traffic hazards that does not involve use of more of Anderson's land and it also maybe that more land is available. We believe that Pilgrim still has the right to propose alternatives, despite the Board's dicta, and thus must await the specific requirements imposed before fur- ther review is appropriate. Affirmed. No. 87-422 In re Robinson/Keir Partnership, Jack C. Keir & Jack C. Keir, Inc. May Term, 1989 On Appeal from Washington Superior Court Alden T. Bryan, J. Opinion Fled February 9, 1990 • Arbitration & Award — Role of Court Vermont has a strong tradition of upholding arbitration awards when- ever possible, but awards art not -rubber stamped" since such a prac- tice would cause litigants to hesitate in entrusting their disputes to arbitration. Court will vacate award when evidence clearly demonstrates that arbitrator exceeded his authority. • Arbitration & Award — Powers of Arbitrator Arbitrator's authority finds its source in the contract which consists of the agreement to arbitrate as supplemented by submissions that fur- ther define the issues. Submissions to arbitrators are construed as broadly as possible, with doubts to be resolved in favor of coverage. To determine if the arbitrator exceeded authority, the court must com- pare the arbitrator's award with the submissions of the parties. Valsangiacomo, Detora, McQuesten, Rose $ Grearson, P.C., Barre, for plaintiff -appellee William Alexander Fead,South Burlington, for defendant-appel- lanl PRESENT: Allen, CJ., Peck, Gibson and Dooley, JJ., and Barney, CJ. (Ret.), Specially Assigned GIBSON, J. Lenord Robinson appeals from an order of the Washington Superior Court granting his partner, Jack Keir, the right to purchase Robinson's interest in their partnership, as provided in an arbitrator's award. Ale af- firm. February 9, 1990 1 VERMONT LAW WEEK • Supreme Court Opinions 67 MIDDLEBURY: PETER F. LANGROCK ELLEN MERCER FALLON WILLIAM B. MILLER. JR. JAMES W. SWIFT EMILY J. JOSELSON JOHN F. EVERS SUSAN M. MURRAY JOHN L. KELLNER MITCHELL L. PEARL KEVIN E. BROWN October 8, 1991 HAND -DELIVERED LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MIDDLEBURY: BURLINGTON: 15 S. PLEASANT STREET P.O. DRAWER 351 MIDDLEBURY, VERMONT 05753-0351 802-388-6356 FAX 802-3886149 South Burlington Planning Commission c/o Mr. Joseph Weith, City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Green Acres Subdivision Dear Joe: 275 COLLEGE STREET P.O. Box 721 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402-0721 802-864-0217 FAX 802-864-0137 BURLINGTON: MICHAEL W. WOOL MARK L. SPERRY LIAM L. MURPHY THOMAS Z. CARLSON ALISON J. BELL REPLY TO: BURLINGTON OFFICE At the last hearing on this application, the applicant presented a conceptual plan for a natural area just northerly of my clients' properties in the Ledge Knoll development and along the Green Acres southerly line. This plan included a meandering stream, berms, and associated landscaping and plantings. My clients make three requests in connection with this plan: 1. That the Planning Commission defer decision on whether to grant preliminary approval for this subdivision until a detail plan of the natural area is submitted by the applicant and a further hearing is held on the natural area itself. At present there is no detail on the location of the stream, finished contours proceeding northerly from the ledge Knoll line towards the stream (at present some of the grades are steep and precipitous because of the recent work done by Mr. Goodrich), the height and contour of the berms, nor is there any detailing whatever on the types, sizes, and placement of the trees and other plantings. The applicant should be required to have a qualified landscape architect prepare an appropriate plan. In addition, my clients continue to object to the so-called "nature trail" which is currently shown, because it will lead to Mr. Joseph Weith, City Planner October 8, 1991 Page Two uncontrolled activity near their property by motorcycles, all - terrain vehicles, and the like. 2. That a condition be imposed requiring the entire natural area, as finally approved by the Planning Commission, to be installed and constructed during the construction of the first roadway to be built by the developer. 3. That the Planning Commission obtain firm estimates of the cost of construction of the natural area, including the trees and other plantings, and that such amount be bonded before construction commences on any part of the subdivision improvements. On a minor and unrelated issue, the mailing of the notice of tonight's hearing was somewhat sporadic, coming to a few of my clients, but not to all of them, and no notice came to me. Could you kindly make sure we all get on the mailing list. Finally, on the traffic issue, I am enclosing seven copies of In re Pilgrim Partnership, a Vermont Supreme Court case, for your and the Planning Commissions' review. Sincerely yours, %)i Mark L. perry Attorney for: Christopher Davis David and Cathy Howell Nancy Sheahan Scott and Robert Pennington Larry and Gianette Brainard MLS : dmg Enclosures MIDDLEBURY: PETER F. LANGROCK ELLEN MERCER FAL.LON WILUAM B. MILLER, JR. JAMES W. SWIFT EMILY J. JOSELSON JOHN F. EVERS SUSAN M. MURRAY JOHN L. KELLNER MITCHELL L. PEARL KEVIN E. BROWN October 8, 1991 HAND -DELIVERED LANGROCK SPERRY 8z WOOL ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MIDDLEBURY: BURLINGTON: 15 S. PLEASANT STREET P.O. DRAWER 351 MIDDLEBURY, VERMONT 05753-0351 802-388-6356 FAx 802-388-6149 South Burlington Planning Commission c/o Mr. Joseph Weith, City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Green Acres Subdivision Dear Joe: 275 COLLEGE STREET P.O. Box 721 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402-0721 802-864-0217 FAx 602-8640137 BURLINGTON: MICHAEL W. WOOL MARK L. SPERRY LIAM L. MURPHY THOMAS Z. CARLSON ALISON J. BELL REPLY TO: BURLINGTON OFFICE At the last hearing on this application, the applicant presented a conceptual plan for a natural area just northerly of my clients' properties in the Ledge Knoll development and along the Green Acres southerly line. This plan included a meandering stream, berms, and associated landscaping and plantings. My clients make three requests in connection with this plan: 1. That the Planning Commission defer decision on whether to grant preliminary approval for this subdivision until a detail plan of the natural area is submitted by the applicant and a further hearing is held on the natural area itself. At present there is no detail on the location of the stream, finished contours proceeding northerly from the ledge Knoll line towards the stream (at present some of the grades are steep and precipitous because of the recent work done by Mr. Goodrich), the height and contour of the berms, nor is there any detailing whatever on the types, sizes, and placement of the trees and other plantings. The applicant should be required to have a qualified landscape architect prepare an appropriate plan. In addition, my clients continue to object to the so-called "nature trail" which is currently shown, because it will lead to Mr. Joseph Weith, City Planner October 8, 1991 Page Two uncontrolled activity near their property by motorcycles, all - terrain vehicles, and the like. 2. That a condition be imposed requiring the entire natural area, as finally approved by the Planning Commission, to be installed and constructed during the construction of the first roadway to be built by the developer. 3. That the Planning Commission obtain firm estimates of the cost of construction of the natural area, including the trees and other plantings, and that such amount be bonded before construction commences on any part of the subdivision improvements. On a minor and unrelated issue, the mailing of the notice of tonight's hearing was somewhat sporadic, coming to a few of my clients, but not to all of them, and no notice came to me. Could you kindly make sure we all get on the mailing list. Finally, on the traffic issue, I am enclosing seven copies of In re Pilgrim Partnership, a Vermont Supreme Court case, for your and the Planning Commissions' review. Sincerely yours, Mark L. perry Attorney for: Christopher Davis David and Cathy Howell Nancy Sheahan Scott and Robert Pennington Larry and Gianette Brainard MLS : dmg Enclosures City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 Tanua�y 14, 1992 Mr. Ralph Goodrich Green Acres, Inc. 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont. 05403 Re: 11 Lot. Subdivision, Clear Mr. Goodrich: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find a copy of the October 8, 1991 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please note the conditions of ap- proval which must be met prior to final plat. submission. The final plat must be submitted within 1_2 months of your preliminary plat. approval. It you Have any questions, please give me a cail. ii cOtt I City Pianner . 1 Encl JW/mcp cc.: PPt � . b Mar,r Sperry, Esquire ( l C4C' Crl.EE-AJAveE s r�- fle, t� C-)q< <( 5 �� ��+ s �.. s eleh c-4un� Ite City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 November 13, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich Green Acres, Inc. 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: 11 Lot Industrial Subdivision, Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Goodrich: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find a copy of the August 27, 1991 Planning Com- mission meeting minutes. If you have any questions, please give me a call. y J e Weith, C ty Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp cc: Peter Jacob PLANNING COMMISSION 27 August 1990 page 2 Mr. Sheahan moved to continue the Green Acres application until 17 September 1991. Mrs. Maher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Craig asked that the Planner be sure the neighbors are in- formed of this new hearing date. 4. Public Hearing: Request by John and Joyce Belter to extend the approval of a subdivision of 14.68 acres into 36 single family lots located adjacent to and north of Country Club Estates devel- opment off Poor Farm Road. Mr. Llewellyn assured the Commission that Mr. Belter has been pursuing this application through Act 250. Mr. Burgess noted that Act 250 approval has just been granted. Mr. Llewellyn offered to read the chronology of events, but Ms. Pugh suggested this just be attached to the Minutes. Mr. Johnson asked what the extension implies. Mr. Burgess said that the applicant is at the end of a 2-year approval period. He has to demonstrate that he hasn't been sitting back and doing nothing in that time. The continuation would allow him to do only what the Commission said he could do 2 years ago. He would also have to come back with anything new that Act 250 required. Mr. Craig moved to continue the approval for John and Janice Belter for the White Rock subdivision for two years as the ap- plicant has demonstrated that he has been diligently pursuing the original approval. Mr. Austin seconded. Motion passed unan- imously. 5. Site Plan application of Local 300 Realty Corp. for construction of a 6400 sq. ft. two (2) story office building and vocational training center, lot #2A, 3 Gregory Drive: Mr. Woods presented the plan for IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers). The building would be 80' x 40'. It would have a masonry foundation on the first level. The building would be accessed from the same drive as Marquis Brothers. Parking would be in the back. There is a sewer easement in one corner. The sewer goes into a manhole. Landscaping meets the 3% requirement. Ms. Pugh asked about parking standards as there are none for vocational training centers. Mr. Weith said he used the office criteria which is very high. 26 spaces would be required under this standard. The applicant is proposing 40. Ms. Pugh asked if lighting is downcast luminare. Mr. Woods said they are cut-off fixtures on the side of the building. There City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 November 6, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich Green Acres, Inc. 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: 11 Lot Subdivision, Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Goodrich: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision on the above referenced project. Please note that your final plat application must be submitted within 12 months of the ap- proval date. If you have any questions, please give me a call. i cere y �l e Weith, City Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp cc: Mark Sperry, Esquire Peter Jacob Karen Peterson LEGAL NOTICES 1 into eleven (11) lots con - slating Of 10.1. 10.1, 10.1, 10.1, 10.5, 10.8. 10.8, 12.1, 12.4. 12.5, and 145.8 acres. Copies of the application plan are available for pub- lic inspection at the South Burn--nn City Hall. Michael D. Flaherty Chairman South Burltrtgtan City Council November 2. 1991 _.... PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION-'r. ,The ' South Burlington Planning Commission will '-1lidld a public hearing at 'the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 576 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, November 19, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. to curt- seder the following: 1) Request by Gerald Ml- lot and John Larkin to amend a condition of ap- proval granted by the South Burlington Planning Commission for construc- tion of a planned commer- cial •development consisting of 150 resi- dential units, a 60 room hotel, 20,000 square foot movie theater and 40,000 square feet of retail use located on Shelburne Road. The request is to "nd.a pondlUop requir- kV all troposed Intersec- tion Improvements on Route 7 (i.e., new signal, synchronization of signals from 1-189 to Allen Road, deceleration lane) to be gompleted prior to Issu- ance of an occupancy permit 2) Revised Final Plat ap- plication of University Mall Really Trust for change in circulation during the holi- day season on the Univer- sity Mall property, Dorset Street Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. William Burgess Chairman South Burlington Planr4ng Commission November 2, 1991. PUBLIC NEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL The South Burlington City Councq will hold a 0�jbllc hearing at the South Bur- lington City Hall, Confer- ence Room, 575 t Street, South Burl Vermont on Monday, No- vember 18, 1991 rn 7:30 p m. to consider the fol- lowing: Preliminary Plat Applica- tion of Green AC19s, Inc. for subdivision of 263 acres off Hinseburg Road confkMrd NoxtCokwm 4 PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL The South Burlington City Council will hold a public hearing at. the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, November 18, 1991 at 7;30 P.M. to consider the following: Preliminary Plat application of Green Acres, Inc. for subdivision of 263 acres off Hinesburg Road into eleven (11) lots consisting of 10.1, 10.1, 10.1, 10.1, 10.5, 10.8, 10.8, 12.1, 12.4, 12.5 and 145.8 acres. Copies of the application plan are available for public inspec- tion at the South Burlington City Hall. Michael D. Flaherty Chairman, South Burlington City Council November 2, 1991 10/8/91 JW MOTION OF APPROVAL I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the Preliminary Plat application of Green Acres, Inc. for subdivision of 263 acres off Hinesburg Road into eleven (11) lots as depicted on a 12 page set of plans, the title page entitled " Subdivision Plat, Green Acres Industrial Park, Hinesburg Road, South Burling- ton, Vermont", prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. and dated 9/24/91 with the following stipulations: 1. In an effort to preserve the spectacular views of the Green Mountains from Route 116 as recommended in the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, the following conditions shall apply: a) Structures and landscaping on all lots and within the public r.o.w. shall be limited to a height above sea level of 393.5 feet plus 5.8 feet for every 1000 feet east of the eastern edge of pavement of Route 116. This restriction shall be attached through proper legal documents to lots created by this subdivision. b) The above restriction does ^+ -i ily to the == : f Ict #1 which is identified on Sheet SP3 as "No Height Restrictions". c) The restriction specified in (a) above does not apply to the area of lot #4 which is identified on Sheet SP3 as having a building height restriction of 378.0 eleva- tion. d) The above restriction does not apply to the 100 foot wide strip along the southern boundary of the property from Route 116 east to the northeastern corner of the property located at 26 Knoll Circle. e) Sheets P1 through P5 shall be revised prior to Final Plat to indicate a species or variety of species of street trees which at mature height will meet the height limitations described in (a) above. 2. Prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit or start of roadway or utility construction, the applicant shall post. a 3- year landscaping bond in an amount equal to the value of the proposed street trees and proposed berm plantings. The amount shall be finalized prior to Final Plat review. 3. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for any lot, or start of roadway or utility construction, all appropriate legal documents including easements (i.e., utility, sewer, drainage, sight -view, recreation path) and roadway r.o.w.'s (i.e., irrevocable offers of dedications) shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and recorded in the South Burlington land records. 4. Prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit for any lot, or start of roadway or utility construction, bonds to cover the costs of roadway, utility, sidewalk, and relocated stream and berm construction shall be posted. The amount of bonds shall be approved by the City Engineer. 5. Access to lots 1,2,3 and 4 shall be via Vosburgh Lane. Access to lot 6 shall be from the proposed 60 foot sewer/roadway r.o.w. to the east. Access to lots 8 and 10 shall be provided by one shared curb cut on Swift Street Extension. Access to lots 7 and 9 shall be provided by one shared curb cut on Swift Street. The plans shall be revised prior to Final Plat to indicate this. 6. The developer shall furnish the City with the name of the contractors doing the street work and the architect and/or engi- neer who will stake out and supervise the work at least 7 day7 prior to beginning of road construction. Upon completion of the work, the architect and/or engineer shall certify that the work is in conformance with the approved plan, stipulations and any other requirements and/or change that the City requests. 7. The applicant shall contribute $26,738 to the Hinesburg Road sidewalk fund based on 1,260 feet of frontage along Hinesburg Road. Applicant shall construct 1,783 feet of sidewalk along Hinesburg Road in a location recommended and approved by the Public Works Director. The sidewalk shall be installed prior to occupancy of the first building. 8. As expressly represented by the applicant, it is proposed to relocate the stream over lots 1,2,3 and 6 to a newly constructed stream along the southern property line. The stream shall be designed to meander and both appear and function as a "natural stream". The stream shall be located at least 50 feet north of the south property line. It shall be located at least 50 feet from the edge of wetland on lot 5. Detailed engineering drawings for the new stream shall be submitted prior to final plat review. The new stream shall be constructed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any lot and within a reasonable time period after start of utility or roadway c. nr-truction. 9) The applicant's traffic repo?~t indicates various roadway improvements necessary to serve the project. The report also identifies several intersections in the vicinity of the project which are currently operating at a unacceptable level of service and which will be further degraded by traffic generated by the proposed development. In a effort to mitigate adverse traffic impacts, the applicant agrees to the following: a) applicant shall install, prior to occupancy of first building, the necessary lane and taper improvments at the Route 116/Swift Street Extension intersection (shown on Sheet SP10). VAOT shall approve design prior to issuance of zoning/building permit. b) Prior to site plan approval for each lot, the signal warrant analysis for the Route 116/Swift Street Exten- sion intersection shall be updated. When the signal is shown to be warranted at Route 116/Swift Street Exten- sion, applicant shall install signal at specifications approved by the City. c) Each building shall be required to contribute to the Hinesburg Road/Kennedy Drive impact fee program, and/or any other traffic impact fee program in effect at the time of site plan review, based on P.M. peak hour trip ends to be generated by each use. d) Since a significant amount of project traffic will be going through the Williston Road/Route 116 intersection (43%), each new building shall be required to contrib- ute to the Williston Road Area 1 impact fee program, and/or any other traffic impact fee program in effect at the time of site plan approval, based on 43% of the P.M. peak hour trip ends to be generated by each use. e) Since the traffic report did not assume any development on Lot 11, the traffic analysis shall be updated prior to any further subdivision of or development on lot 11. 10) The Planning Commission grants a sewer allocation of 15,000 gpd for the development. Each new building shall be required to pay the sewer allocation fee in effect based on the estimate of sewage treatment demand generated by the new building. 11) The final plat submission shall include a full set of plans including typical details and improvement plans for the Route 116/Swift Street Extension intersection. 12) As expressly represented by the applicant, the applicant is willing to dedicate to the City a pedestrial/recreation path easement around the Quarry on lot 11 at some unspecified date in the future. This issue shall be addresed at the time further subdivision or development is proposed for lot 11. 13) Manhole and drainage inlets shall be adjusted to grade using precast risers instead of bricks and mortar. 14) Sidewalk thickness at driveways shall be 8 inches. 15) The plans shall be revised prior to Final Plat submission to address the following: a) The note identifying the height restrictions on lot #4 on page SP3 shall indicate that the restriction applies to all structures and landscaping. b) The legend on page SP3 should include symbol for street lights. c) Plan should show recreation path easement or north side of relocated stream with connection to 60 foot r.o.w. off Knoll Circle d) Plan should not show recreation path easement impacting wetlands on lots 5 and 7. Path easement should be located outside of the wetland setback. �revoe_ablei 16) Legal documents offer of dedication) for the 80 foot r.o.w. future road connection over lot 11 shall be sub- mitted to the City Attorney for approval and shall be recorded in the South Burlington land records prior to recording the final plat. 17) A "Notice of Condition" shall be recorded in the South Burlington land records prior to recording which states that all eleven lots were created as part of a planned industrial develop- ment (PID) and that any subsequent development or subdivision will be reviewed as an amendment to the original eleven lot PID. This notice of condition shall be approved by the City Attorney. 18) The final plat application shall be submitted within 12 months or this approval is null and void. 5 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 October 9, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich Green Acres, Inc. 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: 11 Lot Subdivision, Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Goodrich: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is a copy of the August 6, 1991 Planning Commission minutes. If you have any questions, please give me a call. i ere y, oe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp cc: Peter Jacob Karen Peterson Mark Sperry, Esquire �cr �Ec PAIN EasEx+E�r Loh 54 f7 /��r, �� 5 s t 7 No Text M E M O R A N D U M To: Project. Files From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: Preliminary Comments - October 8, 1991 agenda items Date: September 30, 1991 yy GREEN ACRES 11 LOT INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION - HINESBURG ROAD --- survey plat (sheet SP1) must show all of lot 11 with a notee $ indicating that it has not been surveyed. �^ --- the 20 foot pedestrian easement along the southerly boundary does not seem to follow the proposed pedestrian trail which,'�'.�� loops around both sides of the proposed "riatural"= streams which is to be constructed in this area. --- results of wetlands study should be submitted. c13p-1 A"�e --- each sheet should have a legend which indicates the meaning- (u0' of t.h- various shadings used. --- note on sheet SP3 states "see detail for relocated wetland -.4-A tu swale berm and plantings", this detail has not been submit- ch,Ll ted. �� c1y1►.��,ia --- the 20 foot pedestrian easement along the southerly boundary should not go through the wooded wetland, an easement should_%J.0j° wool be shown going around this wetland to the north. u.IoJ� --- plans should show a 150 foot buffer setback from western edge of adjoining Ag-Res district on lot 11. TSC FUNDING, INC. - MOBILE HOME SALES - 2069 WILLISTON ROAD Additional information required on site plan: --- Lot size (square footage or acreage). --- Show limits of wooded area, if there is a stream on the property it must be shown. --- Frontage scales to be 150 feet but plan states it is 112.91 feet, this needs to be corrected. --- Indicate location of nearest fire hydrant. --- Show outside trash storage areas if applicable. Additional information required: LIEUM @)F URQAMEOVUL TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. PO. Box 308 14 Blair Park Road Williston. VT 05495 (802) 879-6331 > WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attached ❑ Under separate cover via_ ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ DATE JOB coon ATTEN ION rr tf be f1 RE: 000. _the following items: ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION L-Al_ - - OCT 04 199 f 1 C-�NO. / City of So. Budin ton THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted > ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return_ corrected prints ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US I 1 N r.- - � 11 = 0.1, 1 -t .00- r.. z-V e`r�T'N I I -% ram _,= COPY TO SIGNED: 0 PRODUCT 240-2 n e 1.. crown, Mm 01471, If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. PLANNING COMMISSION 6 August 1990 page 2 Mr. Kirk, a neighbor, said he basically supported what Mrs. Maher said. He said if he had his way, he would like the trees to stay as a noise buffer. Mr. Austin moved the Planning Commission approve the Preliminary Plat application of Garland & Helen Withers for subdivision of approximately 42,700 sq. ft. of land into two lots of 15,700 sq. ft. and 27,000 sq. ft. as depicted on a plat entitled "Final Plat, Site Plan and Two Lot Subdivision for Garland & Helen Withers," prepared. by Vermont Land Surveyors and dated 6/1/91, last revised 6/22/91, with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall pay the required per unit recreation fee for lot 2 prior to issuance of a zoning permit for lot 2. There is an existing house on lot 1; therefore, a recreation fee is not reauired for lot 1. 2. A sewer allocation of 450 gpd is granted for lot 2. The applicant shall pay the required per gallon sewer fee prior to issuance of a zoning permit for lot 2. There is an existing house on lot 1; therefore, a sewer allocation fee is not required for lot 1. 3. The plan shall be revised prior to final plat submission to indicate whether the existing shed on lot 1 will be removed or moved at least 10 feet from the proposed subdivision line. 4. The final plat application shall be submitted within 12 months or this approval is null and void. Ms. Peacock seconded. Motion passed 3-2 with Mr. Craig ab- staining and Mrs. Maher and Ms. Pugh voting against. 4. Continue Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat application of Green Acres, Inc, for subdivision of 263 acres off Hinesburg Rd. in South Burlington into eleven lots of 10.1, 10.1, 10.1, 10.1, 10.5, 10.8, 12.1, 12.4, 12.5 and 145.8 acres, Green Acres property: Mr. Jacob outlined the issues: a. View Protection: he said they have solved this with a fomula. Ms. Pedersen explained the formula and Mr. Weith said he is sat- isfied with the angle. Ms. Pedersen noted the buildings would be set into the ground so as not to get into the view area. Mr Weith recommended this apply to all lots. Mr. Jacob said in some areas this might be a non -issue as the land slopes away. He would like to check on this. Mr. Burgess felt the angle should be checked and confirmed. PLANNING 6 August page 3 b. Ditch. COMMISSION 1991 The ditch will be moved 50 ft. from any property line, and will meander. The applicant would put walking paths around the area and would make it a natural setting. There would be no rip - rapping. There will be berms for screening. Mr. Jacob noted that the Natural Resources Committee thinks it's a good idea. They will remove the stream that currently runs diagonally across the lot. The City Council thought it a good idea to continue the right of way to meet the road, and the applicant has no objection to this. They would like to do this as they start developing the first lot. Mr. Jacob then showed the drainage pattern. The City Engineer has not yet approved this. Ms. Pedersen noted they may have to upsize the culverts. Mr. Burgess askpd iF th- inplicant has talked with the abutters. Mr. Jacob said they have, and the neighbors like the concept other than part of the path. He noted that if lots 2 and 3 can be sold together, they could move the building envelope another 100 ft. to the north. Mr. Jacob said the home of Mr. Rowley becomes an "island" of residential property among all the industrial land. They would propose to readjust the property line. This would close 2 curb cuts on Hinesburg Rd. He noted the Davis property next to Rowley's is also for sale and they could close that curb cut as well. Mr. Weith felt there are some legal problems in doing this. The Rowley lot couldn'thave anything done with it as it would no longer be a pre-existing lot,lnless the zoning is changed. Mr. Jacob noted they have aligned the intersection of lots 7, 8, 9 and 10 and have eliminated a curb cut there. The applicant would like to build the sidewalk himself. They will put it wherever the city wants. 1260 ft. would be required. Members had no problem with this if it is attached to an existing sidewalk. They would want more than 1260 ft. c. Wetlands: A study has been done, but the report is not available yet. Mr. Jacob said he understood there are no wetlands on lots 5 or 7, exept for the CO Zone land. There is agreement that there is a wetland on lot 7. Ms. Pedersen said they are not required to finish the survey on lot 11. The lot is calculated as 145 acres. This leaves 242 acres for the 10-lot subdivision, and this is within the re- PLANNING COMMISSION 30 July 1991 page 4 quirements. They would defer the survey on lot 11 until there is a request for development of that lot. Mr. Weith noted the sub- division regulations require a survey. Mr. Burgess added he wasn't sure that could be waived. Mr. Weith said this has been done in the past large farm parcels, but the Commission still needs to see a plat of the entire property with a note added that lot 11 still has not been surveyed. Members agreed to this. d. Path Around Quarry: Mr. Jacob said the applicant objects to doing this because of the liability issue. He suggested waiting till something is done with that lot. Mr. Burgess said there could be a reserved right to include this at a later date. e. Traffic: Ms. Pedersen said they don't agree with two of Craig Leiner's recommendations. Mr. Weith noted they are required to include Dorset St/Kennedy Drive in the analysis and to use the 5th edition of the ITE manual instead of the 4th. Ms. Pedersen said they already have a draft air pollution permit based on the 4th edition base information. Mr. Burgess said he wouldn't make a decision until he hears from Craig Leiner on this. Members agreed. Mr. Sperry, representing abutting neighbors, said they would like a 400 ft. setback on lot 5, the same as lot 4. They generally like the plan for the stream. The big problem is lot 3. The building is nearly on top of the Howell and Davis properties. Mr. Sperry noted that zoning regulations require that open space be arranged to the maximum. They ask that lot 3 be eliminated. He felt another lot of 10 acres could be gotten next to lot 10. Mr. Reed said that lots 4 and 5 address the proximity to residents but lot 3 doesn't do this as the building is only 150 ft. away. Residents would see a whole wall of building from their back decks. Regarding the trail, he said he liked the concept but was concerned that this happen in a timely nature. They want to see what landscaping will be done and how it will be configured. They suggest the bike path be located starting across from where it exits Butler Farms. Scott Pennington, an adjacent property owner, said he liked the road, but would like to see buildings as far away from residences as possible. He suggested more development near the quarry. He noted the present plan contains the same number of lots as had been rejected before. Mr. Craig noted the plan hadn't been re- jected but only continued to this time. Mr. Pennington noted that the water level of the wetland has been lowered because of what was done to the ditch. Regarding the footpath, Mr. Brainard said the major concern is PLANNING COMMISSION 6 August 1991 page 5 that it's a highway to the quarry and could become a motor bike path. Another neighbor said it would make more sense to put lots 2 and. 3 together now instead of hoping it happens later. Mr. Burgess noted that the pedestrian paths will not be designed for motorbike use. Ms. Pennington asked if posts could be put up to prevent motorized traffic. Mr. Sperry said the Commission should think about how the green area/berms/trail, etc., are assured via a bond to be sure they happen. Regarding traffic, he said he read the report. He had never seen a report in which the levels of service in the building year are so bad they have been blacked out. What is provided is levels with improvements in place. He wanted to know what the levels would be without the improvements and how the gap between the money being provided for the improvements and the im- provements actually being done would be narrowed. Mr. Burgess said the point is well taken. Mr. Reed said the real concern is that this is a large piece of property, and development is being placed where it will have the greatest negative impact on neighborhoods, views, etc. Mrs. Maheer said she liked the meandering stream and the berms. She would just ask for easements for the path. Ms. Peacock agreed on the stream and likes the idea of the path. Ms. Pugh agreed with Ms. Peacock. Mr. Austin felt the stream was a reasonable idea but didn't feel strongly about the path. Mr. Craig agreed with Mr. Austin. Mr. Burgess said he didn't favor the combination with the Rowley lot. He said it was not an accident that the wording of the regulations doesn't allow creation of 3-acre lots for industrial use and it would not be right to do it here and not allow it elsewhere. All but Mrs. Maher agreed with Mr. Burgess. Mrs. Maher felt it was a good idea and didn't think it would be a problem if it is made clear what is being done and why. She felt there were benefits to doing it. Mr. Craig asked the locationof prime ag soils. Ms. Pedersen outlined these and said there are about 80 acres within this sub- division. Mr. Sperry asked if there is prime ag soil where the buidling envelope for lot 3 is proposed. Ms. Pedersen said there is. Mr. Sperry read from the zoning ordinance on this. Mr. Jacob said the new procedure is to donate money to a fund to maintain prime ag land where it is being used for agriculture. Mr. Austin said he agrees with the residents that the possible future joining of lots 2 and 3 means nothing but a nice gesture. PLANNING COMMISSION 6 August 1991 page 6 Mr. Craig said he needed to know when traffic improvements are due and exactly what will be done. He said the Commission may require phasing. Members wanted new plans for the next hearing. Mr. Craig moved to continue the application until 27 August. Mrs. Maher seconded. Motion passed unanimosuly. 5. Sketch plan application of Southsett partnership to change a 178 unit planned residential development of 63 single family units and 115 multi -family units to a 145 unit planned residential development of 121 single family lots and 24 multi- family units, Village at Dorset Park: Mr. Milot said they have agreed to allow Southsett to complete the multi -family units near the entrance (6 lots). They have 8 or 10 single family lots to build. They feel single family units are better than multi -family on the back lot. There would then be 148 units on the whole site instead of 178. They would continue the architectural style as much as possible. These would be less expensive homes, about $140,000 for a 1700 sq. ft. home. Neighbors concerns are that they paid a lot for their homes and felt the value would decrease with lower priced homes nearby. Mr. Milot said there are to be 2 tennis courts, the pool and ponds are already in. Mr. Burgess said the proposed plan is more dense looking than before. Mr. Llewellyn noted that 30 curb cuts could be eliminated. Mr. Craig had no problem with the plan nor did Ms. Pugh. Mr. Burgess said he had a problem with so many tiny lots. Ms. Peacock said she wasn't crazy about the idea but felt the Com- mission's hands had always been tied on this development. Mr. Austin said he wasn't pleased with the number of small lots but did like the greater mix of housing types within the development. 6. Sketch Plan application of John Larkin to amend the 200 unit hotel (Howard Johnson's) and restaurant planned Commercial Development at 1710 Shelburne Rd. as follows: 1) construct a 1200 sq. ft. lobby/connector addition between buildings 3 and 4; 2) construct a 4708 sq. ft. meeting/banquet facility additon to building 3: City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 October 4, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich Green Acres, Inc. 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: 11 Lot Subdivision, Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Goodrich: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and comments from City Engineer Bill Szymanski, Fire Chief JIm Goddette, South Burlington Recreation Path Committee, South Burlington Natural Resources Committee and myself. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, October 8, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request.. If you have any questions, please give me a call. SiAerel , J e Weith, City Planner Encls JW/mcp cc: Peter Jacob Karen Peterson Mark Sperry, Esquire south +i urlingtvn f ire Department f/ 37 _i tir5ct i'trcct �utctll +!lurlingtun, 11crinvilt 11_71,103 '1 � k TO: SO. BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CHIEF GODDETTE RE: TUESDAY OCTOBER 8,1991 AGENDA ITEMS DATE: FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 27,1991 1. T.S.C. FUNDING INDEPENDENT MOBILE HOME SALES WILLISTON ROAD SITE PLAN HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THIS DEPARTMENT AND THE FOLLOWING NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED: A. THE GRAVEL DRIVE DUE TO THE WIDTH SHOULD EXIT BACK TO THE MAIN DRIVE BY THE SALES OFFICE. B. THE MAIN DRIVE WHICH IS 15' MUST BE NO LESS THE 18' WIDE, OR MAYBE THER COULD BE ONE SHARE DRIVE WAY FOR BOTH PROPERTY. 2. GREEN ACRES INDUSTRIAL PARK HINESBURG ROAD PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THIS DEPARTMENT ON THE WATER SYSTEM AND HYDRANTS AND AT THIS TIME THERE IS NOT A PROBLEM , BUT AS EACH SITE IS BUILT ON WE WILL HAVE TO REVIEW THE PLAN FOR THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING TO BE BUILT TO MAKE SUE ADDITIONAL HYDRANTS ARE NOT REQUIRED. Natural Resources Committee City Of South Burlington 577 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 September 12, 1991 Subject: Green Acres, Hinesburg Road, South Burlington Dear Planning Commission Members: Thank you for allowing the Natural Resources Committee the opportunity to provide the Planning Commission with comments on the Green Acres Industrial Subdivision on Hinesburg Road in South Burlington. Enclosed is a copy of Natural Resources Committee's earlier letter to the Commission on this topic, dated July 22, 1991. In this previous letter we recommended that the proposed relocated stream be constructed in a natural condition. We still strongly recommend this approach. Rip rap or channeling are not appropriate techniques. Instead the exposed bedrock should be utilized to create stream meanders. Because the soils on this site have a high amount of clay, there is a high erosion potential as is evident in the ditch recently created along the property boundary. Creating meanders in the stream will help slow the velocity of the water, thereby minimizing erosion, as well as be aesthetically pleasing. The stream banks and adjacent open space, except for the recreation path, should be vegetated with species of vegetation indigenous to the area. There are many species that could be utilized to attract song birds and small mammals into the area. The Natural Resources Committee recommends that this project include an unpaved recreational path along both sides of the proposed relocated stream forming a loop trail. The path right of way should be no wider than 8 feet, with the trail 6 feet in width and a foot of planted vegetation on either side. We would like to have the opportunity to review and comment on the final plans for this project. We would be glad to discuss these comments in person to the Commission. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Natural Resources Committee enclosure South Burlington Recreation Path 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 Ra:,• Be 1 a i r South Burl i nciton Pi ann i ng and Zon i ng 12, 195 Re : Goodrich Proper t;: C'e.ar Ra:),, The Recreation Path Committee i-S interested in having sections of recreation path tau i i t in th i = Part of South Burlington. Our, first priorit:.• t,.iould be to connect the Ledgek•nol 1 ne i ghborhood t:.+e _.t to the rest of the Path t,� i a Butler Farms,/Oakcreek. This could patentiai1 be done along the southern bounda.r;.• ;_4 thr- f oodr- i ch proper t: +Ehere there is a proposal for -=� landscaped ._reek and buffer zone. The crossing of Hinesburg Rd. could be at Butler Dr. and path users wou 1 d then travel a1 ong Butler Dr . to the t,;iestern _onne<_ t i on , Pha e I I .' and on to Do; se t t . We i,,iou I d al =•o i i ke to see an i n ~er n:y.l nc,r th - E:)u th Pedestr i an connec t i on bett,.+een the Ledgeknoi i the rclad proposed to access the subdivi sicon (S(t,+ift t:: >;tension,'. Thi'E 4,,+ould al 1 o+:v pedestr i an and bi c;.ci e travel between developed areas avoiding the need tO go back out onto Hinesburg Rd. With automobile traffic. I,.,fe tA+ou l d 1 i ke to meet +:,.+i th t'-re Ledgeknol l neighborhood and the Natural Re_•ource=_. Committee to determine hot,;= best to make these connectilons. Currently,there are no funds to develop the Recreation Path in this area.. if a. generic easement 20 feet wide could be obtained for public use, then it could be con '•;erted in the future to a recreation path as the C i t-y de'•:'e l op _., We t,,+ou l d suggest an easement t around the perimeter of the Goodrich propertvtith a north —south easement running along one of the subdivision 1 i ne= not in the t,,+etlands. '-31incereI-.v fT:hri s t i r 9 Ca in Recreation P.a.trl M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer Re: October 8, 1991 agenda items Date: September 30, 1991 GREEN ACRES INDUSTRIAL PARK, HINESBURG ROAD 1. Typical details shall be submitted for review and approval. 2. Plans for street lighting shall be submitted for review and `irpr-v..i1. Provisions for the street lighting shall be made as the underground cable is installed and not after. 2. Lots that naturally drain toward the sidewalk or adjacent. lots should be provided with a connection to the street storm drain system so that parking lots and building drains can con- nect. T.S.C. FUNDING (MOBILE HOME SALES 1. The site shall be graded to drain to the back (southerly). ?. The back of the lot is a wooded ravine. This ravine shall not be used as a dumping site for the clearing of the lot. 3. A sidewalk across the frontage should be considered because there is an increase in pedestrian traffic in this area. dint! T-Bnrlingtun 3 f ire Department -71 D�trset utttl� +lAurlingtiYn. ]�crtnuttt O5403 l�U�o�o-iyuU TO: SO. BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CHIEF GODDETTE RE: TUESDAY OCTOBER 8,1991 AGENDA ITEMS DATE: FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 27,1991 1. T.S.C. FUNDING INDEPENDENT MOBILE HOME SALES WILLISTON ROAD SITE PLAN HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THIS DEPARTMENT AND THE FOLLOWING NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED: A. THE GRAVEL DRIVE DUE TO THE WIDTH SHOULD EXIT BACK TO THE MAIN DRIVE BY THE SALES OFFICE. B. THE MAIN DRIVE WHICH IS 15' MUST BE NO LESS THE 18' WIDE, OR MAYBE THER COULD BE ONE SHARE DRIVE WAY FOR BOTH PROPERTY. 2. GREEN ACRES INDUSTRIAL PARK HINESBURG ROAD PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THIS DEPARTMENT ON THE WATER SYSTEM AND HYDRANTS AND AT THIS TIME THERE IS NOT A PROBLEM , BUT AS EACH SITE IS BUILT ON WE WILL HAVE TO REVIEW THE PLAN FOR THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING TO BE BUILT TO MAKE SUE ADDITIONAL HYDRANTS ARE NOT REQUIRED. �T ( TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. LrEuuff OF IMUSEMIL P.O. Box 308 14 Blair Park Road Williston, VT 05495 (802) 879-6331 • > WE ARE SENDING YOU XAttached ❑ Under separate cover via_ ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ ATTE he following items: ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE NO. 1 DESCRIPTION {I1-7 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use /_ 1 As requested (❑ For review and comment ❑ FOR BIDS DUE ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit --copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS ago 11111m, to �111111110w/ ■ COPY TO SIGNED:__ PRODUCT 240-2 rArW—s_s7 hoc, Groton. Mm 0ian. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. Natural Resources Committee City Of South Burlington 577 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 September 12, 1991 Subject: Green Acres, Hinesburg Road, South Burlington Dear Planning Commission Members: Thank you for allowing the Natural Resources Committee the opportunity to provide the Planning Commission with comments on the Green Acres Industrial Subdivision on Hinesburg Road in South Burlington. Enclosed is a copy of Natural Resources Committee's earlier letter to the Commission on this topic, dated July 22, 1991. J In this previous letter we recommended that the proposed relocated stream be constructed in a natural condition. We still strongly recommend this approach. Ri appropriate techniques. Instead the utilized to create stream meanders. site have a high amount of clay, ther potential as is evident in the ditch property boundary. Creating meanders slow the velocity of the water, there well as be aesthetically pleasing. T open space, except for the recreation with species of vegetation indigenous many species that could be utilized t small mammals into the area. p rap or channeling are not exposed bedrock should be Because the soils on this e is a high erosion recently created along the in the stream will help by minimizing erosion, as he stream banks and adjacent path, should be vegetated to the area. There are o attract song birds and The Natural Resources Committee recommends that this project include an unpaved recreational path along both sides of the proposed relocated stream forming a loop trail. The path right of way should be no wider than 8 feet, with the trail 6 feet in width and a foot of planted vegetation on either side. We would like to have the opportunity to review and comment on the final plans for this project. We would be glad to discuss these comments in person to the Commission. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Natural Resources Committee enclosure Natural Resources Committee City Of South Burlington 577 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 September 12, 1991 Subject: Green Acres, Hinesburg Road, South Burlington Dear Planning Commission Members: Thank you for allowing the Natural Resources Committee the opportunity to provide the Planning Commission with comments on the Green Acres Industrial Subdivision on Hinesburg Road in South Burlington. Enclosed is a copy of Natural Resources Committee's earlier letter to the Commission on this topic, dated Jul- 22_ 1991. In this previous letter we recommended that the proposed relocated stream be constructed in a natural condition. We still strongly recommend this approach. Ri appropriate techniques. Instead the utilized to create stream meanders. site have a high amount of clay, ther potential as is evident in the ditch property boundary. Creating meanders slow the velocity of the water, there well as be aesthetically pleasing. T open space, except for the recreation with species of vegetation indigenous many species that could be utilized t small mammals into the area. p rap or channeling are not exposed bedrock should be Because the soils on this e is a high erosion recently created along the in the stream will help by minimizing erosion, as he stream banks and adjacent path, should be vegetated to the area. There are o attract song birds and The Natural Resources Committee recommends that this project include an unpaved recreational path along both sides of the proposed relocated stream forming a loop trail. The path right of way should be no wider than 8 feet, with the trail 6 feet in width and a foot of planted vegetation on either side. We would like to have on the final plans for this these comments in person to attention. enclosure the opportunity to review and comment project. We would be glad to discuss the Commission. Thank you for your Sincerely, Natural Resources Committee TO: So. Burlington City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Natural Resources Committee DATE: 22 July 1991 RE: Green Acres, Rt. 116, South Burlington Saturday, July 20, 1991, Shelley Snyder and Cathy O'Brien of the Natural Resources Committee walked the above referenced project with Peter Jacobs. The Natural Resources Committee has three main concerns with this project; the stream relocation, the recreation paths, and the wetland. Stream Relocation We appreciate the applicant's thoughtful proposal for the construction of the stream along the southern edge of the property. This proposal can, if properly designed and supervised, eliminate the concerns expressed previously by the Natural Resources Committee. The applicant is proposing to create a 150 foot stream corridor down the southern property line with the new stream meandering through the middle 50 feet. Mr. Jacobs agreed to relocate the stream in a natural condition without use of rip rap culerting or channeling. Bedrock exposed in the proposed location can be taken advantage of to create the stream meanders. The Council and Planning Commission should require detailed plans for this steam including several cross sectional views of specific locations rather than conceptual plans. We will seek the professional opinion of the State Stream Alteration Program. We feel that it would be beneficial to have the reconstruction be completed before the lots are sold to insure consistency in the completion of the stream corridor. On the site walk, seeps in the area of the wetland were observed. Over time, the configuration of the ground water table in the wetland will be changed if the ditch is left as it is. This will have impact on the native vegetation. The committee recommends that the 150 foot stream corridor wrap around the wetland rather than intersect the wetland (see specific wetland comments below). The stream should discharge into the northwest corner of the existing pond that is at the north end of the wetland. Wetland We recommend that the 50 foot buffer between the stream and wetland be appropriately restored and allowed to revegetate naturally. The Committee would like to review final plans including landscaping plans. We suggest that landscaping be done with native vegetation. Maintenance of the stream, " ,�, /(A- X 114 A/rf l3'�j�'!� Research Center (10). These natural areas are environments that have only slightly been altered by man, and include unusual communities of plants and animals, rare species,and exceptional geological features. These natural areas are shown on map 2 and are discussed below. Spear Street Sand Dune Field-- This site is an example of Pleistocene "fossil" sand dunes, associated with the Champlain Sea about 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. The occurrence of this phenomenon is rather rare and the report of the VNRC states that this site is in need of physical management to maintain its unique state and is threatened with destruction. These dunes are considered to be significant on both the local and state levels. This site is in private ownership. Red Rocks Park --This site, owned by the City, exhibits rock outcrops and glacial erosional features with above average visual impact and of local and state significance. The area is considered (by the VNRC) to be safe from destruction indefinitely as it is in public ownership and cherished as a unique natural area. Zoning provisions should be enacted to provide an adequate buffer as protection from contiguous development on adjoining land, and ordinances to prevent littering, destruction and other abuses should be enacted and enforced. East Woods --This 40 acre parcel has an old age stand of hardwoods with groves of huge hemlock and red pine. A great variety of shrubs, including viburnums and dogwoods, grow here along with a rich herbaceous flora. This type of forest is considered to be rare and is of local, regional and state importance. It is owned by the University of Vermont. In April, 1971, the Board of Trustees adopted a resolution designating East Woods a Natural Area. Centennial Pine Woods --This 40 acre forest site consists of old age softwoods dominated by white pine, red pine and hemlock. Hardwoods characterized by red maple make up the understory. Forests such as this are not uncommon: It is considered to be of local, regional and state importance. It is owned by the Univer- sity. It was designated by the University Board of Trustees in April, 1971. UVM Horticultural Research Center Site-- An old Indian village and artifact site are located on this land. The site has broad significance and should be protected. Kennedy Drive Natural Area-- This area encompassed a 36.1 acre parcel located at the northwest side of Kennedy Drive and was part of the so-called Fitzsimmond property. Potash Brook runs through this land and there are many natural springs causing a swampy area. Forest cover contains white pine and some mixture of hemlock, elm and red maple. This site is immediately contigu- ous to a 23 acre natural area already owned by the City. Any damage to the ecological balance of this land could have serious 42 M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer Re: October 8, 1991 agenda items Date: September 30, 1991 GREEN ACRES INDUSTRIAL PARK, HINESBURG ROAD 1. Typical details shall be submitted for review and approval. 2. Plans for street lighting shall be submitted for review and approval. Provisions for the street lighting shall be made as the underground cable is installed and riot after. 2. Lots that. naturally drain toward the sidewalk or adjacent lots should be provided with a connection to the street storm drain system so that parking lots and building drains can con- nect. T.S.C. FUNDING (MOBILE HOME SALES 1. The site shall be graded to drain to the back (southerly). 2. The back of the lot is a wooded ravine. This ravine shall sod as a dumping site for the clearing of the lot. 3. A sidewalk across the frontage should be considered because there is an increase in pedestrian traffic in this area. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 3eptembe.r 30, 1991 Green 1? es . Inc . 625 Hinesburg; Road South Burlingtc,n, Vermont. 05403 Re: 11 Lot. Incl,2st.rial Subdivision, Hine�,l>urg Road Dear Mr. Goodrich: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find a copy of p ---liminary comments on the above referenced protect by City Engineer Bill. Szymanski., Fire Chief Goddette and myself. Please try and si.ibmit revised plans as soon as possible. 7f you have any questions, ;,leas: give me a call. Si sere yC, oe Weit.h, City Planner Encls JW/mcp cc: Peter Jacob Karen Peterson September 30, 1991 i '`'(cciti2 ��� ililiYttYfDlt � trC � ��1Fii ttliCltt �� 575 Dnrsct i�trcct �uutlj tNurlingtun. Vermont 0540 (802) 658 7960 TO: SO. BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CHIEF GODDETTE RE: TUESDAY JULY 9,1991 AGENDA ITEMS DATE: TUESDAY JUNE 25,1991 1. ! 7PPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK LOT 5 & 6 'iHE OFFSET HOUSE PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND AT THIS TIME I AM PLEASED TO INFORM YOU THAT I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM WITH GIVEN EMERGENCY PROTECTION IF NEEDED. 2. GREEN ACRES INDUSTRIAL PARK HINESBURG ROAD PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED ON GREEN ACRES SUB -DIVISION AND AT THIS TIME I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM WITH THE PROJECT. 3. BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MAINTENANCE/ SNOW REMOVAL BUILDING EXPANSION PLELNS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE FOLLOWING MUST CORRECTED BEFORE IS GIVEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: A. EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTS MUST RE REPAIRED TO A GOOD WORKING CONDITION AS WELL AS THE ONE NEW HYDRANT INSTALLED. B. THE MAIN WATER SYSTEM MUST BE INSPECTED AND REPAIRED TO GIVE AT LEAST 2000 GPM. 8/6/91 JW MOTION OF APPROVAL I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the Preliminary Plat application of Green Acres, Inc. for subdivision of 263 acres off Hinesburg Road into eleven (11) lots as depicted on an 18 page set of plans, the title page entitled "Green Acres Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont", prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. and dated last revised 7/4/90, with the following stipulations: 1. In an effort to preserve the spectacular views of the Green Mountains from Route 116 as recommended in the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, the following conditions shall apply: a) Structures and landscaping on all lots and within the public r.o.w. shall be limited to a height above sea level of 393.5 feet plus 5.8 feet for every 1000 feet east of the eastern edge of pavement of Route 116. The plans shall be revised prior to final plat to indicate this restriction. This restriction shall be attached through proper legal documents to lots created by this subdivision. b) The above restriction does not apply to a 100 foot wide strip along the southern boundary of the property from Route 116 east to the northeastern corner of the property located at 26 Knoll Circle. c) Sheets P1 through P5 shall be revised prior to Final Plat to indicate a species or variety of species of street trees which at mature height will meet the height limitations described in (a) above. 2. Prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit or start of roadway or utility construction, the applicant shall post a 3- ,,,ear landscaping bond in an amount equal to the value of the proposed street trees. The amount shall be approved by the City 3. Prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit for any lot, or start of roadway or utility construction, all appropriate legal documents including easements (i.e., utility, sewer, drain- age, sight. -view, recreation path) and roadway r.o.w.'s (i.e., irrevocable offers of dedications) shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and recorded in the South Burlington land record. 4. Prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit for any lot, or start of roadway or utility construction, bonds to cover the costs of roadway, utility and sidewalk construction shall be posted. The amount of bonds shall be approved by the City Engi- neer. 5. Access to lots 1,2,3 and 4 shall be via Vosburgh Lane. Access to lot 6 shall be from the proposed 60 foot sewer/roadway r.o.w. to the east. Access to lots 8 and 10 shall be provided by one shared curb cut on Swift Street Extension. Access to lots 7 and 9 shall be provided by one shared curb cut on Swift Street. The plans shall be revised prior to Final Plat to indicate this. 6. The developer shall furnish the City with the name of the contractors doing the street work and the architect and/or engi- neer who will stake out and supervise the work at least 7 days prior to beginning of road construction. Upon completion of the work, the architect and/or engineer shall certify that the work is in conformance with the approved plan, stipulations and any other requirements and/or changes that the City requests. 7. A plan detailing the location of gas, telephone, electricity, prior to final plat review. 8. The applicant shall contribute $26,738 to the Hinesburg Road sidewalk fund based on 1,260 feet of frontage along Hinesburg Road. 9. Prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit for any lot, or roadway or utility construction, the applicant shall submit to the City Planner a letter from VAOT approving the proposed im- provements on Route 116. The proposed impr_ovments to the Route 11v/Swift Street Extension intersection (Sheet SP10) shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a building on any lot. 10) As expressly represented by the applicant, it is proposed to relocate the stream over lots 1,2,3 and 6 to a newly constructed stream along the southern property line. The stream shall be designed to meander and both appear and function as a "natural stream". The stream shall be located at least 50 feet north of the south property line. It shall be located at least 50 feet frcm the edge ;,f wetland on lot 5. Detailed engineering drawings for the new stream shall be submitted prior to final plat review. —?ic n_w L iall be corstructed p-L for to the issuance of a zoning permit for any lot and within a reasonable time period after start of utility or roadway construction. 11. 'The plans shall be revised prior to submission of a final plat application to show the following: a) The survey plat shall include a survey of lot #11. ') Recreation/Pedestrian path easements to be dedicated to the City. c) Limits of wetland on lots 5 and 7. These limits shall be determined by a wetlands expert. d) 150 foot buffer setback from western edge of adjoining AG-RES district on lot 1.1. r e) Location of new stream and 100 foot wide consersvation district. 12. The Final Plat shall be submitted within 12 months or this approval is null and void. M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: August 6, 1991 agenda items Date: August 2, 1991 3) WITHERS, 2-LOT SUBDIVISION, KIRBY ROAD This item was continued to Tuesday's meeting to allow the Commis- sion to visit the site. Pay particular attention to the western property line which divides the Wither's property from the Picard Circle residences. I would like to clarify my recommendation for the installation of a row of pine trees or a stockade fence. This recommendation was made to address a potential nuisance impact. Typically, in residential subdivisions, back yards abut back yards. This situation is unique in that a lot is being created which has no frontage on a public street. Therefore, the back yards of the Picard Circle residences will not be abutting a back yard of another lot, but will be abutting a long driveway. While the traffic created by this driveway will be practically nonexistent, the entering and exiting of cars will create some noise and pollution (exhaust) which is typically not experienced in a back yard. The installation of pine trees or a stockade fence would help buffer this type of activity from the adjoining back yards. 4) CONTINUE GREEN ACRES SUBDIVISION, HINESBURG ROAD Enclosed is a letter dated July 15, 1991 from me to Ralph Good- rich summarizing the outstanding issues. Provided below is a summary of the status of these issues and staff's recommenda- tions. View Protection/Building Height: Staff met with the applicant's consultant and established new view lines with a transit. It is agreed that buildings and landscaping be restricted to a maximum height derived by the following formula: Maximum height elevation above sea level = X(0.0058) + 393.5 where x = the horizontal distance from the eastern edge of pavement of Rt. 116 The plans should be revised to indicate this height limitation and delete the prior references to height limitation. 1 l Memorandum - Planning August 6, 1991 agenda items August 2, 1991 Page 2 Berm/drainageway: The Commission earlier required that the land along the south property line be returned to its original condi- tion and that a berm/landscape plan be prepared for the area along the Ledgeknoll residences. The applicant is proposing to construct a new meandering drainageway 50 feet north of the property line, and construct a pedestrian trail and install landscaping on both sides of the drainageway. The drainageway will be designed so that it is "natural" in both appearance and function and will be located 50 feet north of the property line so as not to create a conservation district on the Ledgeknoll properties. . The Natural Resources Committee reviewed a sketch of the proposal and submitted a memo with their comments (enclosed). The NR Committee supports the proposal, however, recommends a detailed stream design, moving the stream at least 50 feet from the wooded wetland, and restoration and revegetation of the wetland buffer where the existing steam was illegally constructed. Staff supports the recommendation of the NR Committee. A proper- ly designed stream could carry on the hydrological water carrying and ecological functions of a "natural" stream. A detailed engineered plan should be submitted prior to final plat applica- tion. The plan should show engineering details, the limits of the wetland edge, the stream at. least 50 feet from the wetland edge, landscaping plan, and pedestrian paths. The subdivision plans should be revised to indicate the construc- tion of a new drainageway. The survey plat should show pedestri- an easements in the appropriate location. Traffic: Enclosed is a letter from Craig Leiner regarding Liit= traffic analysis. Craig has requested additional information and analysis before he can make a final recommendation. Craig has recommended that the analysis be revised to address higher trip generation rates contained in the ITE Trip Manual, 5th Edition (available since January, 1991). Also, he recommends that the analysis be expanded to include the Dorset Street/Kennedy Drive and Dorset Street/Williston Road intersections. There are a significant. number of vehicles estimated to go through these ?s a result of this development. These intersec- tions are critical to the City and therefore should be analyzed. I concur with Craig's recommendations. Memorandum - Planning August 6, 1991 agenda items August 2,1991 Page 3 Also enclosed is a copy of a letter from me to Tyler Hart which addresses my comments on the traffic study. The traffic analysis should be revised to address both my and Craig's comments prior to final determination of conditions to be imposed. Pedestrian/Recreation Path easements: Enclosed is a sketch of the pedestrian/recreation path easements as proposed by the Natural Resources and Recreation Path Committees as well as the applicant. The difference is that the City Committees recommend an easement around the Quarry while the applicant does not. The City Committees reviewed the applicant's proposal and still recommend an easement around the Quarry as indicated in the NR Committee's memo dated 7/22/91. Lot 5 building envelope: The applicant has not indicated whether they are wiling to show a restricted building envelope on lot 5. Sidewalk Policy: Enclosed is a copy of the City's Hinesburg Road sidewalk policy which was adopted by the Council on 1/19/87. Based on this policy, the applicant will be required to contrib- ute $26,738 to the fund. Sonny Audette has indicated that it is preferable for the City to receive the payment rather than the _ippl-:t 1,260 feet of Hinesburg Road. Wetlands: The limits of the wetlands on lots 5 and 7 should be shown on the plan prior to final plat. Survey: The survey plat should include lot 11 prior to final plat. submission. Other issues which have surfaced since the last meeting include the following: Lot 3: The applicant is considering proposing a condition which would prohibit development on lot 3 at this time. The condition would require an amendment to the final plat to allow development on lot 3, prior to submission of a site plan. I am not sure what is gained through this approach. It. seems to just delay the addressing of issues as they relate to development on the parcel and potential impacts to the adjacent residences. 3 Memorandum - Planning August 6, 1991 agenda items August 2, 1991 Page 4 Rowley lot: The Rowley lot is a 0.5 acre lot on Hinesburg Road which is surrounded on three sides by the Green Acres property. As part of this application, the applicant is considering doing a boundary line adjustment so that the 0.5 acre Rowley lot in- creases in size to a 3.3 acre parcel fronting Hinesburg Road. Access to the lot would be provided from the proposed Vosburg Lane cul-de-sac. I consulted the City Attorney on the implications of this propos- al. It is his opinion that such an action would render the new 3.3 acre parcel useless except for agricultural use. According to the I-Ag district, commercial/uses are only allowed in P.I.D.'s (80 acre minimum), pre-existing lots of 3 acres or less, and pre-existing lots between 3 and 80 acres. The boundary line adjustment would create a new 3.3 acre lot, thereby forfeiting its pre-existing status. Since the parcel does not meet the requirements of the PID, the only use allowed is agriculture as provided in Section 16.10. This interpretation is based on a ruling made in 1984 regarding the Rye subdivision across the street. Enclosed is a letter from Attorney Richard Spokes regarding this interpretation which was adopted by the Commission at the time. I recommend that the above issues be finalized at Tuesday's meeting and that the plans be revised accordingly prior to the Commission making a decision on the preliminary plat application. 5) VILLAGE AT DORSET PARK The applicants are proposing to amend the approved 178 unit planned residential development to replace the unbuilt multi- family units with single-family lots. The result will be a 145 unit PRD consisting of 121 single-family lots and 24 multi -family units. Enclosed are the minutes from the original approval (5/31/88) and last years amendment (3/17/90). Lot Size/Setback: Proposed lot sizes range from 6,000 square feet to 8,500 square feet. This is consistent with the original- ly approved and constructed lots. Setbacks in the original approval were 20 foot front, 10 foot side and 30 foot rear. This should be applied to the new single-family lots. Landscaping: The original approval. required two trees per single family lot. This should continue on the new lots. 4 �ki State of Vermont /% /- f '� J06 /64 T(yei Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation Department of Environmental Conservation State Geologist Natural Resources Conservation Council August 19, 1991 Mr. Ralph B . Goodrich Green Acres, Inc. P.O. Box 2123 South Burlington, Vermont 05401 AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Department of Environmental Conservation Air Pollution Control Division 103 South Main Street, BLDG 3 So. Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0402 (802) 244-8731 RE: Permit #AP-90-052 to Construct and Operate 1, 819 Parking Spaces at the Green Acres Industrial Park as an Indirect Source Pursuant to the Vermont Air Pollution Control Regulations (Sections 5-501 and 5-503) Dear Mr. Goodrich: Pursuant to Section 5-503 (Indirect Sources) of the Vermont Air Pollution Control Regulations (Regulations) , the Agency of Natural Resources (Agency) has reviewed the carbon monoxide air pollution impact of automotive activity associated with 1, 819 parking spaces at the Green Acres Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont. This office has determined that the proposed parking capacity will comply with all applicable State Air Pollution Control Regulations. Therefore, approval to construct and operate the parking facilities is hereby granted, subject to the permit conditions attached hereto and made a part hereof. Sincerely, Reginald A. LaRosa, Acting Commissioner Department of Environmental �Conservation B y :^Q !/�J�G,LC✓ Richard A. Valentinetti, Director Air Pollution Control Division RAV/JLP:IjI Enclosures cc: Peter Guldberg, Tech Environmental Regional Offices - Barre/Essex Jct./Pittsford/N. Springfield/St. Johnsbury State of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Department of Environmental Conservation Air Pollution Control Division Waterbury, Vermont AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PERMIT CONDITIONS Date Issued: August 19, 1991 Applicant: Green Acres, Inc. P.O. Box 2123 South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Source: Green Acres Industrial Park South Burlington, Vermont Approval is granted subject to the following permit conditions: (1) #AP-90-052 The Green Acres Industrial Park shall be constructed and operated in accordance 1 with the plans and specifications submitted to the Agency on January 15, 1991 and in accordance with the following permit conditions. (2) Traffic Network Improvements Improvements at the intersection of Hinesburg Road and Swift Street shall be implemented prior to completion of 1000 parking spaces. The improvements shall 11 consist of (see Figure 1): (a) Widening the Swill Street approach to two lanes in order to provide dedicated right and left -turning lanes, (b) Widening of the northbound approach (Hinesburg Road) to provide a through lane and dedicated left -turning lane, and (c) Install and operate a traffic control signal. Page 2 of 4 l (3) Ambient Air Monitoring The Agency intends to install and operate an ambient air monitoring system for the purpose of determining ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide at the intersection of Dorset Street and Williston Road located in South Burlington. The monitoring equipment and operating procedures will meet the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) Technical Services Section's (TSS) Ambient Air Monitoring Requirements. Green Acres, Inc. shall pay to the Agency as its total share of the costs for establishment and operation of the monitoring program the sum of $15,000.00 within 10 days of issuance of its Act 250 "Umbrella" permit or all other local approvals, whichever comes later. (4) Upon completion of each individual project involving the construction of parking spaces in the Green Acres Industrial Park, Green Acres, Inc. shall report to the Air Pollution Control Division (Attention: Air Quality Permit Assistant, Air Pollution Control Division, 103 South Main Street, Building 3 South, Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0402) the name of the project completed and the number and location of parking spaces constructed. An updated map of the area, showing the parking spaces, shall accompany these reports. (5) Issuance of this Permit shall not relieve any person from compliance with those portions of the Vermont Air Pollution Control Regulations requiring approval prior to commencing construction of any stationary source of air pollution. (6) Approval to construct shall become invalid if construction is not commenced within 30 months after issuance of this Permit, if construction is discontinued for a period of 30 months or more, or if construction is not completed by January 1, 1997. The Agency may extend the 30 month period upon a satisfactory showing that an extension is justified. The term "commence", as applied to the construction of the proposed parking facilities, shall have the meaning that the owner or operator either has all necessary preconstruction approvals or permits and either has: (a) Begun, or caused to begin, a continuous program, of actual on -site construction of the source, to be completed within a reasonable time; or (b) Entered into binding agreements or contractual obligations, which cannot be cancelled or modified without substantial loss to the owner or operator, or { undertaken a program of actual construction of the source to be completed within a reasonable time. i Page 3 of 4 (7) These Permit conditions shall be binding upon and enforceable against Green Acres, Inc. and all subsequent owners and/or operators of the Green Acres Industrial Park. (8) These Permit conditions may be modified for cause upon the filing of a written request with the Secretary of the Agency (Secretary) or upon the Secretary's own motion. Any modification shall be granted only with the written approval of the Secretary. If the Secretary determines that modification is appropriate, only the conditions subject to modification shall be re -opened. The filing of a request for modification does not stay any terms or conditions of this Permit. The Secretary may provide opportunity for public comment on any proposed modification of these conditions. If public comments are solicited, the Secretary shall follow the procedures set forth in Section 5-501(4) of the Air Pollution Control Regulations. (9) This Permit does not convey any property rights of any sort or any exclusive privilege, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights. (10) By acceptance of this Permit, Green Acres, Inc. agrees to allow representatives of the State of Vermont access to the property covered by the Permit, at reasonable times, for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the Vermont environmental and health statutes and regulations and with this Permit. Page 4 of 4 Ca.j z U h d.(, v t G� On �Y � �sWt c� .iyV� � �' i � N Z♦ � 2. rH-► /i. [ c! C �Y �. Lc�� �srr f. ✓1.t �.! Oh `` � .1J O �ri.rtt /'u�i. l L4 ^� ��Vi.seD L,,4,1 1, 5u�- ve/y p/ter sl.� iJ Ste, k l� or L'o2ole ,nclic / f � 4 J h o f S.e�-n s ui-✓G�.G �. City,4 South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 August 30, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich Green Acres, Inc. 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont. 05403 Re: 11 Lot Industrial Subdivision, Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Goodrich: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is a copy of the July 9, 1991 Planning Commission meet- ing minutes. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Joe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp cc: Karen Petersen Peter Jamb MIDDLEBURY: PETER F. LANGROCK MARK L. SPERRY ELLEN MERCER FALLON WILLIAM B. MILLER, JR. JAMES W. SWIFT EMILY J. JOSELSON JOHN F. EVERS SUSAN M. MURRAY JOHN L. KELLNER MITCHELL L. PEARL KEVIN E. BROWN July 11, 1991 LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MIDDLEBURY: BURLINGTON: BURLINGTON: MICHAEL W. WOOL LIAM L. MURPHY THOMAS Z. CARLSON ALISON J. BELL 15 S. PLEASANT STREET 275 COLLEGE STREET P.O. DRAWER 351 P.O. Box 721 MIDDLEBURY, VERMONT BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05753-0351 05402-0721 802-388-6356 802-864-0217 FAX 802-388-6149 FAX 802-864-0137 REPLY TO: MIDDLEBURY OFFICE Mr. Joseph Weith, City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Green Acres, Industrial Park Subdivision Dear Joe: This letter will serve to confirm that I appear for and represent the following individuals in the above -reference matter, all of whom are abutting property owners to the Green Acres proposed subdivision: Larry and Ginette Brainard Scott and Roberta Pennington Nancy Sheahan David and Cathy Howell Christopher Davis I understand from the discussion at the end of the hearing on July 9th that you will be preparing a memorandum for the Commission summarizing the "loose ends" which need attention prior to the next hearing. If you are going to be sending a copy of your memo to the applicant, would you also kindly send a copy to me? Mr. Joseph Weith, City Planner July 11, 1991 Page Two I would also appreciate your advising me when and if the applicant should file any further plans, studies, or other documents with the commission, so that I can come in and take a look at them. Sincerely yours, Mark L. S rry MLS:dmg, cc: Peter Jacob Larry and Ginette Brainard Scott and Roberta Pennington Nancy Sheahan David and Cathy Howell Christopher Davis City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 August 23, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich Green Acres, Inc. 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: 11 Lot Subdivision, Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Goodrich: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, August 27, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. Since e y, Ra nd J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant Encls RJB/mcp cc: Peter Jacob Karen Peterson Mark Sperry, Esquire M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Raymond J. Belair, Planning and Zoning Assistant Re: August 27, 1991 agenda items Date: August 23, 1991 3) GREEN ACRES 11 LOT INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION - HINESBURG ROAD The applicant is requesting that the hearing be continued to September 17th. This is because his traffic consultant was not able to provide the additional traffic information requested by the Planning Commission at the August 6th meeting (minutes not available) in time for staff to review the information. 4) JOHN BELTER - WHITE ROCK POINT - APPROVAL EXTENSION This application is a request by John and Joyce Belter for a two (2) year extension of their Final Plat approval granted on July 26, 1988 (see enclosed minutes) for a 36 lot single family subdi- vision. Section 605 of the subdivision regulations requires the subdivid- er to substantially construct the subdivision within three (3) years of the final plat approval or the approval becomes null and void. This same section allows the Planning Commission, after a public hearing, to extend the approval for up to two (2) additional years if the Commission determines that the developer has, since final plat approval, been diligently and consistently persuing financing or other approvals necessary for the project. The applicants indicate that they have not been able to begin work on the subdivision because they have been actively pursuing an Act 250 permit which they received on May 28, 1991. 5) LOCAL 300 REALTY CORPORATION - OFFICE BUILDING - 3 GREGORY DRIVE This project consists of the construction of a two (2) story 6,400 square foot office building and vocational training center. The Zoning Board of Adjustment granted a conditional use permit on July 22, 1991 (see enclosed minutes and findings) for the vocational center and multiple use. 1 �t -.f City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 July 31, 1991 Mr. Tyler Hart. Trudell Consulting Engineers P.O. Box 308 Williston, Clermont 05495 Re: Traffic Impact Report for Green Acres, Inc. Dear Tyler: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 The letter summarizes my comments regarding the above referenced report as we discussed during our meeting of July 25, 1991. 1. The report should indicate the date of AOT traffic counts used in the analysis. 2. Page 3 of the report should be revised to clarify that poten- tial maximum building square footage was not assumed, only a one story building at maximum coverage. 3. Page 3 should clarify that no development was assumed for lot 11. 4. Table on page 19 is very confusing. It should indicate that these lane configurations were assumed in the capacity analyses. Also, the lane configuration for the Route 116/Kennedy Drive intersection for the 1997 build scenario is inconsistent with the recommendations on page 24. 5. Table on page 20 is confusing. The table indicates overall n,1„-. nt r-r- t_ 1 C)n anri ] r1rl l V 1 CI11,-11 1 a n P T,05,7 f r, 1 the other two intersections. ilie Table should be revised to indicate both overall LOS and individual approach lane LOS for all three intersections. Mr. Tyler Hart July 31, 1991 Page 2 6. Table on page 20 indicates that under the 1997 build scenar- io, the eastbound Williston Road through/right approach operates at LOS E during the A.M. peak and LOS B during the P.M. peak. I would think these would be opposite. Please check this. Please call if you have any questions. Serely, oe Weith, City Planner JW/mcp cc: Craig Leiner Y TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. August 5, 1991 Mr. Joe Weith, City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Green Acres Traffic Study Dear Joe: I have received your review comments and the letter from Craig Leiner with his commments relative to the traffic study for this project. As I have discussed with you, most of the comments can be easily addressed and I will submit a revised report addressing those comments. As far as comments number 1 and 3, these requests represent considerable extra unnecessary work and will create inconsistences with the air pollution and traffic reports which have been approved by the Agency of Transportation. 1. You have asked for a capacity analysis of the Dorset Street/Kennedy Drive intersection and the Dorset Street/Williston Road intersection. This whole section of road has been analyzed to death and is currently under total reconstruction with new signal timings and geometrics. What future condition would we analyze for? I am in the possession of a report showing the Corporate Way connector to Hinesburg Road which will significantly alter traffic patterns at these intersections. I feel a study of the impacts of Green Acres traffic at intersections so remote from the project under such unknown conditions would be meaningless. 2. You have asked that the project trip generation figures be changed to reflect the latest edition of ITE. You should be aware that the traffic study was started in February of 1990 and the first draft was submitted to the City on July 10, 1990, way before the new edition of the manual was even published. The protocal for the study was established with the A.O.T. and the traffic generation figures have been accepted and approved by them. It is simply unfair to ask that newly published figures be used at this point after the second draft of the report has been approved by the A.O.T. The revisions you are asking for represent a substantial amount of work and cost and I don't think the overall conclusions will change. f O. Box 308 14 Blair Park Road Williston, Vermont 05495 (802) 879-6331 Page 2 At this point the report indicates that a signal will be required at Route 116 and Swift Street Extention with full buildout of the project. The A.O.T. is requiring some geometric changes and pavement marking as part of initial buildout. Any changes at Kennedy Drive and Williston Road are clearly dictated by the normal growth of background traffic at these locations not by Green Acres development traffic. Please accept my arguments in this matter or at least take it to the Planning Commission. If they concur, I will make all of the other recommended changes. If you have questions please call. Very truly yours, TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Tyler Hart, P.E. cc: Craig Leiner Y /-I 07 /' u i-rs �t/r�i� S H�o�h 1�.�61i � LOv✓173 A`i lq4,)- 1-1:1- ` -r ciz No Text i -- -y`',�.'� Uri-�,iT r �'J'L- OAT i1 v �!.^t..t.-.C�:.�'�-,c� • `� / l C, ✓'YLQ� July 15, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Rd. So. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Ralph, I attended the planning commission meeting July 9, 1991, and in looking over the plan, I saw how very small my lot is compared to the other neighbors lots. I wonder if it would be possible to set aside some of the land between the old farm house and my lot, including my lot, thus creating a larger size lot that would be buildable so that I might be able to sell out or be bought out some day. It is very unlikely, when industry moves in for my wife and I to find a buyer. Please advise me if this is possible. I know the city needs the industrial growth. It has been a long time coming. Good luck to you and the city; I hope my taxes will be lower next year. Very truly yours, l im Rowley G R E E N A C R E S, I N C. 625 Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 July 19, 1991 Mr. Jim Rowley 1160 Hinesburg Rd. So. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Jim, I have received your letter with your request to combine some of Green Acres land and your house lot to form a larger lot. Your suggestion has been passed on to Peter Jacob. Peter is managing the project for Green Acres. Peter thinks your suggestion has a lot of merit, and will ask the City Planning Commission to consider this special lot when Green Acres goes back to the Planning Commission on August 6, 1991. We thank you for your suggestion, and your good wishes with the project. Let us all hope for lower taxes next year. Very truly yours, Ralph B. Goodrich Green Acres, Inc. RBG/nmr /Say �Zt- �s i City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 July 15, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Green Acres Subdivision Dear Ralph: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 The purpose of this letter is to summarize the outstanding issues regarding the above referenced application. I understand the outstanding issues to include the following: 1. Lot 2 height limitation: Staff will review applicant's proposal for a height limitation of 397 feet above sea level. Staff will make recommendation after review. 2. Lot 1 height limitation: Plans should be revised to indicate a height limitation on lot 1. Staff recommends 400 feet above sea level. 3. Plans should be revised to show berm and dense plantings along southern boundary of lots 3, 4 and possibly 5 to screen development from residential properties. The berm should be varied in height and width in order to make it more natural in appearance and blend in with the landscape. The berm and plant- ings should be located within the 150 foot buffer setback. 4. Recreation/Pedestrian Path easement: The recreation path committee and NR Committee will review and comment on applicant's proposed location of easements. 5. Traffic: Staff will meet with regional transportation coordinator and contact applicant for further information, if necessary. Comments on traffic analysis will be provided to applicant. Improvements to be done by applicant and impact fee contributions should be clarified prior to the next meeting. 6. Lot 5 building envelope: At the 7/9/91 meeting, the appli- cant indicated that he would consider identifying a specific building envelope on lot 5. This should be shown on a revised plan or otherwise addressed at the next meeting. Mr. Ralph Goodrich July 15, 1991 Page 2 7. Sidewalk Policy: Enclosed is the Hinesburg Road sidewalk policy. This policy was adopted by the Council on 1/19/87. Applicant would be required to pay $26,738 based on 1,260 feet of frontage along Hinesburg Road. 8. Wetlands: The limits of the wetland on lots 5 and 7 shall be shown after the wetlands study is complete. 9. Survey: The survey plat shall include all of lot #11. 10. Watercourse: The Commission indicated that the recent watercourse constructed along the southern boundary should be removed and land returned to its original condition. I believe this addresses all of the outstanding issues. Revised plans should be submitted by July 29 for the August 6 meeting. Please contact me if you have any questions. cerely, Joe Weith, City Planner JW/mcp cc: Peter Jacob Dick Trudell Mark Sperry South Burlington Planning Commission i 7/9/91 JW MOTION OF APPROVAL I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the Preliminary Plat application of Green Acres, Inc. for subdivision of 263 acres off Hinesburg Road into eleven (11) lots as depicted on an 18 page set of plans, the title page entitled "Green Acres Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont", prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. and dated last revised 7/4/90, with the following stipulations: 1. In an effort to preserve the spectacular views of the Green Mountains from Route 116 as recommended in the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, the following conditions shall apply: a) Structures on lots 2,3 and 4 shall be located within the building envelopes as identified on Sheet SP3. Sheet SP3 shall be revised prior to final plat to show a building envelope for lot 1. b) The height of structures on lots 1,2,3 and 4 shall be limited to an elevation above sea level of 400 feet, 396 feet, 397 feet and 387 feet respectively. Sheet SP3 shall be revised prior to final plat to indicate these height limitations. c) Landscaping on all lots shall be limited to an eleva- tion of 395 feet plus 4.36 feet for every 1000 feel east of Hinesburg Road. 7'**j JA•// n*of w�r�/y 1i.- a /�r��ltt ✓ Awo-#% a,/* •y ik s. .ok 1+ % /rft t , d) Sheets P1 through P5 sh�/all be revised prior to Final Plat to indicate a species or variety of species of street trees which at mature height will meet the height limitations described in (c) above. 2. Prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit or start of roadway or utility construction, the applicant shall post a 3- year landscaping bond in an amount equal to the value of the proposed street. trees. The amount shall be approved by the City Planner. 3. Prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit for any lot, or start of roadway or utility construction, all appropriate legal documents including easements (i.e., utility, sewer, drainage, sight -view, recreation path) and roadway r.o.w.'s (i.e., irrevo- cable offers of dedications) shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and recorded in the South Burlington land records. 4. Prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit for any lot, or start of roadway or utility construction, bonds to cover the costs of roadway, utility and sidewalk construction shall be posted. The amount of bonds shall be approved by the City Engi-, neer. 5. Access to lots 1.,2,3 and 4 shall be via Vosburgh Lane. Access to lot 6 shall be from the proposed 60 foot sewer/roadway r.o.w. to the east. Access to lots 8 and 10 shall be provided by one shared curb cut on Swift Street Extension. Access to lots 7 and 9 shall be provided by one shared curb cut on Swift Street.. The plans shall be revised prior to Final Plat to indicate this. 6. The developer shall furnish the City with the name of the contractors doing the street work and the architect and/or engi- neer who will stake out and supervise the work at least. 7 days prior to beginning of road construction. Upon completion of the work, the architect and/or engineer shall certify that the work is in conformance with the approved plan, stipulations and any other requirements and/or changes that the City :requests. 7. A plan detailing the location of gas, telephone, electricity, TV cable and street lights shall be submitted prior to final plat review. 8. The applicant shall contribute $26,738 to the Hinesburg Road sidewalk fund based on 1,260 feet of frontage along Hinesburg Road. 9. Prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit for any lot, or roadway or utility construction, the applicant shall submit to the City Planner a letter from VAOT approving the proposed im- provements on Route 116. The proposed improvements to the Route 116/Swift Street Extension intersection (Sheet SP10) shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a building on any lot. 10. The plans shall be revised prior to submission of a final plat application to show the following: a) The survey plat shall include a survey of lot #11. b) Recreation/Pedestrian path easements to be dedicated to the City. c) Limits of wetland on lots 5 and 7. These limits shall be determined by a wetlands expert. d) 150 foot buffer setback from western edge of adjoining AG-RES district on lot. 11. e) Berm and dense plantings along residential lots to the south. The berm and plantings shall be installed prior to the issuance of a zoning permit for any lot. 11. The Final Plat shall be submitted within 12 months or this approval is null. and void. /41« .rss �«. s.. f s f�. V44 Sw;,F; s4. /�•O. 1,�,I. pVtr Lvo rQ trV,&4 j pr .r0. r r%o&y cb^4 fr%o &*,, '-7 /�+�or ft ONOP If Iit fit? lq / W& C. .» �.. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 August 2, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich Green Acres, Inc. 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont. 05403 Re: 11 Lot Subdivision, Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Goodrich: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next. Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, August 6, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. icerel , 0 9oe Weith, r�+v P7annPr Encls JW/n;cp c.c: Peter Jacob Karen Peterson Mark Sperry N TO: So. Burlington City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Natural Resources Committee DATE: 22 July 1991 RE: Green Acres, Rt. 116, South Burlington Saturday, July 20, 1991, Shelley Snyder and Cathy O'Brien of the Natural Resources Committee walked the above referenced project with Peter Jacobs. The Natural Resources Committee has three main concerns with this project; the stream relocation, the recreation paths, and the wetland. Stream Relocation We appreciate the applicant's thoughtful proposal for the construction of the stream along the southern edge of the property. This proposal can, if properly designed and supervised, eliminate the concerns expressed previously by the Natural Resources Committee. The applicant is proposing to create a 150 foot stream corridor down the southern property line with the new stream meandering through the middle 50 feet. Mr. Jacobs agreed to relocate the stream in a natural condition without use of rip rap culerting or channeling. Bedrock exposed in the proposed location can be taken advantage of to create the stream meanders. The Council and Planning Commission should require detailed plans for this steam including several cross sectional views of specific locations rather than conceptual plans. We will seek the professional opinion of the State Stream Alteration Program. We feel that it would be beneficial to have the reconstruction be completed before the lots are sold to insure consistency in the completion of the stream corridor. On the site walk, seeps in the area of the wetland were observed. Over time, the configuration of the ground water table in the wetland will be changed if the ditch is left as it is. This will have impact on the native vegetation. The committee recommends that the 150 foot stream corridor wrap around the wetland rather than intersect the wetland (see specific wetland comments below). The stream should discharge into the northwest corner of the existing pond that is at the north end of the wetland. Wetland We recommend that the 50 foot buffer between the stream and wetland be appropriately restored and allowed to revegetate naturally. The Committee would like to review final plans including landscaping plans. We suggest that landscaping be done with native vegetation. Maintenance of the stream, landscaping and pedestrian trails should be included in individual lot covenants. Recreation Paths The Natural Resources Committee had previously proposed a recreational path around the boundaries of this property and round the quarry. We still strongly recommend these paths be established. On July 18, 1991 Mr. Jacobs addressed the Natural Resources Committee and agreed to allow a path down around the large east lot, up along the Muddy Brook and continuing back up to join the stream corridor discussed above. Although he did not agree to the quarry path at this time, we believe it would be extremely beneficial to South Burlington residents. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 July 991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich Green Acres, 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: 1.1 Lot Sul -division, Hinesbu,-, Read Dear Mr. Goody 4l.ch: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and fiom Cit1 En ineei Bill Szymanski, Fire Chief Jim Goddett.e an,3 myself. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, July 9, 1991 at. 7:30 P.M. to represent. your request. Sincerely, / Joe Weith,�ZA City Planner Encls JW/mcp cc: Peter JZ.c ,'1h Karen Peterson � r t ��GoMM��►DED i�C. p�-rN�� A�es��� TZAIL. TI NGr w� dh t*. rA0 rob Sep 96 G PAIN Cow, rfE f " ji 7a1 APPt #CAAJr • • • • o • I P. � 1 flop NI ESB RG - I ROAD PARTNFRSsw+ \� I PAN= / IIWFS 1. EYSMC YKR PINY SrA OUII / d 1 l CONSERVATION do •\ �' ) \�� 4v OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 69 ILIUM PARTNERSNw T.. ( _ — —_ ' ,I 1 / ❑e 1 / / 1 so•' CIO I °� �oE I I �� ' ®� 1 10.10 AC. t , . 6 145.8 AC. t 1 ' R.O.W I,' 1 INDUSTRIAL ! O� �� AGRICULTURAL r l r 10-81 AC. t 1 1 I l i 12.13 AC. DISTRICT 10.49 AC. 1 • AGRICULTURAL A I' / ❑ r'' l ---� EXT.. RURAL RES. g / < iiREEi ! 1 S►WFi DISTRICT �j G�% 60' WOE \ \ ao\ _--12.41 AC. t lI 1 l — 10.10 AC. BOwiY _ — '' 4` , / ❑ { ) O 0.10 AC. t , ( 1 \ I y ^� 1 � 10.10 AC. ZONESERvwnaw � � ,. �1 .79 AC. t � A 1 � I! I • • � � 7 ; \'\� � 50' EACH sroE I . , _ , 1 �.LJ _ � t"' dbTR t \ 3 1 ai sWAtF - -D I GRICULTUR m 1 ' 12.51 AC. t I j' �. O• �� I AGRICULTURALASRURAL 1 ❑ mrsiEA°R /' '. rourANr flgemeBQ RESIDENTIAL TR • noao L—— I •. j "�� NorelL 1 as �pUSTR1AL w• /� y d SHE — ICULTURAL�� / i} "DISTRICT �taURAL�IF�S.,y LiCLr4D — — — — PROPERTY / LOT LINE -- ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY WETLANDS (NW) ❑ PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREA I -------- ------------ J '�: i',,'OPT CONSERVA RON ZONE Groo t: Scats Feet 300 O 300 600 900 1200 ACRES OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREAS e 8.1 ACRES�— ❑2 10.1 ACRES Q 23.2 ACRES WEeSFI- 0 16.7 ACRES — — _— ❑5 26.4 ACRES WRRERI © 15.1 ACRES ❑7 18.0 ACRES ABRAMS Q 12.9 ACRES— ❑11 9 SSEL 75 ACRES 140.7 ACRES I ��0W11 --_ .- CONSERVATION k OPEN SPACE DISTRICT UWFII ( MILLISTON ) (MW.I.ISTON )� y r.arwr L.[ws�F ( WILLISTON ) \ MIWSrON iW LW BURLWCTQ4 T � TOWN LWE RECEIVEE \ JUL 0 1 1991 CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ro EAGII $tJE OT EFN RRU9E OT 61ROLe. City of So.. Burlingtc OWNER - GREEN ACRES INC. P.O. BOX 212.1 SOUTH BURONOWN. VT. 05403 TOTAL AREA 286.1 ACRES AREA IN W1LUSrON 22.8 ACRES .t AREA IN SOUTH BURLWGTON 263.3 ACRES t AREA IN AGRICULTURAL i 21 ACRES t RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SAW WWSRIA' / AGRICUL TURAL DISTRICT 242.3 ACRES 3 NUMBER OF LOTS ALLOWED 12 NOTE. 242.3 ACRES W RIDUST / AGRIC. DISTRICT DIVIDED BY 20 ACRE AVERAGE LOT SIZE - 12 LOTS TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 14 WAY ►A1k Road Me 30e WIM&L % Vt 054" e79-"M PRoxcr LOG IIO4 LOCUS YAP Desc.plim Dob By Rawswns title Project GREEN ACRES INDUSTRIAL PARK Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, Vt. reel title Master Site Plan Project number MOOT-51 Project manoger X'w 0— NAY Date 2123190 Scole 1�jw. App—ol SP2 le L/ 0 7Ztcoo"�, (Aj- Ale? Gs' --� z f�� eawep 's c,*2 Z/.c Vz 4-1 ort = NN' 26 2 28A kirb 31 B d 29C dov 30 3::R -at "ve (I Patricks' II - M.0 338- O to US" ." I b ave. DO :s �Lrout PkWY2 32A0 rester td e st � 3/� Cj:— 43 C r n� tread s terf.. SOA 5 0 B Al2:F- A 2- 4 7A 4 R A tn� on KOriZt>n -; r lob l�•s�ur�L� �O /�j ��, Agile . © 04,�Va 7 .f- elevaltanl Or T a.„ s"4 0 Cl q,c A 11 4y-u. T,,o J, � 7 0�, " ( -4'. � /" / /, 7v Dd 6� ((( G t./( I ss VI-) , , Z;V 1,6 ty-r� PAINMR / M $e LE$ CVSINO SERER / PUMP SiARON1 II CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE DISTRICT BORLINCTON PROPER RES �� iv _ 1 I 1 _ R.O. W 6o• WIDE i I 1 < ., 10.10 AC. t CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE DISTRICT IR O.WII 1 INDUSTRIRAL 10.81 AC. t 1 AC. t / AGRICUL � � 5 1 12.13 I / I I � I DISTRICT )f0.49 AC. AGRICULTURAL & RURAL RES.TREET DISTRICT 12.41 AC. (,�j J Mffmc NG ROMtEY -�g) 1 �rENa [ % •' 10.10 AC. t 10.1 AC. / ❑ 10.10 AC. ZONE RVARON ` I 19.79 AC. t /. 50' EACH SIDE O� \ ` ,RJ Z/ _—. - RICULTURAL DISTRICT _�. OF SWALE 1 INDUSTRIA G 12.51 AC. t } I (1) c ? AGRICULTURAL ISTRRUCT L l - FL" " y L� TOUTANT BRAINARD RESIDENTIAL -�_ 1 -�_OF NOWEu INDUSTRIAL pi SHEAHAN- Suggs_ - AGRICULTURAL LEGEND — — — — PROPERTY / LOT LINE ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY WETLANDS (NW) r -------- ------------ J PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREA jN/ j/ CONSERVATION ZONE Graphic Scale Feet 300 0 300 600 900 1200 m DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL & RURAL RES.` , DISTRICT / ACRES OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREAS �` Q &I ACRES \ 2 10.1 ACRES - 1 a 23.2 ACRES WESSEL I Q 16.7 ACRES — — - -- 1 26.4 ACRES TERRERI / I&I ACRES T© ABRAMS I l� 18.0 ACRES 1 ® 12.9 ACRES Q WESSEL 7.5 ACRES 10 2.7 ACRES 140,7 ACRES l M0(ELL ( WUISTON ) 1 �I WIWSTON / SOUTH BURLINGTON ' E C E I V E E - — Tom LINE --- CONSERVATION & JUL 01 1991 OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 100 EACH SIDE OF CENTERLINE Qr BR00R City of So. Burlingtc OWNER GREEN ACRES INC. P.O. BOX 2123 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT. 05403 TOTAL AREA 286.1 ACRES t AREA IN WILLISTON 22.8 ACRES ! AREA IN SOUTH BURLINGTON 263.3 ACRES 3 AREA IN AGRICULTURAL & 21 ACRES 3 RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AREA IN INDUSRIAL / AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 24T.J ALRES S NUMBER OF LOTS ALLOWED 12 T. NOTE: 242.3 ACRES IN INDUST. / AGRIC. DISTRICT DIVIDED BY 20 ACRE AVERAGE LOT SIZE 12 LOTS T TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 14 Disk Park Roed Box 308 WWlatorl Vt. 05495 8796331 LOCUS NAP Deacnpirm Date By R—s—, GREEN ACRES INDUSTRIAL PARK Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, Vt. Sheet M1e Master Site Plan Project number. -- 86091-51 Project manages KAP Drawn "AM Date 2123190 Scale I�'3o0 Approved SP2 1 R 839.78' L 116,01' S0,. 5'E665228 ATCH INTO EXISTING -WI EXISTING DRIVE EASEMENT EASEMENT LOCATION AND 10' SNOW p. 141J131" STORAGE EASEMENTS �� (BOTH SIDES) AND R 789.78' 10' ELEC. EASEMENT y L - 200.92' FOR SIGN LIGHTING ` 10' UTILITY l TIE DIST /- CASEMFM, L - 66.4t' la, EUcrwlcA / EASEMENT TO Sl(W [ p - 65741" R - 4t2.19' L - 50.08' 40,00' i I ( LINE DATA LI N05Y '20"W 235.00' L2 NBJD2'36"E 19.62- 0 NO6010'57"W 100.00' L4 SBJV2'36'W 19.62' L5 S83'38'16'E 20.00' L6 N8270'59"E 194.17' L7 N0774'34'W 11.00' L8 NBJ'04'40"E 247.00 L9 5671O9'55'W 91.65' LIO 583Y9'O8"W 241.95 LII SOJ77'22"W 281.31' L12 S0576'I3"E 131.20' 03 N1755'31"E 91,65' 04 S4727'17"E 117.66' L15 N84'53'19"E 23743' L16 S84'53'19"W 169.52' L17 S83'19'09"W 288.09' L18 N83'02'36"E 60.03' L19 S64'53'19"W 60.00' _ L20 L21 N60'16'07"E S70R9'29"E 67.65' 67.65' L22 N831D2'36'E 105.21' L23 50713425E 80.05' L24 S845319"W 2.74' L25 S055B'37"E Boor CURIE DA TA CI 44'39'09' 75.00 58.45 56,98 5415038"W C2 114'39'54" 75.00 I50.10 126.28 S34'48'53'E C3 69155'57" 75.00 91.54 85.97 N52'53.11"E C4 35'45'12" 540.00 3J6.97 331.53 S65919'53'E C5 115411' 540.00 1112.18 111.98 S891D9'35"E C6 47'3923" 460.00 '382.61 371.68 N7116'59"W C7 497511" 412.19 355.53 344.61 N7219*51"W C8 229'14'24" 75.00 300.08 136.36 551O6'41"E C9 49'25'11' 332.19 286.53 277.73 S72109'5/"E 60'x100' EXISTING PUMP STATION PARCEL 176 P. SIO % L5 20' WIDE SERER I EASEMENT TO EXISTING PUMP STATION VOL. 176 P. 510 ed zli� RONLEY i CP VOL. 91, P.49 N83'19 'E O O. / E�kti'I,Lp0� R.W. / C5 L15 216.00' 12.41 Ac. y 1 10' WIDE �� I I A V9 ^ UTILITY EASEMENT + DRAINAGE POND C 2 ® G5 v 10. 79 Ac. u !A Y �1II I g56.29 M .1� A I i SToyj 0� -? "F 10.I O0AAc. I O 200' CONSERV, rION zoNE rr AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT -. 11.51 Ac. 9i � qp�' L17 I 01 z 332.75'" 915.83' W SB3'19'09"W G� Of L10 583.19.09 c OAVIS PENNING ION _ RIGHT -OF- i • N 77' VOL 9! # 156N I A 326 (66.0) -_. 1 414. 58210'JO"W TOUTANT I BRAINARD tP.21 L I VOL. 94. P. N VOL. :1 261 2 82 403 Im 274 P. 529 P. 11 A� LEDGE KNOLL DEVELOPEMENT �I Graphic Scale Feet DUBOIS WL 179. P. 120 PLAt VOL. 107. P. 42 300 0 300 6D0 900 lzoo T Revbbns I I w dptbn Date Dy F n I PROIE[T LOCATION dip THE PARCEL ON THIS PLAT DEPICTED BY LOTS 1 THROUGH to WAS `R CONVEYED TO GREEN ACRES, INC. BY THE DEED IN VOL. 91 PAGE 26 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS AND CONTAINS A ING 15 WI TOTAL AREA OF 116.73 ACRES. ;IRIAN �Ry MISPARCELIS BASED ON A TOTAL STATION CONTROL TRAVERSE, tENr EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE FIELD, AND INFORMATION ABSTRACTED FROM 176 P. 510 QU THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS. THE PARCEL SHORN AS "OTHER LANDS OF GREEN ACRES, INC." IS TAKEN FROM CONTROLLED 1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY OF THE PROPERTY PREPARED IN 1985. DETAIL BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE VERMONT COORDINATE SYSTEM FROM U 1 SIGHTINGS MADE ON OCT 25. 1985 FROM STATION 'HR 89 RESET 1981'. p LOT AN ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE TO IDENTIFY OR DELINEATE EASEMENTS. t0 �' A ` RIGHTS -OF -WAY, LEASE LANDS. ENCROACHMENTS, ETC. OBSERVED IN THE FIELD OR READILY FOUND IN THE LAND RECORDS. ADDITIONAL vZ 0 ENCUMBRANCES MAY EXIST WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. 592.16 1 THE AIRPORT APPROACH ZONE AS SHORN IS BASED UPON DIMENSIONS PROVIDED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AVIATION OF BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AS SCALED ONTO AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY OF THE VICINITY IN 1981. CB SURVEY MARKERS SET BY THIS OFFICE ARE EITHER A ONE INCH DIAMETER \ IRON PIPE. THREE FEET LONG WITH A YELLOW PLASTIC PLUG WHICH READS. "TRUDELL CONSLT ENG". OR A FOUR INCH SQUARE CONCRETE MONUMENT, THREE FEET LONG WITH BEVELED TOP EDGES. TEMPORARY <h THE RIGHTS -OF -WAYS FOR SWIFT STREET EXTENSION AND FOR VOSSURGH EASEMENT TO CITY OF LANE ARE TO BE CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON. THE SOUTH BURLINGTON FOIE E- CUL-DE-SAC 1 AREA OF SWIFT STREET EXTENSION AND VOSBURGH LANE ON THE OAC. SUBDIVIDED GREEN ARES PARCEL IS 6.21 ACRES. 50' WIDE LEGEND DRAINAGE 1 I EASEMENT • IRON PIPE (FOUND) OTHER LANDS OF 0 IRON PIPE (TO BE SET) GREEN ACRES INC. 1 V0.. 9a. P. inB CONCRETE MONUMENT (FOUND) Nk. 11J. P. 16B ❑ CONCRETE MONUMENT (TO BE SET) _ L2 LINE DATA CHART REFERENCE C5 CURVE DATA CHART REFERENCE - _ - -- - EXISTING FENCE LINE Prol- ade GREEN ACRES INDUSTRIAL PARK ProWt namMr _ 6EO91_40_ _ Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, Vt. BER MAM ha*, my Drawn Sh- RR. Plat of Survey a" 7173190 5ra" '""'°°' � TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. id Boat 105 DYk 42-01 y 14 Met Park Road - 308 W1111-. Vermont 064a5 879-63]I TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 14 IIMb Park Road Box 308 WII1Leton. Vt. 05495 8796331 RECEIVEDo A. 01 1991 City of o. Burlington FID--1ptba Opla ey R1N11on1 I Pru lecr I�lln GREEN ACRES INDUSTRIAL PARK Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, Vt. Sl�erl mie Subdivision Plat Protect number 86091-10 Project monager K'w Drawn MAM Dale 2123190 Scale 1 -' Approved SPI M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Wdlliam J. Suymanski, City Engineer Re: July 9, 1991 agenda items Date: July 5, 1991 3) GREEN ACRES INDUSTRIAL PARK, HINESBURG ROAD 1. Sidewalk thickness at driveway crossings shall be 8 inches. 2. Sewer manhole inverts may be poured concrete instead of brick. ,3. Plans prepared .by Trudell are ceptable. 4) AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK, FORMERLY OFFSET HOUSE Unless the parking areas are paved and painted it will be diffi- cult to define the various spaces. 7) AIRPORT MAINTENANCE BUILDING. BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIR- PORT A retention basin should be provided for the storm water dis- charge if there is an increase in the runoff. Memorandum - Planning July 9, 1991. agenda items July 5, 1991 Page 2 4) PUBLIC HEARING, 2-LOT SUBDIVISION, HAL BENSEN At the 6/4/91 meeting, the applicant indicated that they will submit. a landscaping plan as part of this application as request- ed by the Planning Commission (minutes enclosed). A plan has not been submitted, however, the applicant has indicated that he will have a landscape architect at Tuesday's meeting to address the landscape plan which I suggested to the applicant (enclosed). 5) GREEN ACRES 11-LOT INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION - HINEc.BURG ROAD This is a continuation of a public hearing held on April 10, 1990 (minutes enclosed) for preliminary plat approval of an 11 lot. subdivision. Green Acres, Inc. proposes to subdivide a 262.53 acre parcel as a Planned Industrial Development (PID) located on Hinesburg Road south of Lane Press and north of the Ledgeknoll residential development. The property is zoned Industrial and Agricultural (I -A) and in an interim zoning district adopted by the City Council on June 25, 1990 which has a minimum lot size of 10 acres. Since this subdivision meets minimum lot size requirements, approval is not required by City Council. The applicant proposes to do a Planned Industrial Development which is allowed in this zone on a parcel containing 80 acres or more. Please read over the I -A section of the zoning regulations prior to Tuesday's meeting. The property is bounded by Dynapower to the north, Muddy Brook and the Town of Williston to the east, residences to the south, and Hinesburg Road and several single-family residences to the west. The site slopes downward from Hinesburg Road. The western half of the property is primarily open with fields while the eastern half is primarily wooded. An old quarry exists on the site as well as a small pond. A stream (beginnings of Potash Brook) runs north -south in the center of the property. Two small tributaries lead into this stream. Minimum lot size/frontage: The zoning ordinance requires a 10 acre minimum lot size, however, the average size of all the lots must equal a minimum of 20 acres. The plan shows 10 lots each between 10 and 12.5 acres, and one 145.8 acre lot. The average lot size is 22 acres (based on total of 242.3 acres in I -AG zone). 2 C Memorandum - Planning July 9, 1991 agenda items July 5, 1991 Page 3 All lots meet the minimum lot frontage except for lots #2 and #3 which are located at the end of a cul-de-sac (Vosburgh Lane). The Planning Commission may reduce frontage requirements by 50'% for lots on cul-de-sacs if it determines reduction would improve lot layout.. Both of these lots would meet the 50% requirement.. Access: The plan shows an 80 foot wide r.o.w. with 32 foot wide paved road extending south-easterly from the Lane Press/Dynapower Road over the western portion of the Dynapower property onto Green Acres property and then extending eastward through the middle of the property ending in a cul-de-sac south west of the quarry. A 900 foot long road branches off to the south ending in a cul-de-sac near Ledgeknoll. The four lots fronting the cul-de-sac should access from the cul-de-sac. Lots #8 and #10 and lots #7 and #9 should share an access on Swift. Street Exten- sion. Lot 6 should access Swift Street via the proposed 60 foot r.o.w. Swift Street could someday be a high volume roadway if and when it is extended to Williston. The Commission should take the opportunity now to minimize curb cuts. The applicant is proposing a 60 foot sewer r.o.w. between lots #6 and #8 which could be used as access between Swift Street Exten- sion and the Pollack property to the north. Lot. Layout: The purpose of the PID is to encourage clustering of smaller lots to preserve open space for aesthetic enjoyment, natural features and to maximize potential of land for agricul- tural purposes. The proposed lot layout follows the concept of clustering by clustering the 10 to 12 acre lots on the western portion of the property and leaving the eastern half in one large lot. This large lot will work well to preserve the natural features of Muddy Brook. There are tremendous views of Mount Mansfield and the Green Mountains' from Hinesburg Road. The preservation of these views was an issue discussed at the April 10, 1990 meeting. The appli- cant is addressing this issue by designating a building envelope on lots #2 and #3 within which building height would be restrict- ed to elevation 400.0. The building envelope for lot #4 would restrict building height to elevation 378.0. Staff established view lines with a transit and recommends that the height limits for the building envelopes on lots 2 and 3 be 396 and 397 respectively. Additionally, landscaping should be limited to an elevation of 395 plus 4.36 feet for every 1000 feet. east. of Hinesburg Road. Lot #1 should also contain a height limit. 3 Memorandum - Planning July 9, 1991 agenda items July 5, 1991 Page 4 Screening,: A high berm with sufficient landscaping should be constructed along the residential properties to the south, simi- lar to the berm constructed in t3reen Tree Park.. Special atterl t.ion should be given to views in designing the berm. Traffic: A Traffic Impact report was prepared for this project by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. (copy enclosed). For the intersection of Route 116 and Swift Street Extension, assuming a full project built in 1997, the study indicates that a signal. will be warranted in the 1997 build scenario. For the Route 116 and Kennedy Drive intersection the study indi- cates that this intersection will require three (3) approach lanes on all four( 4) legs of the intersection by 1997. These improvements are required as a result of normal growth in traf- fic. For the Route 116 and Williston Road intersection the study indicates that to accommodate 1997 traffic three (3) approach lanes will be required on all four (4) legs of the intersection. These improvment.s are also required as a result of normal growth in traffic. A copy of the report was sent to Craig Leiner of CCRPC. I will also provide detailed comments at the meeting. Recreation Path/Pedestrian Easement: The Recreation Path Commit- ' tee was consulted and their recommendations are shown on the enclosed sketch. Wetlands: The Department of Interior Wetlands Inventory Map shows a portion of a 12 acre wooded wetland on portions of lots #5 and V . The applicant should be required to hire a wetlands expert to evaluate the functions and values of the wetland and delineate the boundaries in order to make sure there will be enough buildable area on lots #5 and V . These boundaries should be shown on the preliminary plat. Other: The plan shows the required 150 foot buffer strip from I-89, Hinesburg Road, and the pre-existing lots of three (3) acres or less in the I -A District. The plan does not show the 150 foot buffer strip from the adjoining Ag-Rural Residential District. The plan should show this buffer strip. Conservation Zones for the north -south stream, tributaries and Muddy Brook are shown. 4 Memorandum - Planning July 9, 1991 agenda items July 5, 1991 Page 5 The boundaries of the airport approach cone appear to be incor- rectly shown. Survey plat. should include all of lot 11. 6) THOMAS _KLE_H - RESTAURANT AND INDOOR RECREATION - 1205 AIRPORT PARKWAY This project consists of converting the former Offset House building to a pizza restaurant (75 seats) and indoor miniature golf facility. There will be minor changes to the site and the only changes to the building will be interior modifications to accommodate the proposed uses. This property is in the Mixed Industrial and Commercial District and is located at 1205 Airport Parkway which is on the corner of Airport. Parkway and Berard Drive. This property is bounded on the north by a multi -use industrial - building, on the east by an .industrial building (welding busi- ness), on the south by Airport. Parkway an on the west by Berard Drive. Access/circulation: Access to the property is provided by two (2) existing curb cuts, one on Airport. Parkway and one on Berard Drive. Both of these curb cuts are approximately 40 feet in width and are proposed to provide two-way access. Circulation through the site is acceptable. Parking: This project requires a total of 35 parking spaces and 57 spaces are being provided including three (3) handicapped spaces. Parking stall dimensions and aisle widths meet minimum requirements. The plan does not show a gravel embankment along the rear of the building adjacent to the 10 space parking area which would require that these spaces be pulled back a couple of feet away from the building. This change should be shown on the site plan. Coverage/setbacks: Building coverage is 22.1'% (maximum allowed is 30%). Overall coverage is 55% (maximum allowed is 70%). 14.9% of the front. yard is covered (maximum allowed is 30%). All setback requirements are met.. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION 10 APRIL 1990 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday 10 April 1990, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present William Burgess, Chairman; Mary -Barbara Maher, Catherine Peacock, John Belter, David Austin, Ann Pugh, William Craig Also Present Joe Weith, City Planner; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Dick Trudell, Mark Sperry, Nancy Sheahan, Chris Davis, Terry Sheahan, Pat Reed, Marya Lowe, Don Gilbert, E. Nalette, Ralph Goodrich, Karen Petersen, Maurice Goodrich, Robert Finn, Marcel Lapierre, Thomas O'Connor, Jim Rowler, Mrs. Jeane Anderson, Ms. Jeane Anderson, Bob Furlong, Marc Kutler, Sewall & Gretta Rint, Ginette Brainard, L. Bissett, Roger Dickenson, Wm. Bissonette, Geoffrey Fitzgerald, Greg Dicovitsky, John Jaeger, Larry Brainard, Scott Pennington, Patricia McLean, Kathleen & Michael McNall, Norm Terreri, Carl Cobb, Bill Rowell, Jayne Germain -Smith, G. & B. Beauchemin, L. & D. Abbott, Lucia Jean, Paul Duchesneau, Richard Painter, Bill Schuele, Steve Crowley, Haidee Antram 1. Minutes of 13 February 1990 Mr. Craig moved the Mintues of 13 FebruarL be approved as written. Ms. Peacock seconded. Motion passed unanimously_ 2. Public Hearing:.Preliminary.Plat application of Green Acres Inc, for subdivision of 263 acres off Hinesburg Rd. in South Burlington into 11 lots of 10 10.1 10.1, 10.2, 10.31.10.4_r 10.8 12.1, 13.4, and 145.8 acres Mr. Trudell said the property is south of the Dynapower building and consists of 2 parcels of land combined under separate deed. The right-of-way was established when Mitel came in and has been extended. The 145 acre parcel will not be developed at this time. The project would be served by extending the 12' water main. There is a sewer line that can be run into this property and wouldn't require another pump station. The proposed road is 32 ft wide with curbs. Mr. Burgess noted that parcels have to average 20 acres per lot when subdivided and there. may be a problem with the right-of-way reserved. Mr. Weith said the average by his calculations is 23 acres. Mr. Craig said there is a question of whether you count unbuildable parts of lots for acreage. Mr. Weith said that has J always been applied to residential developments, not to commercial. Mr. Belter said the developer may end up with a lot he has to put a very small building on, but that's his problem. Mrs. Maher said she would prefer larger lots. PLANNING COMMISSION 10 APRIL 1990 page 2 Mr. Weith noted that wording favors clustering smaller lots to get more open space. Mr. Burgess said he felt the Commission was getting what the regulations allow. Mr. Trudell noted the State wants them to move things up front to preserve prime ag soil in back. He added that it is also cheaper to develop closer to utilities. Members then reviewed items brought up at the November meeting. With regard to traffic, Mr. Trudell said they are in the process of doing one, in addition to another traffic study in conjunction with air pollution. Mr. Craig asked about a berm along the residential properties. Mr. Trudell said there can be a berm in some places. He said they are willing to do something but haven't got plans yet. Mrs. Maher suggested some dense plantings. Mr. Craig asked about the minor stream. Mr. Trudell said there is some drainage that comes down there. He showed the path of the water. Mr. Craig said there must be a 50 ft. setback from a minor stream. He said that he saw a well-defined channel with a flow. He noted that S. Burlington's regulations also call this a minor stream and added that it drains a great deal of land. Mr. Trudell said they may want to relocate the channel. Mr. Craig said that could be a real sticking point with the Commission and with Act 250. Mr. Trudell said otherwise they would have to relocate a building. Regarding pedestrian trails, Mr. Trudell said there is an easement down the property line. They would be willing to work with the appropriate people to set an exact location. Mr. Weith noted that the Natural Resources Committee has a recommended location. It will have to be put on the final plat. Mr. Craig asked the applicant's intentions regarding the quarry. Mr. Trudell said they have no plans at present. They have had no talks with the city on the quarry either. Mr. Weith said he had heard it would be a liability risk. He noted the city plan calls for getting it deeded to the city. Mr. Wieth said he would meet with Mr. O'Neill and the City Manager and see how they feel about it. Mrs. Maher said she would like to go on record as saying that she recommends that the city should own the quarry. Regarding view protection, Mr. Trudell showed view lines on the plan. He noted buildings would cut into the bank and from Hinesburg Rd. people could see over the buildings to the mountains. Views of the foothills would be blocked. Mr. Craig suggested lower heights for 2 of the buildings to protect the views. He felt the covenants should contain a stipulation that :C PLANNING COMMISSION 10 APRIL 1990 page 3 buildings can be only 80 ft. high above grade. Mrs. Maher suggested reconfiguring to move buildings further to the east. Mr. Trudell said that might create a problem with frontage. Mrs. Maher said that in such a case the lots should be reconfigured. Regarding wetlands, Mr. Trudell said they have a wetland consultant who will map out .the wetlands for them. He felt there would be enough buildable area left on the lot involved. Mr. Sperry, an attorney representing several properties, located the properties of his clients on the map and asked what uses would be allowed in the proposed buildings. Mr. Trudell said anything allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. He felt it would be primarily light industrial. Mr. Sperry asked about setbacks of the indus- trial buildings from the homes. Mr. Burgess noted that the ap- plicant wasn't proposing any buildings, only a subdivision. Mr. Sperry showed the Commission a map used by Goodrich at the Act 250 hearing on the quarry. He noted that there was an indication that all the soil on lots 1,2,3, and 4 are designated as prime ag j and most of lot 6 as well. Everything between the stream and Hinesburg Rd., he said, is prime ag soil. He noted a planned in- dustrial development would have to be created and the Zoning Reg- ulations say they would have to maximize the potential of prime ag soil. He noted the Zoning Regulations also say open space shall be located to maximize view sights from roads and surrounding pro- perties. He did not feel that lots 3,4,and 5 complied with this regulation. Mr. Sperry also noted that the regulations for a planned industrial development require an "innovative" design, and he didn't feel there was anything "innovative' about the proposed design. Mr. Trudell said it's an industrial subdivision, nothing out of the ordinary. Mr. Sperry asked how the Commission would judge "aesthetics" as required under a planned industrial devel- opment if there is no landscaping shown, no building design, no lighting, etc. Mr. Sperry asked if there is anything technical that would prevent the road from being moved further north. Mr. Trudell said there is a curve problem in one place. Mr. Sperry asked if there has been a traffic study or an air pollution study. Mr. Trudell said not yet. Tyler Hart will do the traffic study which will be done later. Mr. Sperry noted there is a criteria that subdivisions will not unduly affect traffic. Mr. Sperry asked if there is any chance storm water will run off onto any of his clients' properties. Mr. Trudell said there is not. Mr. Sheahan the Planning Commission to have the applicant encouraged PLANNING COMMISSION 10 APRIL 1990 page 4 preserve views and to locate the road and buildings away from homes. He did not feel the concerns of the neighbors have been addressed and felt that Mr. Goodrich had not shown consideration for homeowners. Mr. Davis asked if the State had found lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 to be prime ag soil. Mr. Trudell said mostly, except along the drainage Swale. A resident asked if there isn't corn growing out there. Mr. Trudell said the land has been leased out for growing. A resident was disturbed by the big lots on either side and felt there will be pressure for development and that would then present a whole new set of problems. He felt that regardless of what the developer says about not having plans to develop the big lot, they could come in and request to subdivide it. He felt that lot was part of a whole bad design. Ms. Peacock asked about a right-of-way to the Pollack project. Mr. Trudell showed a route. He noted there is a proposal to tie back into this project's road at some point. Mr. Weith noted the Commission had talked about leaving a right-of-way between lots 8 & 9 to make an easier access to the Pollcak land. Mr. Goodrich said they offered that to Pollack but Pollack didn't want it. Mr. Burgess asked if it would be a problem to leave that right-of-way, regardless of what Mr. Pollack wants. Ms. Pugh asked about the cul de sac and noted the subdivision reg- ulations say cul de sacs are allowed only in residential districts. Mrs. Maher said she thought the Commission might have more latitude in planned industrial developments. Mr. Craig felt the matter should be researched. Mr. Crowley noted the quarry has been mentioned year after year as a recreation area potential and noted this has been a recommenda- tion of the Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Burgess said the Committee will be asked for a recommendation as to whether the city should purchase the land. Mr. Burgess then asked the Commission for comments for the developer. Mr. Craig said he needed traffic answers. He wanted to fight for views on Hinesburg Rd. He wanted a generally better /1 plan. He also felt the city might have to fight the state on the prime ag issue. Ms. Peacock wanted more information on buffering. She felt views could be protected by restricting building heights. She did want to see building envelopes and height restrictions on at least lots 2 and 3. She was not satisfied with the right of way for Pollack. Ms. Pugh agreed with Ms. Peacock and also wanted to know about the cul de sac. Mrs. Maher did not ati A PLANNING COMMISSION 10 APRIL 1990 page 5 like the plan and wanted more protection for the residential neighborhood. All members wanted to see a traffic study. Mrs. -Maher then moved to continue the hearing until the applicant comes in -with a plan that addresses the.Commission's concerns,. Ms. Peacock seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Sketch Plan application of South Burlington. Realty-company.to revise and construct the 11-remainin -units of a 50-unit- planned residential development. known as MEadowbrook Condominiums, Jo Drive Mr. Craig stepped down during this discussion due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Dicovitsky showed a drawing of what has been built to date. He then showed a drawing with the added 11 units and a new configuration of carports. Changes were outlined as follows: Previously parking was all to the east of the carports. The Fire Chief asked that the road be reconfigured closer to the building and they have thus looped the road to the west of the carports. The Fire Chief is satisfied. This also resulted in the reconfig- uration of the carports. They have also rethought the buildings and have removed the southernmost unit from G Building and added it to H building. This provides more clearance. Mrs. Maher noted the City Engineer feels the drainage problems should be solved before any more building is done. Mr. Dicovitsky said everything in the drainage report will be addressed. There will drainage swales, culvert improvements, and a second culvert. Mrs. Maher asked that the City Engineer be satisfied that every- thing he wants is in the final motion. A neighbor raised the question of traffic. Mr. Burgess noted that traffic was already addressed in the original approval. 4. Site Plan application -of William and Lee -Bissonette-for -a 24 seat expansion within an existin .2 00 square -foot -builin -Al's French Fries, Williston Rd. Mr. Burgess noted receipt of statement of concern from the City Council regarding traffic on Williston Rd. and asked that this be carefully considered by the Commission. Mr. Bissonette said they want to put in 20 more seats in a 14' x 20' space. The footprint of the building will not change. Mr. Burgess noted that according to ITE standards this doesn't PLANNING COMMISSION 7 November 1989 page 2 he had no problem hooking up to the stockade fence so people can't access the motel pool through the neighbor's property. Ms. Peacock noted there had been a number of "for sale" cars on the road. Mr. Wilson said they were his cars and are now sold. Ms. Peacock moved the Planning Commission approve the Revised Final Plat application of Cooley -Wood Corporation for construction of a ten (10) room, second floor addition as depicted on a plan entitled "Ho -Hum Motel, Site Plan, Proposed 2nd Floor Addition to Back Building," prepared by Cooley -Wood Corporation and dated 9-14-89, last revised 9-29-89, with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall post a $6,000, 3-year landscaping bond prior to permit. 2. The plan shall be revised prior to recording to show an 8 foot high stockade fence along the entire length of the rear prperty line (McCarthy) 3. A sewer allocation of 1,600 gpd is granted based on 40 gpd per bed space (4 bed spaces per room). The sewer fee of $2.50 per gallon shall be paid prior to permit. 4. The Revised Final Plat shall be recorded within 90 days or this approval is null and void. Mr. Craig seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Sketch plan ap a 282 acre parcel (11 lots in South )lication of Green Acres, Inc, for subdivision of (260 acres in South Burlington Burlington), Hinesburg Road I into 12 lots Mark Sperry identified as an attorney representing the interests of abutting landowners Ms. Pedersen located the parcel south of I-89, east of Hinesburg Rd, below Lane Press and Dyna power. It is in the I-Ag zone which allows 10 acre lots. They will be concentrating the majori- ty of the lots on the west side of the property with a 142 acre lot around the quarry. The lots will access through the road to Lane Press and Dynapower through the middle of the property. There will be 2 cul de sacs, one at lot 11, one at lots 2 & 3. Setbacks from residential zones are met. Mrs. Maher noted that the Environmental Board will request that a certain percentage remain open/farm land and asked if it was the developer's intention that the easternmost lot be used for that purpose. Ms. Pederson said yes, but not all of that lot. Mr. Craig questioned what would happen if those 142 acres got sold PLANNING COMMISSION 7 November 1989 page 3 and the new owner wanted to subdivide again. He also noted that part of the lot is in the Ag-Res District and asked why that is included in the I-Ag requirement calculations for the 20-acre average. Mrs. Maher asked if Mr. Goodrich had any plans for the quarry. Mr Goodrich said no and that he was willing to talk to the city about possibly giving it to the city. Mr. Craig asked if allowances have been made to extend the road to S. Brownell Rd. Ms. Pederson said no. Mr. Goodrich said the City Engineer recommended the plan they are presenting for the road. Mr. Burgesssaid the Commission is interested in that extension. Mr. Goodrich said he would listen to a proposal. Mrs. Maher sug-- gested consulting with Terry Boyle, the City's consultant on the Southeast Quadrant to discuss possible placement of a road. Mr. Sperry presented a letter to the Commission on behalf of residents of the abutting properties. The letter indicated the residents feel the plan does not maximize open space and that the placement of the road down the middle of the property precludes maximizing land for agricultural uses. Mr. Sperry noted the Planning Commission has authority under a PID to modify plans and to make recommendations to the developer for modifications. Mr. Sheahan felt the applicant had lived up to the letter of the regulations but not the spirit. Mr. Burgess replied that the "spirit" was a compromise to allow at least one large lot with smaller lots. Mr. Ready said all of the small lots are right next to the residential area and the open area is away from the homes. He felt the "spirit" would be to flip flop this and leave the open area near the homes. Ms. Anderson asked what will go on the lots when they are devel- oped, specifically from the point of view of traffic, building heights, docking areas, etc. Mr. Goodrich hoped for something like Lane Press and Dynapower. Mr. Sperry stressed they are not trying to stop the project as they recognize the inevitable. They would like to work with Mr. Goodrich and with Terry Boyle and the Commission to come up with something to accommodate his clients' interests. He felt a lot could be done if the road were pushed further north. Mr. Schuele noted that since 1967, the City has listed the Quarry as a recreation/conservation site and he would like to see it kept alive with that designation. Ms. Walton noted this area is a beautiful part of the city and she would not like to see anything that would approximate a second Hinesburg Rd. out there. PLANNING COMMISSION 7 NOvember 1989 page 4 Mr. Abrams asked the Commission to consider the underlying water table when -development of lots comes up. Mr. Craig asked what can be done to fy-otect views on lots 2 and 3.' He asked if height covenants can be gotten. Mr. Goodrich said the lot slopes so a building could be designed into the hill so only about 10-15 ft. need show. Mr. Craig felt any covenants should be enforceable by the city. Mrs. Maher said she would be willing to reduce setbacks to get building envelopes away from the residential lots. Mr. Burgess outlined the follvwing for the City Planner to follow up on: traffic study, construction of a berm along the residential - properties, including of pedestrian trails in any proposals, the designation of a portion of the land as a wetland and the designation of allowable building envelopes on each lot, access to lots 1 & 4 from the cul de sac to reduce curb cuts, the status of the quarry, view protection, connection of the road to S. Brown ell Rd. Commission reaction included the following observations: ( Mr. Burgess said he tended not to like the smaller lots. Ms. Peacock agreed and felt it was not an imaginative plan. She felt the road had to be planned to Williston. Mr. Belter suggested the applicant talk with the State Ag people to see what they will want. Ms. Pennington asked if Terry Boyle will be limited because of this plan. Mr. Burgess said the plan is not so far along that changes can't be made. Mr. Furlong asked what would happen to the large lot once it is used to calculate density for the other lots. Mr. Burgess said the Commission would have to insure via legal documents that the lot could not be subdivided again. Residenta again stressed that they hoped the Commission would ask Mr. Goodrich not to put all the industrial lots up against the residential area. 5. Revised Sketch Plan application of Design Development for 1) boundary line adjustment and merger of 3 lots into 2 lots 2.58 and .36 acres, and 2) construction of a 10-unit planned idential development on the 2.58 acre parcel a of res- Mr. Burroughs said the concern was that parking was too far from the building, so this has been moved closer. The cArcular flow of traffic is broken up with landscaped islands. Mr. DeGraff, son of the owner, said they are looking to sell of the diamond shaped pace of property to create the total acreage. July 15, 1991 So. Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset St. So. Burlington, VT 05403 Attn: Joe Weith Dear Planning Commission members, July 9th I attended a planning commission meeting, my interest was Green Acres Industrial Park. I listened to the presentation by the developer, some of your comments, and those of Ledge Knoll neighbors, but I had to leave early and was unable to share my comments. It appears that the city wishes the developer to preserve the view from Hinesburg Rd. and from Ledge Knoll. From what I understand, the proposal by the developer addresses this request by designing the project so that the building height will be kept well below the two views, Hinesburg Rd. & Ledge Knoll, this accomplishment is a first. I love it because I remind the board of my request when Ledge Knoll was in planning, to give a similar consideration and not block out my view of the mountains. I invite you to come and see what I look at when I look to the mountains. I hope that the developer can sell those lots with such a limit on the height. This means excavating into the ground very deep if the building is to have significant height for an industrial or office type building. I personally do not believe the planning commission should ask for unreasonable limits on the height or the exact location of the buildings. That could deter an investor or company from purchasing a lot. We need the industrial and commercial growth; it is also my understanding that each building will come before planning and we have an opportunity to work with them including landscaping, lighting, etc. By the way, there are street lights that will not intrude on the neighbors. I am very pleased with the thoughtful design of the project. I would like to see the park built. One of the neighbors mention lot #3 building location was too close to them. Actually building #3 abuts my property, but if it will help matters, move the building more to the west if the developer thinks they can, and I believe that if the proper lights for street and parking are used we will not know the development is there. I want to address the new ditch that the neighbors are complaining about. I was in Florida last winter while the ditch excavation was completed, but when I returned home in the spring I found a big difference in the wet condition that had been on my property, since the development of Ledge Knoll, Butler Farms, and Oak Creek developments the ditch has lowered the water table and improved the drainage around my property. This improvement should have been a part of their development plans to carry their storm water off and not be left to set on my property. I do not want the ditch changed, this is a needed improvement. Sincerely, 4��hurToutant cc: Ralph B. Goodrich City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 July 16, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Green Acre Subdivision Dear Ralph: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 The enclosed policy was supposed to be enclosed with the letter to you dated 7/15/91, however, it was inadvertently left out. Please call if you have any questions. ere y, oe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp cc: Peter Jacob Dick Trudell Mark Sperry 71oii re mcdor 6geca ACieFS � s/�Gve s !�i-�= • � d� ••N , ih o« S«.: �°' JN...a � Eire . Die Grew/c d h,*,q ��so s..: /s�i /; /lvJlvit 7 fit /moss /Y // r t AXep- . I d NS 4 r« N 67— C tfg*fEN T" Ow.v&:;t.1 o f /4,,.fe- ,VF.e r- 7V 7rffULyy `v.t rf 1 c4eerxmoe, / ro ,DoE.t 7~�ieoft-jr �/�/r �r c •s� j40 ✓�� ie w•r s.s •t �t,�.+� A67;e*'o �+ C j Ts aw ^0,00u,e W-4� �-- /��r� �s cw, •� f J� �� G; � K f I �si�- v. � id Cal �/�.l •� t f o or List �J W 4 w♦ w iry ��' G✓ �v s.t � • L ZZ, Lf If F p /. c a K7q SA~ l e f'so0. /l 4,7 t4Cq at -�r 4p, v.'l qe S i o4s. w..,e/k .`/ XW4.�st oil va er 4061 - F-s A"a" , Awd 5AwZ oo�j V'�o s S Ut,3 4�4�0 /I e^4- 4,4,� a /�1 l4/r. il0j% J tKW r-OAj.oW".Aor1,#"l - Cr�»Y d/G�4/ G R E E N A C R E S, I N C. 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 May 21, 1991 Mr. Joe Weith, City Planner So. Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Joe, Peter Jacob is managing the Green Acres planning. He has had several meetings with Trudell Engineers and others so he could be ready to go forward with the planning with the City of So. Burlington and ACT 250. Peter Jacob feels he needs more time to complete the traffic studies. Therefore, we are asking you to reschedule the meeting for Green Acres from June 4th to July 9th. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter. Sincerely, 1ph B. Goodrich President RBG/nmr 11 I 0100, V14 s in r4- ( G) i., el / ( C,tle 1 0 A (-(--4 QVs�(r��on ��anrnrx� �mrr�i55la� .1 We-, acP, aVA� C-\Od unab(e�"o Ca��irssro� mee-ti ,bLA, �.�tould �kc� -% Some otnr optnion_s QnA 1d-o,,S on -t�,P, G�n Acop- S ap� -��- sc�bdiv�air�c� �63 acres oft �ahes%uc' P"064 vJe. are I& o�a n (1G c-operfit� o prime obrclon 3S on;p--rho1" 1 c'o.�kd atlhe lasf col i mt on bearioq -7he, zoni� ('e9u�`oas clal I foc-a )0 m�n�rn�w� lofiSt2e,. -The �c�x� �cres appl�ca�"ion is �qWStO o,svbd�visron off' I I lob , 10 Jots a-t D(_�ear`�,�, mtinimu�-,-� cand, oil �, (ot aboVe�e o.vercr � - is rthot ab��f hal�-i1�e.1��'s should 6e� aero,o mYjimum sho�A4 b� obaVe X acre, as a. mwimc.lm ��t,�i�ew�e�-j; cYcowrse) a\ � -�no, Wts r�t�art Was c�.Qsc��d. . Z 6Elt�wre,`�� app�ico�on is S'fc����� �Zoh�r� c�ula-;ions ht� have Man �������-S►2ea �1 p xi m 12� C'Sor�O,� QcO� t �015� � or &Afko -on 5tw was rSi,�d �-, a �kV4�loPe� �V, th� of�ea� �a�a a�a-ram, a�pl `c,c�fian s"�o .�t�r sugc�e rte� a.Q.Sign Wasaon�, � samaone� �4 nth a pro�2a -f'ro ck�cp�a �� pSeaS�� arx� Cc�2o�"�Ue, cktsighs, o� rice; arx��cceprt'ab(e s�bd�vts►on coo,id bQ, cc'eated. P�te�--S1�ouqhrt �"h a�" -t�c�� v�o �\c� p c�1�ib� '�i1e;• U�Oo arnA � Gs a3oiriinfana o\AnerS ace no�necessar,( ���Sr�o�-�'o s�"oP �,eveloprnerrt. T�' an� c�he,n tf sho(n(d come, vie are, lookinc�-Fo� somelll�� is o`�%'ac�v� � crQof v � o�nd ��eostnc�-�'o look ai. 1�ecaUse W�otxmec P,a�� N�Pc�c�'—j-O�.o%ot�ii�c� roper` �f xx t-I-Q t ,iiv� , tnho�ra"1on orx� m2e valwe.,-4`0 a\I pa�`i�es �nvofvek SSriC�e� , �Cq� & \Inn in �0� PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 July 9, 1991 Mr. Craig Leiner Chitt.enden CDunty Regional Planning Commission P.O. Box 108 Essex Junction, Vermont- 05453 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Re: Green Acres Incinstrial Lot. Subdivision, Hiriesbiirg Road Dear Craig: Enclosed is a traffics impact report for a proposed eleven (11) i t industrial subdivision off Hinesburg Road. The. City requests YI-Jur assistance :in reviewing the report and offering any com- ment-:, concern_ and suggestions you may have in regards to the study and the proposed subdivision. I wc,uld greatly appreciate it if you could provide your comments by July 30, 1991. It this schedule will be a problem, please contact. me. Thank ye--, fc1r your assistance. Si rely, J e Weith, �•I v Planner 1 Encl .JW/mcp :ty of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 June -6, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich Green Acres, Inc. 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Verm-_)nt 05403 Re: 11 Lot Subdivision, Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Goodr - , ` : ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find some preliminary comments from Fire Chief Jim Goddet.te and myself on the above referenced project. Please it. and ditional information or revised plans no later than Tuee;d--y, , July 2, 1991 If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, (;f Z-- 1/" ••' 1 ri e Weith, -ty Planner Encls JW/mcp cc: Peter Jacob Preliminary Comments - July 9, 1991 agenda June 21, 1991 Page 2 GREEN ACRES - 11 LOT SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAT Additional information required on sheet SPl: --- name and address of owner of record. --- certification that the subdivision tract was surveyed by a licensed land surveyor. --- lot 11 must be shown in its entirety. Other: --- Section 401.1(7) of the subdivision regulations states that "cul-de-sac streets shall be permitted only in residential dis- tricts and the length of a cul-de-sac shall not exceed ten times the minimum required lot. frontage for the district(s) involved". The proposed access road for this subdivision is a cul-de-sac, it is not located in a residential district and were it to be per- mitted the maximum length allowed would be 1,200 feet and the length proposed is 4,202 feet. Howe.;er, Commission has approved a :> i 3n . --- need a 11" x 17" reduced copy of the plat.. --- applicant should consider a berm and plantings to buffer development from Ledgeknoll neighborhood. --- applicant should consider dedication of pedestrian trail/recreation path easements beginning at the existing pedes- trian easement and continuing around the quarry and along Muddy Brook. --- Applicant should address status of watercourse along south boundary of lots 3, 4 and 5 which was constructed this past spring. Will original grade be returned? Culvert removed? All flow diverted back to original watercourse? �T TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. June 24, 1991 Joe Weith, Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Green Acres Industrial Park Dear Joe: Enclosed are 4 sets of plans and 4 copies of the traffic study of the above project. These are being submitted as part of the preliminary subdivision application. If you have any questions please call me. Very truly yours, TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Karen Ann Pettersen Project Manager gracweith.ltr P. O. Box 308 14 Blair Park Road Williston, Vermont 05495 (802) 879-6331 PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, July 9, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1) Continue Preliminary Plat application of Green Acres, Inc. for subdivision of 263 acres off Hinesburg Road in South Burling- ton into 11 lots of 10, 10.1, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.8, 12.1, 12.5, 13.4 and 145.8 acres. The property is bounded on the north by Orchard Lake Properties and I-89, on the east by the Town of Williston, on the south by Morrisey/Connor, Toutant, Ploof, Davis/Risley, Dion, Sheahan, Pennington, Brainard and Dubois and on the west by 1000 Hinesburg Road Partnership, Rowley, Dubois, Wessel, Terren, Abrams, and Hinesburg Road. 2) Continue preliminary plat application of Harold Bensen for subdivision of a 3.63 acre parcel containing a planned commercial development consisting of two (2) commercial buildings and 16 residential units into two (2) lots of 1.41 acres (commercial buildings) and 2.22 acres (residential buildings), Patchen Road. The property is bounded by the City of South Burlington, J. Heisse, Merchant's Bank Properties, Parsons, L. Zachary, M. Jarvis, and Patchen Road. Copies of the application are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. William Burgess Chairman, South Burlington Planning Commission June 22, 1991 j) ca /VS" // Sec-wl css /15,6 (0,2% J 4 3/20/90 JW MOTION OF APPROVAL I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan application of Salamin Handy to construct a 1,260 square foot addition to a 3,325 square foot building (4,585 square foot total) for convenience store and gasoline sales use as depicted on a plan entitled, "New Cumberland Farms Store," prepared by Gordon G. Woods, Associates and dated 10/89, last revised 2/14/90 with the following stipulations: 1) The parcel is located in Traffic Overlay Zone 1 (Article XVII of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations) which allows a gener- ation of 18 peak hour trip ends. The proposed use is anticipated to generate 284 peak hour trip ends during the peak hour. The Planning Commission approves a trip generation in excess of the 18 peak hour trip end limit since it believes the proposed access improvements as originally approved on 11/7/89 will significantly improve the traffic safety situation of the site. 2. The Planning Commission approves 20 parking spaces and waives 13 required spaces. It is the Commission 's opinion that 20 spaces will be sufficient since the pumping station will also serve as parking spaces. 3. The building permit shall be obtained within 6 months or this approval is null and void. G R E E N A C R E S, I N C. 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 May 21, 1991 Mr. Joe Weith, City Planner So. Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Joe, Peter Jacob is managing the Green Acres planning. He has had several meetings with Trudell Engineers and others so he could be ready to go forward with the planning with the City of So. Burlington and ACT 250. Peter Jacob feels he needs more time to complete the traffic studies. Therefore, we are asking you to reschedule the meeting for Green Acres from June 4th to July 9th. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter. Sincerely, Z 1ph B. Goodrich President RBG/nmr Planning File Data for Computer Input 1. Original Property Owner ��_ �%zreS Z. Developer's Name So�Na�2 3. Name of Development.-%C/t�.-.----- 4. Address of Development or Project . 5. Type of Project_..-_ AL.S 1�11,e1111 1114Cre.,r Minor Subdivision ( ) Major Subdivision (MS) Site Plan (SP) G. "Zoning District 1 7. Zoning District Z 4 ,S 8. Zoning Board Approval date if Required 9. Date of Planning Commission Hearings/Meetings Site Plan Date or Sketch Plan Date 7 zef — -- 3 10. Preliminary Plat date 1 l . Final Plat Date iZ. Revised Final Plat Date 1 (if applicable) 13. Revised Final Plat Date 2 (if applicable) 14. Acreage of 'rotal Project '2(0 15. Use of Land 1 16. Ilse of' band Z llsf- of Land 3 t;c ()I* Land 4 1 `a . Piumher of Lots 0. Vumhot- of Single Family. Unit ZI Numher• of Multi -family Units Lz'. t ruc•t i()n Cost nf' liui Idirc 23. Size of Building (Square footage) 24. Streets City Street CS Private Street PS 25. Date of Acceptance of streets by City _ 26. Bond -Landscaping _ 27. Bond -Streets _ 28. Bond -Sewer 29. Bond -Water 30. Bond -Other 31. Date Mylar Due (90 days after approval) 32. Date Recorded - 33. 34. 34. 36. Expiration date of Approval Date of First Building Permit _ Tax Map Number Map File Location 1 37. Map File Location 2 38. Map File Location 3 Other fees (Type and amount) Preparers Name: �2- - _ Date: Posted in Computer (Name, Date): { CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON( Subdivision Application - PRELII�SINARY PLAT � K.,. / p'a% 1) Name'�bf Applicant Green Acres. Inc. ' 1 P 2) Name of Subdivision. Green Acres Industrial Park 3) Describe Subdivision (i.e. total acreace, number of lots or units, type of lard use, include gross floor area if co;n_m- er cia 1.) 286.1 acres total with 263.3 acres in South Burlington divided into 11 lots for,an industrial subdivision. Minimum lot size is 10 acres. 4) Indicate any chances to name, address, or phone number of ok%,ner of record, applicant, or contact person since sketch plan application: None 5. Name, address, and phone number of: a. Encineer Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 308, Williston, VT 05495 b. Surveyor Same c, Attorney Donald E_O'Brien, Attorney at Law, P.O; Box 876, -------------Burlington, VT 05402 d. Pl- t Designer Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 308, Williston, VT 05495 i -2- 6) Indicate any changes to the subdivision such as number of lots or units, property lines; applicant's legal interest in the property, etc., since this proposal was last before the commission: None 7) List names and mailing addresses of owners of record of all cont- 1 igous properties: List enclosed _ 8) State title, drawing number, date of original plus any revisions, and designers) of the preliminary map (sO'acEompanying this appli- cation: Preliminary site plan (SP1) 2/23/90, Preliminary site plan (SP2) 2/23/90; P1 - P5 road plan/profile, 2/23/90, SP4 water details, 2/23/90 and SP5 sewer details, 2/23/90. 9) Attach a preliminary map showing the following information: 1) Proposed subdivision name or identifying title and the name of the city. 21 Name and address of owner of record, subdivider and designer of Preliminary Plat. 3) Number of acres within the proposed subdivision, location of property lines, structures, watercourses, wooded areas, and other essential existing physical features. 4) The names of all subdivisions immediately adjacent and the names of owners of record of adjacent acreage. 5) The location and size of any existing sewers and rater mains, culverts and rains on the property or serving the property to be subdivided. 6) Location, names and widths of existing, and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts, paths, easements, parks -3- and other public or privately maintained open spaces as well as similar facts regarding adjacent property. 7) Contour lines at intervals of five feet, based on United States Geological Survey datum of existing grades and also of'proposed finished grades where change of existing ground elevation will be five feet or more. 8) Complete survey of subdivision tract by a licensed land surveyor. 9) Numerical and graphic scale, Cate and true north arrow. 10) Details of proposed connection with existing water supply or alternative means of providing water supply to the proposed subdivision. 11) Details of proposed connection with the existing sanitary sewage disposal system or adequate provision for on -site disposal of septic wastes. 12) If on -site sewage disposal system is proposedlocation and results of tests to ascertain subsurface toil, rock and ground water conditions, depth to ground water unless pits are dry at depth of five feet; location and results of percolation tests. 13) Provisions for collecting and discharging storm drainage in the form of drainage plan. 14) Preliminary designs of any bridges or culverts which may be required. 115) The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the Commission to locate readily and appraise the basic lay- out in the field.. Unless an existing street intersection is shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall be shown. 16) All parcels of land proposed to be dedicated or reserved for public use and the conditions of such dedication or reservation. 10) Developmental timetable (including number of phases, and start and completion dates) Summer/fall 1990, road construction 0+00 to 19+50. Remainder of road will denend on demand. 11) List the waivers applicant desires from the requirements of these regulations: -4_ 12) Attach a vicinity map showing the following: 1) All existing subdivisions, approximate tract lines and acreage of adjacent parcels, together with the names of the record owners of all adjacent parcels of land, namely, those directly abutting or directly across any street ad- joining the proposed subdivision. 2) Locations, widths and names of ex.istingIfiled or proposed streets, curb cuts, easements, huildiug lines and alleys pertaining to.the proposed subdivision and to the adjacent properties as designated in paragraph 1 above. 3) An outline of the platted area together with its street system and an indication of the future probable street system of the remaining portion of the tract, if the Preliminary Plat submitted covers only part of the sub - divider's entire holding. (signs re) applicant or contact person 0 4 to LIST OF ABUTTERS South Burlington Sue and Linus Wiles 42 Long Meadow Drive Shelburne, Vt 05482 Richard and Ann Painter 106 Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 Burlington Properties Ltd. Partnership Box 9210, 1020 Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 1100 Hinesburg Road Partnership 1100 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 James and Sachi Rowley 1160 Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 Arthur Toutant Et. Al. 1398 Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 Richard and Madlyn Morrissey 1400 Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 Homer and Marie Dubois 1405 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Diane Wessel 70 Highland Terrace South Burlington, VT 05403 Norman and Patricia Terreri 60 Highland Terrace South Burlington, VT 05403 Mark and Marsha Abrams 50 Highland Terrace South Burlington, VT 05403 William Wessel 36 MacIntosh Ave. South Burlington, VT 05403 Raymond Ploof 1943 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Christopher Davis and Lisa Ringey 18 Knoll Circle South Burlington, VT 05403 David and Catherine Howell 20 Knoll Circle South Burlington, VT 05403 Terrance and Nancy Sheahan 24 Knoll Circle South Burlington, VT 05403 Scott and Roberta Pennington 29 West Birch Lane Williston, VT 05495 Larry and Ginette Brainard 28 Knoll Circle South Burlington, VT 05403 City of South Burlington Municipal Offices Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 State of Vermont Agency of Transportation State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 0 M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: November 7, 1989 agenda items Date: November 3, 1989 3) GREEN ACRE INDUSTRIAL LOT SUBDIVISION Green Acres, Inc., proposes to subdivide a 282 acre parcel into 12 industrial lots. The parcel is located on Hinesburg Road south of Lane Press and north of the Ledgeknoll residential development. 260 acres of the 282 acre parcel are located in South Burlington while 22 acres are located in Williston. It is proposed to create 11 lots in South Burlington and one separate 22 acre lot. in Williston. The property is zoned Industrial and Agricultural (1-A). The applicant proposes to do a Planned Industrial Development which is allowed in this zone on parcels containing 80 acres oi-- more. Please read over the I -A section of the zoning regulations prior to Tuesday's meeting. The property is bounded by Dynapower (under construction) to the north, Muddy Brook and the Town of Williston to the east, resi- dences to the south, and Hinesburg Road and several single-family residences to the west. The site slopes downward from Hinesburg Road. The western half of the property is primarily open with fields while the eastern half is primarily wooded. An old quarry exists on the site as well as a small pond. A stream (beginnings of Potash Brook) runs north/south in the center of the property. Two small tributaries lead into this stream. Minimum lot size/frontage: The zoning ordinance requires a 10 acre minimum lot size, however, the average size of all the lots must equal a minimum of 20 acres. In South Burlington, the plan shows 10 lots each between 10 and 12.5 acres, and one 142.2 acre lot. The average lot size (assuming only the 260 acres in South Burlington) is 23.6 acres. All lots meet the minimum lot frontage except for one lot which is located on a cul-de-sac. The Planning Commission may reduce frontage requirements by 50% for lots on cul-de-sacs if it deter- mines reduction would improve lot layout. 1 Memorandum - Planning November 7, 1989 agenda items November 3, 1989 Page 2 Access: The plan shows an 80 foot wide r.o.w. with 32 foot wide paved road extending south/easterly from the Lane Press/Dynapower Road over the western portion of the Dynapower property onto Green Acres property and then extending eastward through the middle of the property ending in a cul-de-sac south west of the quarry. A 900 foot long road branches off to the south ending in a cul-de-sac near Ledgeknoll. The four lots fronting the cul-de-sac should access from the cul-de-sac. The 10.5 and 10.3 acre parcels on the north side of Swift Street, as well as the two 10 acre parcels directly south, should share access on Swift Street Extension. Swift Street could someday be a high volume roadway if and when it is extended to Williston. The Commission should take the opportunity now to minimize curb cuts. The Punning Commission should consider the proposed roadway network in relation to the future development of the Pollack property to the north. We may want to reserve a r.o.w. for a second connection of the Lane Press Road to the new roadway (see Sketch A). Lot Layout: The purpose of the PID is to encourage clustering of smaller lots to preserve open space for aesthetic enjoyment, natural features and to maximize potential of land for agricul- tural purposes. The proposed lot layout follows the concept of clustering by clustering the 10 to 12 acre lots on the western portion of the property and leaving the eastern half in one large lot. This large lot will work well to preserve the natural features of Muddy Brook. There are tremendous views of Mount Mansfield and the Green Mountains from Hinesburg Road. The proposed lot layout does not work well to preserve these views. Buildings on the 10.5 acre parcel and 12.1 acre parcel along Hinesburg Road would destroy this important view. The Commission should determine whether it feels this view should be preserved. I feel this view could be preserved by creating a larger lot along Hinesburg Road and allowing a building envelop only on the far eastern portion of this lot. A large lot would still be possible on the far eastern portion of the 260 acre parcel in order to preserve the natural features of Muddy Brook. Traffic A traffic study should be done to determine the impact of this development on the intersection with Hinesburg Road and Hinesburg Road/Kennedy Drive. Screening A high berm with sufficient landscaping should be constructed along the residential properties to the south, simi- lar to the berm constructed in Green Tree Park. Special atten- tion should be given to views in designing the berm. 2 Memorandum November 7, November 3, Page 3 - Planning 1989 agenda items 1989 Pedestrian Easement: The Comprehensive Plan shows proposed pedestrian trails around the quarry and along Muddy Brook. Easements for these trails should be reserved. The Natural Resources Committee will be consulted. Wetlands: The Department of Interior Wetlands Inventory Map shows a portion of a 12 acre wooded wet.l.and on this parcel. The applicant should be required to hire a wetlands expert to evalu- ate the quality of the wetland and delineate the boundaries. These boundaries should be shown on the preliminary plat. Other: The plan should show the required 150 foot buffer strip from I-89, Hinesburg road, the adjoining Ag-Rural Residential District and the pre-existing lots of three acres or less in the I -A District. Building envelopes for each lot should be shown. Conservation Zones for the north -south stream, tributaries and Muddy Brook should be shown. Lots should be numbered. The zone boundary between the I -A Dis- trict and Ag-Rural Residential District should be shown. Also, the boundaries of the airport approach cone is incorrectly shown. 4) 10 ROOM ADDITION, HO-HUM MOTEL, WILLISTON ROAD Cooley -Wood Corporation proposes to construct a 10 room, second -story addition to an existing 3,130 square foot building. The building is located in the northeast corner of the property. The property is zoned C-1. The plan has been revised as request- ed (landscaping) since reviewed on 9/26/89. All other aspects of the review have been deemed acceptable. Landscaping/Screening: $6000 worth of landscaping is required. The plan proposes locust, juniper, ciniquefoil, arborvitae, Norway spruce, lilac and yew which meets the required value. A 4 to 5 foot high arborvitae hedge was added along Williston Road and Airport Road to screen the expanded parking lot. An adjoining homeowner, Mr. McCarthy, has requested the installa- tion of an 8' high stockade fence to lessen the impact of the addition. The letter from Mr. McCarthy is enclosed. Traffic: The proposed use meets the requirements of the traffic overlay zone (zone 5). 3 J. Weith page 2 of 2 April 3, 1990 C. The two 8" gate valves shown to be inserted into the existing 8" main on Indian Creek Drive are also unnecessary an must be eliminated. Both connection to the existing mains must be by tapping sleeves and valves. d. Means must be provided, preferably by a hydrant, at one end of the proposed main to allow adequate flushing, testing, and disinfection. e. The Typical entitled "Curb Box With Tapped Connection" is unacceptable. All taps into ductile iron mains must be a direct tap with a corporation. f. The Typical entitled "Hydrant Typical" is unacceptable. The hydrant must be installed with an anchor tee and valve. g. The engineer must provide materials specification for approval. h. I will provide acceptable typicals to the engineer upon request. 5. Green Acres Industrial Park, Trudell Consulting Engineers dated 2/23/90 a. These plans, typicals and specifications are acceptable as shown. PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hear- ing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, April 10, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: Preliminary Plat application of Green Acres, Inc. for subdivision of 263 acres off Hinesburg Road in South Burlington into 11 lots of 10, 10.1, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.8, 12.1, 12.5, 13.4 and 145.8 acres. The property is bounded on the north by Orchard Lake Properties and I-89, on�tbe east by the Town of Williston n the uth byyNiorrisey/CorlrIor, Tou�nt, Plo� vDavis/R-is4ay, R /.A/C-.'r Dion/ Sheahan,VPennington,✓Brainard and�LDubois, and on ttje west by 1000 Hinesburg Road Partnership, Rowley, Dubois,✓ Wessel, Terreri �Abramsr and Hinesburg Road. Copies of the Preliminary Plat are available for public inspec- tion at the South Burlington City Hall. March 24, 1990 I i William Burgess, Chairman, South Burlington Planning Commission %,/, No�sz�. MIDDLEBURY: PETER F. LANGROCK JON C. STAHL (1940-1985) ELLEN MERCER FALLON WILLIAM B. MILLER, JR. JAMES W. SWIFT EMILY J. JOSELSON JOHN F. EVERS SUSAN M. MURRAY JOHN L. KELLNER LA_ . %3ROCK SPERRY PARKER 8L WOOL ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MIDDLEBURY: BURLINGTON: 15 S. PLEASANT STREET 275 COLLEGE STREET P.O. DRAWER 351 P.O. BOX 721 MIDDLEBURY, VERMONT BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05753-0351 05402-0721 802-388-6356 802-864-02 17 FAX 802-388-6149 FAX 802-864-0137 November 7, 1989 Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I am writing on behalf of the following individuals: BURLINGTON: MICHAEL W. WOOL FRED I. PARKER MARK L. SPERRY LIAM L. MURPHY THOMAS Z. CARLSON ANNA E. SAXMAN ALISON J. BELL DEBORAH L. MARKOWITZ REPLY TO: BURLINGTON OFFICE Larry and Ginette Brainard, Scott and Roberta Pennington, Terrance and Nancy Sheahan, and Lilta Ringey. These individuals are all abutting property owners to the Greenacres property located in the southeast quadrant of the City. The purpose of my letter is to comment on a sketch plan application submitted to you by Mr. Ralph Goodrich with reference to the proposed Greenacres Industrial Subdivision. The plan as proposed provides for 10 ten acre lots laid out in a grid pattern with a roadway culminating at the location of the area now and/or formerly proposed as a quarry by Mr. Goodrich. Pursuant to the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, the only permitted uses in the Industrial and Agricultural District are "farming, agriculture, horticulture, and forestry . . ." and appurtenant buildings. Any other uses must be contained within a Planned Industrial Development. See §§16.10 and 16.20. As you are aware, the Commission will ultimately be required to determine whether Mr. Goodrich's plan can proceed as a Planned Industrial Development pursuant to the zoning regulations. In order to facilitate that determination I would like to call to your attention at this time the applicable provisions of the zoning regulations as they relate to Planned Industrial Developments. Planning Commission November 7, 1989 Page Two Pursuant to Section 16.80 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, Planned Industrial Developments are only permitted in the industrial and agricultural district if their design and layout are innovative and comply with the provisions of open space set forth in Section 16.802. Section 16.802(a) specifically requires that open space be located so as to "maximize the aesthetic enjoyment of users of the site, surrounding properties, and roads in the vicinity". In this particular case, the sketch plan as presented by Mr. Goodrich fails to take into account any consideration of open space. Provision for open space is particularly important in this area inasmuch as there are several surrounding properties directly affected, i.e., Ledgeknoll Development, Butler Farms and Oak Creek. In addition, Hinesburg Road abuts the westerly edge of the property in question and currently affords travellers a unique view of one of the last remaining views from the easterly side of Hinesburg Road in the southeast quadrant. In addition, Section 16.802(b) requires that open space be located so as to "maximize potential of land for agricultural use". This sketch plan as currently proposed would divide the land which is currently being utilized for agricultural purposes into ten acre lots. Such a division would necessarily eliminate the use of the area in question for agricultural purposes inasmuch as large tracts are needed to continue this use. The applicant's sketch need not be accepted as proposed. Sections 16.80 and 19.15 of the zoning regulations specifically authorize the Planning Commission to modify the zoning regulations in order to maximize open space and to encourage innovative design and layout. In order to be consistent with the foregoing requirements, the sketch plan should be modified to eliminate the ten acre lots and provide for clustering of lots of a smaller size to the northerly and the easterly portions of the applicant's property. Clustering in this manner would have the benefit of maximizing open space, preserving the existing agricultural use, and preserving the view corridor as it presently exists. In addition, the roadway as presently located on the sketch, plan by dissecting the property, does not provide for innovative design and layout and contributes to undermining the requirements for open space and preservation of agricultural uses. Planning Commission City of South Burlington November 7, 1989 Page 3 Planning Commission November 7, 1989 Page Three The Planning Commission has the authority to require smaller lots to promote clustering as previously described. Section 19.152 relating to density calculations is not applicable in the current situation because there are no density requirements for this district as referenced in Section 18.00. In addition, Sections 16.80 and 19.15 allow the Planning Commission to modify customary lot sizes consistent with the open space and innovative design criteria. I have enclosed for your review a plan previously prepared by the applicant which demonstrates the feasibility of locating the road further north on the property. Relocating the road in this manner is advisable for the foregoing reasons. In addition, it was previously contemplated, and may still be contemplated, that this roadway will lead to the site of a quarry. As you are well aware from earlier proceedings, the applicant has indicated a desire to re -open the quarry and so far as we know their has been no guarantee that those plans will not be pursued at some future date. In the event that the quarry was re- opened, this road would serve as a haul road for extensive truck travel, thus creating an adverse impact on the area with respect to noise, air pollution, highway congestion, and attendant destruction of the scenic and natural beauty of the area. The decisions that the Planning Commission will make with respect to the development of this portion of the southeast quadrant will have long term and irreversible impacts on this area. Consequently, we encourage the Commission to utilize its authority under Section 201.4 of the Subdivision Regulations by making specific recommendations regarding the layout and size of the lots and the roadway and to provide for the preservation of valuable open space, agricultural uses and view corridors. Planning Commission November 7, 1989 Page Four As you are well aware, you have at your disposal the services of Terry Boyle, an expert in this area, and it is our feeling that with his assistance a plan which accommodates the interest of the applicant, the interests of the area residents and the City itself can be accomplished. We would be happy to work with any member of the Commission or committees thereof and with the applicant in order to bring this matter to a successful resolution. NGS/tmr #39/444 cc: Donald O'Brien, Esq. Very truly yours, Mark L. Sper Esq. 9 M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer Re: November 7, 1989 agenda items Date November 3, 1989 3) GREEN ACRES, HINESBURG ROAD 1. The 142.2 acre parcel will have an 80 foot future road r.o.w. extended to the Williston Town line when the location is agreed upon with Williston. 2. The lotand road layout plan dated 10/26/89 prepared by Trudell Engineering is acceptable. 4) DEGRAFF DEVELOPMENT. PATCHEN ROAD 1. Plan no. 1 will make if very difficult if not impossible to get a delivery truck around the curve near unit no. 4. 2. Density is too high for the amount of usable land. 3. I think plan no. 2 is better than plan no. 1 but it will still be difficult to drive a delivery truck around the parking island. 6) BENSEN - 2 LOT SUB -DIVISION 1. Residents of the commercial lot shall have access over the residential lot to get to the bank and post office. 2. Plan prepared by Gordon Woods dated April 1986 and revised September 1989 is.acceptable. 7) CUMBERLAND FARMS, SHELBURNE ROAD 1. Additional inlets or openings in the curb should be provided to drain the parking area. 2. Details such as type of drain pipe, site lighting, sidewalk, sign shown on previously approved plan should apply to new plan. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 November 3, 1989 Ralph B. Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 054.03 Re: Green Acres, Hinesburg Road Dear Ralph: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Also en- closed are Bill Szymanski's comments. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, November 11, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. Sincerely, Joe Weith, City Planner Encls cc: Richard Trudell JW/mcp I a / �& ^^*� �3m��� ��_ �� ` �����4� l���8������ .m/��� ��epartmcnt 575 Daroct -*treKt li�vutb Nurfington, Vermont 05403 -tl I tw (802)650'7960 SO. BURLINGTON PLANHING COMMISSlON CHIEF GODDETTE TUESDAY APRIL 10,1990 AGENDA ITEMS TUESDAY APRlL 3,1990 ABBOTi, PROF'ERTY 8TRCH LANE OUE�N CITY PA�K 2-LDT 6U8-D]VIS1ON PL�NS WERE BY THE FlRE DEPARTMENT AND THERE lS NO WAY THE DEPARTMENT CAN GIVE PROPER EMEHGENCY PROTECTION IF NEEDED. THE FOLLOWING ARE MAJ0R FROB|-EhS� A, BIRCH LANE AND THE RIGnT OF WAY lS HOT WI0E ENUUGk TO GET EQUIPMENT IS FOR RE5CUE WURK QR FiHE FIGHTING. 0. THE WATER SYSTE:'l I6 NOT ADEQUATE FOR FTFIE PROTECTION �L'S FRENCH FR[ES WILLISTON ROAD ADDITION FOR SEATING AT THIS TIME I REVIEWED THE PLANS AND DO NOT FEEL THE ADDITION OF SEATING WOULD EFFECT THE PROTECTION TO THE PROPERTY IF:, RFQUIRED. MEADOWBROOK 2-UNlT ADDITION PLANS WERE REVIEWED AND CHANGES HAVE [MIEN MADE TO ALLOW THE FIRE DEPTsR7MENT TO GIVE EMERGEPJCY SERV]CE ]F NEEDED' 4. GREEN H�REG lN�USTRloL PoR" SW]Fr ST. [XT. F T' |I+ AT |H[E TIME I DO Nf'lT �EF � PRORLEM W[TH H� S|TL P| AN FUR THIS PLANNER 658-7955 f City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 March 8, 1989 Mr. Ralph Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Green Acres 12-Lot Subdivision, Hinesburg Road Dear Ralph: NG ADMINIST 658-7958 Enclosed is a Sketch Plan for the proposed Green Acres 1::-lot industrial subdivision. This is the last plan we had on file and is being returned to ,you as requested in ,your letter dated `larch 1, 1989. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Joe "lei[ 'th)', City Planner JW/mcp Encl CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - SKETCH PLAN 1) Name, address, and phone number of: a. Owner of record Green Acres, Inc. P.O. Box 2123 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 b. Applicant Same Richard P. Trudell c. Contact person Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O.Box 308 Williston, VT 05495 2) Purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development, including number of lots, units, or parcels and proposed use(s). 12 lot industrial subdivision 3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple, option, etc) Fee si 4) Names of owners of record of all contiguous properties Attached S) Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on property such as easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc. Airport approach cone, 30' VELCO easement and conservation zone 100' each side of swale as shown on sketch plan. 6) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of municipal facilities such as sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc. _ Connect sanitary sewer through existing easement to pump station on Orchard Lake Road properties, extend water service from Hinesburg Road. 7) Describe any previous actions taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or by the South Burlington Planning Commission which affect the proposed sub- division, and include the dates of such actions: Site plan approval for quarry February 24, 1987 8) Submit four copies of a sketch plan showing the following information: 1) Name of owners of record of contiguous properties. 2) Boundaries and area of: (a) all contiguous land belonging to owner of record and (b) proposed subdivision. 3) Existing and proposed layout of property lines; type and location of. existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and cove- nants. 4) Type of, location, and approximate size of existing and proposed streets, utilities, and open space. 5) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic). 6) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. "-:: �Xli' L , 2" 1 �/"' � W 1 '0' - � t ~ "r J%r-K K (S gnature) applicant o contact person i d to J GREEN ACRES ADJOINERS LIST Orchard Lane Road Properties Dynastar Corp. P.O.Box 3180 Farmington }sills, Mich 48018-3180 William and Dorothy Lacasse 326 South Brownell Road Williston, Vermont 05495 William and Sara Mikell 86 Van Sicklan Road Williston, Vermont 05495 Raymond Ploof 16 Knoll Circle South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Christopher Davis and Lisa Ringey 18 Knoll Circle South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Robert and Norma Dion 20 Knoll Circle South Burlington, Vermont 05403 William and Dianne Wessel 70 Highland Terrace South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Norman and Patricia Terreri 60 Highland Terrace South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Mark and Marsha Abrams 50 Highland Terrace South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Arthur Toutant 1398 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Terrance and Nancy Sheahan 24 Knoll Circle South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Scott and Roberta Pennington 29 White Birch Lane Williston, Vermont 05495 Page 2 Larry and Ginette Brainard 28 Knoll Circle Williston, Vermont 05495 Homer and Jackie DuBois 1405 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 James and Sachi Rowley 1160 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Lawrence and Roberta Coffin 1100 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 :A Is a01 h,delIS4Inin SEWER HIGHWAY WATER KNOWN FOR QUALITY WORK March 1, 1989 City of So Burlington City Planner, Joe Weith 575 Dorset St. So Burlinton, VT 05401 P.O. BOX 2123 — ZIP 05403-2123 AREA CODE (802) 862-6431 RE: Green Acres, Inc., Subdivision Plan Contractors & Engineers Highway & Railroad Borings - 2" to 48" dia. Heavy Equipment Hauling Well Point System Equipment by Hourly Rate • Backhoes • Compressors • Cranes/Dragline • Dozers • D►otts • Grader • Loaders • Trucks Culvert Sales Snow Removal Dear Joe, Confirming our telephone conversations, we are formally withdrawing the subdivision plans filed with your office, date February 10, 1989. Please collect all plans given out and return them to myself. Thank you. Sincerely, P B. Goodrich, President Green Acres, Inc. S stun �icuaucc u1 J _ FOUNDED 1952 - AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION IN RE. GREEN ACRES, INC. All Proceedings before Planning Commission Regarding Division and/or Development of Green Acres Property NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND REQUEST FOR COPIES OF COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE is hereby given that Mark L. Sperry, Esq. of the law firm of Langrock Sperry Parker & Wool, and Christopher L. Davis, of the law firm of Gear & Davis, hereby appear for the following parties in the above matter: LARRY and GINETTE BRAINARD, SCOTT and ROBERTA PENNINGTON, TERRANCE and NANCY SHEEHAN, and LISA RINGEY. Said persons are abutting property owners to the Green Acres property. Said parties further request that Notice of all further proceedings in the above matter be directed to their attorneys at their addresses set forth below and that they receive through their attorneys copies of all communications from the Planning Commission or its Planner directed to the Applicant. They further request that the Applicant forward to their attorneys copies of all plans, pleadings, correspondence, documents or other communications the Applicant files or directs to the Planning Commission or its Planner in this matter. DATED at Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, this , , day of February 1989. LANGROCK SPERRY PARKER & WOOL L By: Mark L Sperry, Esq. A Me er of the Firm P.O Box 721 Burlington, Vermont 05402 (802) 864-0217 GEAR & DAVIS By: Christolfher L. Davis A Member of the Firm P.O. Box 412 Burlington, VT 05402 / 0 NfiCX/2/ / O�� 3 ,tax, /202,01OW IMPI WWII_ MURRAY & SORRELL, INC. ATTORNEYS A! LAW 271 SOUTH UNION STREE"i BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. IN RE: APPLICATION OF GREEN ACRES, INC. FOR REMOVAL OF STONE CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO. S353-87 CnC STIPULATION NOW COME the Applicant, the Appellants and the City of South Burlington, parties in the above -captioned cause, and stipulate and agree that the Court may issue a Judgment order which includes the following provisions: I. The application/appeal of Green Acres, Inc. to the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment seeking approval under Section 19.35 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations for permission to operate a Commercial Stone Quarry from an area of approximately 40 acres from a parcel containing 300 acres located at 1150-1170 Hinesburg Road bounded by lands of Orchard Lake Road Properties, Homer Dubois and the Applicants, is granted and approved subject to the following stipulations: 1. That the access roads be limited to the two proposed; the access road off Hinesburg Road and the access road off South Brownell Road. The access road off Hinesburg Road at the Orchard Lake Road Properties entrance, shall be constructed to conform with City specifications (installation of the base) and both access roads shall be paved. Proper entrance security shall be installed. 2. The access road off Hinesburg Road shall run parallel to the northerly boundary of the Applicant's 1 property. The northern edge of the right-of-way shall be I not more than 126.19 feet southerly from said northern boundary and the center line of the access road shall be not more than 166.19 feet southerly from said northern boundary as shown on Sheet SP1 of a Set of Plans entitled "Green Acres, Quarry Development" prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers dated 2/9/87 revised October 1988 (the Plan) easterly to a point at least approximately 2,650 feet distant easterly from Hinesburg I Road, from which point it shall turn southeasterly, and then easterly following the route depicted on said Plan. However, in the event the applicant is entitled to i utilize the Alternate Plan referred to in paragraph II(1) herein, such minimum distance from Hinesburg Road before the road turns southeasterly may be reduced accordingly, consistent with the Route on the Alternate Plan. 3. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Board prior to any commencement of activity at this site. The erosion control plan shall include the method of handling any water discharge from the quarry. 4. Management and control of this operation small remain with Ralph Goodrich, Inc. Any transfer of management shall be subject to approval by the Board. 5. Quarrying limits shall be as referenced on the SP-1 Plan dated October _, 1988 identified in para- graph 2. Any revisions shall be subject to review by the Board. 6 C 6. Quarrying practices shall be conducted according to standard quarry practices and the resulting side walls will be left nearly vertical. 7. If for some reason the recharge source is disrupted and the pond does not fill, the slope will be covered with six inches of soil and the area seeded. Any other use of the quarry shall be subject to approval by the Board. 8. The hours of operation shall be 7AM to 6PM, Monday through Friday; 8AM to 6PM on Saturdays. There will be no quarry operations on State or National holidays or Sundays. On alternate Saturdays no traffic shall use the Hinesburg Road entrance until the access road from Hinesburg Road to the quarry is accepted as a public highway. 9. This project shall be subject to any State approvals or permits. 10. Adequate screening shall be planted along the Interstate. 11. Any bonding requirements shall be established by the Planning Commission and the City Engineer. II. The Site Plan application of Green Acres, Inc. - Ralph B. Goodrich, Inc. for a quarry operation as depicted on a 17 page set of plans entitled "Green Acres: Quarry Development" prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers dated 2/9/87 is approved with the following stipulations: 1. All sheets showing the access roadway from Hinesburg Road to the stockpile area shall be revised to 3 depict such roadway, its profile and profile data, at the location shown on sheet SP-1 of a set of plans entitled "Green Acres Quarry Development" prepared by Trudell I i Consulting Engineers Inc., dated February 9, 1987, as revised October , 1988 (the Plan). However, and notwithstanding the foregoing, Applicant may locate such roadway in an alternate location, provided such location is no further southerly, southwesterly or westerly than the location shown on a plan (the Alternate Plan) entitled SP-1 Green Acres Quarry Development, prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated February 9, 1987, as revised October 14, 1988, in the following circumstances only: (a) Applicant is unable, using its best efforts, to secure a permit from the Agency of Natural Resources to discharge the wastewater from the proposed quarry operation to Muddy Brook, and (b) Applicant is required to dispose of such wastewater by a land disposal method, and desires to utilize the area between the northeasterly lines of the roadway rights of way shown on the Plan and Alternate Plan (where such roadways proceed in a southeasterly direction) for such land disposal, and (c) To the extent use of such area described in (b) above is necessary for such land disposal because there is not sufficient area suitable for such purposes within Applicant's other 4 lands which are: easterly of the northeasterly line of the road right of way shown on the Plan, between the Quarry and its proposed expansion and Orchard Lake Properties, between the Quarry and its proposed expansion and the Interstate, and west of the Quarry and its proposed expansion. 2. A landscaping bond in an amount determined by the City Planner, for planting three to four caliper inch street trees along the access road, 60 feet on center shall be posted prior to permit. In addition, Applicant shall plant austrian pines, six feet in height, seedless ash having a three to four inch caliper, and weeping willows having a three to four inch caliper in the amounts and location as shown and noted on the Plan and/or the Alternate Plan identified in paragraph II(1). The trees shall be planted before the access road is used. 3. The 80 foot right-of-way for the planned Swift Street extension shall be deeded to the City. It shall include a portion approved by the City Planner to connect to South Brownell Road. The location of the added portion shall be established in the best way for a usable connecting road between Hinesburg and South Brownell Road and to service the needs of development on this property, but shall not alter the location of the Hinesburg access road as depicted on the Plan (or the Alternate Plan if applicable). 5 4. The access road shall be constructed with an 18 inch thick gravel base plus a sand cushion. It shall be ' 24 feet minimum paved width and shall be upgraded to City standards upon any future development of this area. 5. The intersection of the quarry road and the Lane Press Drive shall be signed so that quarry traffic yields to Lane Press vehicles. 6. A $1,147 contribution shall be made toward the Hinesburg Road/Kennedy Drive intersection improvement fund based on the 18 trip ends per hour generated by this development. 7. A performance bond to guarantee site restora- tion in Phase III shall be posted in an amount determined by the City Planner prior to permit. 8. This approval is conditional on the quarry operating solely between the hours of 7AM and 6PM, Monday through Friday; 8AM and 6PM on Saturdays. The quarry shall not operate at all on Sundays or State or National holidays. On alternate Saturdays, no traffic shall use the Hinesburg Road entrance until the access road from Hinesburg Road to the quarry is accepted as a public highway. 9. The Applicant shall provide the City Planner prior to permit, noise data to show that the Applicant will fully comply with Table II, Part 3 of the South Burlington Zoning Ordinance. If the Planner does not find full compliance, this approval is null and void. 10. Quarry activity shall commence within six N. months of receipt of all required state permits or this approval is null and void. III. The Judgment Order shall include the following provisions: 1. The presently existing pond shown on Sheet SR1 of the Trudell Plans referred to in paragraph II(1) shall I I be retained. 2. The Applicant shall execute a document to create a Buffer Strip northerly of the Ledgeknoll Development in which no buildings, roadways, or parking areas shall be constructed or maintained, and in which there shall be no commercial operations for the removal of topsoil or subsurface materials. Such Buffer Strip shall be 250 feet wide, extending from the west line of 'I the Airport Approach Cone to the northwesterly corner of �I li the Davis - Ringey lot (but such buffer strip may be i! j; reduced to 100 feet in width in the event Applicant's lands west of the Airport Cone, following an appropriate zone change, are planned and used for residences.) 3. Any subsequent site plan, zoning permit and other municipal approval for the development of the Green Acre parcel shall be consistent and in harmony with the provisions of this Stipulation including the Protective Covenants creating the Buffer Strip. The Applicant, its successors or assigns, shall not be required by the City to develop or permit the development of the Buffer Strip as a prerequisite or condition for any site plan approval, zoning permit, zoning amendment or other 7 municipal permission. Dated at Burlington, Vermont, Chittenden County this day of 1988. GREEN ACRES, INC. APPLICANT Larry W. Brainard Terrance J. Sheahan Scott L. Pennington APPROVED AS TO FORM: Chris Davis, Esq. Attorney for Appellants South Burlington City Attorney William Mikell Attorney for Green Acres NGS#30/373 L*-M By: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Attorney APPELLANTS Ginette D. Brainard Lisa Ringey Roberta S. Pennington Nancy Sheahan Attorney for Appellants Mark Sperry Attorney for Appellants MCNEIL, MURRAY SORRELL, INC. AtFORNEYS AT LAN' 271 SOUTH UNION STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHEREAS, Green Acres, Inc., a Vermont corporation with offices and place of business in South Burlington, Vermont ("Green Acres") is the owner of certain lands in South Burlington, Vermont (the "Green Acres Property") which are bounded and described as follows: On the north by lands of Orchard Lake Road Properties and Interstate 89; On the east by the City line; On the south by lands now or formerly of O'Connor, Toutant, DuBois, and Mikell, and the Ledge Knoll Development, described hereafter; On the west by Vermont Route 116, and lands now or formerly of Rowley and Coffin; and WHEREAS, Christopher E. Davis and Lisa Ringey, Terrance and Nancy G. Sheahan, Scott L. and Robert S. Pennington, and Larry W. and Ginette D. Brainard all of South Burlington, Vermont (the "Ledge Knoll Lot Owners") are the owners of lots 15, 16, 17 and 18 respectively in the Ledge Knoll Development, a residential housing development southerly of said Green Acre Property, which said development is more particularly depicted on a plan of lands entitled, "Ledge Knoll Subdivision, Homer and Marie DuBois, Hinesburg Road, South Burlington," prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated 11/16/83, and recorded at Map Volume No. 197, Pages 42 and 75, in the City of South Burlington Land Records, and WHEREAS, Green Acres wishes to subject a portion of the Green Acres Property along the northerly line of the Ledge Knoll Development and extending easterly as far as the 1 westerly line of the Airport Approach Cone (as presently described in the City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations, dated December 23, 1982) to certain restrictions. NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, Green Acres hereby declares that the following described portion of the Green Acres Property is and shall be subject to the following restrictions, to which Green Acres, for itself and its successors and assigns, agrees to be bound by execution of this instrument: 1. Description of Property Subjected to Restrictions. The portion of the Green Acres Property which is hereby subjected to such restrictions (such lands being hereinafter referred to as the "Buffer Strip") is more particularly described as follows: Commencing in the southerly line of the Green Acres Property, at the northwesterly corner of Lot 15 in the Ledge Knoll Development (lands of Davis and Ringey) ; Thence proceeding easterly in the southerly line of. the Green Acres Property (northerly line of lands in the Ledge Knoll development and northerly line of lands now or formerly of DuBois) to the westerly I line of the Airport Approach Cone, so-called, as it is now described in the City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations dated December 23, 1982 and accompanying Official Zoning Map referred to therein; Thence proceeding northerly along the westerly line of said Airport Approach Cone to a point where the Approach Cone westerly line intersects with a line 250 feet in length which is perpendicular to the northerly line of the Dubois lands; Thence proceeding westerly along a line parallel to and 250 feet northerly of the line first described herein to the point of intersection with a line 250 feet in length which is perpendicular to the northerly line of the Ledge Knoll development and projects northerly from the northwesterly corner of Lot 15 in the Ledge Knoll Development; N Thence proceeding southerly 250 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. Meaning and intending to describe a strip of land 250 feet in width lying northerly of the Ledge Knoll Development and northerly of said lands now or formerly of DuBois, extending from the northwesterly corner of said Lot 15 to the Airport Approach Cone as presently constituted. 2. Restrictions Imposed. No Improvements (as defined herein) shall constructed, located, installed or maintained on or within the Buffer Strip, nor shall any commercial operation for the removal of topsoil or subsurface materials be carried on within the Buffer Strip. "Improvements" as used herein means buildings, parking areas, and roadways of every kind. 3. Effect of Change in Zoning to Residential. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the South Burlington zoning Regulations shall be changed so as to prohibit commercial and industrial uses on that part of the Green Acres Property westerly of the aforesaid Airport Approach Cone, and to allow residential uses, and in the event such lands westerly of such Airport Approach Cone are planned and used solely for single- family dwellings, and customary accessory uses allowed under the Zoning Regulations, then the width of the Buffer Strip shall be reduced to not less than 100 feet in width. i in the event that the Buffer Strip is reduced to be not less than 100 feet in width pursuant to this paragraph, then upon final approval by the City's Planning Commission of such single-family dwelling residential subdivision, and in any event prior to commencement of construction of the first residential dwelling, Green Acres shall plant the entire southerly line of the required Buffer Strip with white cedars at least six feet in height, spaced not less than three to 3 four feet apart and such trees shall not thereafter be removed unless to replace diseased or dying trees. Such cedars shall be planted using accepted and standard landscaping practices, in the area immediately northerly of the existing ditch or swale which lies along said southerly buffer strip line. 5. Restrictions with Respect to Pond on Green Acres Property. Green Acres shall not take any actions or cause any actions to be taken which would result in the filling, removal of or destruction of the pond which is located on its property and approximately 375 feet northerly of said lands now or formerly of DuBois. 6. Binding Effect of Restrictions. The restrictions contained herein shall be deemed to be covenants running with the land and shall be binding on Green Acres, and its successors and assigns, for the benefit of the Ledge Knoll Lot Owners and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. 7. Miscellaneous. a. This Agreement shall be interpreted under the laws of the State of Vermont. b. The provisions herein and any breach thereof may be enforced by an application for injunctive relief in a court of competent jurisdiction. C. Invalidation of any one of the provisions herein or any part thereof by any court of competent jurisdiction shall not affect any of the other provisions herein, which shall remain in full force and effect. 4 Dated this day of November, 1988. IN WITNESS WHEREOF GREEN ACRES, INC. By: Ralph B. Goodrich, President and Agent Duly Authorized by Vote of its Board of Directors STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. At , this day of November, 1988, personally appeared RALPH B. GOODRICH, President and Duly Authorized by Vote of its Board of Directors of GREEN ACRES, INC. and he acknowledge this instrument, by him sealed and subscribed, to be his free act and deed and the free act and deed of GREEN ACRES, INC. Before me, IN WITNESS WHEREOF STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. Notary Public Christopher E. Davis Lisa Ringey At , this day of November, 1988, personally appeared CHRISTOPHER E. DAVIS and LISA RINGEY and they acknowledged this instrument, by them sealed and subscribed, to be their free act and deed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF Before me, Notary Public Terrance Sheahan Nancy G. Sheahan 5 STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. At , this day of November, 1988, personally appeared TERRANCE SHEAHAN and NANCY G. SHEAHAN and they acknowledged this instrument by them sealed and subscribed, to be their free act and deed. Before me, Notary Public IN WITNESS WHEREOF Scott L. Pennington Roberta S. Pennington STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. At , this day of November, 1988, personally appeared SCOTT L. PENNINGTON and ROBERTA S. PENNINGTON and they acknowledged this instrument by them sealed and subscribed, to be their free act and deed. Before me, Notary Public IN WITNESS WHEREOF Larry W. Brainard Ginette D. Brainard STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. At , this day of November, 1988, personally appeared LARRY W. BRAINARD and GINETTE D. BRAINARD and they acknowledged this instrument by them sealed and subscribed, to be their free act and deed. NGS#30/383 Before me, Notary Public 0 MCNEIL, MURRAY & SORRELL, INC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 271 SOUTH UNION STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 TELEPHONE 1802) 863-4531 JOSEPH C. MI'NFIL (1919-19M JOSEP11 E. MkNEIL FRANCIS X. MURRAY W'ILLIAM H. SORRELL JOHN T. LEDDY NANCY GOSSSHEAHAN STEVEN F. S'PITZFL PA'1'PI R. PAGE* W'ILLIAM F. ELLIS LINDA R. LFROY (*AIA" ADMITTED IN N.Y.) William Mikell, Esq. Mikell & Mikell 444 South Union Street P.O. Box 587 Burlington, VT 05402 RE: Green Acres, Inc. Dear Bill: November 8, 1988 OF COUNSEL ARTHUR W.CERNOSIA Enclosed please find the amended Stipulation, Agreement and Restrictive Covenant. We toned down your proposed language to the Stipulation a little but so as not to unnecessarily alarm the City. Please let me know if the new language is satisfactory. Very truly yours, Nancy G. Sheahan NGS#30/417 Enclosures PROPOSED ADDITION TO PAGE 7 OF STIPULATION Any subsequent site plan, zoning permit and other municipal approval for the development of this parcel shall be consistent and in harmony with the provisions of this Stipulation including the Protective Covenants creating the Buffer Strip. The City 1' shall not, by eminent domain or any other means, permit development within said Buffer Zone. Nor shall the City require the Applicant, its successors or assigns, to develop the Buffer zone or to violate the Protective Covenants as a prerequisite or condition for any site plan approval, zoning permit, zoning amendment or other municipal permission. L#78 McNEIL, MURRAY & SORRELL, INC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 271 SOUTH UNION STREET BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401 TELEPHONE (8021863-4531 JOSEPH C. MCNEIL (1919-1978) JOSEPH E. WNEIL FRANCIS X. MURRAY WILLIAM H. SORRELL MIN T. LEDDY NANCY GOSS SHEAIIAN STEVEN F. STITZEL PAM R. PAGE* WILLIAM F. ELLIS LINDA R. LE.ROY (*AI.Sn AnMI1TEn IN N.Y.) William Mikell, Esq. Mikell & Mikell 444 South Union Street P.O. Box 587 Burlington, VT 05402 RE: Green Acres, Inc. Dear Bill: October 26, 1988 OF COUNSF,L ARTHUR W.CERNOSIA Enclosed please find the Stipulation, Agreement and Restrictive Covenants as amended per our discussions. It might be a good idea to discuss the approach to be taken with South Burlington prior to your departure tomorrow. Mark and I could be available for a conference call later today. We look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, Nancy G. Sheahan NGS#30/382 Enclosures cc: Mark Sperry, Esq. MrNrm, MURRAY & SORRELL, INC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 271 SOUTH UNION STREET BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401 j AGREEMENT i� WHEREAS, Green Acres, Inc. a Vermont corporation with i offices and places of business in South Burlington, Vermont ("Green Acres") is the owner of certain lands in South I Burlington, Vermont (the "Green Acres Property") which are bounded and described as follows: on the north by lands of Orchard Lake Road Properties and Interstate 89; On the east by the City line; On the south by lands now or formerly of O'Connor, Toutant, DuBois, and Mikell, and the Ledge Knoll Development, described hereafter; 'I II On the west by Vermont Route 116, and lands now or formerly of Rowley and Coffin; and WHEREAS, Christopher E. Davis and Lisa Ringey, Terrance IIand Nancy G. Sheahan, Scott L. and Robert S. Pennington, and jl Larry W. and Ginette D. Brainard all of South Burlington, �I Vermont (the "Ledge Knoll Lot Owners") are the owners of lots 15, 16, 17 and 18 respectively in the Ledge Knoll Development, a residential housing development southerly of said Green Acres Property, which said development is more particularly depicted on a plan of lands entitled, "Ledge Knoll Subdivision, Homer and Marie DuBois, Hinesburg Road, South Burlington," prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated 11/16/83, and recorded at Map Volume No. 197, Pages 42 and 75, in the City of South Burlington Land Records, and WHEREAS, the Ledge Knoll Lot Owners appealed decisions of the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment and Planning I� Commission approving the operation of a commercial stone I 1 I 0 quarry by Green Acres, and I� WHEREAS, the parties hereto have reached an agreement !i which will eliminate the necessity of said appeal. NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, Green Acres and the Ledge Knoll Lot Owners hereby stipulate and �i agree as follows: !i �i 1. The parties hereto have agreed to the terms of and shall execute forthwith a stipulation to a Judgment Order in the matter entitled In Re: Application of Green Acres, Inc. for Removal of Stone, Docket No. S353-87 CnC which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A. 2. The parties hereto have agreed to the terms of and shall execute forthwith the Agreement and Declaration of I I; Restrictive Covenants which is attached hereto and made a part It ihereof as Exhibit B. 3. The Ledge Knoll Lot Owners will consent to any applications for permits required of Green Acres by any authority, State, Regional or Municipal, to implement the �I Quarry operation, site plan and the roadway, as described and I referenced in the stipulation dated October 1988 and filed in the matter of In Re: Application of Green Acres, Inc. for Removal of Stone, Docket No. S353-87 CnC . I including, without limitation, any permit required by Act 200, itAct 250 and any Water Discharge or other permit required by the Department of Water Resources provided, however, that the iQuarry operation (including the stockpile and crusher) and li roadway from Hinesburg Road are developed and located consistent with the Plan referred to as SP-1 in paragraphs I(2) and II(1) of said Stipulation (or, if 2 applicable, the Alternate Plan referred to in those paragraphs). The Ledge Knoll Lot Owners shall promptly provide any documents reasonably requested by Green Acres to consent pursuant to this paragraph. 4. A. Green Acres will promptly petition the City of South Burlington for a use zone change from Industrial to Residential for that area of its property bounded on the west by Hinesburg Road, by the east by the westerly boundary of the Airport cone, on the south by Ledge Knoll and on the north by Orchard Lake Road Properties and depicted on revised Sheet SP1 of Trudell Consulting Engineers dated October 1988, and will use its best efforts to obtain approval for such zone change. I� B. The Ledge Knoll Lot Owners shall in good faith i I support the proposed change of use zone, and shall use their I I' best efforts on behalf of the proposed change of use. I' C. All parties hereto recognize that approval of I the proposed use zone change from Industrial to Residential I I' requires an amendment to the City's zoning regulations which I• is discretionary with the Planning Commission and City I Council. No party shall be liable or suffer any default it should such approval not be forthcoming. No party shall be li obligated to appeal any adverse decision of the City Council (i or to institute or engage in court litigation. Failure of I Green Acres to obtain approval for the residential development �i of the area described above shall in no way alter or void this it Agreement or the Court's Judgment or the obligations of the j parties hereunder or under the Judgment. I j! 5. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to �I 3 { { the benefit of the successors, heirs and assigns of the parties hereto. 6. The provisions herein and any breach thereof may be enforced by an application for injunctive relief in a court of competent jurisdiction. Dated at Burlington, Vermont, Chittenden County, this day of , 1988. GREEN ACRES, INC. By: LEDGE KNOLL LOT OWNERS Larry W. Brainard Christopher Davis Terrance J. Sheahan Scott L. Pennington APPROVED AS TO FORM: Christopher Davis Attorney for Ledge Knoll Lot Owners William Mikell Attorney for Green Acres and Ralph Goodrich NGS#30/374 Ginette D. Brainard Lisa Ringey Nancy Sheahan Roberta S. Pennington Nancy Sheahan Attorney for Ledge Knoll Lot Owners Mark Sperry Attorney for Ledge Knoll Lot Owners 4 LAN('�IZOCK SPERRY PARKER &, WOOL ATTORNEYS AT LAW MIDDLEBURY: PETER F. LANGROCK JON C. STAHL (1940-1985) ELLEN MERCER FALLON WILLIAM B. MILLER, JR. JAMES W. SWIFT EMILY J. JOSELSON JOHN F. EVERS SUSAN M. MURRAY JOHN L KELLNER 6 February 1989 A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MIDDLEBURY: BURLINGTON: 15 S. PLEASANT STREET P.O. DRAWER 351 MIDDLEBURY, VERMONT 057530351 802-388-6356 FAX 802-388-6149 William E. Mikell, Esq. Mikell & Mikell, P.C. P.O. 587 Burlington, Vt 05402 Re: Green Acres Settlement Dear Bill: 275 COLLEGE STREET P.O. Box 721 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 -07 2 1 802-864-02 17 FAX 802-864-0137 BURLINGTON: MICHAEL W. WOOL FRED I. PARKER MARK L. SPERRY LIAM L MURPHY THOMAS Z. CARLSON ANNA E. SAXMAN ALISON J. BELL DEBORAH L. MARKOWITZ REPLY TO: BURLINGTON OFFICE This is in response to your recent letter and enclosure of a proposed Stipulation for Dismissal of the pending Chittenden Superior Court litigation. You will recall that in October of last year, shortly before the scheduled trial date, the parties settled this case. The principal provisions of the settlement included: A. Issuance to your client of conditional use and site plan approvals for the proposed quarry with the road in a new agreed upon location. B. Creation of a buffer strip along the northerly line of the Ledgeknoll Development to the Airport approach cone, and C. Your client's agreement to seek a rezoning to residential of the Green Acres property westerly of the Airport approach cone, which our clients would support. Accordingly, our clients gave up the scheduled trial date, the Court was told that the case was settled, and the parties expended considerable time and effort in drafting the necessary settlement documents. From time to time, as this was happening, your client requested changes in the documentation being circulated, and we made every effort to accomodate him, the result being documents that were represented as being satisfactory to all parties. This process has long since been completed, and all that has remained is for the parties to affix their signatures so that the Stipulation can be filed with the Court and the Court can issue the necessary Order. William E. Mikell, Esq. 6 February 1989 Page 2 our clients take the position that a settlement has been reached in this case, and that your client is not in a position, either legally or morally, to withdraw from that settlement. They therefore decline to execute a Stipulation which would have the effect of dismissing the appeals and the declaratory judgment action they have brought against your client, as well depriving them of the benefit of that settlement. Accordingly, we call on your client to execute the settlement documents which reflect the agreements of the parties. Please let us hear from you about this matter at your earliest convenience. Sincerely yours, Mark L. Sperry, Esq. Nancy G. Sheahan, Esq. Christopher L. Davis, Esq. LAW OFFICES MIKELL & MIKELL, P.C. 444 SOUTH UNION ST. P. O. BOX 587 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402 WII_LIAM E MIKELL• ANDREW D MIKELL JULIA E SINGLETON - ADMITTED IN MASS January 12, 1989 Nancy G. Sheahan, Esq. McNeil, Murray & Sorrell 271 South Union Street Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Application of Green Acres, Inc. for removal of stone Docket No. S353-87 CnC Dear Nancy: Thank you for your letter of January 5 with enclosures. Mr. Goodrich has decided not to further pursue Green Acres' application/appeal to the South Burlington Zoning Board for permission to operate a commercial stone quarry or it's subsequent site plan application to the South Burlington Planning Commission for a quarry operation. I enclose the original and five copies of a Stipulation For Proposed Court Entry. A copy of this letter and the enclosure is being sent to Mark Sperry and Chris Davis. Please affix your signature to the original and all five copies of the Stipulation and forward to Mark Sperry for his signature. I would ask Mark to forward to Chris Davis for his signature and return to me. Upon receipt of the original and five signed copies, I will forward the original to Court, a signed copy to South Burlington and three copies to each counsel for the Appellants. Regards. WEM/cap/81 Enclosures cc: Mark L. Sperry, Esq. Christopher L. Davis, Esq. Ralph B. Goodrich Sincerely, William E. Mikell, Esq. AREA CODE 60. TEL 658-333; 19 ESTATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. IN RE: ) ) APPLICATION OF GREEN ACRES, INC) FOR REMOVAL OF STONE ) CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO. S353-87 CnC STIPULATION FOR COURT ENTRY i NOW COME the Applicant, the Appellants and the City of South I Burlington, parties in the above -captioned cause, and stipulate i and agree that the Court may issue the following entry: 1. The applicant voluntarily withdrawals its application/appeal to the South Burlington Zoning Board for permission to operate a Commercial Stone Quarry and its subsequent site plan application to the South Burlington Planning Commission for a quarry operation. 2. Accordingly, this appeal may be dismissed. Dated at Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont this day of January, 1989. By: GREEN ACRES, INC. APPLICANT CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON BY: ATTORNEY APPELLANTS Larry W. Brainar Llnette D. Bra nira and Terrance J. Sea an Scott L. Pennington APPROVED AS TO FORM: C �rf—is Dais, Esq. Attorney for Appellants Sout-FFBu—rrIngton City Attorney � wilTiam Mikel Attorney for Green Acres LIT#14/34 Lisa Ringey R—o6e to S. Pennington Nancy Sheahan Attorney for Appellants Mar SV'perry Attorney for Appellants ocz 4/10/90 JW MOTION OFF APPROVAL I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the Preliminary Plat application of Green Acres, Inc. for subdivision of 263 acres off Hinesburg Road in South Burlington into 11 lots of 10, 10.1, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.8, 12.1, 12.5, 13.4 and 145.8 acres as depicted on an 11 page set of plans entitled, "Green Acres Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont," pre- pared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. and dated 2/23/90 with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall post a $39,000 , 3-year landscaping bond for proposed street trees. The plan shall be revised prior to final plat to show a landscaped berm along the southern property line in the vicinity of the adjoining residential neighborhood. An additional bond shall be posted to cover the cost of the landscaped berm in an amount to be determined by the City Plan- ner. 2. The plan shall be revised prior to Final Plat to address the following: L-al A frontage of at least 150 feet for lot 3. ,b4 A shared access for lots 8 and 10 and a shared access for lots 7 and 9. c) A note indicating that access drives to lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall be from the proposed cul-de-sac. ,) A 60 foot wide r.o.w. along the boundary line between lots 8 and 10 to be reserved for a future road connec- tion to the property to the north. e) A 20 foot wide recreation path easement in a location to be determined by the City Planner, Recreation Path Committee and Natural Resources Committee. f) The limits of the 100 year floodplain along Muddy Brook. ._g) The 100 foot conservation zone along Muddy Brook. h) A 200 foot wide strip of land along Muddy Brook to be dedicated to the City. i) A 50 foot wide undisturbed buffer strip around the wetland on lots 5 and 7. A note shall be included which indicates that the wetland and buffer strip are to be left undisturbed. A 100 foot wide conservation zone along the minor stream through lots 1, 2, 3 and 6. ,.k) A 50 foot radius for the road serving lots 1,2, 3 and 4 at its intersection with Swift Street. lfi A triangle sight view easement reserved on each side of the road referenced above where it intersects with Swift Street. _in-)` Cul-de-sac pavement widths of 24 feet. The Swift Street cul-de-sac shall not include curbs. tC r �r A� %1�$e-rL✓c� I e� a Yyra_ G1,, j��„ ,' ` � A ti /S a G�[ mil �,tL� ry L �c. `i.e, /✓✓G(/D(� �(� cn7c� o� c f' 1 c.0� a 1�. -n) The placement of power and telephone lines in a 10 foot e easement outside of the street r.o.w. 3) A bond in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer shall be posted for street and sidewalks prior to construction. 4) The developer shall furnish the City with the name of the contractors doing the street work and the architect and/or engi- neer who will stake out and supervise the work at least 7 days prior to beginning of road construction. Upon completion of the work, the architect and/or engineer shall certify that the work is in conformance with the approved plan, stipulations and any other requirements and/or changes that the City requests. 5) A plan detailing the location of gas, telephone, electricity, TV cable and street lights shall be submitted prior to final plat review. 6) The applicant shall contribute $26,738 to the Hinesburg Road sidewalk fund based on 1,260 feet of frontage along Hinesburg Road. 7) Legal documents for the new streets, recreation path ease- ments, future road r..o.w. and land to be dedicated along Muddy Brook shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval prior to street construction and sale of any lots. 8) Legal documents to limit building heights in order to pre- serve important views from Hinesburg Road shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval prior to street construction and sale of any lots. These documents shall grant enforcement rights to the City. 9) All street names shall be shown on the Final Plat. 10) The final plat application shall be submitted within 12 months or this approval is null and void. i/�"O H 13 y tic z -' n O h *41 RESOUR(4 TO: Joe Weith, City Planner Planning Commission FROM: Natural Resources Committee RE: Green Acres/Quarry I f7Cr-�eS, � / c (802) 658-7956 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT, 05402 DATE: May 16, 1990 In response to a memo from Joe Weith, City Planner, the Natural Resources Committee submits the following recommendations in regard to the Green Acres proposal for development. 1. Drainage swale over lots 1,2,3, and 6. The committee would certainly prefer to have the swale remain in its natural state with its proper 50' setback. If it is determined to relocate the swale, the committee suggests compromising slightly on the location but definitely maintaining the 50' zone. With the amount of development in the SEQ, the water has to go somewhere. Don't want to create potential problems by diminishing the CO Zones in this area. 2. Quarry The committee strongly feels now, and always has felt that the City should acquire the Quarry. (Reference the Natural Resource Inventory Report #1 of the late 60's), also the SEQ Report makes references to this as well. Significant features of the Quarry include: Emergency water supply, possible swim area, and/or beach for recreational use, interesting bedrock and geological formations - dike, preservation for conservation and recreation, very wet area, protection of wildlife habitat, soak area to maintain stream flow, aesthetic advantages of maintaining scenic views, and for the preservation of open space in general. 4 C C."ts- �7 TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. July 20, 1989 Ms. Amy Jestes Vermont Department of Agriculture 116 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 RE: Green Acres Dear Amy: Here is a copy of the newest ortho photograph showing the Green Acres parcel outlined in red with the cultivated areas outlined in yellow and numbered. The shaded areas indicate that portion of the cultivated areas which are not classified prime agricultural soils according to the S.C.S. map. The following is a list of the fields and the area of each. For those fields which have prime and non -prime agricultural soils three numbers are listed. PRIME NON -PRIME TOTAL AGRICULTURAL AGRICULTURAL FIELD ACRES SOILS SOILS 1 8.1 2 10.1 3 23.2 (20.4 + 2.8) 4 16.7 (16.2 + 0.5) 5 26.4 6 15.1 7 18.0 8 12.9 (9.1 + 3.8) 9 7.5 (6.0 + 1.5) 10 1, -1 Total 140.7 132.1 8.6 % of entire parcel 49.9 46.8 (282 Ac.) We would like to know from you the percentage of the cultivated P. O. Box 308 14 Blair Park Road Williston, Vermont 05495 (802) 879-6331 Page 2 area that could be developed. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Karen A. Pettersen Landscape Architect KAP/jlv Encl. cc: Ralph B. Goodrich 86091 STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF ANIMAL & DAIRY INDUSTRIES DIVISION OF PLANT INDUSTRY. LABORATORIES & STANDARDS August 7, 1989 Ms. Karen A. Pettersen Landscape Architect Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 308 Williston, VT 05495 RE: Green Acres, South Burlington; Primary Agricultural Soils Dear Karen: Thank you for sending me the primary agricultural soils data for the Green Acres Subdivision and the ortho photo. During our June 20 site visit, we identified areas which meet the statutory definition of primary agricultural soils contained in Act 250. You have depicted the fields which contain primary agricultural soils on the 7/89 ortho photo and calculated the area of primary agricultural soils. I agree with this analysis. In your 7/20 letter to me, you asked me suggest a percentage of cultivated area that could be developed. I think it is impossible to suggest a percentage of agricultural land to be retained in order to prevent the soils' agricultural potential from being reduced. The Dubois -Butler Farm decision contains some guidance in this matter, and would probably be the best starting point for analysis. Alternatively, the project could be designed in a manner which significantly reduces the soils' agricultural potential; however, this would require review under the 9(B) subcriteria. We have previously discussed my Department's concerns in this case. I am sure you will want to discuss this further. Please contact me at your convenience. Jb SEAL OF QLIAUTY 'ems DE Pi. OF AGRICULTURE® Sincerely, Amy Jestes Agricultural Land Use Planner 1 16 STATE STREET/STATE OFFICE BUILDING, MONTPELIER, VERMONT 05602 (802) 828-2500 TLX 9102403724 i y • y -, , .+a ... � -.r. , . ;,y 'x. '' . r a � �" .; ,. a �. `�. � r e�3 • £'�` � ` °� � � � '. Y,... � r 6 � +`,��.. f Mg r « �„ � � '� � � yyarMcsr,...�'•,.ar+ ¢,:y�sxrt �� ,r e,n .'x. » • xY , , " t. r � . , ,.°• ' � �y�,.'_�y° `"'•'�',y,+ ,�w tY ; � ..: g; w, �• �•.- :',Y `` � e. ux �Y' ti 4 A s n i�ik, a ,,art„ � +',�s . � �y' �,.....:<.'-r•�' .. � n N. �: .rw +i' � r ^y ^h �••"�'• 'F F '� �,y�x�o-rndwr�` ,„,—.-• '. � .,,,y{ s 1 �„ al .r. .: � .. .`y. _,. � i 't, Y •� • , r'. � rv6a �» :. �! •... � . ', '�=`� I'yg��;.:� Q nq i ,+ d.. ,:. : � "�i° � • Y�.., ,P H: i. r yq p .far •~ _ �:..,,� _ ., g �c;,.--, i.. . u�'1. A a "" - , r '"' *.iF'r. ,. " ,,:: `Sx "�,• '_ , : . �, Y., ... y _ Y'a 0 w , Y , . e, ` °' :. � W � " � J •i, ate. , ^1 , i` l , 411 , 11, 105 Y, d a � „ a w.,ar , , � >� •.ter; . ,� '. "" � VY, . +s , rv,.. ''W r a r A " 4F ♦ y, , Y r n+ nr ,,. x r F a a.• w a r4t.. , ry C. -.. ^�, .m«. .. � !:, a! .;.!��M1 :!: .' y,_,,. r^.-•.S! t.r r a�4�, :r,.':•.. „r Y.�'�.� R ...1 , t ,. 6"... F•p�.. e ",:. ,x... ty . �"L'.': r ,», ba. � . Y X �. w Y , , . t 1 T r op Y fir. VT 404 s r ^ M tk a w , S t rue , a +ilno . 1. • .,. .. '9ir,- t •Aj i�.-.:,,':,. a; ,.,.. '...,. � +,tq"K' Y`. ' r , ° f ,fir '° <�j, �' ,. : '. �., ""✓ � f,•34 . � „ i" , y e . i ry ; , n , t y a , , y. , M r; '-' a - „.,a ., •' t7 • em 'Zr lob Aw it XN „e s, w }fr ^p ♦ M 4 x• e, r, . �•.^wr - .,. 1 ,' , b:• :.^ Aa►,. w!-.-'sw'Ya.... A: 7 ' , h a W r `y � � 411 -' ......-'-.._ <. '.. � :d!;►s;. r #�.,. ... {u.n ,. ..way, .�":r �. ��'�.. k ',.,y;,,.e. _✓ >, "`- +r' }I;: .., �W .: ' J:'W'{:..i. y"'s :. ►,u „''wr, .., -.v ;. "✓^a:t' . +�K �r>M♦. �w _ '#��� ♦, , , , y , R , .V - , il + r y , " l - r pp :� "'�.^., •. +�... .., v. �' 'gib' � K 0 I A .... w , » _ r MF Zrwl s«. tA ... . , rM A "fp, •gJI t. if •q ` , _ r. :_ a ._ • � a'., . .: .. v M H ♦ n, .Y � 91t , at�ir`•.. .. .... "' _ =pia'.:.'' .,.,», ...�. ..,,�'. •. .,, � 17 , 'N1, -..,, :.r .:-' ., 'd;;" `. •r. '. '..• .: .... ; .. ` ,.' 's^..r:.L %.. �" � ry.�� ;,'46w*+,, x ali. � af,, t'- ..�, rY f , •.. .. y .a. �aA}.': City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 May 21, 1990 Ms. Karen Petterson Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: Green Acres Subdivision Dear Ms. Petterson: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is a memo from the South Burlington Natural Resources Committee regarding the Green Acres Subdivision, in particular the drainage way over lots 1, 2, 3 and 6, and the quarry. Please let me know if you want to schedule a meeting with the Committee to discuss their concerns. :Since ely, oe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl cc: Ralph Goodrich JW/mcp MIDDLEBURY: PETER F. LANGROCK JON C. STAHL (1940-1985) ELLEN MERCER FALLON WILLIAM B. MILLER, JR, JAMES W. SWIFT EMILY J. JOSELSON JOHN F. EVERS SUSAN M. MURRAY JOHN L. KELLNER MITCHELL L. PEARL LANGROCK SPERRY PARKER &, WOOL ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION April 11, 1990 MIDDLEBURY 15 S. PLEASANT STREET P.O. DRAWER 351 MIDDLEBURY, VERMONT 05753-035 1 802-388-6356 FAX 802-388-6149 Mr. Joseph White, 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Dear Joe: City Planner VT 05403 BURLINGTON 275 COLLEGE STREET P.O. Box 721 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-072 I 802-864-0217 FAX 802-864-0137 BURLINGTON: MICHAEL W. WOOL FRED I. PARKER MARK L. SPERRY LIAM L. MURPHY THOMAS Z. CARLSON ALISON J. BELL DEBORAH L. MARKOWITZ REPLY TO: BURLINGTON OFFICE For the record I am enclosing another formal Notice of Appearance. Will you kindly send me a copy of any further notices which are directed to my clients. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Mark L. Sperry`/'Esq. MLS:sle Enclosure pc: All clients Ralph Goodrich STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. IN RE: Green Acres, Inc. Subdivision South Burlington Planning Commission NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Please take notice that Mark L. Sperry of the Firm of Langrock, Sperry, Parker & Wool appears for the following persons in the above capLtioned ;natter, all of whom are landowners abutting the applicant's property: Larry and Ginette Brainard, Scott and Roberta Pennington, Terrance and Nancy Sheahan, David and Cathlene Howell and Lisa Ringey. Dated at Burlington this 10th day of April, 1990. Langrock, Sperry, Parker & Wool MarVperry, Esq. 275ge Street Burn, VT 05401 L.ANC3R(X,'K SPERRY PARKER. &, W(x)I, City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 April 6, 1990 Mr. Ralph Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont. 05403 Re: Green Acres, Hinesburg Road Dear Ralph: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Also en- closed are Bill Szymanski's, Chief Goddet.te's amd Bob Gardner's comments. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, April 10, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. Sincerely, oe Weith, City Planner Encls cc: Ms. Karen Petterson JW/mcp M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer Re: April 10, 1990 agenda items Date: April 6, 1990 3) GREEN ACRES INDUSTRIAL PARK, HINESBURG ROAD 1. The site should be served by a gravity sewer to the existing pumping station near the interstate highway. The plan shows another pumping station. This can be done by using a 10 or 12 inch pipe to flatten the slope if necessary. 2. The short spur should have a 50 foot radius at its intersec- tion with Swift Street Extension to accommodate the large trucks anticipated for this development. 3. There should be a triangle sight view easement reserved on each side of lots 1 & 4 where the spur intercepts Swift Street Extension. 4. Street width at cul-de-sac shall be 24 feet. The Swift Street cul-de-sac need not include curbs. 5. Power and telephone line should be placed outside of the street r.o.w. 4) MEADOWBROOK DEVELOPMENT, JOY DRIVE 1. The condominium association had a study made for the correc- tion of drainage problems in the area. The problems described in the study should be addressed before any additional expansion is approved. The study was done by Knight Engineering of Williston. 2. The jug -handle where the driveways connect should be recon- structed. 3. Runoff from U.V.M.'s cornfield should be diverted to the east. M E M 0 R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: April 3, 1990 agenda items Date: March 30, 1990 3) GREEN ACRE INDUSTRIAL LOT SUBDIVISION Green Acres, Inc., proposes to subdivide 263 acres in South Burlington into 11 industrial lots. The Sketch Plan was reviewed on 11/7/89 (minutes enclosed). The parcel is located on Hines- burg Road south of Lane Press and north of the Ledgeknoll resi- dential development. The property is zoned Industrial and Agricultural (242 acres) and Agricultural and Rural Residential (21 acres). Conservation zones also exist on the site. The applicant proposes to do a Planned Industrial Development which is allowed in I -A zone on parcels containing 80 acres or more. Please read over the I -A section of the zoning regulations prior to Tuesday's meeting. The property is bounded by Dynapower (under construction) to the north, Muddy Brook and the Town of Williston to the east, resi- dences to the south, and Hinesburg Road and several single-family residences to the west. The site slopes downward from Hinesburg Road. The western half of the property is primarily open with fields while the eastern half is primarily wooded. An old quarry exists on the site as well as a small pond. A stream (beginnings of Potash Brook) runs north/south in the center of the property. An additional stream runs southwest to northeast on the front half of the property and joins with Potash Brook. Minimum lot size/frontage: The zoning ordinance requires a 10 acre minimum lot size, however, the average size of all the lots must equal a minimum of 20 acres. The plan shows 10 lots each between 10 and 12.5 acres, and one 146 acre lot. The average lot size (using only the I -A zoned land) is 23.2 acres. All lots meet the minimum lot frontage (300 feet) except for lots 2 (175 feet) and 3 (130 feet) which are located on a cul-de-sac. The Planning Commission may reduce frontage requirements by 50% for lots on cul-de-sacs if it determines reduction would improve lot layout. Lot 3 would still not comply since it is only 130. feet. 1 Memorandum - Planning April 10, 1990 agenda items April 6, 1990 Page 2 Access: The plan shows an 80 foot wide r.o.w. with 32 foot wide paved road extending south/easterly from the Lane Press/Dynanpow- er Road over the western portion of the Dynapower property onto Green Acres property and then extending eastward through the middle of the property ending in a cul-de-sac south west of the quarry. A 700 foot long road branches off to the south ending in a cul-de-sac near Ledgeknoll. The four lots fronting the cul-de-sac should access from the cul-de-sac. Lots 8 and 10 on the north side of Swift Street, as well as lots 7 and 9 directly south, should share access on Swift Street Extension. Swift Street could someday be a high volume roadway if and when it is extended to Williston. The Commission should take the opportuni- ty now to minimize curb cuts. Future access locations and notes should be added to the plat. The Planning Commission should consider the proposed roadway network in relation to the future development of the Pollack property to the north. A r.o.w. should be reserved between lots 8 and 10 for a second connection to the Pollack property. This r.o.w. should be shown on the plat. Lot Layout: The purpose of the P.I.D. is to encourage clustering of smaller lots to preserve open space for aesthetic enjoyment, natural features and to maximize potential of land for agricul- tural purposes. The proposed lot layout follows the concept of clustering by clustering the 10 to 12 acre lots on the western portion of the property and leaving the eastern half in one large lot. This large lot will work well to preserve the natural features of Muddy Brook. As has been discussed, there are tremendous views of Mount Mans- field and the Green Mountains from Hinesburg Road. The applicant will be presenting information on how they plan to limit building heights to preserve views. Notes to this affect should be in- cluded on the plat and should be included in the deeds. Screening: A berm with sufficient landscaping should be constructed along the residential properties to the south, simi- lar to the berm constructed in Green Tree Park. This was men- tioned at the last meeting but was not incorporated in the plans. The adjoining residents should be consulted to see how they feel about such a berm and landscaped screen. 2 Memorandum - Planning April 10, 1990 agenda items April 6, 1990 Page 3 Pedestrian Easement: The recreation path plan shows a proposed recreation path along the interstate, around the quarry and along Muddy Brook. There is an existing pedestrian easement along the Dynapower southern property line. There is also one along Muddy Brook (Wesssel property) immediately south of this property. These would both be logical connections for easements on this property. The recreation path easements should be reserved and shown on the plat. The Comprehensive Plan and Boyle report recommended protection of Muddy Brook. Bill Wessel, who will be coming to the Commission next month, has expressed interest in dedicating a 200 + foot strip along Muddy Brook to the City. This concept could be extended along the length of the Goodrich property, thereby creating a 1.2 mile long Muddy Brook Nature Preserve. This could eventually be extended southward to the southern boundary of the City. How does the Commission feel about such a concept? How does the applica*nt feel about- dedicating a 200 - 300 foot strip along Muddy Brook? A 100 foot Conservation zone already exists and much of this land is wetlands and/or floodplain. An agreement could be made which allows this dedicated land to be used for density in terms of average lot size, etc. Wetlands: The Department of Interior Wetlands Inventory Map shows a portion of a 12 acre wooded wetland on this parcel. This area has been shown on the plat through shading. The Natural Resources Committee has recommended undisturbed buffer zones around wetlands to protect them. This should be shown on the plat and included in the deeds for lots 5 and 7. Other: The Boyle report shows a minor stream and conservation zone running southwest to northeast over lots 1, 2, 3, and 6. The Commission should determine whether or not it considers this a minor stream. The restrictions caused by such a conservation zone and view protection from Hinesburg Road would make develop- ment on lots 1,2 and 3 almost impossible. I urge Commission members to walk this site prior to Tuesday and view the stream/drainageway. The conservation zone along Muddy Brook should be shown on the plat. 3 tqTzaot,� cx� 4— HO blEiD --/� /qt-7J�vc,,1S��L w-47�,5e) rr- CoIJ -T) /J OE7 T � � M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: February 21, 1989 agenda items Date: February 17, 1989 31) GREEN ACRES INDUSTRIAL PARK There should be a uti i y easement to serve the Dubois Property to the south. 2. An 80 foot wide road r.o.w., should be reserved from the cul- de-sac to' the Williston Town line. The proposed sewage pumping station should be outside of this street r.o.w. 3. Traffic signals at the Hinesburg Road intersection will be warranted as the area develops. 4. The amount of water available for fire protection may be a problem especially for a large building. 4) DEGRAFF PROPERTY, PATCHEN ROAD/KIRBY ROAD 1. A 20' x 20' triangle of lot 21 at corner of Kirby Road and Patchen Road should be deeded to the City which is needed for road and sidewalk purposes. 2. 80% of lot 17-20 is useless and should be turned over to the City for park purposes. If not a 20 foot r.o.w. to City owned park should be provided. 3. A 5 foot concrete sidewalk should be provided along the north side of the new street. 4. The sewer across the property is a large main. The easement must be kept clear of all obstructions including trees, shrubs, fences, sheds, etc. 5. Lot 16 should access from new road not Kirby Road. 6. Trees should not be planted on top of water and sewer mains. 7. Electric, and telephone lines shall be outside of the street r.o.w. Street lights shall be provided also all necessary signs. ,+01 „y�M e�w�in�lOy y y*O Y' 4 r MtOy TOWN #A PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 February 17, 1989 Mr. Richard Trudell Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: Green Acres, Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Trudell: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Also enclosed are Bill Szymanski's comments. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, February 21, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. Sincerely, 5oe Weith, `' City Planner JW/mcp Enc:l s cc: Mr. Ralph Goodrich l Memorandum - Planning February 21, 1989 agenda items February 17, 1989 Page 2 3) GREEN ACRES IUSTRIAL LOT SUBDIVISION, HINESBURG ROAD Green Acres, Inc., proposes to subdivide a 260 acre parcel into 12 industrial lots. The parcel is located on Hinesburg Road south of Lane Press and north of the Ledgeknoll residential development. The property is zoned Industrial and Agricultural (I -A). The applicant proposes to do a Planned Industrial Development which is allowed in this zone on parcels containing 80 acres or more. Please read over the I -A section of the zoning regulations prior to Tuesday's meeting. The property is bounded by Dynapower (under construction) to the north, Muddy Brook and the Town of Williston to the east, residences to the south, and Hinesburg Road and several single- family residences to the west. The site slopes downward from Hinesburg Road. The western half of the property is primarily open with fields while the eastern half is primarily wooded. An old quarry exists on the site as well as a small pond. A stream runs north/south in the center of the property. Minimum lot size/frontage: The plan shows 12 industrial lots which are broken down into the following sizes: 5 acres, 10.3, 10.5, 10.5, 12.5, 13.0, 13.8, 16.1, 16.1, 30.0, 41.1, and 72.0. The 41.1 and 72 acre lots are located on the back portion of the property along Muddy Brook. The zoning ordinance requires a 10 acre minimum lot size, however, the average size of all the lots must equal a minimum of 20 acres. The plan shows an average lot size of 20.9 acres. The proposed 5 acre lot on Hinesburg Road is not allowed. All lots meet the minimum lot frontage except for 3 lots which are located on cul-de-sacs. The Planning Commission may reduce frontage requirements by 50% for lots on cul-de-sacs if it determines reduction would improve lot layout. Access: The plan shows an 80 foot wide r.o.w. with 32 foot wide paved road extending south/easterly from the Lane Press/Dynapower Road over the western portion of the Dynapower property onto Green Acres property and then extending eastward through the middle of the property ending in a cul-de-sac south of the quarry near Muddy Brook. A 650' long road branches off to the south ending in a cul-de-sac. All of the lots are proposed to access off these 2 new streets except for the 5 acre lot which is proposed to access off of Memorandum - Planning February 21, 1989 agenda items February 17, 1989 Page 3 Hinesburg Road. No access off of Hinesburg Road should be allowed. The Planning Commission needs to seriously consider the proposed roadway network in relation to the future development of the Pollack property to the north. The applicant is aware of this and has indicated that he is willing to discuss this with the Commission. We may want to reserve a r.o.w. for a second connection of the Lane Press Road to the new roadway (see Sketch A). The Commission should also consider future access of the small residential lots along Hinesburg Road. These lots most likely will not remain residential much longer. They will probably be converted into office or small light industry. It would not be desirable to have individual curb cuts on Hinesburg Road for each of these lots. This might be a good opportunity to work with Green Acres, Inc. to design a roadway network which can adequately serve both the Green Acres project and the small properties along Hinesburg Road (see sketch B). Lot I.,ayout: The purpose of the PID is to encourage clustering of the smaller lots to preserve open space for aesthetic enjoyment and to maximize potential of land for agricultural purposes. The plan shows, for the most part, the smaller lots (less than 20 acres) clustered together. The smaller lots generally are clustered on the western portion of the property while the larger lots (open space) are located in back along Muddy Brook. The Planning Commission may want to determine where open space is most desirable when reviewing this plan. An alternative layout to what is shown on the plan would be to put the larger lot(s) abutting Hinesburg Road and Ledgeknoll. This may serve to better preserve the views from Hinesburg Road and provide a large open space buffer between the development and the single-family homes in Ledgeknoll. Traffic•: A traffic study should be done to determine the impact of this development on the intersection with Hinesburg Road. Screening: A high berm with sufficient landscaping should be constructed along the residential properties to the south, similar to the berm constructed in Green Tree Park. Special attention should be given to views in designing the berm. Pedestrian Easement: The Comprehensive Plan shows proposed pedestrian trails around the quarry and along Muddy Brook. Easements for these trails should be reserved. The Natural Resources Committee will be consulted. 3 Memorandum - Planning February 21, 1989 agenda items February 17, 1989 Page 4 Other: The conservation zone boundary along Muddy Brook should be shown on the plan. Setbacks on each lot should be shown on Preliminary Plat. A 65 foot setback with 15 foot undisturbed buffer is required along property lines abutting residential zones. A 150 buffer strip is required along Hinesburg Road and I-89. See Bill Szymanski's comments. 4) O'BRIEN BROTHERS AGENCY, RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, PATCHEN/KIRBY ROADS O'Brien Brothers Agency, Inc., proposes to: 1) subdivide a 10.84 acre parcel into 17 residential lots (16 single-family, one multi -family), and 2) construct a 4-unit multi -family dwelling on the multi -family lot. Each proposal is considered a major subdivision. The property is .located south and east of the Patchen/Kirby Roads intersection. The property is bounded on the north by Kirby Road and 13 single- family dwellings which front Kirby Road, on the west by Patchen Road and a single-family dwelling, and on the south and east primarily by a stream and wooded open space owned by the City of South Burlington. The neighborhood is single-family residential in character. A pond is located on the southern end of the property (multi- family lot). 17-Lot Subdivision Access: A new 30 foot wide paved road is proposed to pass through the middle of the subdivision connecting with Patchen and Kirby Roads. This new road will serve 15 single-family lots. The street will be only 13 feet from 2 Existing homes where it meets Kirby Road. The far eastern lot is proposed to have its own access on Kirby Road via a 50' wide r.o.w. between two existing houses. The lot proposed at the corner of Patchen and Kirby Roads contains an existing dwelling which will retain its current access on Patchen Road. The multi -family lot will be accessed from Patchen Road. 470 feet of the 1300 foot long road will be within a 50' right- of-way. This substandard r.o.w. width is needed in order for the lots to meet standard setback and minimum lot size requirements. The remainder of the road is proposed to t)e within a 60' r.o.w. 4 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 January 16, 1990 Mr. Ralph Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Green Acres, 12 lot subdivision, Hinesburg Road Dear Ralph: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are the 11/7/89 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please call if you have any questions. nc rely Joe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl cc: Richard Trudell JW/mcp PLANNING COMMISSION 27 October 1987 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, 27 October 1987, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Peter Jacob, Chairman; William Burgess, Mary -Barbara Maher, Judy Hurd, John Belter, Ann Pugh Member Absent Catherine Peacock Also Present Jane Lafleur, City Planner; Richard Ward, City Zoning Administrator; David Chenette, Sauio, Franco Properties; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; William Shuele; Jeanne Kennedy, Finard; Pete Yankowski, Natural Resc-urces Committee; Michael J. Munson, Consultant to City of S.B.; Don Allen, LTH Assoc.; Mike Donoghue, Free Press; George k::houri, University Mall; Bill Schroeder, Andrew Vanderveen, University Mall; Edwin Grandi, University Mall; Jeane P. Andersan, Paul St. James, Nancy Jankins, K:uzins Construction; Michael Gamache, The Realty Mart; Lowell Krassner, Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Jacob opened the meeting and said that the minutes of October 13 and 20th were not available at this time. Mr. Jacob said that he had received a phone call from a resident who said that there was a house being built at the Overlook At Spear which would block the view. Mr. Jacob asked Mrs. Lafleur to look into this. Mrs. Lafleur asked Mr. Ward if he would lc-ok into it. She noted that as long as the height of the house was within the requirement there wasn't much the City could do. Discussion of Green Acres Quarry request for an amendment to the motion of apprC.val. Mr. Jacob said that the City Attorney had advised the Commission not to act upon this item tonight because there was a court case pending can this development. Mrs. Hurd moved that no action be taken at this time due to court jurisdiction. Mrs. Pugh seconded and all voted in favor of the mc,t i on. 3. Continue public hearing: Request of University Mall Realty Trust to reconsider stipulatic-n of revised Final Plat approval which required Dorset Street widening prier to construction of PLANNING COMMISSION 6 OCTOBER 1987 PAGE 5 and things have a chance to settle. Mr. Jacob noted that traffic studies are being done for Dorset St. to see what numbers exist now and what can be projected with the new roads. Mrs. Lafleur reminded the Commission that since the Deslauriers project came in under the old C-2 Zoning, that use is locked in for that particular project as long as they don't change the use. Mrs. Maher moved to change the zonina on the parcel in question from C-2 to R-7. Mr. Burgess seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. 5. Other Business: Clarification of stipulations in the site plan approval of Ralph Goodrich for the quarr operation on Hinesburg Road Mr. Jacob stressed that the City Attorney has advised no decision be reached at this meeting and until they have had a chance to review the whole situation. Mr. Marks, counsel for Mr. Goodrich, explained that the the District Environmental hearing, the Board looked at the street proposed on the site plan and the Planning Commission's language in stipulation #2 and concluded that the street was where Swift St. was to be extended. They then intended to review the routing of Swift St. Extension as part of the application to re -open the quarry. He said it was their understanding that the Planning Commission did not establish a specific route for Swift St. Ext. Their dilemma is that if Act 250 sticks to its guns, in the context of Mr. Goodrich's application, they will make binding decisions on Swift St. The applicant feels this is a problem for the city as well as for them and they proposed clarifying language of the Planning Commission's intent. He stressed it is very improtant their application not be misunderstood. Mrs. Hurd read from the Minutes of 14 October 1986 noting that the Commission requested the base of the road be built as for a permanent road. She said she remembered believing they were locating Swift St. Extension. Mr. Burgess said he is distubed that every time the Commission reserves a right- of-way, they don't necessarily follow through for many years with a road, and sometimes the right-of-way is never used for a road. Mr. Sperry, representing residents of Ledge Knoll, said they took a position there would be only 1 road in that meadow, and if it remains in its present location, it affects his clients adversely. They have watched traffic projections go from 5 or 6 trucks an hour to 34 trip ends per hour now. Mr. Marks noted the road is 780 ft. from Ledge Knoll homes. Mrs. PLANNING COMMISSION 6 OCTOBER 1987 PAGE 6 Maher noted that 18 vehicles per hour was approved and she is concerned these numbers are going up. Mrs. Lafuer said the City Attorney will get back to the Com- mission on 27 October with his recommendation. Mr. Jacob also noted the Commission will meet again on the Ag-Ind District, hopefully before the first of the year. Mrs. Maher moved to table discussion on the issue until it can be fit into the agenda. Ms. Pugh seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Com- mission, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 pm. Clerk PLANNING COMMISSION 14 OCTOBER 1986 PAGE 5 8 inches and project engineers shall evaluate the systems for fire protection adequacy. 4. It is the applicant's responsibility to record the final Plat with the required revisions within 90 days or this approval is null and void. It shall be approved by the Planner and signed by the Chairman or Clerk of the Planning Commission prior to recording. Mrs. Maher seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. 6. Site plan application of Ralph Goodrich for the operation of a rock quarry located at Green Acres, Hinesburg Rd. Mrs. Lafleur explained this is an expansion of an existing use. There hasn't been this volume of work in the quarry in many years. The Commission can look at access, landscaping, screening, and can find out general information about the quarry, traffic access and safety. The Zoning Board reviewed noise, hours of operation, dust, and erosion control plans. They asked -for the Commission's recommendations on the access road. The applicant will go to Act 250 after the Planning Commission.. Hours of operation of 6 AM - 6PM, Mon -Sat were approved by the Zoning Board. A traffic study has not yet been received nor the erosion control study/plan. Mr. Goodrich said that as of today, the access to the quarry is through S. Brownell Rd in Williston. They are asking for a second access on Hinesburg Rd. They will conform to needs for the future use of the road for the Swift St. extension, and will come out on the existing Semicon driveway. Mr. Belter said that is not a public road. Mrs. Lafleur said this is true. It is not known when this will be worked out to be triggered as a city road. If Mr. Goodrich wants to use it earlier, he will have to go to the City Council and build the road. The Commission needs to know where'the road ties into the quarry and the exact location of the road. ;Mr. Goodrich said they are about 1600-1700 -ft. from the Ledge Knoll property line. He anticipated the road would be private until they develop the industrial park, then would be built to city standards. Mrs. Lafleur said the Commission will have to check carefully so that no below standard lots are created by the road location. Eabh lot will have to meet minimum standard. Dr. Roberta Coffin asked how many trucks will go in and out in a day. Mr. goodrich estimated 18 trucks an hour. Ms. Lugenbuhl asked for an explanation of the noise level. Mr. Goodrich said the noise level for the crusher will be at 65 PLANNING COMMISSION 14 OCTOBER 1986 PAGE 6 decibels at 200 ft. from the crusher. Blastingnoise will be much less. No noise should be heard 500 ft. from the quarry. Ledge Knoll shouldn't hear anything. He said they hope to create a beautiful lake after the quarrying operation. Mrs. Lafleur noted that they have been told that City stan- dards for measuring noise are out of date, and this is being worked on. Mr. Krassner said he felt trucks will cause more noise than the crusher or blasting. Mrs. Hurd said when this area was zoned industrial they were told it would be light industry. No one ever envisioned 18 trucks an hour through a residential area. Residents agreed that truck noise would be significant. Mrs. Maher asked if there is a way to put a limit on the number of trucks that might use the Hinesburg Rd. access in a day. Mrs. Lafleur said she would check with the City Attorney on this. Regarding landscaping, Mrs. Lafleur said the applicant is stockpiling topsoil for a grassed berm along the interstate. Mr. Goodrich said they have no plan to remove trees, so the quarry won't be visible from Hinesburg Rd. Borders would be landscaped as the industrial park is developed. Mr. Goodrich said he has a gut feeling most of their traffic will go out through Williston. Mr. Palmer said there would be less impact on the city than having trucks come in from Winooski. Mrs. Lafleur suggested the possibility of a treed buffer along the access road. Dr. Coffin asked about a dust problem. Mr. Goodrich said they don't anticipate a problem as they will not be grinding the limestone. Belts are covered, and they will pave access roads. Mr. Krassner asked what effect there will be on the water table. Mr. Goodrich said there will be none. They want the quarry to fill up as soon as possible after they abandon it. 7. Site Plan application of Pizzagalli, Inc., for construction of a 23,000 sq. ft. building at 35 Joy Drive. Mr. Tomkowitz said this is the same plan as before. They didn't get the building permit in time. All stipulations will be the same. Mrs. Hurd moved that the Planning Commission approve the site plan application of Pizzagalli Development Corporation for construction of a 23,000 sq. ft. office building at 35 Jo Drive as depicted on a plan entitled "Pizzagalli Development --V f.: d!--,b -lE C-', F-;z E:-- 1= C-3 F-z -r- (—=P QQNIENIW. TRAFFIC DESIGN BRIEI-'::' ACCESS PERMIT CORRESPONDENCE SUPPORTING DOCUMENVS) TRAFFIC DESIGN BRIEF FOR GREEN ACRES QUARRY SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT Prepared by: Tyler Hart, P.E. Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 i r y Y•y�� 1, x'R:� 16 a• ��.�� ' is ,' rirdr?, ray«j M' `��ry777 n! , S WOW ol I• rRla :;9+ ia, tit-400 MIT r''�.1i^r i+' s�� 'r.'�•i 3r tr • F r X .• ' 4 •' s'P.� •I � i C� " Mrs 9i4%f AT Tr':4 ww t. I /( Wind Is23 P� •r. Winldmill0 1 ` 1 um 1 1 • `' p,� ACM 1 _ �• �lk- 1 _ . 11 / tea^ `• r,. '=_� / 116 • �� '', :I• ' � ` 1 I 1 � ICE' . � ,.� If • � i Ruins J I' {i4920 Quarr 25' h > e � III A _tii' -_ .� 1� `. _`� �• � -tit- ��1 � •��`1''�\- _ �, � / ,si71 I \ �lzpY)St�d '-?V/}F� " p /a0,6,er � 17• CONTENTS Project Description Project Traffic Review of Access Points Conclusions PROJECT_ DESCRIPTION The Green Acres Quarry project is owned by Ralph Goodrich and is located south of I-89 between Route 116 and South Brownell Road. The old quarry was used in the construction of I-89 and is filled with water. The owner proposes to drain the existing quarry and begin a new operation.Stone will be crushed at the site and used for area construction projects. The quarry will be expanded over a 10 year period. The project will be served by a paved access road between South Brownell Road and the access road to the Lane Press. (Formerly Semicon) Traffic will primarily be tandem trucks. -1- PROJECT TRAFFIC Project truck traffic is based on a maximum of 5000 tons of quarry rock per day. 5000 tons/day divided by 15 tons/truck = 333 trucks/day 333 trucks/day divided by 12 hour day = 28 trucks/hour It is assumed that this traffic is split equally between each access point on Route 116 and South Brownell Road and that about half enters and half exits. If all traffic used only one access point about 14 trucks would enter and 14 trucks would exit during a peak hour. This small amount of traffic does not warrant a capacity analysis and it is clear that signals and left -turn lanes are not warranted. The focus of attention is on the geometry and safety of the two access points to accommodate truck turning movements. -2- 1 REVIEW OF ACCESS POINTS The access point at Route li6 will be at the Lane Press intersection (formerly Semicon). At this location there is a left -turn off Rt. 116. The sight distance is over 800 ft. both ways and the posted speed is 45 M.P.H. It is recommended the stop bar be moved to line up under the electric power lines. An acceleration lane for right -turn traffic exiting this location is not recommended because vehicles must stop under the electric power line to get a clear line of sight to the south. This stopping point is beyond where an acceleration lane would be added. The access point at South Brownell Road will be at the location of the existing driveway to the quarry. Sight distances exceed 600 ft. both ways. The speed limit is 40 M.P.H. No special geometric requirements are needed at this location. -3- CONCLUSIONS 1. Because of the limited -traffic volume from this project a detailed capacity analysis is not required. 2. Two access points were inspected and found to be adequate and safe for the expected truck volumes without special improvements. QL: � 1 TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Inc. December 5, 1986 Mr. Wayne Martin, Utilities Engineer Agency of Transportation 133 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 RE: Green Acres Quarry Dear Wayne: Enclosed is the highway access permit application for Green Acres Quarry. No special improvements are recommended. Because of the low volume of traffic the impact is minimal. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, TRUDEL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Tyl r Hart, P.E. JTH/jlv Encl. cc: Ralph Goodrich 14 BLAIR PARK ROAD BOX 308, WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 (802) 879-6331 STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION PERMIT APPLICATION Applicant's Name, Address &Phone No. , ,Ralph , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .. P.O., Box .2121x .SQtitb .4i4i �l�ngt4D, .'lezluQnt ..Q54Q3................................... Owner's Name & Address (if different from above) ............................................. The location of this work (town, highway #, distance to nearest mile marker or intersection & which side) a ..................................................................................... o Description of the work to be performed (attach sketch) .. ,Highway Access ,P .........for trucks ............. at o Lane Press on Rt. 116, mile point 2.28 ..................................................................................... E. Has zoning or Act 250 application been filed? ..N4............................................. Q If yes, give application # or other identification, if different from above. Date work expected to begin ............... . . . Summer, . , , _ .. , , , , _ .... 19. 86.... Applicant..Ralph Goodrich......................................................... By ....... Tyler.Hart.................................... Date ...12/5/86 .......... Co-Applicant....................................................................... By .. PERMIT APPROVAL This permit is issued with the following directions, restrictions and conditions, and covers only the work described hereinafter, and then only when the work described is performed as directed, and subject to the following special conditions: ..................................................................................... Work to be completed by .......................... 19 ...... *Director of Engineering & Construction By............................... Date............... NOTICE: This permit covers only rights vested in the State Transportation Agency over this highway and it does not release the petitioner from the requirements of any other statutes, ordinances, rules or regulations. This permit is effective upon compliance with such of these other requirements as are applicable. SEE OTHER SIDE FOR ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS No work shall be done under this permit until the party or parties to whom it is granted shall have communi- cated with and received instructions from the District Transportation Administrator at ................. ...................................................................................... TA 210 4M 3/81 �0N AGFSTATE OF VERMONT p AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION 133 State Street, Administration Buildnig = Montpelier, Vermont 05602 tiSp�R'tP December 18, 1986 Mr. Tyler Hart, P.E. Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. 14 Blair Park Rd., Box 308 Williston, VT 05495 RE: So. Burlington, VT 116, LS 118+00 RT Dear Mr. Hart: The Ralph B. Goodrich application for a permit to use the existing drive at the above referenced location has been reviewed by this office. We are generally in agreement with your findings, provided your traffic volume predictions are correct. However, we do have some concerns with this project which have not been addressed. The addition of your road coupled with Semicons intention to sub -divide this property brings up the possibility of substantial future development and much higher traffic volumes than have been addressed for the combination of the Lane Press and the Goodrich Quarry. Previous improvements to VT 116 were designed for the traffic generated by Semicon and any increase to these volumes will very likely require further improvements including longer taper lengths and possibly signals. Your permit as well as the Lane Press proposal will be condi- tioned so as to make the applicant or their heirs and assigns responsible for future improvements required at the VT 116 inter- section. Any new owners should be made aware of this condition. We cannot issue the highway permit until you receive Act 250 or local zoning approval, whichever may apply in your case. Please notify this office when you obtain your land use approval so that you highway permit can be issued. Page 2 December 18, 1986 Mr. Tyler Hart, P.E. Please let us know if you have any further question about this matter. Our telephone number is 828-2653. Sincerely, Sanford W. Woodbeck Acting Utilities Engineer SWW:DA:dd CC: South Burlington Planning Williston Planning Katherine Vose, Coordinator John Wood, DTA #5 Utility Files PLANNING COMMISSION 11 AUGUST 1987 PAGE 10 traffic issue. 9. Other business Consider a 6-month extension of the approval to Green Acres for the development of a quarry Ms. Perkins advised the extension was needed due to the length of the Act 250 process. Ms. Peacock moved to grant the 6-month extention of the ap- proval to Green Acres for the development'of a quarry. Mrs. Maher seconded. Motion passed unanimously As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:05 pm. Clerk breen AU44 6")'� r, STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION # 4 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vt. 879-6563 TO: All Parties and Interested Persons FROM: Katherine M. Vose, Environmental Board District #4 Coordinator �-o �v�.f DATE: September 18, 1987 RE: Corrections re: Application #4CO530-3 Green Acres/quarry South Burlington There are two errors associated with this application which I would like to bring to your attention. This application has been incorrectly numbered, the number #4CO530-2 belongs to a decision issued on August 7, 1987 to Homer and Marie Dubois. This application should be numbered #4CO530-3. Additionally, the notice gave an incorrect location for the site visit meeting. Please note that the Commission will meet at the present quarry entrance on South Brownell Road at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 24, 1987 for the site visit. Thank you. KMV/aml PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION The South Burlington Plan- ning Commission will hold o public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Confer- ence Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington Vermont on Tuesday, Aprii 10, 1990 at 7:30 PM to consider the following: Preliminary Plat application of Green Acres, Inc, for sub- division of 263 acres off Hinesburg Road in South Burlington into I 1 lots of 10, 10.1, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, i 0.8, 12,1, 12.5, 13.4 and 145.8 acres. The Property is bounded on the north by Orchard Lake Properties and 1-89, on the east by the Town of Willis- ton, on the south by Morri- sey/Cannor, Toutant, Ploof, Davis/Risley, Dion, Sheahan, Pennington, Brainard and Dubois, and on the west by 1000 Hinesburg Road Part- nership, Rowley, Dubois, Wessel, Terreri, Abrams, and Hinesburg Road. Copies of the Preliminary Plat are available for public inspection at the South Bur- lington City Hall. William Burgess j Chairman I South Burlington Planning Commission March 24, 1990 LEGAL NOTICES 1 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, October 8, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: Continue Preliminary Plat application of Green Acres, Inc. for subdivision of 263 acres of Hinesburg Road in South Burington Into 11 lots of 10, 10.1, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.8, 12.1, 12.5, 13.4, and 145.8 acres. The property is bounded by Burlington Properties Limited Part- nership, Town of Willis- ton, Morrisey/Connor, Toutant, Ploof, Davis/Ris- ley, Dion, Sheahan, Pen- nington, Brainard, Dubois, 1100 Hinesburg Road Partnership, Rowley, Wessel, Terren, Abrams, and Hinesburg Road. Copies of the application are available for public Inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. William Burgess Chairman South Burlington I ---- _ PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission SOUTH BULINGTON September 21, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION = " The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the south Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, M Continued Next Column it. a dreliminF,y -.abon_of Green Lc. for`subdhrlsion 11�cres off Hines- td in South Bur- 'o 11 lots of 10, . J.1, 102, 10.3, 1 �.8, 12.1. 12.5. 13.4 dr,145.8 acres. The o ,brty is bounded on tt Snorth by Orchard Lake Properties and I-89, on the east by the Town of Williston, on the south by Morrisey/Connor, Tou- tant, Ploof, Davis/Risley, Dion, Sheahan, Penning- ton, Brainard and Dubois and on the west by 1000 Hinesburg Road Part- nership, Rowley, Dubois, Wessel, Terren, Abrams, and Hinesburg Road. 2) Continue prefminary plat application of Harold Bensen for subdivision of a 3.63 acre parcel con- taining a planned com- mercial development consisting of two (2) com- mercial buildings and 16 residential units into two (2) lots of 1.41 acre (com- Marcia' Odings) and 2.22 "^P' hih M. Road. application for public 97 the South on c `all. Willia ,i Burgess Chairman South Burlington C mission Planning orn I i June 22,19914/7 CITY OF SOUM BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - SKETCH PIM 1) Name, address, and phone number of: a. Owner of record Ralph B. Goodrich, 625 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vermont 05401 802 862 6431 b. Applicant same as above c. Contact person James A. Lamphere - Wiemann-Lamphere Architects 289 College Street, Burlington, Vt. 05401 802 864 0950 2) Purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development, including number of lots, units, or parcels and proposed use(s). 18 lots from 180 acres for corporate offices or related uses 3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple, option, etc) fee simple 4) Names of owners of record of all contiguous properties see attached drawing 5) Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on property such as easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc. NONE 6) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of municipal facilities such as sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc. sanitary, water, streets 7) Describe any previous actions taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or by the South Burlington Planning Commission which affect the proposed sub- division, and include the dates of such actions: not applicable 8) Submit four copies of a sketch plan showing the following information: 1) Name of owners of, record of contiguous properties. 2) Boundaries and area of: (a) all contiguous land belonging to owner of record and (b) proposed subdivision. 3) Existing and proposed layout of property lines; type and location of existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and cove- nants. 4) Type of, location, and approximate size of existing and proposed streets, utilities, and open space. S) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic). 6) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. (Signature) applicant or contact person James A. Lamphere date PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 16.00 INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 16.204 Delete the following: "Office building containing corporate headquarters or similar use by one company, and not including general office buildings for two or more separate users." Change to "Business and Professional offices." 16.205 Add "State and Municipal offices" 16.304 New language 16.305 New language 16.80 Delete "and corporate" offices uses 16.801 A) change minimum lot size from 10 acres to 5 acres Change average lot size from 20 acres to 10 acres 16.803c Delete "each individual lot in a P.I.D. and all buildings located on the lot shall be under the same ownership. New or different uses subsequent to the originaly approved uses on any lot shall require reapproval." ARTICLE XVI INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (I 16.00 Purpose An Industrial and Agricultural District is hereby formed in order to encourage agricultural use and/or high -quality, large -lot industrial or office use within planned develop- ments. Location and clustering of buildings that will best preserve the open space character of the area should be encouraged. A wider range of industrial and office uses may be permitted on existing small lots in the district. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited, except those which are allowed as conditional uses. 16.10 Permitted Uses The following uses are permitted in the Industrial and Agricultural District. 16.101 Farming, agriculture, horticulture, and forestry including the keeping of cattle, horses, or other domestic farm animals. 16.102 Buildings, including one single-family dwelling per farm, which are reasonably necessary and proper buildings appurtenant to the uses permitted in Section 16.101. 16.20 Permitted Uses within Planned Industrial Developments The following uses are permitted in the Industrial and Agricultural District within Planned Industrial Developments. 16.201 Those uses set forth in Sections 16.101 - 16.102 16.202 Light manufacturing 16.203 Research and testing laboratories 16.204 Rosiness and professional offices 16.205 State and municipal offices 16.30 Conditional Uses The following uses may be permitted in the Industrial and Agricultural District as conditional uses by the Board of Adjustment in accordance with tre provisions of Section 19.05. 16.301 Additional dwellings for farm employees subject to input from the Planning Commission regarding building location and density. 16.302 Outdoor recreational facilities 16.303 Public utility substations and transmission lines. Review of these facilities shall include an evaluation of safety, aesthetics, noise, and avail- ability of alternate sites. 16.304 Printing, bookbinding, publishing and engraving. 16.305 Support services to existing industrial/office use including child care facilit P�. indoor recreatirnn facilities, and restaurants provided the following specific criteria are met: (a) The use is supported by existing industrial development in fire--tz amount- ing to 50% of the land in the Industrial_ Agricultural District. (b) The use clearly is designed to serve the exist- ing development and not attract a market area outside the Quadrant. (c) _The use provides a service rather than retail or sales. 16.40 Permitted Uses on Pre -Existing Small Lots The following uses are permitted on pre-existing lots of 3 acres or less in the Industrial and Agricultural District. 16.401 Those uses set forth in Sections 16.101 - 16.102 16.402 Light manufacturing 16.403 Research and testing laboratories 16.404 Business, professional, and medical offices 16.405 Printing, bookbinding, publishing, and engraving 16.406 Single-family residences 16.50 Conditional Uses on Pre -Existing Small Lots The following uses may be permitted on pre-existing lots of 3 acres or less in the Industrial and Agricultural District as conditional uses by the Board of Adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05. 16.501 Thoses uses set forth in Sections 16.301 - 16.303 16.502 Storage and distribution facilities 16.60 Combinations of Pre -Existing Small Lots Two or more pre-existing small lots may be combined for development of the permitted and conditional uses listed in Sections 16.40 and 16.50 even if the combined acreage exceeds 3 acres. 16.70 Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements In the Industrial and Agricultural District all requirements of Section 18.00 governing lot size, lot coverage, frontage, and setbacks shall apply. A separate set of requirements is given in that section for pre-existing small lots in the district. E 16.80 Planned Industrial Developments Planned Industrial Developments (PIDs) are hereby permitted in the IAg District in order to encourage innovation of design and layout of industrial office uses in conjunction with provision of open space. Accordingly, the modification of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations by the Planning Commission is permitted simultaneously with the approval of a subdivision plat subject to the conditions of Section 19.15 and this section. 16.801 Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements (a) Minimum area - 80 acres. Minimum lot size - 5 acres. Average lot size - 10 acres. Pre-existing lots of 3 acres or more may also be developed under this section. (b) A buffer strip, 150 feet in width, shall be provided adjacent to Hinesburg Road and Interstate-89, to any lot in the AgR1 District, and to pre-existing lots of less than 3 acres in the IAg District. No structures or parking areas may be built within the buffer zone, and landscaping or screening may be required to protect adjacent properties from headlight glare or other objectionable element. (c) Maximum lot coverage shall be the normal maximum for the IAg District. 16.802 Standards for Provision of Open Space (a) Open space shall be located so as to maximize the aesthetic enjoyment of.users of the site, surrounding properties, and roads in the vicinity. (b) Open space shall be located so as to maximize potential of land for agricultural use. Criteria shall include soil quality, existing agricultural use, ability of the land to be improved for agricultural use, size and shape of contiguous open space, potential for combination with open space on adjacent lots, and location in relation to general agricultural activity in the area. (c) In providing open space under the criteria of sub -sections a. and b. above, the reasonable needs of any industrial or corporate office use for current use and future expansion at permitted densities on land of suitable development quality shall not be restricted. (d) Two or more contiguous or non-contiguous lots within the IAg District may be combined for development as a PID if the Planning Commission determines that such combination will enhance the open space objectives of this section. Maximum development on any lot shall be the permitted lot coverage for the IAg District times the total acreage for the combined lots. 16.803 Additional Standards (a) All PIDs shall be serviced municipal water and sewer. (b) Approval is required on all applicable criteria by both the Planning Commission and City Council. 16.804 Modification of Standards The following requirements of the zoning regulations may be modified in accordance with the conditions and objectives of this section: Section 18.00 (but not minimum lot size or maximum building coverage.) INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT Property # Acres Goodrich 117 71 Semicon 111.25 NET 19.3 Hill 118.3 Vt. Structural Steel 28.5 Mikell 46. Rye 25. #1030 Hinesburg Road .5 #1045 .3 #1100 2.5 #1160 .5 #950,900,894 10. #1050,1060,1070,1080 4.85 Total Acres 555 M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner Re: May 7, 1985 agenda items Date: May 3, 1985 2) INDUSTRIAL-AGRICULTRUAL DISTRICT AMENDMENTS The enclosed material describes the 7 proposed changes to the I -AG District. These include: a) new permitted uses including business and professional offices and state and municipal facilities; deleting corporate headquarters. b) new conditional uses including printing, bookbinding, publishing and engraving; and support services to existing industrial/office uses provided certain conditional use criteria are met. c) reducing the minimum and average lot sizes in a P.I.D. d) deleting the single -ownership requirement. We expect to have information on other industrial parks to enhance the discussion. 3) BELTER,,ZONE CHANGE John Belter proposes to change a portion of Ethan Allen Farm from Industrial -Commercial to R4. This area abuts the R4 area of Country Club Estates. It is a sloped and a heavily wooded area of approx- imately 13 acres. The major problem seems to be that this proposed residential area falls under the Airport Approach Cone. According to our regulations (Section 19.453), no dwellings are permitted under the Cone except caretakers, proprietors or other security personnel. I have discussd this prohibition with the FAA Tower Chief, Mark Birch. He said there is no FAA prohibition of dwellings under the cone. They do review projects that are within a certain distance of the airport to determine the airspace requirements and could make a negative determination if 1) the building height restricts air approaches, and 2) if cranes or other equipemnt used during construction obstruct approaches. He did say that dwellings are often prohibited because of the noise. 4) FARRELL STREET REZONING David Spitz is requesting to rezone an area located on the west side May 3, 1985 James Lamphere Wiemann and Lamphere Architects 289 College Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Amendments to the I-Ao District Dear Jim: Enclosed is a copy of the agenda for Tuesday's Commission meet- ing. Since I have not received the documentation on other industrial parks, please be sure to have it available at the meeting. Sincerely, Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner JSB/mcg 1 Encl April 26, 1985 James Lamphere 289 College Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Rim: Enclosed are the proposed revisions to the Industrial -Agricultural District. If you have any comments or suggestions please let me know prior to Friday, May 3. The Commission will be discussing this on Tuesday, May 7. Sincerely, Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner JSB/mcg 1 Encl M E M O R A N D U M tG To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner \ JG RE: Agenda Items for April 16 meeting Date: April 12, 1985 The City Council will holds it's public hearing on the Dubois project on Monday, May 6, not next week. 2) TRANSITIONAL DISTRICT Enclosed is the Final Draft of the proposed Transitional District. I have attached the proposed Dorset Street location and a listing of the uses in 11.102, 11.106, and 11.107. Please find corres- pondence received this week regarding the District. Also, notice that although retail businesses are included now, we have not included the specific standard that was part of an earlier version that stated: "For retail business, the primary market area or service area shall be that of the community, rather than the multi -community area or the region." The original intent was to use "neighborhood" market area, rather than community. As written above, it may be a useless distinction because many would argue that the only businesses in South Burlington that do not have a "community"market area are the mall, the airport, Digital, Semicon and N.E.T. 3 ) SKETCH PLAN ( RALPH GOODRICH, e, Q-7 The applicant proposes an 18 lot planned industrial development oil 180 acres. The area is zoned Industrial -Agricultural. The present zoning requires a minimum lot size of 10 acres, and an average of 20 acres. This proposal shows an average of 10 acres, and the smallest lot is approximately 4.5 acres. The development shows a street network with access onto Hinesburg Road at Semicon and connecting through to Brownell Road in Williston. A connector road is shown to Ledgeknoll; it should connect to the 60 foot r.o.w. in Knoll Circle. Another road should be provided to give access to the back of the Dubois development. All streets should be built to the City's commercial standards. 6C), eOLJ,--` 1 a-&' iVeql& This industrial -commercial abuts Ledgeknoll, a single-family residen - tial development. A 150' buffer is required along this area, and along I-89 and Hinesburg Road. a, 3 -k-, . Memorandum Agenda Items for April 12, 1985 Page 2 April 16 meeting 1YA l� The Sketch Plan shows a new pond and an enlarged pond. The impact of this on the Ledgeknoll drainage way should be carefully studied. x�� The plan shows a residential area along Hinesburg Road. This is in the Industrial -Agriculture District and will need a variance for. _�.... individual residential lots or uses. The industrial and commercial lots abut Mikell's land to the east, that are shown as transitional and residential lots. The tran- sitional lot concept may be a nice buffer along Dubois as well, so that heavier industrial lots do not abut the residential area. The plan shows no reserved open space although the lots are large and in themselves can preserve some green area. This is especially true if individual site plans are properly designed. The Commission should discuss the City's interest in acquiring some land for a fire station in this area as a possible alternative to, or in addition to, reserving large open tracts of land in this area. All lots must be serviced by municipal sewer and water. 4) Other business. I have enclosed a copy of my letter to the U.S. Post Office. April 12, 1985 James Lamphere Wiemann-Lamphere Architects 299 College Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Jim: Enclosed is the agenda and a copy of my memo to the Planning Commission. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner JSB/mcg 2 Encls cc: Ralph Goodrich NI PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1985 about it, since they were working on the assumption that this would be a residential area. Mr. Poger did not agree there would be a significant increase in traffic as a result of this zone and he felt the intent of the zone was the opposite of strip zoning. He felt this zone would be more advantageous to the residential neighborhood than leaving it residentially zoned, which is vulnerable to lot - by -lot variances. Mrs. Perry said she lived on Dorset Street and liked the idea of the transitional zone. She was afraid they would not be able to sell their home after the 5 lane road went in in front of them. She felt the homeowners on Dorset Street should be able to sell their homes without taking a large loss. Mr. Zalubski was concerned about runoff from additional paving in the area. He noted that there was a high water table here anyway. Mrs. Roberts said she bought her home on Dorset Street 30 years ago. One neighbor has been trying to sell his home for 2 years and cannot. She felt that area was not a residential market anymore. Mr. Krassner asked about the list of uses and was told that was more a guideline than a standard. The Zoning Board will have an idea for a general level of traffic from those uses listed, and if a proposed use for this area comes in with more traffic than that, it will not be approved. Mrs. Hurd said she could not vote for this zone with the retail uses in it. Mr. Hardin was concerned about this zone being applied to other areas in the city if it were approved here. Mr. Poger asked for further public comment and there was none. Mr. Burgess moved to close the public hearing and Mrs. Maher seconded the motion, which carried with all in favor. Mrs. Hurd wanted to remove retail uses. Mr. Burgess did not, noting that the Commission had been over this ground before. He wanted to approve or kill it tonight, based on the way it is warned. Mr. Belter liked it as is and Mr. Poger agreed that the Commission had discussed it long enough. Mrs. Maher moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they consider for adoption a transitional zone as developed and warned by the Planning Commission. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it carried with Mrs. Hurd voting no. Sketch plan application of Ralph Goodrich for the 18 lot industrial subdivision of 180 acres entitled "Green Acres" located south of I-89 and east of Hinesburg Rd. Mr. Poger noted that the Commission had seen sketch plans for this property several times before and he hoped that the next time they came in, an application would be presented for real. Mr. Lamphere said they were requesting that the zone be changed to allow an average lot size of 10 acres and a minimum of 5 acres, instead of the 20 and 10 allowed now. He said the developers would give the city covenants which would give it different controls than it had had in the past. He noted that a Design Review Committee could be set up, consisting of the developer, a professional architect and the Planner. Mr. Poger said the Commission would have to approve what came out of the Committee. Mr. Lamphere said the covenants could restrict the type of building materials used. Mr. Lamphere noted that the larger lots were shown in front near Hinesburg Road, so buildings can be built which willnot block the views. He said the pond would be expanded to be a major body of water. The smaller lots would be near the quarry. Near Hinesburg Road, Mr. Lamphere mentioned uses such as a recovery hospital, which would make a good transition between residential and 3. PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16. 198 commercial. It was noted that a road was shown connecting to a road in Williston and Mr. Poger said Williston should be informed of these plans now. Mr. Lamphere mentioned day-care centers and exercise centers for the people working in this area. Mrs. Maher asked how much of this land was buildable and Mr. Poger asked Ms. Bechtel to check. Mr. Poger said the plan looked fine, except for the size of the lots. He noted that the city would have to be a party to the covenants mentioned. After some discussion, it was decided to warn a public hearing on a change in the zoning ordinance in the agricultural/industrial district. Mrs. Maher cautioned the developers that such a hearing did not mean that a majority of the Commission was in favor of the lot size changing. Ms. Bechtel said she would work with the developers to come up with a proposal for changes to the ordinance and the Commission could decide if it wanted to warn those changes. Other business Ms. Bechtel said she had written a letter to the Postal Service in response to theirs. She said the Council had liked the idea of a Dorset Street study committee and she was working on a list of candidates. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm. Clerk ................. NORTH COUNTRY - P.O. Box 333 P�r�?` �n�TTI�T�+ - ,._- Winooski, Vermont 05404 L Ci►l�ll�l jIN j - _ (8= e55-3661 James A. Lamphere Wiemann-Lamphere, Architects 289 College Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Jim, t�C�"84 IVED WIEMANN - LAMPHERE, ARCHITECTS At your request I have evaluated the feasibility of certain zoning changes for the Goodrich-Mikell properties in South Burlington's southeast quadrant. Having been involved in the development of zoning for that area, I feel it is imperative that the City's master planning concepts be followed. However, I do recognize that some fairly signifi- cant zoning restrictions have been placed on that district's landowners. My recommendation is that implementation of the following four zoning changes will significantly improve the usability of the land but will still be fully consistent with South Burlington's desire for "large lot, high quality industrial uses" in the southeast quadrant. 1) Change minimum lot size requirements from to 10 to 5 acres and average lot size requirements from 20 to 10 acres. 2) Shift the boundary between the industrial -agricultural and agricultural -residential districts to a more natural boundary following existing tree lines in the area. 3) Maintain requirements for individual lot ownership, but per- mit multiple ownership of buildings subject to the same restrictions that apply to other zoning districts in the city. 4) Permit multi-user office buildings rather than limit occu- pancy to single -user corporate office buildings. A more detailed description of each of the suggested changes is provided in the enclosed report. I would be happy to provide any addi- tional comments or information that you may require. Sincerely, David H. Spitz, Planning Consultant PROPOSED ZONING REVISIONS FOR SOUTH BURLINGTON'S "INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL (IAg)" DISTRICT I. 5 Acre Minimum and 10 Acre Average Lot Sizes South Burlington's 1980 Comprehensive Plan called for "large lot, high quality industrial uses" in the southeast quadrant. Subsequently, the interpretation of "large lot" was debated at length until standards of 10 acre minimum and 20 acre average lot sizes were chosen in the 1982 Zoning Regulations. Those requirements are, by far, the most stringent in Chittenden County. In fact, the proposed revision to 5 acre minimum and 10 acre average lot sizes would still be greater than most existing industrial uses and all other existing industrial zones. Consider the following data. A review of zoning regulations in 7 area suburban municipalities indicates that the largest minimum size requirement in any industrial district is 100,000 square feet(C_ 2..3__a__cres The closest industrial dis- trict in concept is Essex's "Resource Preservation District - Industrial" which designates general guidelines but gives no specific minimum lot sizes. A 1981 survey of large lot industries in Chittenden County indicates that relatively few would comply with South Burlington's indus- trial and agricultural (IAg) district. Only IBM, Digital and Mitel are located on more than 50 acres and about 15 others (e.g. General Electric, IBM at Saxon Hill, Fassetts Bakery, and Pepsi -Cola) are located on more than 10 acres. In most cases, the large lots are not fully utilized by the occupant but contain wet or unusable land or have potential for future subdivision. Most industrial parks (e.g. Berard Drive) have lots ranging from I to 2 acres in size. A few mid -size industrial parks exist, such as the recently approved Catamount Industrial Park in Milton with a range of lot sizes from 3.33 to 10.65 acres and an average of_6.7, acres. The only potential comparison to South Burlington's IAg district is the Saxon Hill Industrial Park in Essex with a range of lot sizes from 3.19 to 29.E+6 acres and an average of 12.66 acres. In sum, there are very few industrial users that would qualify for South Burlington's current standards of 10 acre minimum and 20 acre average lot sizes. A reduction to 5 acre minimum and 10 acre average lot sizes would still be more than twice as stringent as any other industrial zone in the county. Only one existing industrial park is in the 5 - 10 acre range, and it certainly qualifies under the "large lot, high quality" description. page 2 II. District Boundary to Follow Existing Tree Lines When zoning districts are initially established, boundary lines are set in the easiest possible manner - often along property boundaries or following other large-scale map features. More detailed analysis at a later date sometimes indicates more appropriate boundaries. On the Goodrich- Mikell properties, some fairly straight and distinctive tree lines have been established over the years, separating agricultural fields and wooded areas. These tree lines suggest a natural buffer between the open land, which is well suited to agriculture and industry, and the wooded land, which is pre- ferable for residential use. A suggested relocation of the industrial - residential boundary along easily depicted straight lines would add approxi- mately 40 wooded acres to the agricultural -residential district. The revision would enhance the quality of the abutting residential land and would have little impact on opportunities for overall industrial development in the area. III. Multiple Ownership of Buildings Both the 1980 Comprehensive Plan and 1982 Zoning Regulations indicate South Burlington's desire for "high quality" industrial.,uses_in its IAg zone. Among the city's methods to achieve "high quality" are a number of restrictions on permitted uses - not only on the category of uses (e.g. light manufacturing vs. warehousing) but also on the ownership of uses. Two general points must be made. First, although limits on per- mitted uses are necessary, it is important to avoid excessive limitations that do more to restrict the landowner than to achieve the goals of the city. Second, since large variations in quality are possible within any use category, it is also necessary to rely on other types of restrictions (see section IV) to help achieve desired "high quality" uses. It is customary for zoning regulations to require single owner- ship of lots. However, more flexible treatment is usually given to multiple ownership of buildings. In the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, section 19.65 specifically sets out the conditions whereby multiple use of one or more buildings on a lot may be permitted. The provisions apply to all other districts in the city, and I recommend that they also are appropriate for the IAg district. On industrial lots of-5-acres or more, there is ample opportunity for occupancy by more than one, user.,; The current IAg zoning regulations permit such occupancy but only on a leased basis. However, area realtors and community development directors state that the great majority of industrial users want to own or have the option to purchase their own building area. As a result, the primary effect of this zoning restriction is to limit the options of the landowner and industrial occupant. Other, more suitable mechanisms are available to help ensure "high quality" uses. page 3 IV. Multi -User Office Buildings The arguments in relation to multi-user office buildings are very similar to those for multiple ownership of industrial buildings. There is no reason that multi -occupant buildings can not be just as attrac- tive and fit in just as well in the IAg district as single -occupant buildings. Rather than focus on the number of office occupants or industrial owners, the city should rely on full utilization of other existing provisions to help achieve the desired character of the IAg district. First, regardless of the number of users on a site, the same lot coverage provisions will apply. For the IAg district, building coverages of 15 to 20% and total lot coverages of 35% are approximately half as great as those for other commercial and industrial districts. These low coverages will ensure a certain degree of open space character for any number of users on lots in the district. Second, previously cited section 19.65 sets out specific standards and procedures for approving multiple uses on a lot. In combination with other safeguards, these standards can assure the suitability of more than one use on any lot in the IAg district. Third, any uses in the IAg district must be approved under planned unit development (PUD) standards. Aesthetic and open space criteria are contained both in the general PUD standards (section 19.1519) and in the specific PID standards for the IAg district (section 16.802). These standards apply directly to character of the overall neighborhood and only indirectly to specific building appearance, but a responsive applicant can provide infor- mation on both building location and appearance that will facilitate approval under aesthetic criteria. V. Specific Recommendations In order to implement the above recommendations, only a few specific zoning changes will be required: 16.204 delete all except "Office buildings" 16.80 line 3, delete "corporate" 16.801a and 18.00 change minimum lot size to "5 acres" and average lot size to 1110 acrecj" 16.803c delete all zoning map revise boundaries as shown on development plan In conclusion, these revisions will improve the usability of properties in the IAg district and will also be fully consistent with the city's desire for high quality, large lot uses in the area. TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Inc. October 15, 1984 Mr. Sidney Poger, Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Poger: As a representative for Mitel, we would like to direct your attention to the location of the Swift Street Extension across the southwesterly corner of the Mitel property. We request consideration of an alternative location for this road to a more acceptable alignment. It is Mitel's understanding that the Goodrich property, now being considered for development, will have public roads. The present location of the extension is now being used as a private drive by Mitel and is curved and close to existing residents making it difficult to access. Additionally Mitel's sign is at the corner and would not be legal if this location became a public road. A more direct and feasible route may be available through the Goodrich property and we suggest that it be seriously considered. Very truly yours, L CONSULTING GINEE , INC. ichard P. Trudell RPT/bmm cc: Bill Duncan, Mitel Robert House, Semicon Ralph Goodrich c.� CztA BOX 308, WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 (802) 879-6331 OCT 131984 PLANNING & ZQMRQ October 25, 1984 Ms. Jane Bechtel, Planner South Burlington Municipal Offices Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Goodrich Property Dear Jane: I'm in receipt of a letter from Dick Trudell to Sid Poger, dated October 15th regarding the entrance road to Mitel Corp. It was our understanding that the Town was requesting the first portion of this road to be used as one of the entrances to the Goodrich property, as this location on Hinesburg Road was where the point of Swift Street Extension would be crossing. We are presently developing with this in mind and would like to be kept appraised on the overall situation. Please let me know if any hearings are scheduled and I would be happy to meet with you to discuss our overall layout. Sincerely, WIEOW LAMPHERE ARCHITECTS, INC. l� am s A. Lamphere JAL/cad cc: Dick Trudell Ralph Goodrich Enclosure WIEMANN-LAMPHERE, ARCHITECTS • 289 COLLEGE ST. 9 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 • 802-864-0950 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 5, 1981 The next drawing showed in detail the landscaping that was planned. The screening on Hinesburg Road would have American Beech, white pine and Austrian pine trees. Mr. Trudell pointed out the location of all the plantings, showing how the elevations in the property were being utilized to help with the screening effect. Mr. Jacob wondered if he would consider some plantings along the long access road where none were planned. He thought that it would be a help in sheilding the residents from headlights along the road. Ms. Coffin asked for an explanation of how residents would not be affected by the lights from the cars, and Mr. Trudell explained how the plantings were placed at different elevations and were designed to take care of the problem. He felt there would be no trouble. Mr. Poger said this should be checked out in a year. Mr. Trudell said that the company was spending $65,000 for the landscaping, that there would be white pines, red oaks, 3 weeping willows, Austrian pines, sugar maples and flowering crabs around the building site. There was a long discussion about the amount of lighting and number of light poles planned for the access road. Chairman Poger said he felt Mr. Ewing's suggestion to install the poles as planned and then engineer them so some could be turned off was a good solution. Mr. Trudell showed a drawing of the MITEL sign. It has a brick base, 14' X 8', the sign is 10' X 3', and it is 6' 6" high. It is lit at a low level from the inside. Mr. Mona was concerned that there be a street light at the extrance to the access road and was told that that was up to the city. Mr. Mona asked that the commission again consider the subject of the Kennedy Drive - Hinesburg Road intersection. Mr. Spitz said that we were still analyzing all the new data received on the matter. Mr. Mona wondered how the commission could consider approving anything when the traffic item is not resolved. Mr. Spitz said it could be approved with the stipulation that this item (traffic) has to come before the Planning Commission for consideration. Mr. Poger wondered what MITEL should be responsible for regarding traffic improvements. Mr. Spitz repeated that he still has to study the new report. Mr. Schuele asked if there is a Trail Easement proposed. Mr�Trudell said yes, detai I!!!, f the proposed easement have already been shown to a member of the ftn=arxLTr4J5 RCommittee. Mr. Poger said if the city should need a Swift Street exit, it—, would need a right-of-way. Mr. Spitz said we could get an easement in fee -simple which would be a flexible right of way. He felt locations could be worked out and the city attorney would draw up the documents. There was discussion on the use of Old Farm Road. Mr. Mona thought it was in terrible condition, saying it had a 1 bump in it which makes it a miserable road. Mr. Poger thought "No Through Traffic" signs would be a good idea. Chairman Poger asked the Commissioners and those present if anyone had any questions. There were no more questions and Planner David Spitz distributed papers listing 16 stipulations to any approval. Commissioner woolery made a motion for approval which incorporated the following additions to the stipulations which were unanimously approved and are as follows: Stipulation #5 was amended to read "No Through Traffic" signs shall be erected at both entrances of Old Farm Road. Mitel Semiconductor will be asked to use its good offices as an employer to discourage employee through traffic on Old Farm Road". Stipulation #10 was amended to read "In the event that Swift Street is extended across this property, the area of land southwest of the proposed road shall remain as part of the overall property and shall not constitute a separate building lot without Planning Commission approval." 4 PLANNING COM*iISSION MEETING MAY 5, 1981 Add Stipulation #17 as follows, "Any changes to the location of the water line, •, as required by the City Water Department and the City Planner, shall be recorded on the final plat." Mr. Woolery's motion which was seconded by Mr. Jacob reads in full as follows: "I_move that the South Burlington Planning Commission grant final plat approval of MITEL Semiconductor for a 59,800 square foot industrial building on Hinesburg Road as depicted on a 28 page set of_plans entitled "MITEL, Mountain View Industrial Park," dated April 1. 1981. prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers with the following stipulations:" 1. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City Manager's memo, dated 5/l/81, regarding road gravel, sewer and water main, and sewage pumping station improvements. 2. The following legal documents shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a building permit: a) Easement deed and offer of dedication for a pedestrian trail along the southern boundary of the property. b) Right-of-way deed and offer of dedication for a possible extension of Swift Street. c) Easement deeds and offers of dedication for access to and maintenance of the sewage pumping station. d) Easement deeds and offers of dedication for potential sewer connections to abutting properties. 3. The 15 foot pedestrian trail easement along the southern boundary of the property and 20 foot sewer easements to adjacent properties to the east, south, and west shall be indicated on the final plat. 4. Road improvements at the intersection of the new park road and Hinesburg Road shall be as indicated on page SP23, entitled "Entrance Road Intersection", revised 4/29/81. 5. "No Through Traffic" signs shall be erected at both entrances of Old Farm Road. Mitel Semiconductor will be asked to use its good offices as an employer to discourage employee through traffic on Old Farm Road. 6. Road improvements for the intersection of Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive shall be reviewed and approved oy the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permi t. 7. Information on building elevations, roof screening, and a color chart indicating the exterior color of the building - all as presented to the Planning Commission during public hearings - shall be submitted as part of the record prior to issuance of a building permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5 MAY 5, 1981 8. A landscaping bond to cover the following items shall be provided prior to •. issuance of a building permit: a) $56,000 for new plantings. b) An amount to cover replacement of existing trees in front of the Brisson property if damaged during road widening. 9. A bond to cover all proposed public sewer, water, and road improvements shall be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. In the event that Swift Street is extended across this property, the area of land southwest of the proposed road shall remain as part of the overall property and shall not constitute a separate building lot without Planning Commision approval. 11. Sewer allocation for this project is 9,000 gallons per day. 12. The location of the fire hydrant or hydrants on Hinesburg Road near the intersection with the existing CWD water main shall be as approved by the Fire Chief. 13. If volumes of chemicals to be disposed in the City Landfill exceed those listed in the March 20, 1981 letter from David Martell, MITEL Production Manager, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Manager before disposing of the additional chemicals. 14. A revised final plat package, containing required changes from stipulations 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 12, shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 15. This approval expires in 18 months. 16. The final plat - to include pages Sp3 and Sp19 - shall be recorded within 90 days. \ 17. Any changes to the location of the water line, as required by the City Water Department and the City Planner, shall be recorded on the final plat. Chairman Poger called for a vote on the motion and it passed unanimously. Chairman Poger asked the Commission members for their views on the subject. Mr. Woolery complimented engineer Richard Trudell on a fine presentation. He felt the facility was well planned out and would be a welcome addition to our community. He went on to say that traffic problems and road conditions would continue to be a big hassle with future applicants. Mr. Ewing said he still has reservations as to the location of the building, but other than that felt the applicants had done a superior job of the presentation and welcomed MITEL to the area. Mr. Poger said that generally this is a good plan. lie said that the 50 acre minimum lot requirement keeps the area open and visually green. He said he was well pleased with the submissions from both MITEL and GBIC and with the direction the city has taken. PLAN'NINC COMMISSION 3. APRIL 7 1981 shall be rovided at the um in station. 3. Water service shall be provided to the um i p station_. 4. Sewer easements shall be provided across the applicant's to the southwest corner of the 'right property of't}1e ��ilcr3 proi,rrty to nllox possible future sewer connection oroper,y -.and the -.northwest corner properties on the_eHst ride of Hinesburg Road• s to abutting 5. A 15 foot pedestrian trail easement leading towards t_he query _on the Green' Acres-property-shall_be rovided alon --- boundary of the applicant's ro e most of the southerlyy by the Trails Co_MWittee. P p - -_- The -exact location shall be reviewed 6• Legal documents for required easements �c-fit'=itted_.ef9re final plat appand�ublicroval. -- ---__ utilities shall 7. Detailed - - --- landscaping information and _building appearance Shall to tuf m ted for final flat review includin - to the south of main entrance. l ' _ _ _ __g�the potential for screening 8. Submissions of chemical data as the relate to use of the_landf and other municipal services shall be reviewed Burin Plat review. - _ ill ---- - g -the course of final 9• ill aspects of this proposed development sh_a_11 be com eat and Pinning Commission consideration durin the a or)ee f omen- to -public plat review. _-------_�_�____ Of Mr. Levesque seconded the motion. — T�r• Poser asked for public comment on the motion, but there was none Mr- Poser felt that, in la, long range improvements might discussion and he sugPested that who would discussed, !�!r, merit Levesque su ested that thepCitfor Bch improvement be Percentage of the costs, since the y Counc;_1 undertake a Pof-er felt that before final y zoned this area for developmont. Phis and who would plat, the city and developer discuss improvements Planning Cit pay for them. Mr. Spitz hoped to have a Commission meeting to discuss traffic before final tplaty onCouncil application. The motion originally contained a stipulation which would have removed the words "possible location, Swift Street extension" from the Ewing felt an east -west road in that location might be useful in at for connection to Williston. He also mentioned access to the r plat. �,r, small lots on Hinesburg Road, so they would not need to come off a future Road. ear of the The Commission felt the words should be left on the Hinesburg would leave the city the maximum flexibility, from the motion, plat, since that It was felt that if the city adid tnot sneed lthe oland sinethe ed future, they could give up the easement. An audience member asked for a co py the Planner to provide at least 10 copiesowhen e motion, and Mr. Poser directed Mr. Poser reported that he had looked at thelaroeosedi Plant is expected, and did not feel that it would be g roblem. p p would move p Yr. Ewing wished Mitel andeCBIC it back and to the east. Yr. Woolery felt it would be nice if s ta:ces could be ; driven to show where the floor level would be. The motion carried with Mr. Walsh voting no. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 1984 Consider sketch plan application of Thomas Farrell for commercial subdivision of East-O-Lake Hotel parcel located at 1233 Shelburne Road Mr. Steve Crampton explained that the Farrell land was originally in 3 parcels. When the Farrell Distributing Center was built, it overlapped into a small area of the original East-O-Lake parcel, so it was considered that the Center occupied a lot of 18 acres. Now what they want to do is allocate the 12.97 acres under lease to the distributing company to that lot, allocate 4.65 acres to the existing inn buildings, and allocate the remaining 1 or 2 acres contained in a narrow strip to the Farrell residence lot. The property line will be realigned slightly. Mr. Poger asked if there would be a change in the Shelburne Road access and was told there would not be. The Commission asked that the lots be numbered and that the plan show what was across the road from the land. Consider site plan application of G.J. Associates for a 2560 sq. ft. warehouse_ expansion for auto supplies at 20 San Remo Drive Mr. Gordon Jarvis said some paving would be removed in the front of the lot to allow for more green area. The entrance to the site will also be designated. Ms. Bechtel said these changes would improve the lot. Mr. Poger asked how many parking spaces the lot required and was told that there were 4-5 people who made deliveries. Very few people come to pick up things on the site and there are usually only 1-2 people on the lot. Ms. Bechtel recommended that the number of parking spaces be waived to 17. She noted that if more parking spaces were needed, they were available in the area. Mr. Dooley moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission grant site plan approval to G.J. Associates, located at 20 San Remo Drive for a 2560 sq. ft. addition to the existing warehouse as depicted on a plan entitled "G_J__Associates. 20 San Remo Drive; Landscape, Site Flan" dated 4Z24 84 as prepared by Kenneth R. Adams, Inc., with the following stipulations: 1. A $1500 bond for landscaping shall be posted prior to permit. 2. That the Commission waives the required number of parking places and allows 17 spaces for this site. 3. The building; permit must be obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was seconded by Mr. Jacob and it carried unanimously. Discuss rezoning proposals for Green Acres (Ralph Goodrich) in the Southeast Quadrant Mrs. Maher left the meeting at this time. Mr. Lamphere said David Spitz of North Country Planning had been hired to analyze the property. He recommended that the minimum lot size be changed from 10 to 5 acres and that average lot size go from 20 to 10 acres. He also felt the boundary line between I-Ag and R could be shifted to follow a tree line on the land. This would change the zoning on about 40 acres of land. He also called for allowing multiple ownership of buildings and allowing multiple users in the office buildings. Mr. Poger noted that during the last revisions of the Comprehensive Plan and 'Zoning Ordinance, the Commission had proposed 800 acres of I-Ag land which would include large lots in an attempt to preserve the visual character of the Quadrant and at the same time provide areas for such uses as IBA Mitel, etc. 5• PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 1984 It was felt that there was no other area in the city which could provide such large lots, but that the city had areas for smaller industrial lots existing. The City Council cut the 800 acre number down. The Commission also spent a lot of time discussing what "large -lot" meant and finally settled on 50 acres. The Council cut this down to a minimum of 10 acres with an average size of 20. Mr. Poger said he had not changed his conception of what he felt should be in the Quadrant. He did not want to reduce lot size. Mr. Burgess said he had favored smaller lots and Mr. Jacob said he also had wanted smaller lots. He felt a good job could be done with a 5 acre parcel. Mr. Dooley felt the other proposed changes were more significant that the size issue, but he said that if there were no changes to the other zoning, he probably would not object to lowering the size requirements. He did not want to see general office buildings in this area. Mrs. Hurd liked the 10 acre/20 acre compromise in force now. Mr. Belter favored smaller lots. Mir. Poger asked about shifting the boundary line. Mr. Burgess did not object in principle, but wanted to see specifics. It was decided that the Commission would at least look at that issue. Regarding the multiple ownership of buildings, Mr. Dooley noted that this issue and the next one were related. He pointed out that "corporate" had also been deleted in the proposal. He said he would not agree to such a change in the proposed character of the area. The Commission had wanted corporate offices and he felt general offices was quite a different thing. Mr. Poger agreed that was an inappropriate use of the area. Mr. Burgess was not sure he wanted to see a lot of small offices out there either. Mr. Poger said the intent had been to have large offices in that area. lie wondered if something could be worked out with a minimum size that was fairly significant, and suggested that the developers make a proposal. Review Transitional Zone language Ms. Bechtel said she and Mr. Dooley had worked on some language, but that the City Attorney had not liked certain portions of it. She went through the 12/18/84 memo and said that the Attorney had not liked "f". He said the only way theeodim'0'8ould do that legally was to have a design review area. He further commented that the city now had the greatest restrictions on commercial uses in residential areas that it could ever have, because they are not allowed there at all. A variance is required to have such a use in such an area. Ms. Bechtel passed out a second version of the Transitional Zone. This would create a new district. Permitted uses are dwellings, and other uses would be conditional, which would mean they wound need 'Zoning Board review. Mr. Blais, Chairman of the 'Zoning Board, discussed the 5 residential lots on Dorset Street which would be included in this new zoning. He was concerned that the physical restraints on those lots would lead to more requests for variances. Mr. Poger noted that the Commission hoped the existing homes would be removed and the lots combined to give developers more room to put up new buildings which would look like residential buildings and be in character with the residential area behind that area. Mr. Blais requested that the Commission be practical when it set up the requirements for the new zone so that, for example, the setbacks were not so restrictive that the lots could not be used without a variance. Mr. Poger felt the proposed zoning would not make things worse than they were now. Mr. Blais suggested keeping the area zoned residential and handling things through the variance procedure, which is how it happened on Shelburne Road, he said. It was decided to discuss this further at the next meeting. Memorandum December 18, 1984 agenda items 12/14/84 Page- 4— -- - _ LO I 4 V� I p�5?R\OIJTIN L �a q1 0.ccc NEW I ALIEN- wL EAST-O -LAKE W000 L 1 N N LOT I S• D-) ,I �A�0.C5 U . b 5 f>cRG S SHcL3vRN1E NOT TO SCALE 8) G.J. ASSOCIATES, San Remo Drive The applicant proposes to add 2560 square feet to the existing ware- house building, located at the northeast corner of San Remo Drive. General Comments: The lot is almost completely paved or gravelled. There is no clear distinction between this lot and the lot to the north, except striping on parking lots. Parking: Twenty eight parking spaces are required although 17 full sized spaces are proposed. There is little room for additional spaces although some parking appears to be shared with the adjoining lot. Circulation and Access: The applicant proposes to improve the drive- way entrance by landscaping the front yard and building a better driveway entrance. Landscaping: Proposed landscaping meets the requirements and should significantly improve the lot's appearance. 9) GREEN ACRES REZONING - Goodrich-Mikell Enclosed is a copy of a proposal for 4 zonin.g changes for .the Good- rich-Mikell properties in the Southeast Quadrant, east of Hinesburg Road. Memorandum December 18, 1984 agenda items 12/14/84 Page 5 These are summarized in the letter from David Spitz to Jim Lamphere, dated October 29, 1984, and are detailed in the supplementary pages. _--Theme - rrcl u d e - ---- _ — - — -- --- ---- _ _ _ 1. Changing the minimum lot sizes from 10 to 5 acres, and average lot size from 20 to 10 acres. 2. Shifting the boundary between the industrial -agriculture and agriculture -residential districts to a more natural boundary following the existing tree lines. 3. Permitting multiple ownership of buildings and maintaining individual lot ownership. 4. Permitting multi-user office buildings rather than limit- ing occupancy to single -user corporate office buildings. These items should probably be considered as part of our discussions on the Southeast Quadrant starting in January, 1985. 10) TRANSITIONAL ZONE John Dooley is working with me on the revised language for the Transitional Zone. This should be ready by Tuesday Night. 4. PLANNING CUMMISSIUN JUNE: 19, Q84 plan showing a sidewalk in the front of the building for access for fire Protection. 7. This approval expires in 6 months. Mr. Belter seconded the motion. Mrs. Hurd did not like stipulation #6. She felt this was a major part of the plan and she said she would rather continue the plan for 2 weeks. Mr. Poger said a vote tonight would allow Mr. Blanchard to be put on the waiting list. Mr. Jacob felt the present wording protected the city. The motion carried unanimously. Informal discussion of 416.5 acre Planned Unit Development proposed by Ralph Goodrich Green Acres on Hinesburg Road, southerly of Coffin property, and between I-89 and Van Sicklen Road Mr. Lamphere said Messrs. Mikell and Goodrich had concerns about the way their land had been zoned in the last zone change, so they had the laud studied and developed a plan which they feel is more compatible with the neighborhood. They showed this plan to the City Council and felt that they were given strong support to send the plan to this Commission. They have also talked to the people at Act 250 and the neighbors in the area. Mr. Lamphere showed slides of the land in question. Part of the acreage owned here lies in Williston. It is zoned residential on that side of the brook. Mr. Lamphere said they had set up a major traffic pattern with a connector road running between Hinesburg Road and Brownell Road in Williston. That would collect both industrial and residential traffic. They are thinking of corporate offices in the quarry area. A road would eventually connect to Van Sicklen Road. Ms. Bechtel asked how many acres were farmed now and was told that 150 were tillable and used for agricultural uses. 20 acres are open and 60 are wooded. Mr. Lamphere said he wanted to know how the Commission felt about the concept of the plan before the legalities of how to address it (i.e. zone change, conditional use approval) were discussed. The Commission discussed how the land was currently zoned. Mr. Lamphere said they took out some industrial areas and put in more commercial and added residential. Mr. Poger noted that when the Planning Commission had set up the current zoning, it had wanted to set aside some areas for large -lot, high quality uses such as Digital or IBM. This plan would take out those large areas and put in smaller office uses. Mr. Lamphere clarified that he was not talking about retail uses in this area when he used the word "commercial". He felt they wanted both large and small corporate offices. Mr. Poger felt this was a large change to the current zoning. He said the Commission had tried to be careful with the zoning of the Southeast Quadrant, feeling it was a valuable resource for the city. They did not want small lots in this area, but wanted to reserve large areas for large single users. He said there were areas in the city for the types of uses Mr. Lamphere was discussing. Mr. Lamphere said they wanted to create an area for people to both work and live. Mr. Poger felt the District Environmental Commission would probably ask the developers to set aside a certain area to be farmed. Mr. Dooley asked whether the developers had planned to leave any land in agricultural use and was told that after a certain time, Mr. Lamphere expected it would all be developed. They can leave some land open if they are allowed to develop to the intensity they feel they need in order to do what they want with the land. They are thinking about 296 housing units, some single family and some multi -family. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 1984 Mr. Poger did not feel the plan conformed to the intentions in the Plan. He felt the areas for industrial were much too small - the Commission had wanted much larger lots in this area than was being proposed. They did not want intensive development out there because of the open nature of the area. They wanted to preserve the character of the Quadrant. He noted that once the area was cut into small lots, that resource would be lost forever for large uses. He felt the Quadrant was important esthetically for the city. Mr. Lamphere felt the present zoning did not do what Mr. Poger wanted to see out there. Mr. Dooley noted that the city had created an Agricultural -Industrial area and that much of that area was on this property and was being proposed for a much different use. He felt this plan would totally revise the Plan. Mr. Burgess did not feel this was a bad idea. The use of the land would be changed, but the ratio between Industrial/Commercial and Residential would be preserved. Mr. Jacob felt the plan had some merits, but said he wanted to know more about it. Mr. Burgess said the plan did not bother him, but he was not sure he wanted to rezone everyone's land just because they did not like the zoning placed on it by the city. Mr. Dooley said he would feel more comfortable with a more specific plan, but Mr. Lamphere noted that going much further would cost a lot and they wanted to be sure the Commission was receptive before going on. Mr. Poger said they should talk to the Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Jacob said he did not oppose the concept and would like to take a closer look. Mr. Dooley said he did not know the history here, but was struck by the fact that this would undo much of a zone in the city. Mr. Burgess agreed with Mr. Jacob and Mr. Belter felt the plan had merit. Mrs. Hurd agreed with Mr. Poger that this was not what the Commission had wanted when it zoned the area. Mr. roger felt it was not compatible with the Plan, but if it could be changed to be more compatible, he would like to take another look. Mr. Krassner hoped there would be cooperation between South Burlington and Williston on the plan and Mr. Poger felt there would be. Dr. Coffin, a neighbor, said there were some interesting aspects of the plan and she would like to see more. Mrs. Nadeau was concerned that there not be too many access points, so that traffic on Hinesburg Road would be difficult. Mr. Mikell said they needed to know if the Commission objected to clustering units or to mixed uses. Mr. Poger did not oppose clustering. Mr. Mikell said they wanted to have a little flexibility to stray from the strict definition of a particular type of industrial use. Mr. Burgess said they had better spell out what they wanted concretely. Other business Mr. Jacob noted that Caron's Auto Sales on Airport Parkway is now listed as Caron's Auto Body and he did not think that use had been allowed. He also noted that a large building was being built in the back. Mr. Poger asked Ms. Bechtel to look into this and talk to the Enforcement Officer about it. The next meeting is July 10. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 pm. Clerk 6. RALPH GOODRICH, GREENE ACRES, HINESBURG ROAD Green Acres is located on the east side of Hinesburg Road between I-89 and Van Sicklen Road. It includes 416.5 acres, 229.5 of which are in South Burlington and the balance in Williston. The land is owned by Ralph Goodrich and Mr. Mike]]. The Norther,,portion (Goodrich's land) is zoned "Industrial - Agricultural" and Mr. Mikell's land is primarily "Agricultural and Rural Residential" in the southern portion. The Planning Commission is being asked to consider and discuss the concept of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) which would include single-family and high density clustered housing, industrial -agricultural land and corporate offices in both Districts (I -A and ARR). The conceptual plan proposes to preserve existing views, the natural aesthetics and the old farm image. In the Industrial -Agricultural district, Planned Industrial Developments are premitted for agricultural uses, light manufacturing, research and testing laboratories, and office buildings containing corporate headquarters or similar use by one company. One single-family dwelling per farm is also permitted. (Section 16.10 and 16.20) In the Agricultural and Rural Residential District, single, two and multi family dwellings are premitted in P.U.D.'s only. The maximum density is 2 units per acre (moderate density residential Sect. 6.60) Since the conceptual plan does not comply with the existing zoning, the major issues are: I. whether this plan for development (or a version of it) is desirable for the Southeast Quadrant; and if so, 2. should a new district be created to accomodate this plan for land use; or 3. should a new conditional use be allowed under the I -A District. In essence, the Commission is being asked to discuss a proposed "Master Plan" totalling 229 acres of the approximate 4000 acres in the Southeast Quadrant. For your information I have enclosed the Section of the Comprehensive Plan that addresses the SE Quandrant and a copy of the Agricultural Land Use Policy. In general, lower residential and industrial density have been suggested for the S.E. Quandrant largely due to the aesthetic qualities of the area. I believe this goal can be upheld by allowing clustering of new development at densities similar to existing areas(R-2 perhaps) and retaining large areas of open spaces to serve both aesthetic and agricultural purposes. For example, R2 (or a range of densities) could be selected for residential and 15i; to 20"' coverage for industrial. R2 density would be limited to 50% of the land, producing an effective R4 density on that 50%, and leaving 50% as open land. This seems to be a possible method of meeting the goals of the City and the developers interests. No Text - ---------- t7 '50 ... . ... .. .. -------------- ---- - ---- - - 0 - ---------- 1�13 LA)l I 11 ---------- -- AAWJ-- --Prf'e-4L- /I - --- - ------ a`QIP U & Quo-- r\ 7:i�zsv L + rna--y �� L�I'' O-A-a-151- r CcP C�k.n fyyl --- - ------- CA nct I� ao4 �.� �P,��,�s Ib.3DSn, .ji 1�,3os ' acc& A e6-D 2L I ---- ----- -- - 6L4-a- - VVI .o., '*C- ( 15.20 Conditional Uses The following uses may be permitted in the Airport Industrial District as conditional uses by the Board of Adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05. 15.201 Public utility substations and transmission and distribution lines. Review of these facilities shall include an evaluation of safety, aesthetics, noise, and availability of alternate sites. 15.30 Use Limitations Uses granted under Sections 15.10 and 15.20 shall be subject to the following limitations. 15.301 No use shall be permitted which will produce elect- rical interference with radio communications or radar operations at the airport. 15.302 No lights or glare shall be permitted which could interfere with vision or cause confusion with air- port lights. 15.303 No use shall be permitted which could obstruct the aerial approaches to the airport. 15.304 All uses shall comply with applicable FAA or other federal or state regulations. 15.305 The maximum size of any use shall be limited accord- ing to the traffic standards of Section 17.00. If the maximum permitted size for a use on any lot is too small to allow reasonable activity normally associated with that use, then the use shall not be permitted on that lot. 15.40 Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements In the Airport Industrial District all requirements of Sec- tion 18.00 governing lot size, lot coverage, frontage, and setbacks shall apply. ARTICLE XVI INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 16.00 Purpose An Industrial and Agricultural District is hereby formed in order to encourage agricultural use angd high -quality, large -lot industrial or office use within rjUgd develop- ments. Location and clustering of buildings that will best preserve the open space character of the area should be encouraged. A wider range of industrial and office uses may be permitted on existing small_ lots in the district. (27) 16.10 Permitted Uses The following uses are permitted in the Industrial and Agricultural District. 16.101 Farming, agriculture, horticulture, and forestry including the keeping of cattle, horses, or other domestic farm animals. 16.102 Buildings, including one single-family dwelling per farm, which are reasonably necessary and proper buildings appurtenant to the uses permitted in Section 16.101. 16.20 Permitted Uses within Planned Industrial Developments The following uses are permitted in the Industrial and Agricultural District within Planned Industrial Developments. 16.201 Those uses set forth in Sections 16.101 - 16.102 16.202 Light manufacturing 16.203 Research and testing laboratories 16.204 Office buildings containing corporate headquarters or similar use by one company, and not including general office buildings for two or more separate users. 16.30 Conditional Uses The following uses may be permitted in the Industrial and Agricultural District as conditional uses by the Board of Adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05. 16.301 Additional dwellings for farm employees subject to input from the Planning Commission regarding building location and densitv. 16.302 Outdoor recreational facilities 16.303 Public utility substations and transmission and distribution lines. Review of these facilities shall include an evaluation of safety, aesthetics, noise, and availability of alternate sites. 16.40 Permitted Uses on Pre -Existing Small Lots The following uses are permitted on pre-existing lots of 3 acres or less in the Industrial and Agricultural District. 16.401 Those uses set forth in Sections 16.101 - 16.102 16.402. Light manufacturing 16.403 Research and testing laboratories 16.404 Business, professional, and medical offices 16.405 Printing, bookbinding, publishing, and engraving 16.406 Single-family residences (28) F 16.50 Conditional Uses on Pre -Existing Small Lots The following uses may be permitted on pre-existing lots of 3 acres or less in the Industrial and Agricultural District as conditional uses by the Board of Adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05. 16.501 Those uses set forth in Sections 16.301 - 16.303 16.502 Storage and distribution facilities 16.60 Combinations of Pre -Existing Small Lots Two or more pre-existing small lots may be combined for develop- ment of -the permitted and conditional uses listed in Sections 16.40 and 16.50 even if the combined acreage exceeds 3 acres. 16.70 Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements In the Industrial and Agricultural District all requirements of Section 18.00 governing lot size, lot coverage, frontage, and setbacks shall apply. A separate set of requirements is given in that section for pre-existing small lots in the district. 16.80 Planned Industrial Developments Planned Industrial Developments (PIDs) are hereby permitted in the IAg District in order to encourage innovation of design and layout of industrial and corporate office uses in conjunction with provision of open space. Accordingly, the modification of the South Burlington zoning Regulations by the P arming Commission is permitted simultaneously with the approval of a subdivision plat subject to the conditions of Section 19.15 and this section. 16.801 Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements a. Minimum area - 80 acres. Minimum lot size - 10 acres. Average lot size - 20 acres. Pre-existing lots of 3 acres or more may also be developed under this section. b. A buffer strip, 150 feet in width, shall be provided adjacent to Hinesburg Road and Interstate-89, to any lot in the AgRl distric_ t, anc3 to pre-existing lots of %v v less than 3 acres in the LQ_District. No structures or parking areas may k.�e built within the buffer zone, and landscaping or screening may be required to protect adjacent properties from headlight glare rn� lnC or other objectionable element. c. Maximum lot coverage shall be the normal maximum for itA _II the IAg District. 16.802 l� (� Standards for Provision of Open Space a. Open space shall be located so as to maximize the M aesthetic enjoyment of users of the site, surround- ing properties, and roads in the vicinity. b. Open space shall be located so as to maximize potential of land for agricultural use. Criteria shall include soil qu lit , ris't'ingagricultural use, ability of the land to be improved for agricultural use, size and shape of contiguous open space, potential for combination with open space on adjacent lots, and location in relation to general agricultural activity in the area. c. In providing open space under the criteria of sub- sections a. and b. above, the reasonable needs of an industrial or corporate office use for current use and future expansion at permitted densities on land of suitable development quality shall not be re- stricted. d. Two or more contiguous or non-contiguous lots within the IAg District may be combined for development as a PID if the Planning Commission determines that such combination will enhance the open space object- ives of this section. Maximum development on any lot shall be the permitted lot coverage for the IAg District times the total acreage for the combined lots. 16.803 Additional Standards a. All PIDs shall be serviced by municipal water and sewer. b. Approval is required on all applicable criteria by both the Planning Commission and City Council. c. Each individual lot in a PID and all buildings located stir on that lot shall be under the same ownership. New or different uses subsequent to"'the originally approved uses on any lot shall require reapproval. 16.0 4 modifications of Standards The following requirements of the zoning regulations may be modified in accordance with the conditions and objectives of this section: Section 18.00 (but not minimum lot size or maximum building coverage). ARTICLE XVII TRAFFIC OVERLAY DISTRICT 17.00 Purpose A Traffic Overlay District is hereby formed in order to control traffic congestion and to prevent worsening of existing conditions (30) CQ �%o 4-0� 4v--ed ARTICLE V MUNICIPAL DISTRICT (MU) 5.00 Purpose A Municipal District is hereby formed in order to provide for public schools; municipal buildings including administrative, police, fire, water, street., and sewer departments; landfills; and other munici- pally owned property excluding land used or intended for recreational purposes. 5.10 Permitted Uses The following uses are permitted in the Municipal District. 5.101 Public educational facilities. 5.102 Municipal facilities. 5.103 Temporary uses, with approval from the Planning Commission. 5.20 Area, Lot Coverage, and Dimensional Requirements 5.201 Educational and municipal structures on land owned or controlled by the City in the Municipal District shall comply with the lot coverage and setback requirements of Section 18.00 for the Cl District. ARTICLE VI AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (AgR) 6.00 Purpose An Agricultural and Rural Residential District is hereby formed in order to encourage agricultural use and/or rural residential use within planned developments. Higher -density residential use may be permitted under special conditions. Location and clustering of buildings that will best preserve the open space character of the area should be encouraged. 6.10 Permitted Uses The following uses are permitted in the Agricultural and Rural Residential District. 6.101 Farming, agriculture, horticulture, and forestry, including the keeping of cattle, horses, or other domestic farm animals. 6.102 Buildings, including one single-family dwelling per farm, which are reasonably necessary and proper buildings appurtenant (6) • to the uses permitted in Section 6.101. All non-residential farm buildings shall be set back at least 100 feet from any property line. 6.20 Permitted Uses within Planned Unit Developments The following uses are permitted in the Agricultural and Rural Residential District only within Planned Unit Developments -Rural Residential and Planned Unit Developments -Moderate Density Residential. 6.201 Those uses set forth in Sections 6.101 - 6.102 6.202 Single, two, and multi -family dwellings 6.203 Customary accessory uses and buildings including private garages and recreational facilities such as tennis courts and swimming pools. 6.30 Conditional Uses The following uses may be permitted in the Agricultural and Rural Residential District as conditional uses by the Board of Adjust- ment in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05. 6.301 Additional dwellings for farm employees subject to input from the Planning Commission regarding building location and density. 6.302 Outdoor recreational facilities 6.303 Churches, day care centers, and educational facilities in- cluding non-residential university facilities. Such facilities shall not be permitted on local streets within the AgR District. 6.304 Public utility substations and transmission and distribution lines. Review of these facilities shall include an eval- uation of safety, aesthetics, noise, and availability of alternate sites. 6.305 Municipal facilities 6.40 Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements In the Agricultural and Rural Residential District all requirements of Section 18.00 governing lot size, density, frontage, and setbacks shall apply. 6.50 Planned Unit Developments - Rural Residential Planned Unit Developments - Rural Residential (PUDs-RR) are hereby permitted in the AgR District in order to encourage innovation of (7) design and layout of rural residential uses in conjunction with provision of open space. Accordingly, the modification of the ' South Burlington Zoning Regulations by the Planning Commission is permitted simultaneously with the approval of a subdivision plat subject to the conditions of Section 19.15 and this section. 6.501 Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements \ l a. Minimum area - 10 acres. Pre-existing lots of less than 10 acres may also be developed under this section. b. Maximum density shall be the normal maximum for the AgR District. 6.502 Standards for Provision of Open Space a. Designated open space shall be located so as to maximize the aesthetic enjoyment of users of the site, surrounding properties, and roads in the vicinity. b. Designated open space shall be located so as to maximize potential of land for agricultural use. Criteria shall include soil quality, existing agricultural use, ability of the land to be improved for agricultural use, size and shape of contiguous open space, potential for combination_with open space on adjacent lots, and location in relation to general agricultural activity in the area. • c. In providing open space under the criteria of subsections a. and b. above, the reasonable needs of a residential development for current use and future expansion at permitted densities on land of suitable development quality shall not be restricted. d. Two or more contiguous or non-contiguous lots within the AgR and Rl Districts may be combined for development as a PUD-RR if the Planning Commission determines that such combination will enhance the open space objectives of this section. Maximum development on any lot shall be the permitted density for the AgR District times the total acreage for the combined lots. 6.503 Additional Standards All sewage disposal and water supply systems shall meet the standards of the Vermont Department of Health and City of South Burlington; further, the systems shall be designed, where feasible, for future connection to the municipal systems. 6.504 modification of Standards The following requirements of the zoning regulations may be • modified in accordance with the conditions and objectives of this section: (8) • Section 18.00 (but not overall maximum density). 6.60 Planned Unit Developments - Moderate Density Residential Planned Unit Developments - Moderate Density (PUDs-M) are hereby permitted in the AgR District in order to encourage innovation of design and layout of residential uses at moderate densities in locations that can be provided with adequate municipal services. Accordingly, the modification of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations by the Planning Commission is permitted simultaneously with the approval of a subdivision plat subject to the conditions of Section 19.15 and this section. 6.601 Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements a. Minimum area - 50 acres. b. Maximum density - 2 units per acre. 6.602 Standards for Review a. Any developer shall be required to connect to municipal sewer and water services. New services shall be suf- ficiently sized to accommodate all proposed and planned development within the potential service area. • b. Provisions for open space shall be reviewed according to the standards of Section 6.502 a - d. c. Approval is required on all applicable criteria by both the Planning Commission and City Council. 6.603 Modification of Standards The following requirements of the zoning regulations may be 0difieu In accordance wtl.11 L_LJe conditions and objje . l Ii..LveS of this section: Sections 18.00 and 18.108. Notwithstanding this section, maximum density shall be governed by Section 6.601b ARTICLI? VII RESIDENTIAL 1 DISTRICT (RI 7.00 Purpose A Residential 1 District is hereby formed in order to encourage low -density single-family residential use. This district is located in areas where low densities are necessary to protect scenic views and to provide compatibility with adjacent natural areas. (9) �wS,ph 6a odr,c'�.., �I�rc,.Lompi�wA-_._. _.. No Text L OR 7m M* I 0 pol. e4l� x1rt. I =n i:INIPLA T FOR SOUT1 BAST SOUTH PURLL'GTON MUDDY DROOK BOY3R (QUARRY P01TASH SOURCE SOUTH WRLING79H NATURAL ^SOURC LS COM'ITTTE Doris Bailey Barbara Trull, Chairman Frederic Sargent kli.11iam Schuele F'ct,er Yankowski i iaY 1972 TO: !!embers of the Council of the City of South Burlington Planning Commission, City of South Burlington Citizens of South Burlington Dear ."riends: aclosed is a proposed plan for a small section of the southeast quadrant of South Durl?_ngton. The South Burlington 11;atural Resources Committee presents it to you for your consideration as a suggestion for the way we thin': this quadrant should be developed. This plan has been developed in accordance with principles concerning environmental planning which are incorporated into our adopted master plan. We call your attention and request special consideration be given to the major recommendations of this report: 1. That no building in this area be permitted until sewage treat- ment facilities are available. 2. That the recreation area be developed around Boyer Quarry. This committee will be happy to continue to work on details of this plan and to wor'- with the Council, Planning Commission, and Citizens in implementation, development, or re-Asion. Very truly yours, ems.--- a` e Barbara Bull, Chairman .'atural Resources Committee COITTENTS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Page I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Physical Characteristics II. SOILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 III. LAND USE RECOI,u,1ENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Streambank Protection Building Sites Pedestrian Trails Source of Potash Brook IV. BOYER QUARRY RECREATION AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Description of Site Proposal V. IMPLEIIENTATIO.' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 The Remainder of Southeast South Burlington I9APS 1. Location of Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Soil Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Proposed Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 MDIIPLAN FOR SOUTEPLAST SOUTH BURLING7-0:: iUDDY 'ROOT.-30f3R QUARRY -POTASH SOURC" I. Introduction The first comprehensive plan for South 3urlin9ton was made in 1961 by Sargent, Jebster, Crenshaw, and -oley. This plan was updated in 1969 by the South Burlington Planning Commission and Technical Planning Associates of 1'ew Haven, Connecticut. The 1969 plan focused on the more developed sections of South Durlington and dealt with the southeast quadrant t-rith less detail. In the continuing process of planning we now find that it is desirable to plan this section of tot.m in detail. In developing the plan for this section we are following the planning principles enunciated in the "Conservation and Recreation Plan" for South Burlington which was incorporated into the 1969 plan. Vie are also follot-ring the 09-atural Resources Inventory" --a report prepared by the Chitten- den County :'atural Resources Technical Team as a basis for the quality en- vironment plan. This miniplan deals specifically frith the land bounded by I-89, Buddy Brook, Van Sicklen Road, and Hinesburg Road (approximately 600 acres). It takes into consideration soil and topographical conditions which are common to the entire southeast quarter and will, we hope, serve as a guide to plan- ning other sections. Our purpose is to present a plan based on the suitabil- ities and characteristics of the natural resource base and to provide a model for planning the remainder of the southeast quadrant. We urge its serious consideration in reconsideration of the southeast quadrant. ?,'e also urge you to consider the alternatives to this type of planning which are intermittent urban sprawl, disruption of water table, stream pollu- tion, loss of an aestheticallf pleasing countryside, and valuable recreational sites --in short, poor land use and wasted resources. Physical Characteristics We have chosen to focus on this section of the southeast quadrant to provide a model for planning the remaining sections. The land is beautiful -- gently rolling and rural in character. A considerable part of the area is still farmed and the soils are suited to this use. The area is mostly open fields, Iith a circular wooded area on the east side --a 36-acre woods on the south of Boyer Quarry, the greenbelt along _-Iuddy Drool:, a 15-acre woodlot to the north of Van Sicklen Road, and a 17-acre wooded swamp just above which feeds Potash Brool This natural greenbelt includes two streams and the clear, cool water of the quarry. These are the dominant features. An are listed in the :-atural Resources Inventory as outstanding sites in South Burlington. Map 1 II. Soils The method of quality environment planning consists of analysis and in- terpretation of the natural resource base and then planning land use suitable and compatible with the characteristics of that base. `pplying this method to the southeast quadrant of South Burlington requires a careful analysis of the soils and the suitabilities for onsite sewage disposal and farming; then an analysis of the natural resource base for open space and recreation. Soils '.'e are fortunate in Chittenden County that the soil survey has been com- pleted and we have detailed soil information and interpretations for the area of study. The Ilinesbur;-Interstate-Ifuddy Broolc=Van Sicklen Road quadrant includes eight major soil types. These types are located by symbol on the accompanying map and their characteristics, permeability, and suitability for agriculture and septic tan'- and leach fields indicated in Table 1. Additional detailed information concerning each of these soils is available from the Soil Conservation Service's "Report on Soils in Chittenden County." '0ollowing is a brief report on each of these eight major categories. Covington soil is found in a broad band encircling the cluster of trees at the source of Potash Drools and paralleling i-iuddy Brook. This soil was formed in water -deposited clayey sediments. The surface layer is typically dart: brown, silty clay. The permeability is very slow. The water table of these soils is near the surface unless the area is artificially drained. These soils are very poor for cultivated crops, fair for pasture and hay, and very poor for septic tanks and onsite sewage disposal. A small patch of EnosburS soil is found between the Covington and Lim - eric'.: parallel to Huddy Brook. This is a fine sandy loam soil t•rith rapid permeability in the upper sandy layer but slow permeability in the lower silt, material. The ground grater table of this soil is near the surface during the wet seasons. It is poor for farming and very poor for onsite sewage disposal. Stockbridge soil is found in two places in the open fields. These soils are well drained, loamy, and were formed in glacial till deeper than 40 inches to bedrock. Permeability is moderate in the upper part of the subsoil but slow in the underlying material. Depth to seasonal high grater table and bed- rocl- typically exceeds five feet. This is the best agricultural soil in this section. However, it is rated by the Soil Conservation Service as having severe limitations for septic tacks and onsite sewage disposal. Farmington soils are found in two phases--roc!Tj and extremely rocky. These silty loam soils are fair for pasture and hay, but like all the other soils in this section, have severe limitations for onsite septic tank sewage disposal. MZ ng y Brook- Livingston and Limerick soils nandlhayCand also nhave osevere dlimita- Both of these soils are poor for pasture tions for onsite se:aage es of the Limerick soils disposal. others, 1^mile somelocationponsthe banks ofuddy Brook ideration for building on them. would preclude any cons Vergennes soils along with the Covington make a e upthe majornsboundatype Of and this area. Vergennes soil runs in a wide band g titi the northern boundary with a large isthedof this soil level to undulatingelakeoplainsthe cofter of the quadrant. These soils Occupy the Champlain Valley. This pasture. however,slight oitsdlimitationserate aforncommunityti- vated crops and for hay in pastu sanitary land fills, street and access developmentSpurposes sutic h as building, udispotank sal is severe. roads, and p - 4 - Table 1. Soil Characteristics Muddy Brook -Interstate -Hinesburg Road -Van Sicklen Road Quadrant, South Burlington Suitability Limitations lap for agriculture for Soil symbol Character Permeability pasture and hay septic tanks Covington Cv Silty clay Ji0[•1 Fair Severe E'nosburg EwA Sandy loam •7oderately slow Fair Severe Stockbridge SuB Silt loam Moderate to slow Good Severe Farmington FaC Silt loam Fair Fair revere Farmington-nocky FaE Silt loam Fair Poor Severe Farmington -Stockbridge FsC Lcam-Silt loam I•;cderate Poor Severe Livingston Lk, Lh Silty clay Very slow Poor Severe Limerick Le, Lf Fine sandy loam Fair Poor severe Vergennes VeB, VeC Silty clay loam Very slow Fair to Poor Severe Note: This table is an over -simplification. For more accurate and detailed soils information refer to the USDA Soil Conservation SE:rvice, Essex Junction. Soil Code V e B Vergennes Clay 2-6 percent slope V e C Vergennes Clay 6-12 percent slope C V Covington silty clay Fa C Farmington extremely rocky 5-20 percent slope F a E Farmington extremely rocky 20-60 percent slope F S C Farmington -Stockbridge rocky loan 12-20 percent slope E w A EnosburgWhately 0-3 percent slope L h Livingston clay Lk Livingston silty clay occasionally flooded L e Limerick silt loan L f Limerick silt loam very wet SUB Stockbridge Nellis stony loamy 3-8 percent slope Map 2 Soil Types } Streambank Protection III. Land Use Recommendations The banks of both Potash Brook and iuddy Brock should be protected from building or any intensive land uses in order to protect the water quality and prevent soil erosion. ',4e recommend that a streambank zone be adopted which All prevent any building or intensive land uses other than agricuslture within 100 feet of the center of the streams. Euilding Sites Since all the soils in this area are unsuitable for onsite sewage dis- posal, as explained in the previous chapter on soils, we recommend that no buildings be permitted in the 11tuddy Brook -Boyer Quarry -Potash Brook Source section until municipal sewers have been installed. The Natural Resources Committee has discussed the possibility of large lot zoning in this area. '.,Je believe that large lot zoning is unsuitable. tiny building on this type of soil with a high water table and low permeated ability is not suitable in South Burlington where superior building sites exist. Large lot zoning is also unsuitable in an urban area :here they in- volve high cost for provision of utilities. We recommend very strongly with no qualifications or exceptions that no buildings be permitted in this area until municipal sewers are installed. Pedestrian Trails The adopted master plan for South Burlington includes the concept of a pedestrian trail system and actual layout of some of the trails. Additional trails are being laid out. This area lends itself naturally to a location of tt..o pedestrian trails --one running along �,'uddy Brook, the other a circuit trail running from the Boyer quarry through the circle of the Greenbelt 'loods as indicated on the map. This trail should be of minimL.m size and develop- ment, suitable for walking in the summer, and cross-country skiing and snow - shoeing in the winter. The actual location of the summer and winter trails trill vary some according to water conditions. Source of Potash Brook The swampy area ,.,rhich is a source of Potash Brook should be protected through zoning as a conservation area to protect the water quality of the head;,raters of Potash !_-ook. This is a necessary step in the program pro- posed in our master plan of protecting the quality of all waters in the town. - 8 - } MaP 3 Proposed Land Use Muddy Brook -Boyer Quarry -Potash Source Conservation on each bank Greenbelt V an IV. Boyer -.ivarry Recreational Area Description of Site The area includes a brook meandering through woodland and meadow; a quarry large in size filled with clear, cold water with two access ramps; a high ramp where the rock crusher was formerly located; fields and woods surrounding the quarry area; a roadbed to the ramp and quarry; and good access to the entire area for the to,,mspeople. This quarry is currently receiving considerable unauthorized use as a swimming -recreation area. The landowner must contend with large numbers of unau-1ho_-ized sxTimmers on hot summer weekends. This unauthorized use points up the shortage and need for swimming facilities in South Burlington. Proposal It is recommended that a family outdoor center be developed on 100 acres of 1<<,1 around the quarry. This would provide an opportunety to walk, enjoy the s�:enery, picnic, and participate in a variety of recreational activities. The area should include: I. Picnic facilities along the edge of the woods. 2. Swimming in the quarry. The swimming area should be concert=•ated in one end of the quarry to facilitate supervision and maintaining safety standards. 3. Rowboating and paddle wheels could be provided in the other end of the quarry. 4. Recreational facilities including playing fields, and areas for basketball, volleyball, badmintcn, and horseshoes should be provided. 5. The elevated ramp near the quarry could have a shelter. It provides a fine scenic overlook of the entire area, including the surrounding mountains. 6. Necessary sanitary facilities should be provided. - 10 - V. Implementation We recommend that after adoption of this plan uTith whatever revisions are made by the Planning Commission and the people of South Burlington, that the Planning Commission request a planning consultant or committee to draw up the zoning ordinances to accomplish the streambank zoning and Potash Brook source zoning. We recommend that the Planning Commission request this com- mittee to make specific recommendations for the exact location of the pro- posed trail system. T:1e recommend that the Planning Commission take the immediate action to regulate land use in this area to prevent any buildings before municipal sewers are installed. The Remainder of Southeast South Burlington ode recommend that the remainder of the southeast quadrant of South Burlington be planned according to the concepts and principles presented for the buddy Brook -Boyer tivarry-Potash Source Section. These concepts are (1) soil suitabilities should determine land use, (2) where soils have se -.-ere limitations for onsite sewage disposal, there should be no building in advance of installation of sewers, (3) water sources and flows should be protected from encroachment in the interests of public health, and (4) land use planning should consider people and provide pedestrian trails and recreation areas in all sections of town. NO No Text 6 +w - -e.— - __- ----- - -- -'�- -- - - �o — �— u,Ma — J Gi.C.o rt � �- C\ .15 IK- (0, u � e � cllr\ ' ) J�Acs�url 2'(D Ce SL -Vo ec" coi cocv\ V\ &rein ) 51 C;O YL.L k 150 ZOO u s UC\V et. IT- �p ce, er\ U626, 5 - L4 — \5 cj- C&f JvM LAmq" Ca&Qe,& Vic: 6ao&,e-k RvaA4 DWMA P" ct .- kDL-L) A64.0 I•Q. " 4zo ? __ ------ _ � e�cc �� -ho Cow �.�. d- � (�. C ? - ---------- -- I�,e, Wa-�c'� �O i'� a� .� P u. 1�. - ct -f—C—MC la ut, f — ----- ----- ---------- j \ PHS Agricultural Land Use Policy - South BurlirxjtOn I. Arc ricul_tural and Rural Residential District A. This portion of the policy is intended to apply to all proposals for residential development in the AgR district. B. The policy is intended to allow reasonable residential development at permitted densities in conjunction with preservation of open land for potential agricultural use. C. In conjunction with an application for a planned unit development, an applicant shall submit a land capability analysis. The analysis shall include at least the following: 1) Identification of areas considered to be undevelopable due to location within conservation or floodplain districts or other reasons. 2) Identification of areas with scenic overlooks or other special aesthetic qualities. 3) Identification of all soils in the "high" or "good" agricultural categories (as identified by the State) plus all Covington soils. D. The City shall perform an independent review of land with good potential for agricultural use. The review shall include at least the four items listed below and shall be based on the following maps (available in the City Planning Office) or their successors: (1) Property Boundaries - S.E. Quadrant, 1982; (2) Agricultural soils - uiclh, C-rx_Yi, aro Cc,,•ington; and (3) Fxistina Aa. (IsP - S.F.. nivjrirant, 1) Location of existing agricultural use. 2) Quality of soils and potential for agricultural use under current conditions or as a result of drainage or other improvements. 3) Size and shape of the potential agricultural parcel and potential for combination with adjacent agricultural land. 4) Location in relation to general agricultural activity in the area. E. Prior to preliminary plat approval the Planning Commission shall determine, based on the above analyses plus normal planned unit development criteria, a development envelope and an area to be reserved as open space for potential agricultural use. The Commission's determination shall be based on the following guidelines: 1) Base and maximum densities for the entire parcel shall be calculated. according to normal procedures for planned unit developments. 2) All development shall be located on no more than 2/3 of the total usable land (excluding land that is not suitable for either agricultural use or development) The balance of usable land shall be reserved as open space for potential agricultural use. However, if more than 2/3 of a parcel is not suitable for agricultural use or if the resulting open space is too small and/or too isolated to significantly contribute to agricultural use, then the entire unusable portion may he included in the develop- ment envelope. Agricultural Land Use Policy - South Burlington_ Revised 7/16/82 Page 2 F. The Planning Commission may approve planned unit developments on combinations of two or more contiguous or non-contiguous parcels. For such applications the Planning Commission shall follow the same procedures as outlined above. However, density of development on any given parcel shall not exceed 3 units per acre. G. When any development is approved under the terms of this policy, all develop- ment and use rights for the open space shall be granted to the City for a minimum of 50 years. The City shall act as the agent for the lease of any agricultural land and as the arbiter for any disputes arising among users of the developed and open space portions of the land. II. Industrial -Agricultural District A. The policy for the IAg district is to.allow reasonable industrial development at permitted densities, and to encourage agricultural use whenever it is compatible with permitted industrial development. B. Applicants for any industrial development are encouraged to provide for agricultural use via clustering of buildings, parking, and other facilities; lease of unused land including land awaiting future industrial expansion; and use of other appropriate mechanisms. C. The agricultural policy for the IAg District is advisory, not mandatory. 0 vl- t 1�, U 9-LtN b1V4-N COMP l-e- tt e A%1 V 1c SCMI-EAST QUADRANT ) introduction Pc.A N (Lqsb) The Southeast Quadrant, which lies east of Spear Street and south of the Interstate and extends to the City's east and south boundaries, occupies about j 4,000 acres or about 40 percent of the City's gross acreage. About 190 residences f. 1 (5.5 percent of the City's total units) are in the Quadrant, along with several operating farms, a produce business, a tack shop, a real estate office, trans- mission lines for water and power, and a hone -based contractor's operation. Much of the vacant open land is hayed or pastured, on a temporary basis, for farms situated outside of the Quadrant. The preponderance of vacant land and the very low intensity of existing development make for a "clean slate" that provides enormous potential for comprehensive, long-range planning. At the same time, the Quadrant's proximity to utility lines and to the County's urban core, coupled with the strong attraction the City holds for development of all types, demand timely planning. Table 15 indicates the development that has taken place in the Southeast Quadrant before and since the adoption of current zoning in 1974 and also the amount of land that is still available for development. r) i cr-i is c i �n Existing Land Use Outside the Quadrant - The quality, amount, and location of vacant land elsewhere in the City influence developmental pressures on the Quadrant area. For example, nearly 70 Percent (Table 16) of residentially zoned land in the Williston Road area is developed, approved for development, or physically unsuited for development. As the region grows, demands to develop in the Quadrant will increase; this is manifest in a recent industrial rezoning request, and another proposal to develop a large Planned Unit Development well south of the Interstate. Similarly, as commercial and industrial land is committed for develop- ment elsewhere in the City, proposals for these types of uses can be reasonably anticipated in the Quadrant. However, the relative abundance of land zoned for these purposes (Table 16) indicates it will he some time before these demands will be felt. In Shelburne to the South, and Williston to the east, zoning and proposed land use is low -density residential, 2 to 10 acres per unit. Surface and sub- surface drainage from the Quadrant flows into Muddy Brook, which forms the City boundary with Williston, and into Shelburne Pond, an officially recognized natural area (27,28). Natural Resources - The soils of the Quadrant are predominantly Vergennes and Covington clays on gentle slopes; as described in the Chittenden County soil survey (7) these soils have moderately high agricultural potential and are distinctly unsuited for onsite sewage disposal. Recharge areas, where precipitation irr filtrates downward to replenish the ground water table, are found in limited areas associated with the Farmington soil series. Forest cover throughout the Quadrant is generally sparse except along hedgerows, on rocky outcrops, and along drainageways and streambanks. Drainage - ways and intermittent streams form a dendritic pattern that carries surface water from uplands and swampy areas to Shelburne Pond, Muddy Brook, and ultimately to the Winooski River and Lake Champlain. Utilities - Municipal sewage disposal is of prime importance in an area such as this where soils are poor and onsite disposal system failures sometimes occur. If new onsite disposal systems are installed, they must comply with state and local health regulations to prevent contamination of nearby wells or recharge areas. If municipal water is unavailable, drilled rather than shallow wells should be encouraged. Municipal sewer lines approach Spear Street at several locations from the Bartlett's Bay sewer system. On the north side of the Quadrant, sewer lines have been extended from the Airport Parkway sewer system to serve Ridgewood Estates, the first planned unit development in the Quadrant. Lined from this system also approach the Quadrant near Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road, and could conceivably be extended from Kimball Avenue under the Interstate. Capacity of the central treatment facility limits the expansion of these systems. No additional -72- development can be allowed that exceeds the estimated treatment plant capacity or compromises the intervening network of lines and collection facilities. Specific sewer service areas for these systems were outlined in the initial engineering studies (24,25). The Airport Parkway treatment plant is presently at 72 percent of its estimated capacity, whereas the Bartlett's Bay plant is estimated to be operating at about 70 percent of its capacity as of May 15,1980. Municipal water mains run much of the length of Spear Street, along Swift Street and continuing east to Route 116, and a short distance south of Swift Street along Dorset Street to a storage tower. The supply of high quality water, in ample quantity, is relatively assured, particularly with continuing expansion of the Champlain Water District's central pumping and treatment facility. However, the extension of municipal water mains (map 6 indicates required sized for major water mains) by developers or for other CWD member municipalities must be recognized as a factor that will facilitate more intensive development of the Quadrant, as well as improve water supply to existing development. Other Municipal Services - Acquiring a large parcel near the geographic center of the City (close to the intersection of Swift and Dorset Streets) has been proposed for a City Park (see Recreation Chapter). If there is to be any further expansion of the High School/Middle School complex, such a parcel could also provide the necessary additional athletic facilities for school purposes. The extension of other municipal facilities, such as police and fire protection, is a prerequisite to more intensive development of the Quadrant. However, these facilities should first be expanded to accommodate existing and anticipated development in the already urbanized areas (Shelburne Road and Williston Road). Transportation in the Quadrant will be by automobile for the foreseeable future, North -south circulation is excellent because of four parallel roadways: Route 7, Spear Street, Dorset Street, and Route 116. Route 7 and Route 116 are established arterial routes, while Spear and Dorset dervice more localized traffic. As congestion -73- increases on Route 7, Spear Street will increasingly be used as an alternate route. But Spear Street is also the site of one of the ubre exclusive residential neighborhoods in the City and further attracts joggers and bikers because of its excellent views of Lake Champlain and the Adirondacks. Fast -west travel routes are rather limited and reservation of land for future east -west extensions is essential to orderly implementation of the City's long-term highway plan. Economics - The type of residential development that has occurred since the current zoning was introduced in 1974 has been almost exclusively upper income housing. For example, condominiums at a density of 2 units/acre are selling in the $60 - 80,000 range; 10-acre lots for single-family dwellings have been sell- ing for from $25,000 to $33,000, exclusive of site work such as driveway, well, or septic system.' Generally speaking, tax revenues from such residences exceed the average pro rated expenditures for education and municipal services. However, if higher residential densities are permitted in the Quadrant, less expensive housing will be built. Such lower value housing will not "pay its own way"; thus, an appropriate blend of commercial and industrial development in large- scale PUD's would be desirable to maintain an even or a positive fiscal balance in new development. Any proposed changes to existing zoning densities must include a careful fiscal impact evaluation. Aesthetics, Historic and Cultural Resources - The Quadrant affords superior views of the Green Nbuntains, the Adirondacks, and Lake Champlain. Public access to these views should be improved primarily through trail easements and land acquisition. The enhancement of viewing areas from the major roadways should be encouraged, but to a slightly lesser extent because of conflicts with safety. Private investment in views, as manifest in Spear Street land values, for example, must be reasonably weighed in the implemention of this plan.and during development reviews. In addition, the predominantly open character of the lands in the Quadrant means that future development will have a heavy vipact on scenic views and the -74- pastorial quality of the landscape. Careful site plan reviews -will minimize adverse impacts. The Quadrant is interspersed with many remants of its historic and cultural heritage, such as barns, farmhouses, old apple orchards, abandoned'railroad beds and road rights -of way, and stone walls. Adaptive re -use of,barns or large older farmhouses , such as for craft shops, studios, or offices, should be allowed to maintain the diversity of the built environment with economically feasible businesses. The obliteration of other landscape features such as'hedgerows, stone walls, and the like may be minimized through careful developmnt review and the possible use of density or other incentives.' A much more complete account of the City's historic and cultural resources is found in "The Historic -and Cultural Landscape, an Interim Report" (17). Goals (not prioritized) 1. The rate, location, intensity, and timing of future developtient,intthe Quadrant shall be in accord with the physical constraints`for`,develognents and the availability of municipal services and facilities, and shall,complement'and reinforce the City's Development Management Policy. 2. Future land use should occur on a neighborhood scale within {the .400-600 acre sized tracts delineated by existing and proposed roadways ,Land use within these tracts should be predominantly residential and agricultural.` 3. Public access to views, open space, parks, and pedestrian''ttails should be acquired, maintained,'and improved. 4. The City shouldprotect, preserve, enhance, and attract economically viable land uses that are based or depend upon natural or.histozic oe cultural re- sources. Recommendations and Implementation 1. If residential densities are to be increased, the City should encourage this increase where the broadest range of municipal services and amenities present- ly exists. 2. Greater res _)ntial densities in the Quadran, lould bee -allowed only when public utility lines are extended. Zoninq houndar.ies shall be delineated so as to direct any new development in the Quadrant to those areas contiguous to existing developed areas. 3. Expanded public utilities for new development areas shall"be.,of.:adequate size to serve total potential development, based on current densities, for the serviceable area. 4. The City should encourage preservation of large parcels -of 'contiguous undeveloped land by increased use of low -density cluster provisions. It should coordinate efforts with State Health Regulations and with state and local tax policies to remove barriers that may discourage lo�,,�-density planned unit developments. 5. To encourage farming, recreational, or other creative uses of the`. land, the City should consider alternative ownership arrangements of large parcels of land created by clustered development. one possible option, a land batik, entails public acquisition;of land in advance of urbanization. Such land -could"b6te= tained as permanent open space or resold for private develo ~ p ianent where deemed y, appropriate. 6. The City should allow for more variety in nonintensive useso such as:golf courses, nurseries, greenhouses. 7. The City should establish new agricultural industrial .zones in the Quadrant including the airport approach cone south of Interstate-89. These zones should be limited to large lot, high duality industrial uses. 8. The City should insure protection of water quality and drainageway buffers by reserving them for stormwater, pedestrian trails, and possibly future sewer easements. 9. Strong protective measures for recharge areas should'be continued. 10. Through subdivision review, the City should implement a oamprehensive plan for a pedestrian trail network. 11. And finally, the City should accelerate the timetable for acquiring a -76- -77- ' 1 Table 15 Development and subdivision activity in 1 the Southeast Quadrant before and since adoption of 10-acre zoning (1974). I� Zoning areas Land R 1 AR % of total acres r< Total available in the Gc Quadrant (excluding streets) 153 3,737 100.0 (3,890) Area developed prior to "new" zoning 78 305 9.8 (383) mL Area developed or approved for development since "new" zoning 2* 233+ 6.1 (235) re Total developed or approved for development 80 538 15.9 (r (618) ty Land still available 73 3,199 84.1. (3,272)# Bu * Two single family lots. + One 57-acre PUD, consisting of 13 single family lots and 101'condcminiums;'. Di: 10 single family lots, averaging 12.8 acres; and one low -density cluster _ development, consisting of three 3-acre lots with 30 acres of -open space.' # If land continues to be developed or subdivided at the same rate (47 acres/, year) as it has over the past 5 years, there will be enough f6r about 70 more years. to Ll IVE ho] the -7 £3- WIEMANiv� LAMPHERE, Ak6HITECTS 289 COLLEGE STREET BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401 PHONE (802) 864-0950 To: %ter%/'° �lY,[ k) ��1�/LIZU Date C A9 W-XY Project No. AQQ a Project ,I&AxxJ12. 4:3A_L4,®, Gentlemen We are sending you the following items ® herewith under separate cover Items transmitted as follows: ❑ Approved Approved as noted Not approved ❑ Resubmit for approval Furnish corrected copies For your files Items sent by: IxOur messenger Your messenger 11 class mail WIEMANN—LAMPHERE 2500 OCP 284 By: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3j10/R� ` Subdivision Application - SKETCH PLAN 1) Name, address, and phone number of: a. Owner of record Green Acres c/o Ralph Goodrich, No. Williston Road, Williston, Vermont, 878-8174, Homer & Jackie Dubois, H{-�1tr.F. d. So. BurlinQton_.LVermont, 862,8687; William & Sara M3kell, Van Sicklen Rd, Williston, Vermont, 862-6294 b. Applicant Same as above �~ c. Contact person Richard P. Trudell, P.E., Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., Rt. 2A. Box 308, Williston, Vermont 05495 2) purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development, including number of lots, units, or parcels involved as well as proposed uses), Combination of 88Ac ,4 12Ac parcels as a PUD-R with 200 housing units (50 four unit buildings) and subdivision 7 land proposed as Industrial.-Ag into 17 industrial lots ranging in size from 10 Ac . to 60 Ac . 3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee sim option, etc) — Fee simple ownership ple, a) Namesof owners of record of all contiquous properties _ See attached list --------------- 5) Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on propert easements, covenants, .leases, rights of wa Y such as y, e p etc. None .2- 6) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of municipal. facilities such isr,e:•rerage, eater supply, "municipal storm dra inace, etc. Extension of water main down Hinesburg Road and into project area; sewer collection system connected to pump station on Mitel property; streets built to City Standards, drainage to Potash Brook tributary; 1111d(!17;rouud power. -- 7) Describe any actions ta'; �n iw the :coning ' oard of Adjustment, or previous actions i)y the JOuth 7,urlincton Planning Com-Assion, which affect the _rio-'30: ad suIxlivision cnoinclude dates: _ 1. Sizing of and access to sewerage pumping facility for Mitel Semiconductor 2. Proposed zoning in Southeast Quadrant Att ch a sketch plan slio ing all information required under items 2 through '7 on p. 5 0A. the �ulx:ivision Regulations. Attached -i—" 3/9/82 (signatu a) JIVIicant or con act person date FOR OFFICE UEE submission of ap-Plication and sItatch al an to administrativeate cfficer this proposal is classified as a major or minor subdivision cpplication dee:i•_d co;-plete - 2roposal tentatively scheuul.ao for _first Planning Comaission meeting on Confir.ied For ADJOINING PROI'F,RTY OWNERS NAME MAILING ADDRRSS Arthur & Barbara Toutant Robert & Ruth Furlong Paul & Martha Dye, Jr. .John & Nancy Boyd Steven & Frances Reiman Smart Associates c/o Dick Segal. Richard & Mary hardy Leon & Katherine Munn Mark & Marsha Abrains Lawrence & Roberta Coffin, Jr James & Sachi Rowley Mitel Corporation 1398 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vt. 1404 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vt. 1406 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vt. 1408 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vt. 1410 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vt. 1690 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vt. (250 Van Sicklem Road, South Burlington, Vt.) 6440 Lakeview Drive, Falls Church, Va. 22041 (70 Highland 'Terrace, South Burlington, Vt.) 60 Highland Terrace, South Burlington, Vt. 50 Highland Terrace, South Burlington, Vt. 1100 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vt. 1160 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vt. 1000 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vt. P � ) r !(/ 4 . PLANNING CO:OMISSION DECE" BER 8. 1981 ,Mir. :spitz said the proposal had been made as a way to obtain a picnic area. Under the law, the city could obtain up to about 2 1/2 acres inntend of the 112 acre proposed and he said a larger proposal could be made. Mr. Poger did not object to seeing another proposal. Mr. Ewing felt the Commission should look at the site and Monday, at 3:00 pm was set as the time. Mr. O'Neill said he had proposed the fencing as a way to address the concerns of residents who felt people would not stay within the park. He did not feel that would be a problem. He noted that the park was kept small to discourage large groups of people using it. Ms. Edwards asked about the pedestrian trail and was told there would probably be one, but it had not been determined where yet. The Commission went through the points in the city manager's memo. It seemed that the manager and developer had both talked to the railroad authorities about a signalized crossing and had gotten different information. Mr. Spitz was asked to check into that issue. In regard to the city street, Mr. Milot said it existed now without curbs and sidewalks and was 24' of paving. He did not know why he should put them in in the area he would be building. Fie noted that there would be increased traffic in the area, though, so he wits willing to put in some kind of sidewalk for children to get to the bus. Ife did not think a 30' street was needed, because people would not be parking on the street. Mr. Milot said he would like to discuss the sidewalk with the neighbors and come back to the Commission. Mr. Poger felt that if drainage were able to be handled without curbs, he saw no problem waiving that requirement. Mr. Mona favored curbs. The Commission then went through the planner's memo. Mr. Milot agreed to build only 48 units, which is his maximum density. The pedestrian trail was mentioned. Mr. Milot proposed a 50' setback on the north property line and only 30' on the south, because that area is heavily treed and he did not feel the land would ever be developed because of access problems. Mr. Woolery moved to _continue the preliminary plat application of Cerald Milot for a 49 unit condomimium project until December 22, 1961 at 7:30 pm at City Hall. 1Ir. Levesque seconded the motion and it passed 7-0. Continuation of revised final plat application b Investors Corporation of Vermont for development of com::iercial industrial buildini-s on lot 2 of the Brown subdivision on Williston and :shunpike Roads Mr. SpAz said the applicant had requestee that this be continued for two weeks. Mr. Woolery moved to continue the revised final rlat ap lic tion b Investors Corporation of Vermont for commercial industrial buildinKs on lot 2 of the Brown subdivision until December 22, 1981 at 7:30 pm at City Hall. MIr. Ewing seconded the motion and all voted for it. Sketch plan application bi Green Acres (Ralph Goodrich), Homer and Jackie Dubois, and William and Sara Mik�11 for an industrial and residential development on 355 acres of land in the Southeast Quadrant Mr. Poger noted that the proposed zoning in this area is for 50 acre minimum lot sizes and 101'o building and parking coverage. Mr. Trudell showed the Commission a plan for the area south of the Interstate, bounded by Hinesburg Road and Muddy Brook. There are 4 parcels of land and 3 landowners. The landowners are proposing a coordinated development plan. There are some industrial areas, and close to them are r 5. Pi,ANNINC COMMI:;:;rON DECEMBER 8. 1981 some residential areas, in which are planned some 200 units. In the industrial area, Mr. Trudell said he had looked at a different concept in land use. He wanted the Commission to consider medium size lots rather than large lots. 'Many people interested in land in the city cannot afford large lots, and he did not feel that was a good use of land anyway. He noted also that the owners felt that 10 coverage was restrictive. The present industrial zone elsewhere in the city allows 30% building coverage with 70ic' building, parking and outside storage. Mr. ''oger said large lots had been proposed because it was a way, in addition to the limited coverage, to protect the visual aspect of the quadrant. Mr. Cobb did not consider 18 acres to be a small lot. He felt that by insisting on large lots in this area, the city was putting more pressure on the smaller industrial lots elsewhere in the city. Mr. Poger said that in addition to preserving the view with the large lots, the city also wanted to provide those lots for particular types of industry. Mr. Levesque felt good industries could go on 9-11 acre lots and Mr. Ewing added that he felt 20 acres was a large lot. Mr. Poger noted that when the zoning proposal went to the City Council, they might not agree with 50 acre lots and it might be changed at that time, but the vote of the Commission on 50 acres was 5-2 and he did not want to change his mind. Messrs. Mona, Woolery and Walsh agreed. Mr. Mikell said he had not felt it was the right time to come in and discuss lot size and coverage before he had a proposal in mind. He felt that lots of 15-20 acres were fairly large and perhaps there should be some moderation in the size., He felt a mix of industrial types was needed. He felt 50 acres was arbitrary and unrealistic. Other business Mr. Spitz had received a letter from Sierra Construction concerning their model home on Shelburne Road next to No Place Like Sams. They would like to continue with it for one more year. Mr. Poger suggested that it be taken down and that they come back for approval to put it back up in the spring. Mr. Ewing felt it should be allowed for another year, but that it would have to come down after that. Mr. Mond moved to allow the ani;licant to extend the use for 1 year and to require him to post a bond twice the amount of the previous one Mr. Levesque seconded the motion and it carried with Messrs. Woolery and Poger voting no. Mr. Spitz said that there was a comment made at the meeting last week by a Commission member in reference to the Zoning Board. The statement was not accurately reflected in the media. Mr. Mona said that what he had said was that one of the things which convinced him to leave the Williston Road area zoned residential was that the Zoning Board was not approving any variations in that area and he was comfortable that it was going to remain residential. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 pm. Clerk STATE OF VERMONT DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION #4 RE: Green Acres/DuBois/Mikell South Burlington, Vt. 05401 Application #4C0530 Order on Partial Review of Application 10 VSA, Chapter 151 (Act 250) This is a written confirmation regarding the District Environmental Commission' partial review under subcriterion 9(B) of application #4C0530 which was filed on August 23, 1983 by Green Acres, c/o Ralph Goodrich of North Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont, Homer and Jackie DuBois of 1405 Hinesburg Road,-Sout Burlington, Vermont and William and Sara Mikell of Van Sicklen Road, Williston, Vermont for the proposed residential and industrial development of 328 acres located off of Hinesburg Road in South Burlington, Vermont. This partial appli cation was submitted under Rule 21 of the Rules of the Environmental Board, ef- fective March 11, 1982. Parties to this application are: The applicants as represented by Richard Trudell and Carl Cobb; The City of South Burlington; The City of South Burlington Planning Commission by David Spitz, City Planner; The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission by Arthur Hogan; The Agency of Environmental Conservation by Dana Cole -Levesque, Land Use Administrator; 14(B) party Natural Organic Farmers Association of 43 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont as represented by Sara Norton under subcriterion 9(B) in that this or- ganization may materially assist the Commission regarding the effect this dev- elopment may have upon agricultural lands in the area; and 14(B) party Daniel Pillsbury of Breezy Valley Farms, Route 2A, Williston, Ver- mont under subcriterion 9(B) in that this development may affect his interest in leased agricultural land. On September 17, 1982 the District Commission opened the public hearing on thi application. At this time the Commission heard testimony regarding the applic ability of Rule 21 to the review of this application solely under subcriterion 9(B). The Commission heard testimony concerning the hardships or inequities upon other parties which may result from a partial review of this application and the ability to conduct a comprehensive review of this application. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Commission finds that it is the intent of Rule 21 to permit a partial re- view of applications which are complex or applications for projects which may have potential impact under the criteria of Act 250. The Commission finds tha #4C0530 Order of Partial Review of Application Page 2 Rule 21 provides for such a partial review under any criteria in a manner which the applicant finds to be expedient and practicable. The Commission finds that this application requesting partial review under subcriterion 9(B) has been duly noticed and approved by the Commission, that this application requests re- view of a large and complex development which may have substantial impact under subcriterion 9(B), and that the applicant has elected to offer evidence under this subcriterion so as to avoid unreasonable costs and undue delays by reason of the potential impact of this development under subcriterion 9(B). The Com- mission finds that this application requesting partial review is reasonable based on the language and intent of Rule 21 and reasonable based on the size, complexity and potential impact of the proposed project. The Commission has not been persuaded that conducting such a partial review will work a substantial hardship or inequity on any party to this application nor that conducting such a partial review will impede a comprehensive review of the application under applicable criteria of Act 250. The Commission finds that the partial review as proposed, should expedite final action on this application. It is hereby ordered that this application for partial review under subcritericn 9(B) will be heard by the District Environmental Commission. Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont this 20th day of October, 1982. Commissioners participating in this decision: Deborah Beattie Katherine M. Powers District #4 Coordinator Helen Charley Tetzlaff, PU[3I,IC llr.N2ING SOUI11 BU RL I NC71'ON C I'i'Y COUNC I L In accordance with Section 4443 (c) , Title 24 the South Burlington City Council will held a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Rraom, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, April 9 1982 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: —" Application by Goodrich, Dubois, and Mikell for development of a Planned Unit Development consisting of 200 multi -family units and 17 industrial lots ranging in size from 10 to 60 acres on 3 properties located south of land owned by MITr'I and east of Hinesburg Road. This is a rescheduling of a public hearing previously warned for ^birch 29, 1982. Copies of the application are available for public insixctiu-i at the South Burlington City Hall. Paul A. Farrar, Chairman, South Burlington City Council March 27, 1982 7 • r CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - 53k.E7C11 PLAN 1) Name, address, and phone number of; �epla���Q a• Owner Of record Green Acres c/o. Ralph Goodrich, No. Williston Road, Williston, Vermont, 878-8174, Homer & Jackie 1)uhois, 1405 Hinesburg Rd., So. Burlington, Vermont, 862-8687; William & .ara Mi ell, Van Sicklen Rd., Williston, Vermont 862-6-23r+ "----------- b. Applicant —Same as Above---- --------�____ c. Contact person Richard P. Trudeli, P.E. Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. Rt. 2A, Box 308, Williston, Vermon_ p 495 ----------- 2) Purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development including number of lots, units, or parcels involved ' as proposed uses) lvet as well . Combination of parcels as a PUD-K with 656 housing units (164 four unit buildings). ---------------- 3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple option, etc) 4 Fee simple ownership., 4 Namesof owners of record of all contiguous properties See attached list 5) Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on pro ert suc a easements, covenants, leases, rights of v:ay, etcp Y h s . _ None • z- i 6) Proposed extension, rcloc,)t ion, or modification of municipal far_-il items ; uch .-ira.1", 'wrater supply, "'streets, storm dra inace, etc. ExteIIS-1Rn_ of water main down Hinesburg Road and into project area; sewer collection system connected to pump station on Mitel property; streets built to City Standards, drainage to Potash Brook tributary; underground power. 7) Describe an •ict.ions ;:��_.. in 7-0. • Y n �}� +l)c ?cr.' g .r�, of +cjustm;�nt, or previous �.�, io:is ',y t.hn :.Irl inaton ?1-,nnine Caa7ission, which�3"C•c t t :;. _ ,'0.):)^ •�, �':Ki;V.t' lcin •-npincl C tl C Uv,-eS: 1. Sizing of and access to sewerage pumping facility for Mitel Semiconductor. 2. Proposed zoning it Southeast Quadrant. 8) Att:'ch a sh tcn r3 n» : ;,c all ins or:,�ation reauireu under items ? : nrou�h on 1�. 5 of the-'Allx.ivision Regulations. - 3/2/82 (si c�r� urn) »_ . i� ,1nt or �ont.�ct person --- _ date,- r Ga G_ : I tJ;'E :ub ssion c; icCat;• •. i.�n :nC ,,.: t cci p", --n to ac; ninistrative ci:icir this proposal,�s a ;-ijor or minor sul_aivision pplicatjoa teem, c co•:_nlete - proposal tentatively schmvul.=o for 'first Planning Co-r�ission caAeting on Confir.ied For ADJOINING PRO I)ERTY ()WNI.'RS NAML MAILING ADDRESS Arthur & Barbara Toutant 1398 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vt. Robert & Ruth Furlong 1404 llineshur}, Road, South Burlington, Vt. Paul & Martha Dye, Jr. 1406 Hincsburg Road, South Burlington, Vt. .John & Nancy Boyd 1408 Hinesburg, Road, South Burlington, Vt. Stevan & Frances Reiman I"410 Road, South Rm-) inyton, Vt. Smart Assoclatvs c/o Dick Segal Richard & Mary Hardy Leon & Katherine Mann Mark & Marsha Abrains Lawrence & Roberta Coffin, Jr. .lames & Sachi Rowley Mitel Corporation 1690 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vt. (250 Van Sicklem Road, South Burlington, Vt.) 6440 Lakeview Drive, Falls Church, Va. 22041 (70 Ilig;hlancl Terrace, South Burlington, Vt.) 60 Highland Terrace, South Burlington, Vt. 50 Highland Terrace, South Burlington, Vt. 1100 Ilineshur), Road, South Burlington, Vt. 1160 IUM'shurg RO.-Id, South Burlington, Vt. 1000 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vt. Memorandum Next week's agenda items 12/4/81 Page 2 cross the railroad tracks, the trail should also be located along the entire eastern boundary of the property. Buildings on all abutting properties should be shown. On the south side, this is necessary to review the developer's request for a 30 foot rather than 50 foot side setback. Ownership of the abandoned portion of Brigham Road must be determined . Also, the existing City street apparently extends further than shown on the application. A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic counts for both existing traffic on all of Bartletts Bay Road and for projected traffic from the proposed development should be submitted. My understanding is that the fire chief is not yet satisfied with the layout of the project. Some explanation of building appearance and height and also landscaping should be presented. _I) 7CV, Shunpike R )ad The applicant has been unable to complete all of the information required at the last meeting and requests continuation of the hearing until Tuesday, Dec- ember 22, 1981, 4Goodrich et al. This application covers 355 acres of land owned by 3 landowners in 2 zoning districts. The area is bounded by MITEL to the North, Williston to the East, various residences to the South and Hinesburg Road to the west. It is a very preliminary indication of what the applicants envision as a good pattern of industrial and residential development for the Southeast Quadrant. • CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision A,npl ication - SKI "ICH PLAN 1) Fame, address, and phone number of: a. Owner of record Green Acres c/o Ralph Goodrich, No. Williston Road, Williston, Vermont, 878-8174, Homer & Jack a Dubois,'-"-�- Hiilr.&_.Rd. So. BurlinQton_Z Vermont, 862-8687; William & Sara Mikell, Van Sicklen Rd, Williston, Vermont, 862-6294 —`— b. Applicant Same as above c. Contact person Richard P. Trudell, P.E., Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., Rt. 2A, Box 308, Williston, Vermont 05495 2) Purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or develo n including number of lots, units, or parcels involved as well as proposed use(s). Combination of 88Ac & 12Ac parcels as a PUD-R with 200 housing units (50 four unit buildings) and subdivision of land proposed as Industrial-Ag into 13 industrial lots ranging in size from 4 Ac. to 63 Ac. 3) Applicant's 109,11 interest in the property (fee simple, option, etc) __Fee simple ownership 4) Namesof ovmers of record of all cent. iguoUs properties -__-__—See attached list '>} Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on r easements, covenants, leases, rights of wa p`operty such as y, etc. None � �^ 2- 6) Proposed extension, relocation, or ;modification of municipal facilities :uc_h -is ^e::erage, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc. Extension of water main down Hinesburg Roa(l ;u(i Into proj��� t ;ire:►; S(,wer collection system Connected to pump station on Mitel property; streets builttoCity Standards, drainage to Potash Brook tributary; underground power 7) Describe any actions 1.alj, en by the Zoning 7�oarc of Adjustment, or previous actio.1s i)y the outh :.urlinaton Planning CO„-Assion, Which affect the r;ronos?d 5111�oivision anoinclude dates: _ 1. Sizing of and access ^to sewerage pumping facility for Mitel Semiconductor 2. Proposed zoning in Southeast Quadrant 8) "tt-ch a sketch plan all information required under items 2 : ilrouRh '7 on p. 5 of the 111-)ei.vision Regulatio;.s. Attached 12/2/gl (signatu e) ap:-licant or con Oct parson date FOR OFFICE USE ate submission of apnl.ication and s;:etch plan to administrative officer - this proposal is classified as a .:,ajor or minor subdivision --_13nlication eeem,_d co;-inlete - proposal tentative1v scheuul -o for 7irst Planning Co17aission meeting on Con£ir.ied For ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS NAME MAILING ADDRESS Arthur & Barbara Toutant Robert & Ruth Furlong Paul & Martha Dye, Jr. John & Nancy Boyd Steven & Frances Reiman Smart Associates c/o Dick Segal Richard & Mary Hardy Leon & Katherine Mann Mark & Marsha Abrains Lawrence & Roberta Coffin, Jr. James & Sachi Rowley Mitel Corporation 1398 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vt. 1404 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vt. 1406 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vt. 1408 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vt. 1410 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vt. 1690 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vt. (250 Van Sicklem Road, South Burlington, Vt.) 6440 Lakeview Drive, Falls Church, Va. 22041 (70 Highland Terrace, South Burlington, Vt.) 60 Highland Terrace, South Burlington, Vt. 50 Highland Terrace, South Burlington, Vt. 1100 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vt. 1160 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vt. 1000 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vt. SPOKES, FOLEY & 0BUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 184 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE P. 0. BOX 08d 6URLINOTON, VERMONT 06402-0066 RICHARD A. SPOKES JAMES D. /OLEY JOSEPH I. OSUCHOWSKI STEVEN /. STITZEL May 3, 1982 City of South Burlington City Council South Burlington City Offices 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05401 Goodrich, Dubois and Mikell Application Gentlemen: (S02) 662-45451 (002) 963-2067 ISAAC N. ►. STOKES COUNSEL You have recently asked our opinion regarding in what capacity the Council is hearing this matter and what, if anything, is the Council legally able to do regarding the application. Our conclusions are that you are hearing this application as the Council, with the direct implication that normal Council quorum and voting requirements apply, and that it would be difficult for you to legally approve the application as it presently stands. Our reasoning follows: Since zoning amendments dealing with the lands included in the application are now in the adoption process, 24 V.S.A. §4443(c) applies. As Appendix 1, I am enclosing a copy of this statute. Basically it provides that after a public notice has issued relative to amendment of the zoning ordinance, the administrative officer shall not issue any permit with regard to the by-law "... except with the written consent of the legislative body of the municipality given after public hearing upon public notice." Since the statute makes reference to the legislative body of the municipality, it is my opinion that the customary quorum and voting re- quirements of the Council apply. As to what actions you may legally take, the issue is somewhat mere complex. 24 V.S.A. 54443(c) is meant to be a safety valve to allow the legislative body to deal with a potential influx of applications arising under a current ordinance and before a proposed new ordinance takes effect. While there are no statutory or case law guidelines detail- ing what authority the Council may exercise, it has con- sistently been our position that extreme caution should be City of South Burlington - 2 - May 3, 1982 City Council utilized under these circumstances. The Council should remciin sensitive to the equities of each case by balancing conformity with the proposed ordinance against the appli- cant's interest in obtaining review under the existing ordinance. Since the proposal presently before the Council, as I understand it, would not comply with either the proposed or present ordinance without substantial variation to either one or both of them, I do not view this as a situation where the Council can effectively provide for an effective trans- ition between ordinances. Rather, if the Council were to approve the present application, it would in effect be creating a third zoning ordinance without benefit of the normal adoption process. Therefore, it is my conclusion that the Council cannot approve the pending application as it presently stands. If the applicant were to obtain the approvals available to it under the current ordinance and then come back before the Council under 24 V.S.A. 54443(c), the Council might then be able to smooth off the rough edges between the old and new ordinances. However, without anything further than presently exists, I believe the Council's hands are tied. If you have any questions regarding this letter or would like any further clarification, please don't hesitate to let me know. V ry t my yours Jos F. Obuchowski JFO/gmt Enclosure cc: Mr. David Spitz T.24 § 4441 Mt NICIPAL AVD COUNTY GOVT. Ch. 117 Ch. 117 REGION.m. PLY\. k DEVEL. T.24 § 4443 to indicate the order of prioritN of each capital project, and to state for each project: (1) a description of the proposed project and the estimated total cost thereof; (2) the proposed method of financing, indicating the amount pro- posed to be financed by direct budgetar% appropriation or duly established reserve funds, the amount, if any, estimated to be received from the federal or state governments; and the amount to be financed by the issuance of obligations, showing the proposed type or types of obligations, together with the period of probably usefulness for which they are proposed to be issued; and (3) an estimate of the effect, if any, upon operating costs of the muni- cipality. (c) The planning commission may submit recommendations annually to the legislative body for the capital budget and program, which shall be in conformance with the municipal development plan. —Added 1967, No. 334 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, eff. March 23, 1968; 1975. No. 164 (Adj. Sess.), § 12. Hisir1RY Recision note. This section was formerly set out as § 4424 Amendments-1975 (Adj. Sess.). Subsection (c): Added. Subchapter 7. Administration and Enforcement § 4441. By-laws; effect of adoption Within the jurisdiction of any municipality which has adopted any of the by-laws authorized by this chapter, no land development may be under- taken or effected except in conformance with those by -laws. —Added 1967, No. 334 (Adj. Sess.), § I, eff. March 23, 1968. § 4442. Appointment and powers of administrative officer (a) An administrative officer, who may hold any other office in the municipality, shall be appointed for a term of three years by the planning commission, with the approval of the legislative body. promptly after the adoption of the first of such bylaws or when a vacancy exists. The admin- istrati%e officer shall administer the by-laws literalh, and shall not have the power to permit any land development which is not in conformance with such bylaws. An administrative officer may he removed for cause at any time b% the planning commission. (b) The planning commission may appoint. with the approval of the I:gislatiye body, an acting administrative officer who shall have the same duties and responsibilities as the administrative officer in his absence.-- 1967, No. 334 (Adj. Sess.), § I, eff. March 23. 196S: amended 1971. No. 257 tAdj. Sess.) § 16. eff. April 11, 1972. Hnruter Amendments-1971 (Adj. Sess.). Prior section was designated as subset. (a) and added sub.ec. I b1. Proceedings in progress. For proceedings in progress prior to amendment by 1971. No. 257 t Adi. Sess.1, see note set out under § 4.101 of this title. Ascot sno\% 1. Building inspector's powers. Absent showing that building inspector was the adrnin- istratne officer appointed to do so, pursuant to statute, by planning commission, it could not be said that he was charged with enforcement of cite ntning ordinance. Preseault v. Wheel (1974) 132 Vt. 247, 315 A.2d 244. § 4443. Toning permits and certificates of occupancy (a) Within any municipality in which any zoning regulations have been adopted: (1) No land development may be commenced within the area affected%.., by such zoning regulations without a permit therefor issued by the admin- istrative officer. No zoning permit may be issued by the administrative officer except in conformance with such zoning regulations. (2) If the zoning regulations so adopted so provide, it shall be unlawful to use or occupy or permit the use or occupancy of any land or structure, or part thereof created, erected, changed, converted, or wholly or partly altered or enlarged in its use or structure after the effective date of this chapter, within the area affected by such zoning regulations, until a certificate of occupancy is issued therefor by the administrative officer stating that the proposed use of the structure or land conforms to the requirements of such zoning regulations. (3) No zoning permit issued pursuant to this section shall take effect until the time for appeal in section 4464(a) of this title has passed, or in the event that a notice of appeal is properly filed, such permit shall not take effect until final adjudication of said appeal. (b) Each zoning permit issued under this section shall contain a state ment of the period of time within which an appeal may be taken. Withiri--- three days following the issuance of a zoning permit, the administrative officer shall: (1) Deliver a copy of the permit to the linters of the municipality; and (2) Post a copy of the permit in at least one public place in the muni- cipality until the expiration of fifteen days from the date of issuance of the permit. (c) If a public notice is issued under this chapter with respect to the adoption or amendment of a bylaw. or an amendment to an ordinance adopted under prior enabling laws, the administrative officer shall not issue any permit under section (a)(1) of this section, if the permit is with regard to the bylaw, or amendment to a bylaw or ordinance, for the period com- mencing upon the date of that public notice and ending upon the effective 52 11 53 T.24,§ 4444 ltt'NICIPAI. AND (COt NT1-t;OVT. , Ch. 117 ( h. 117 NIUN. $ RECIONAL PLAN. & DE%EL. T.24 § 4446 date of the adoption or rejection of the or amendment, except with the uritten consent of the legislative bod% of the municipality given after public hearing upon public notice. ---Added 1967, No. 334 (Adj. Sess.), §-I, eff. March 23, 1968. amended 1971, No. 25' (Adj. Sess.), § 17, eff. April 11, 1972; 1973, No. 261 (Adj. Sess.). § 6, eff. July 1, 1974. Nistott) Amendments-1973 (Adj. Sess.). Subsection Ic1: Amended generally. —1971 (Adj. Sess.). Subsection (a): In subdis s. (1) and (2) substituted "zoning regulations" for `by-law- or "by-laws" and added subdiv. (3). Subsection (b): Amended generally. Proceedings in progress. For proceedings in progress prior to amendment by 1971. No. 257 (Adj. Sess.), see note set out under § 4301 of this title. Exemptions. For exemptions of 1973 (Adj. Sess.) amendment to this section. see note set out under § 4303 of this title. A%%ot a t k0xs 1. Conflicts Nith state or federal law. The state water pollution control statutes may be regarded as amending or repeating any local zoning ordtstanc s in convict with the operation of the statutes, because for the purpose of public duties. municipalities are merely convenient instrumentalities of the state. Kedroff v. Town of Springtleld (1969) 127 Vt. 624, 256 A.2d 457. Construction of sewage disposal plant in town embraced state water pollution control policy and was, therefore, a governmental function and exempt from local zoning ordinance which, as applied to plant, must yield to the legislative pohc% and laws of the state. Id. 2. Notice of ordinance amendments. Provision of this section that no land development permits be issued between time of public notice of amendment of by-laws of municipal development plan and time of adoption or rejection of such amendment, did not apply to situation where plaintiff land developer's building permit renewal application was made February 20 and public notice of amendment was gixen by cite council on March 10. Preseault v. wheel (1974) 132 Vt. 247, 315 A.2d 244. § 4444. Enforcement; penalties (a) Any person who violates any by-.lau after it has been adopted under this chapter or who violates a comparable ordinance or regulation adopted under prior enabling laws shall be fined not more than fifty dollars for each offense. No action may be brought under this section unless the alleged offender has had at least seven days' notice by certified mail that a viola- tion exists. In default of payment of the fine, such person. the members of any partnership, or the principal officers of such corporation shall each pay double the amount of such fine. Each day that a violation is continued shall constitute a separate offense. All fines collected for the violation of by-laws shall be paid over to the municipality chose by-law has been violated. (b) An} person uho, being the owner or agent of the owner of any lot, tract or parcel of land, lays out, constructs. opens or dedicates any street, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water main or other improvements for public use. travel or other purposes or for the common use of occupants of buildings abutting thereon, or sells, transfers or agrees or enters into an agreement to sell any land in a subdivision or land development whether by reference to or by other use of a plat of such subdivision or land develop- ment or otherwise, or erects any structure thereon, unless a final plat has been prepared in full compliance with this chapter and the by-laws adopted under this chapter and has been recorded as provided herein, shall he fined not more than fifty dollars and each lot or parcel so transferred or sold or agreed or included in a contract to be sold shall be deemed a separate violation. All fines collected for such violations shall be paid over to the municipality whose regulation has been violated. The description by metes and bounds in the instrument of transfer or other document used in the process of selling or transferring shall not exempt the seller or transferrer from such penalties or from the remedies herein provided. --Added 19( No. 334 (Adj. Sess.), § I, W. March 23, 1968. § 4445. Enforcement: remedies If any street, building, structure, or land is or is proposed to be erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, converted, maintained or used in violation of any by-law adopted under this chapter the administrative officer shall institute in the name of the municipality any appropriate action, injunction or other proceeding to prevent, restrain, correct or abate such construction or use, or to prevent, in or about such premises, any act, conduct, business or use constituting a violation. —Added 1967, No. 334 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, eff. March 23, 1968. Ascot xtutxs 1. Trial of issues. Where defendants alleged to have violated zoning ordinance sought to rebut the prewmption of the ordinances validity b% motion to reopen case. made after close of esidence but before findings, to allow them to present evidence showing the ordinance t( null and %oid. chancellor could not resole the question whether defendants violated,,_.,, ordinance without first determining the validity of the ordinance, because facts sufficient to establish substantial compliance with the zoning enabling act were essential to the decree. Town of Charlotte v. Richter (1970) 128 Vt. 270. 262 A.2d 444. § 4446. kdministration; finance AppropriatIons may be made by anv municipality to finance the work of planning commissions, regional planning commissions. administrative officers, boards of adjustment and other officials in the preparation. adoption, administration and enforcement of development plans, bylaws, and capital budgets and programs, and to support or oppose. upon appeal to the courts, decisions of the board of adjustment. For these same pur- 54 1 55 EI ram 1 SouthEast Quadrant Landuse Study South Burlington, Vermont Trudell Consulting Engineers, Williston, Vermont 0 500 �UOG ! = 1000' 1 MITEL —r--� ,.,,, .... — Ind 2 Ind 1 i In 1 M_. or, i 0 M - -7-0.0 m or ,m nd.3 IndA Ind. �J { Ind. 7 ' Ind. fees des 'IOODU' O DU VAN ROA1 Cluster Diagram 2 SouthEast Quadrant Landuse Study South Burlington., Vermont Trudell Consulting Engineers, Williston, Vermont -� — MITEL m rl ?A r a Ri N Cluster Dia ram 3 SouthEast uadrant Landuse Study South Burlington, Vermont Trudell Consulting Engineers, Williston. Vermont 0 500�:�� _ -� MITEL A f is l sf VAN SICKLEN__ROAD Se ens ` N 0 500 • "T'11JE �.-''�T�1 CAR G k. ��...r�r-��-tr �cr-r.:.r_r'r Y�r'� �rJ • x1`1 �. ?F:.J M E AG, �k�. V c.: f'J fit... `�G I l.!-� i'Rti�'.`�Pc��`..Kn{;drsJ-��, *'�FC��� C�-ryYyT� tt--�it�?,...�1�.1�1� LP.I�}'w'.1e►.`.�_,t�7 � G T�/��1.�.. � � � _ 1'�f.� l l/'P' V � vYf"�.�"I' �"iJ �`•i � I"1`Y�: l "LOr VhiD�-v��� �'�T�c7r-i�-� aF 'T►--1Eii� �.G�r�j Conceptual Open Space System SouthEast Quadrant Landuse Study South Burlington, Vermont Trudell Consulting Engineers, Williston, Vermont L_sr:,>:N 0 MIDDLEBURY: PETER F. LANGROCK JON C. STAHL (1940-1985) ELLEN MERCER FALLON WILLIAM B. MILLER, JR. JAMES W. SWIFT EMILY J. JOSELSON JOHN F. EVERS SUSAN M. MURRAY JOHN L. KELLNER LANGROCK SPERRY PARKER & WOOL ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MIDDLEBURY: BURLINGTON: 15 S. PLEASANT STREET P.O. DRAWER 351 MIDDLEBURY, VERMONT 05753-035 1 802-388-6356 FAx 802-388-6149 November 7, 1989 Joe Weith City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Green Acres Dear Joe: 275 COLLEGE STREET P.O. Box 721 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-072 1 802-864-0217 FAx 802-864-0137 BURLINGTON: MICHAEL W. WOOL FRED L PARKER MARK L. SPERRY LIAM L. MURPHY THOMAS Z. CARLSON ANNA E. SAXMAN ALISON J. BELL DEBORAH L. MARKOWITZ REPLY TO: BURLINGTON OFFICE Thank you for your letter of October 30, 1989 informing me of the November 7, 1989 meeting. I certainly appreciate that you do not need to photocopy and pass onto us all of the materials which may be filed by the Applicant in this case, as it is the Applicant's responsibility to copy the other parties on any submission he makes to the Planning Commission. The thrust of our "Notice of Appearance and Requests for Copies of Communications" which we filed was to make sure that if there is a communication or a notice from the Planning Commission or your office to the Applicant or to any other party, we as attorneys for parties in the case are also copied. Sincerely yours, Mark L. S PoIrry MLS:lb cc: Christopher Davis, Esq. Don O'Brien, Esq. 0 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - SKETCH PLAN 1) Name, address, and phone number of: a. Owner of record Green Acres, Inc. b. Applicant P.O. Box 2123 South Burlington, Vermont 05402 Ralph B. Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05402 c. Contact person Karen Ann Pettersen Trudell Consulting Engineers, Tnc P.O. Box 308 Williston. Vf 05495 2) Purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development, including number of lots, units, or parcels and proposed use(s). 11 lot Industrial Subdivision on 260 acres in the town of South Burlington East of Hinesburg Road and South of I-89 1 lot of 22 acres in the town of Williston. 3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple, option, etc) mop 4) Names of owners of record of all contiguous properties S , oar 5) Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on property such as easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc. 30' wide VELCO easement,, proposed 80' wide and 60' wide street right-of-ways 6) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of municipal facilities such as sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc. Extensions: 3800 L.F. of 32' wide city street, 5250' of 8" PVC sewer line and 4700' of 8" D.I. water main, 900' of 30' wide city street. 7) Describe any previous actions taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or by the South Burlington Planning Commission which affect the proposed sub- division, and include the dates of such actions: Planning Commission approval of quarry operation site plan 2/24/87, and extensions on 8/11/87 and 2/23/88 8) Submit four copies of a sketch plan showing the following information: 1) Name of owners of record of contiguous properties. 2) Boundaries and area of: (a) all contiguous land belonging to owner of record and (b)'proposed subdivision. 3) Existing and proposed layout of property lines; type and location of existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and cove- nants. 4) Type of, location, and approximate size- of existing and proposed streets, utilities, and open space. 5) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic). 6) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. G�ErTT���_ZW 8R (Signature) applicant or contact.person I da ee LIST OF ABUTTERS South Burlington Sue and Linus Wiles 42 Long Meadow Drive Shelburne, Vt 05482 Richard and Ann Painter 106 Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 Burlington Properties Ltd. Partnership Box. 9210, 1020 Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 1100 Hinesburg Road Partnership 1100 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 James and Sachi Rowley 1160 Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 Arthur Toutant Et. Al. 1398 Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 Richard and Madlyn Morrissey 1400 Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 Homer and Marie Dubois 1405 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Diane Wessel 70 Highland Terrace South Burlington, VT 05403 Norman and Patricia Terreri 60 Highland Terrace South Burlington, VT 05403 Mark and Marsha Abrams 50 Highland Terrace South Burlington, VT 05403 William Wessel 36 MacIntosh Ave. South Burlington, VT 05403 Raymond Ploof 1943 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Christopher Davis and Lisa Ringey 18 Knoll Circle South Burlington, VT 05403 David and Catherine Howell 20 Knoll Circle South Burlington, VT 05403 Terrance and Nancy Sheahan 24 Knoll Circle South Burlington, VT 05403 Scott and Roberta Pennington 29 West Birch Lane Williston, VT 05495 Larry and Ginette Brainard 28 Knoll Circle South Burlington, VT 05403 City of South Burlington Municipal Offices Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 State of Vermont Agency of Transportation State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 �T TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. P.O. Box 308 14 Blair Park Road Williston, VT 05495 (802) 879-6331 TO Pi fer A -of) .Z C)�D I P (0 Toth I �V7 Qs4oz > WE ARE SENDING YOU JAttached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: DATE ®l Z* 7, R) ATT TION ; V al10 RE: G .� ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION ' b THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: _)� For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 REMARKS ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO ¢'� L� L-zx�) D p l a SIGNED: KA PRODUCT240-2 A e Inc., craon. Mra 01471 if enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. F- SO U TN BURUNGTON ACREAGE • 260 Ac WILLISTON ACREAGE _22 Ae 282 Aa TOTAL OWNER GREEN ACRES, INC., RO BOX 2125, 50 BURUMOTON, VERYOMT b---ftsy-1'6JW6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1.14-t Ppkt9 MAY 5, 1981 Add Stipulation #17 as follows, "Any changes to the location of the water line, •. as required by the City Water Department and the City Planner, shall be recorded on the final plat." Mr. Woolery's motion which was seconded by Mr. Jacob reads in full as follows: "I move that the South Burlington Planning Commission grant final plat approval of MITEL Semiconductor for a 59,800 square foot industrial building on Hinesburg Road as depicted on a 28 pape set of plans entitled "MITEL, Mountain View Industrial Park dated April 1, 1981. prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers with the following stipulations:" 1. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City Manager's memo, dated 5/l/81, regarding road gravel, sewer and water main, and sewage pumping station improvements. 2. The following legal documents shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a building permit: a) Easement deed and offer of dedication for a pedestrian trail along the southern boundary of the property. b) Right-of-way deed and offer of dedication for a possible extension of Swift Street. c) Easement deeds and offers of dedication for access to and maintenance of the sewage pumping station. d) Easement deeds and offers of dedication for potential sewer connections to abutting properties. 3. The 15 foot pedestrian trail easement along the southern loundary of the property and 20 foot sewer easements to adjacent properties to the east, south, and west shall be indicated on the final plat. 4. Road improvements at the intersection of the new park road and Hinesburg Road shall be as indicated on page SP23, entitled "Entrance Road Intersection", revised 4/29/81. 5. "No Through Traffic" signs shall be erected at both entrances of Old Farm Road. Mitel Semiconductor will be asked to use its good offices as an employer to discourage employee through traffic on Old Farm Road. 6. Road improvements for the intersection of Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive shall be reviewed and approved oy the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permi t. 7. Information on building elevations, roof screening, and a color chart indicating the exterior color of the building - all as presented to the Planning Commission during public hearings - shall be submitted as part of the record prior to issuance of a building permit. No Text TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT FOR MR. RALPH B. GOODRICH GREEN ACRES, INC. SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT Prepared by: John P. Pitrowiski Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 (802) 879-6331 Developer: Mr. Ralph B. Goodrich Green Acres, Inc. P.O. Box 2123 South Burlington, Vermont 05407 TABLE OF CONTENTS Map of Project Locations Project Description Report Procedure Project Traffic Existing Traffic Project Traffic Distribution Traffic Distribution (map) Existing Traffic (map) Project Traffic (map) Total Traffic (map) Check Signal Warrants Summary of Levels of Service Level of Service Descriptions Accident Summary Conclusions Recommendations Glossary References Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 & 8 9 & 10 11 & 12 12, 14, 15 & 16 17 18 19 & 20 21 22, 23 24 25 & 26 27 Queen Cily I ti V Ual Q , eto coca ,� Pork y SA ,s i ' sRc� � 7 Z 9y� L I N GT .. _ 10032)/_ ,.1} • .. (POP 116 O t ` r 0 psi yr� y y Et r q: r L-PROJECT SITE PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site entrance is located at the intersection of U.S. Route 116 and Swift Street Extension in South Burlington, Vermont. This entrance is the one presently being used by Lane Press and Dynapower, Inc. The land is the former Vosburg Farm and it is presently undeveloped. Portions of it are being used for passive agricultural purposes. The total acreage of land owned by Green Acres, Inc. is 286.1. The project consists of the development of ten lots for industrial use. The 10 lots will be served by a proposed road extension of 5,000 feet. The total acreage of the land being developed is 117.5. Build out of this project is estimated as starting in 1990 or 1991 and being completed in 1995. -2- REPORT PROCEDURE The procedures used in this report are similar to those suggested in publications of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Peak hour traffic counts were made at two locations (Route 116 and Swift Street Extension and Route 116 and Kennedy Drive) on Tuesday, May 15, 1990. Daily traffic counts were taken on the same day by Tech Environmental, Inc. for purposes of an Air Pollution Study. Traffic counts were also provided by the Vermont Agency of Transportation. The May 15, 1990 traffic counts were adjusted using a conversion factor to account for the time of year (monthly adjustments). Project traffic was determined using the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual (Fourth Edition). Project traffic is based on a proposed 20 percent building coverage for each lot which is the maximum allowed in the zoning district. The report contains peak hour analysis of the two intersections listed above for existing traffic, existing traffic plus project traffic and related growth factors, and traffic five years beyond complete buildout also with related growth factors. The project entrance at Route 116 and Swift Street Extension is presently unsignalized. A level of service analysis was done for each intersection in 1990, 1995 and 2000. Signal warrant volumes were determined and compared with warrants contained in reference 2. The Route 116 and Kennedy Drive intersection is presently signalized. A level of service analysis was done for 1990, 1995 and 2000. -3- PROJECT TRAFFIC Site traffic will be generated by estimating a 20 percent building coverage of each of the proposed industrial lots. The I.T.E. Trip Generation. Manual was used to develop traffic estimates for the project. For Land Use Code 130 (pages 152 and 153) and the estimated total project building coverage of 957,449 square feet, the A.M. peak hour is 728 and the P.M. peak hour is 791. Using the same land use code the average weekday trip ends are 5,504. The following table contains the estimated peak hour project traffic entering and exiting. TABLE 1 ESTIMATED PROJECT TRAFFIC A.M. Peak Hour entering (87%) exiting (13%) Total P.M. Peak Hour entering (29%) exiting (71%) Total -4- LAND USE CODE 130 633 95 728 230 561 791 r EXISTING TRAFFIC Traffic on the existing street network, which will be impacted by this project, was determined from the Vermont Agency of Transportation counts and from new counts taken at the two intersections being studied. Traffic counts were taken for all the turning movements of the Route 116 and Swift Street Extension intersection, and for the Route 116 and Kennedy Drive intersection. Truck traffic was counted separately from vehicle traffic. Based on our A.M. and P.M. peak counts, we determined that truck traffic for both intersections listed above was less than 5 percent of the peak hour traffic. Truck movements were therefore counted equally with the vehicle movements. The existing traffic turning movements for A.M. and P.M. were determined by the traffic counts conducted on Tuesday, May 15, 1990. Monthly factors were applied to adjust the counts to average annual peak hour. Those factors were determined from the Vermont Agency of Transportation historical traffic records. Growth factors were applied to adjust the counts to 1995 and 2000. =571: PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION Traffic generated by the project was distributed on the existing street network by analogy to the patterns obtained by the traffic counts. The following table outlines the distribution of the traffic counts. TABLE 2 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION Route 116/Swift St. Ext. Route 116/Kennedy Drive North East West North South Bound on Bound on Bound on Bound Bound Rte 116 Kennedy Kennedv A.M. peak 70% 30% 57% 9% 34% P.M. peak 71% 29% 63% 13% 24% Average 70.5% 29.5% 60% 15.5% 29% 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. 85% 15% 7 A.M. to 6 P.M. 78% 22% 47% 11% 20% For purposes of this report we will use the individual A.M. peak hour and P.M. peak hour for the A.M. and P.M. peak hour analysis respectively. ST. EXT. A.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION Moz A.M. PEAK HOUR EXISTING TRAFFIC Mom P.M. PEAK HOUR EXISTING TRAFFIC ST. EXT. A.M PEAK HOUR ENTERING 87% 633 EXITING 13% 95 TOTAL 728 PROJECT TRAFFIC A.M. PEAK HOUR -11- ST. EXT. P.M. PEAK HOUR ENTERING 29% 230 EXI TING 71 R 561 TOTAL 791 PROJECT TRAFFIC P.M. PEAK HOUR -12- A.M. 1995 TOTAL TRAFFIC -�3- H True North peck Mrg H True North Mag�et�c N O O O True North Mrg LOCATION SWIFT ST. EXT. ROUTE 116 EXISTING 1990 SWIFT ST. EXT. ROUTE 116 (1995) SWIFT ST. EXT. ROUTE 116 (2000) CHECK SIGNAL WARRANT VOLUMES TIME SUM MAJOR MINOR WARRANT PERIOD APPROACH (VEH) APPROACH (VEH) SATISFIED 1 HH 1036 63 No 4 HH 2462 149 No 8 HH 5968 255 No 1 HH 1172 630 Yes 10 & 11 4 HH 2785 1133 Yes 9 8 HH 6752 1934 Yes 2 1 HH 1326 634 Yes 10 & 11 4 HH 3151 1133 Yes 9 8 HH 7640 1934 Yes 2 LEGEND HH - Highest consecutive hours -17- SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION EXISTING 1995 2000 A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. ROUTE 116 SB LT. A A F A F A SWIFT STREET EXT. RT. A A A E A E LT. C C F F F F KENNEDY DR. EB LT. TR. WB L TR ROUTE 116 NB L T R SB LT R LEGEND SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION C D C C C C C C C C C C F C F C C C A A A D D D A A A NB - North bound SB - South bound EB - East bound WB - West bound RT - Right LT - Left TR - Through and right LTR - Left, through and right 211-M F C F C C C C C C D C D D F F C C C A A A D D D A A A -18- LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL STOPPED STOPPING RATIO OF TOTAL CRITICAL SERVICE DELAY M SERVICE VOLUME MOVEMENT (sec/veh) TO CAPACITY (vph/lane) A <5.0 <50 0.0 - 0.45 - B 5.1 - 15.0 51 - 67 0.46 - 0.60 - (under) C 15.1 - 25.0 68 - 76 0.61 - 0.75 1200 D 25.1 - 40.0 77 - 83 0.76 - 0.90 - (near) E 40.1 - 60.0 84 - 93 0.91 - 1.00 1400 F >60.0 94 - 100 >1.00 >1400 (over) UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF DELAY TO MINOR RESERVE CAPACITY STOPPED DELAY SERVICE STREET TRAFFIC (pcph) (sec/veh) A Little or no >400 <9.0 B Short 300 - 399 9.0 - 12.0 C Average 200 - 299 12.0 - 18.0 D Long 100 - 199 18.0 - 36.0 E Very long 0 - 99 >36.0 F Extreme - - LEGEND sec/veh - seconds per vehicle vph/lane - vehicles per hour per lane pcph - Passenger cars per hour -19- LEVEL OF SERVICE URBAN AND SUBURBAN ARTERIALS LEVEL OF QUALITATIVE AVERAGE LOAD RATIO OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION TRAVEL SPEED FACTOR SERVICE VOLUME (MPH) TO CAPACITY A Free flow > 30 0.0 < 0.60 B Stable flow > 25 < 0.1 < 0.70 (slight delay) C Stable flow > 20 < 0.3 < 0.80 (acceptable delay) D Approaching > 15 < 0.7 < 0.90 unstable flow E Unstable flow > 10 < 1.0 < 1.00 F Forced flow < 10 - - LEGEND MPH - miles per hour -20- The Vermont Agency of Transportation accident records were reviewed for the intersection of Route 116 and Lane Press Drive, the intersection of Kennedy Drive and Route 116 and the portion of Route 116 between the two intersections. A tabulation of the accidents by year and cause of accident is listed below. There is a total of twenty six accidents, thirteen injuries and 1 fatality for the period on record. The primary cause of accidents at these locations is operator error. The total number of accidents during 1987 exceeds the general guideline of five or more accidents in one general location per year indicating a safety related problem. The rate of accidents dropped in 1988. YEAR NO. OF ACCIDENTS INJURIES FATALITIES RT. 116 / RT. 116 / RT. 116 LANE PRESS DR. KENNEDY DR. 1984 1 4 4 3 1 1985 0 2 1 2 0 1986 0 4 2 1 0 1987 0 5 2 5 0 1988 0 1 0 2 0 1 16 9 13 1 CAUSE OF ACCIDENT Careless pedestrian 1 (resulted in fatality) Following too close 3 Liquor citated 3 Operator cause (inattention) 5 Excessive speed 1 Slippery road 1 Failure to yield R.O.W. 5 Improper passing 1 Stoplight / sign violation 5 -21- CONCLUSIONS Intersection Of Route 116 And Swift Street Extension This intersection presently consists of a by-pass lane on the right of the southbound lane (Route 116), and a right turn lane off the northbound lane (Route 116). The by-pass and right turn lane were constructed by Mitel in 1981. This intersection geometry is sufficient for the existing traffic volumes with a level of service (L.O.S.) of A for all movements except the left out of Swift Street Extension which has a L.O.S. of C for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Full project build out is estimated for 1995. The L.O.S. for these traffic volumes is F for two of the A.M. turning movements and E and F for two of the P.M. turning movements. For the year 2000 the L.O.S. is identical to the 1995 results. The signal warrant volumes were determined and compared with warrants contained in reference 2. The results are as follows: Warrant 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume: The calculated hour volumes of 702 (1990), 794 (1995) and 899 (2000) are above the minimum of 600 vehicles per hour for a major street. The calculated hour volumes of 27 (1990), 160 (1995) and 160 (2000) are above the 150 vehicles per hour for a minor street, approach for 1995 and 2000 design years. If this intersection is upgraded to two lanes exiting the project site the requirement increases to 200 vehicles per hour for a minor street. The warrant is not met for 1990 and the second lane exiting will be added for the project. The warrant will not be met for the design years 1995 and 2000. Warrant 2 - Interruption Of Continuous Traffic: The minimum number of vehicles per hour required under the warrant is 900 vehicles per hour for a major street and 100 vehicles per hour for a minor street. The calculated hour volumes of 702 (1990), 794 (1995) and 899 (2000) are above the minimum number for the major street. The minor street hour volumes of 27 (1990), 160 (1995) and 160 (2000) are above the minimum of 100 vehicles per hour for 1995 and 2000. A signal is warranted for 1995 and 2000 design years. Warrant 3 - Pedestrian Volume: Not applicable -22- Warrant 4 - School Crossing: Not applicable Warrant 5 - Progressive Movement: Not applicable Warrant 6 - Accident Experience: In a five year period only one accident was reported at this intersection. Five per year are needed to satisfy the signal warrant. Warrant 7 - Systems Warrant: Not applicable Warrant 8 - Combination of Warrants: Not applicable Warrant 9 - Four Hour Volumes: Using Figure 4 - 7 in Reference 2. This warrant is satisfied for 1995 and 2000 (signal is warranted). If a left turn lane were added on Route 116 this warrant would not be satisfied. Warrant 10 - Peak Hour Delay: This warrant is met for the 1995 and 2000 design year (signal warranted). Warrant 11 - Peak Hour Volume: Using Figures 4 - 5 in reference 2 this warrant is satisfied for 1995 and 2000 (signal is warranted). INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 116 AND KENNEDY DRIVE This intersection is presently signalized with two lane traffic in all directions. This intersection geometry and signalization is sufficient for the existing traffic volumes except for the Route 116 southbound left turn which has a L.O.S. of D in the P.M. and the Kennedy Drive eastbound left which also has a L.O.S. of D in the P.M. The remaining turning movements have either A or C L.O.S. For full project build out (1995) the L.O.S. is below C for the A.M. southbound left on Route 116, the P.M. eastbound left on Kennedy Drive, the P.M. westbound through and right on Kennedy Drive, and the P.M. southbound left on Route 116. For the year 2000 the L.O.S. is identical to the 1995 results. -23- RECOMMENDATIONS Intersection Of Route 116 And Swift Street Extension 1. A signal is warranted for this intersection in 1995. If full buildout of the project occurs by 1995 a signal should be installed. 2. Change the intersection geometry to include a left turn lane into Swift Street Extension and a right turn lane from Route 116. 3. Add a right turn lane for vehicles exiting from Swift Street Extension. 4. Evaluate this intersection annually and add the signals when warranted. If signalization is installed along with the other improvements noted above, a L.O.S. of B can be maintained for the 1995 traffic volumes with the project completed. Intersection of Route 116 and Kennedy Drive 1. Add road stripping on all approaches to provide left turn only lanes. The remaining lane will be a through and right turn lane. If these improvements are made, a L.O.S. of D can be maintained for the 1995 traffic volumes with the project completed. Adjustments to the signal timing will improve level of service to C. -24- GLOSSARY OF TERMS Average Daily Traffic (ADT) - The average number of vehicles passing a specified point during a 24 hr. period. Some examples are as follows: Annual Average Daily Traffic (ADDT) - Denotes daily traffic averaged over one year. Annual Average Weekday Traffic (AAWDT) - Denotes that the specified period includes only weekday, Monday through Friday. Capacity - The maximum hourly rate at which persons or vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a lane or roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway, traffic and control conditions. Capture Rate For Pass -By Traffic - Proportion of trips attached to the development from traffic normally passing -by the site. Gravity Model - A trip distribution technique. The gravity model is based on the hypothesis that the number of trips between two areas is directly related to the amount of activity in an area and inversely related to the spacial separation between the ares, represented as a function of travel time. Level Of Service (LOS) - A set of qualitative and quantitative criteria that describes the degree to which an intersection, roadway, weaving section or ramp efficiently serves peak hour and/or daily traffic. Peak Hour - The hour during which the maximum amount of traffic occurs. Sight Distance - The length of roadway ahead visible to the driver. The minimum sight distance available on a road should be sufficiently long to allow a vehicle traveling at or near the design speed to stop before reaching a stationary object in its path. Traffic Assignment - The process of determining route or routes of travel and allocating the zone -to -zone trips to these routes. Trip - A single or one -direction vehicular trip with either the origin (outbound) or destination (inbound) or both inside the study area. Each trip has two trip ends. -25- Trip Distribution - The process by which trips originating in one portion of the study area are distributed to the other portions of the study area. Trip End - A trip origin or a trip destination. Trip ends for a location are the summation of origins and destinations. A trip has two ends, the origin and the destination. A site which has over some period of time, 2,000 trips entering and 1,800 trips leaving, has 3800 trip ends associated with it. The 3,800 total trips to and from the site represent a total of 7,600 trip ends. Of these, 3,800 occur at locations other than the site in question. Trip Generation - Estimating the number of vehicle tips which may be generated by a specific building or land use. -26- REFERENCES 1. "Highway Capacity Manual, 198511, Transportation Research .Board, SR209, 1985. 2. "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices", FHWA, 1978. 3. "Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook", Institute of Transportation Engineers 2nd Edition, 1982. 4. "Trip Generation (Fourth Edition), An Informational Report", Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1987. 5. "Volume Warrants For Left -Turn Storage Lanes At Unsignalized Intersections", M.D. Harmelink, Department of Highway, Ontario. 6. "Traffic Engineering Theory and Practice", Prentice -Hall, Louis J. Pignataro. 7. "State of Vermont Sign Post Design Guideline", Engineering and Construction Design Division, A.O.T., 1986. 8. "State of Vermont Pavement Marking Placement Guide", Engineering and Construction Design Division, A.O.T., 1988. 9. Sample Plans For Traffic Signs and Pavement Markings, A.O.T., 1988. 10. Regression Analysis For Traffic Projection, A.O.T., 1988. 11. Automatic Traffic Recorder Grouping Study, A.O.T., 1988. -27- TT 01 RLINGTON Llf YO'f[WER f= EASEMENT (FUTURE) \ 1 DYNAROWER I 1 1 In � I I�100'EACN fIp(�f LE \ \I\ BUILINGTON PROPERTIES LTD IARTMERSMII I I� < \� \ PAINTER t I , r AIMT[R wIL[S 't WI ROADw1 WITN C0TN I 10.5 AC. 1 10.3 AC. 1\ 1 WB 1 1100 MINESBURR +L L\ l Ov� `\�.nv PI RTwR SROAD NP► 1J 0 o•"rvc L�\I i �l / r\ •\ f I 1 10 Ao. 1 10 Ac. DAVIS RINLE ILOOF AID RIMY TOIITANT OCONNfR LEDGE KNOLL FURLONG fKe=oA DUBOIS WESSEL V/ - 0 (� .I EARRAMS 1 WE!![L MIK£LL I 1 l .I I \\ 1 WILLISTON LACAS 0 IZANNf M„Naal SES.s' :wMC "jAl.l I L4y� PES I I `�11 � �� IRJO. CZ• '�Revov� S.AMT I ,I1U\111\q1,1\W\\\I' W Bw mc.-rc J FltBf�EW '� 1 \ -- �IIDIIIV tbb.b' - \ • � � 1ws• Dcc ..ntx PATC iIETI ._- 136.22•- -_.. _ . SITE - F�A: DC-I"6M 'L)-l—PMENT SNG. 164 Ca 'C... R •Zo. EaaEr Sir. yr os u52 AND: 1)"RA FF 361 f ArGNEN RO Se�TN 'p„quNhm.�l (/T Z.bs- S< �E - J.•= 2o• Ci�,i"NhTe,.l 1.I G95/cew CGMGT ARY Lt -1 "N M.p RANDY M�n1SoN 13O. 4J TIRED LI.MDSupMS LA >,oYlS 51—AR To a'NW Lamp S $ \ 6-. 66.G lo7.b � 130 L, ^ OE41 PWMAMN ROOM t6�se � S�AI�-i=ao E-cnuo l.ecyt F9B=�r�LseL�Ryr�aeM�clr__=uc.--------- � e Rn • 9 � - /4u❑ �6j 9 E RD 5.� N ,1,5-ye�yreu yr 4 CITY OF S. 9URLINGTON Grapbk SCek w Feet 300 O 300 900 900 WOO SOUTH BURLINGTON ACREAGE • 260 Ac WILLISTON ACREAGE 22 Ac 282 Ac TOTAL OWNER : GREEN ACRES, INC., P.O. BOX 2123, SO. BURLINGTON , VERMONT L< Meters loo O 100 zoo SOO 400 To obtain meters multiply fret by 0.3048 i M4#,OI"* rt-0 I I 3 L X 's 1 r, • I r i z 19 a err y /J . r. gs t' w BE s m !�I Pot 511- 11 TAW-Pa'd- 'I, lop P I tiI LIM