Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0060 Midas Drive�O-J _ Page 1 of 2 &A5tAl 5 Juli Beth Hinds /'-U d a s bvvc-- From: Juli Beth Hinds ohinds@sburl.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 6:06 PM To: 'Steve Vock' Cc: 'Ray Belair' Subject: RE: Vermont Federal Credit Union -Midas Drive Hi Steve, I love delivering good news — it happens so infrequently. I have just finished up a call with Georges Jacquemart. He believes absolutely that this property is NOT subject to the traffic overlay district regulations. His rationale is that (1) The site is located outside the mapped traffic overlay district; and (2) its principal point of access on an existing public roadway that leads to Williston Road, but the proposal does not require or propose a new access to Williston Road; and (3) the project does not have any access management impacts on Williston Road. Therefore, your submittal should include: (1) proposed traffic generation for purposes of calculating impact fees, (2) a parking calculation based on the appropriate ratios in Section 13-1 of the SB zoning regulations, and (3) an analysis of stacking for the drive - through to ensure that there will be no stacking across the entrance way or any public roadway or right of way. But NO analysis is required under the traffic overlay provisions. As always, please let us know if we can help further with the application process. Juli Beth Juli Beth Hinds, AICP Director of Planning & 'boning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 (802) 846-4lo6/4101 fax jhinds@sburl.com www.sburl.com From: Steve Vock [mailto:svock@cea-vt.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 4:33 PM To: Juli Beth Hinds Subject: Fw: Vermont Federal Credit Union -Midas Drive ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Vock To: Juli Beth Hinds Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 4:41 PM Subject: Vermont Federal Credit Union -Midas Drive Hi Juli Beth My client was wondering if there was any traffic review comments back from the NY consultant. If you could give me an update when you get a chance it would be greatly appreciated. 6/15/2005 No Text PLANNING COMMISSION JUKE 19, 1979 The South Burlingto• Manning Commission held a meE Ig on Tuesday, June 19, 1979 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 1175 Williston Road Members Present Sidney Poger, Chairman; George Mona, Ernest Levesque, James Ewing, Peter Jacob Members Absent Kirk Woolery, James Draper Others Present Stephen Page, Planner; Lowell Krassner, Karin Larsen, Bruce Houghton, David Brassard, Rowland Peterson, Peter Coffrin, Kay Neubert, Sandy Kleppinger Minutes cf June 12, 1979 On page 5 the following should be added to the first paragraph - "YX. Page said the height requirement in the city could not be waived." On page 6 the following should be added to the ninth paragraph - "The minimum lot size could be made larger." Mr. Fiona moved to approve the June 12, 1979 minutes as amended. TMr. Jacob seconded the motion and all voted aye. Continue public hearing on ureliminary plat application of the Partners Mr. Page gave the Commission copies of traffic engineer Bruce Houghton's counts at the Williston Road - Patchen Road intersection. He said that for approval of this development, the Commission had said that it wanted all approaches to the two nearest intersections to be C level or better. The Dorset Street - Williston Road intersection at the evening peak hour (4:30 to 5:30) meets that condition. Mr. Page said the Commission might want to consider the wording of that condition, since it might be unreasonable to demand all approaches be at level C when a development may only impact 1 or 2 of the approaches, although it was noted that the condition for approval of the Red Coach Grill had carried the wording of "all approaches". Mr. Page felt that when a condition like that was put on a developer, it encouraged him to develop as soon as possible, before the road got worse. Mr. Ewing asked about traffic from the new office building and was told they expected to have 110 employees and probably as many would exit west as exited east. t-,,r. Poger felt only 1/4 would turn left. Xr. Ewing said that all approaches to the intersection under discussion from this development were level C or better. Mr. Peterson said people working in the building would be able to get to HinesburE Road directly withoug going onto Williston Road since there would be an agreement to that effect made with Yr. Pomerleau, who o:+ s land in the area. Xr. Ewing said that the figures made it look like adjustinE the timing of the lights at that intersection would help the problem, since the only problem approaches were on Patchen. and Hinesburg -Roads. tr. -age asked Mr. HouEbton to com-ent on the situation. Xr. Hou€hton said it would be between =oderately expensive and not very expensive to give that intersection ve-icle actuated siEnals, because the control box at the intersection contains actuated equiF=ent but it is not used that way now. Loops would have to be rut into the rave_ent. PLANNING COMMISSION 11 JUNE 19, 1979 Mr. Houghton estim-..led that would cost between $5u., and 21000 per loop depending on the condition of the pavement. He said an actuated light would help during rush hour if there were a heavy demand on some approaches and not on others. Mr. Houghton felt that if the intersection were upgraded it could be more effective than it is now. The Commission agreed that the intersection approaches should be level C before the building is constructed, not that it be level C after the building is fully occupied. Mr. Fiona asked how much it would cost to get the Hinesburg and Patchen Road approaches up to level C and was told it would be between 31,000 and i25,000. Xr. Poger wondered if the city could pay 90% of the cost and the developer pay 10 %. Nx. Fiona said the Commission could not commit the city to that and Yr. Jacob felt there would not be money for such a project. He added that the city would be getting a road that it has needed for years from this developer. Mr. Ewing suggested that the Commission could give approval with the condition that a building permit not be obtained until the approaches were C and the developer could then hire a traffic engineer, correct the problem, and get his permit. Xr. Page noted that improvement of this part of Williston Road and the intersection was in the city budget and that if the developer wanted to accelerate the timetable, he could do it at his expense. He would have the alternative of waiting until the city did it, or doing it hemself. Yr. Mona said he could also approach the City Council and try to get them to accelerate the timetable. Yr. Peterson said his development did not create all the traffic on ,-7illiston Road and that he was willing to pay for his fair share of what it would create, but he did not want to solve the problem all by himself. Mr. Brassard asked why level C was designated and was told that at that point traffic was slowed somewhat, but not held up substantially. Mr. Houghton said that a C level was a good operating level for an urban area and that at the D level people waited through more than one light change. The level of an approach is determined by taking a count at normal peak hour of one day of the year, not the busiest day of the year. Mr. Brassard asked if the Commission looked at the present level of service of an approach and at how long it had been that way and was told they only looked at the service level. He then asked if the Commission was going to use similar criteria on any development in the area and was told they would, if there were to be a change in the traffic pattern of a business. When the Commission has the power to do so (at subdivision review), it will apply the same criteria, Mr. Poger said. Mr. Brassard wanted all developments in this area treated the same way. Mr. Brassard noted that much of the traffic problem on Williston Road was from people trying to get into Burlington and he felt the traffic this office building would generate was small compared to that. The Commission assured Mr. Brassard that they would apply this criteria to others along Williston Road, and eventually also along Shelburne Road. Mr. Jacob questioned the figures for Patchen and Hinesburg Roads, saying he had gone through that intersection for over 40 years and had never had to wait for more than one light on Patchen Road and more than 2 on Hinesburg. He felt the developers were being offered a fair solution to the problems, though. He suggested that if the developers knew others who would be izpacted by the criteria that they all get together to work on the problem. The questionsof whether the intersection should be counted and whether Xr. Houghton should be asked to narrow the :rice range for upgrading the intersection were discussed, as was the question of who should pay -�or such work. ".r. Houghton did not think a re—count would give the city anything, sayin€ that a count would be a little different every time it was taken, and it was the physical PLANNING COMPiISSIONi/�i�ys %��'," .SZ�rrK�';S. DUNE 19. 1979 capacity of the inl— l ection which was imp�/ortant. �. Poger felt that the developer should make a proposal on how to improve the intersection (with the help of a consultant) and -bring that to the Commission and if they accepted it, he could begin to build. The intersection improvement could be a stipulation of approval. The Commission saw no problem with the developer posting a bond for the intersection improvement and beginning to build the building, although the bond should be exercised before the building is occupied. N;r. Peterson reiterated that he felt they should participate in the cost, but not bear it totally. He asked whether, if the Council planned to fix the intersection at a time which might be 6-8 months after the building was finished, the Commission would waive the requirement. The response was mixed. Xr. Nona moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the preliminary plat application of "The__Partners", as depicted on a plan entitled "FroFerty Division of Brassard Brothers Automotive..." drawn by J. Terrv. dated 4%10%79, subject to the following stipulations: 1. A city street, to full city standards, shall be extended to lot 3, with a temporary turnaround at the end. --A-6-0—'strip of land, for future road and utilitv extension shall be extended on lot 3 ina southwesterly direction to the school department property. This land shall be secured through an offer of irrevocable dedication; the exact alignment of the roadway extension is as sketched on the plan_ of record. It may be modified prior to final plat by adjusting the entire "S" curve north or south, based on the applicant's preference. 2. The offer of dedication shall include a stipulation that it not jeopardize the status of either lot #2 or lot #3 with regard to dimensional or front yand green area reauiremen s. 3 An 8" water main and 2 fire hydrants shall be installed; sewer and water mains shall be publicly owned and maintained.. 4. The drainageway shall be dredged on site so as to improve flow. Improvement of the drainageway shall be as approved by the City Engineer recorded on the final Flat. 5. Other than road curve design, no waivers to required improvements have been requested, thus none are granted. 6. This approval is contingent on consumation of the land exchan€e with Fnmer]eAu. 7 The applicable stipulations of the previous subdivision approval are still in effect, i.e., especially the level of traffic service at the nearest signallized intersections, which shall be that all approaches are at level C or better. S. In light of the impending shortfall of sewage capacity, applicant must diligently pursue the necessary additional approvals conditional use, site plan an ina F at . Kr. Levesque seconded the Notion. hr. Page said the "S" curve could be moved north to infringe on the proposed of` -lice building, or south to infringe on the Kidas lot, but it would be a 150' radius. He said the school board had been told the road Wight use 1/3 acre of its land, but that there was some flexibility there. He said the "S" curve was shown on the plan of record, dated 4/10. The motion passed unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME/FILE REF ENCE ' /-" 2/1-7y ✓ 1. LETTER OF NOTIFICATION & APPROVAL MOTION OR FINDINGS & ORDER 2. BONDING OR ESCROW AGREEMENTS LANDSCAPING SEWER WATER STORM DRAINAGE ROADS CURBS SIDEWALKS (NOTE ALL RELEASES OR AGREEMENT REVISIONS) 3. LIST APPROVALS GRANTEDWITH DATES AND PERMITS GRANTED & SITE 6/ 1 y7 INSPECTIONS COMPLETED, ETC.: / ," e - / .t-IW7- 4. UTILITY EASEMENTS *, BILLS OF SALE RECORDED ACCEPTED 5. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE 6. ROADWAYS DEEDS FOR CITY STREETS ACCEPTED * �' PRIVATE ROAD & WAIVER. AGREEMENT x 7. FINAL PLAT OR RECORD COPY — STAMPED SIGNED, & FILED OR RECORDED B. PEDESTRIAN EASEMENTS ACCEPTED & RECORDED FILED 9. MISCELLANEOUS AGREEMENTS LAND FOR ROAD WIDENING OFFER OF IRREVOCABLE DEDICATION FUTURE ACCESS POINTS SHARED ACCESS POINTS OTHER 10. COPY OF SURVEY TO ASSESSOR (IF CHANGE IN PROPERTY LINES) 11. FEES — PAID/DATE HEARING BUILDING PERMIT ENGINEERING INSP. SEWER RECREATION (RECORD CALCULATIONS AND DEPOSIT IN ACCOUNT) 12. IMPACT FOLLOW UP i.e., "ON LINE" EVALUATION: SCHOOL KIDS CAR COUNTS PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 1175 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, April 10 1979. at 7:30 p.m., to consider the following: _ - Preliminary plat application of the Partners Corporation for a 2 lot commercial subdivision south of 1251 Williston Road. The proposed subdivision is bounded on the north by lands of Brassard Automotive Services, on the east by lands of Pomerleau and Unsworth, South Burlington Realty Corpora -ion gnp {-i p- Snutb Rnrljxuton_ School Dept. Copies of the application are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. Sidney B. Poger Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission March 24, 1979 N 0 IV Q LO J J S T- I 6 T L P\%, ZZ, T H E- -Z r Pp--OPE�-4-7"y ON WILL�S70N-.-q��-Q t \7-,A-NZUJAG�Tot-4 ,,rT A. B. POMERLEAU 0 8 kI X 0 STEEL ROD / 99, 9Z '<M ma 0 00 06 N O J \D N N C.M. I 3 30°-0,5'-` W 258,04 h ' O N I STY. h�0 CONIC BLK O STORES \ h 5 _ S 30° - 05'-,58"W EAS U/?EO) 200.00 ' (,pE CORD) C M' STY FR. I STY. DWL. FR. SHOP I STY. I STY FR. FR GARAGE STORE I STY. CONIC . BLK. STOR E S 12 .1 247.11 STALK SANITARY CAS BUILT I SLIGHTLY I I 3� SEWER EASEMENT LOCATION DIFFERS FROM RC -CORDS.) JN ION STORE f I Y � C.M S300 05'S8_W I.P S30005'S8"W \ D. C • a M. R. 86.96 _o N 80.25 W o lo�, N N. OR F. (D� � c C.M �o V� S 339 26, 38 y -3 �✓ � C.M. �-14 C.M. 1E N7o,3 3 8.22, a w it PLAT OF SURVEY OF PROPERTY ON WILL15TON RD. IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT. PLAN PREPARED BY: JOHN A. MARSH, L.S - ESSEX JUNCTION, VT. MAGNETIC BEARINGS DATE: JULY 27, 1978 / HEREBY CERTIFY rHaT 7fWS s1,4- VE Y /S CORRECT TO THE BES T OF M )- AWOWZLCOGE, BASED ON A PREVIOUS (SURVEY &Y' MYSELF AA/0 A )OREVI - OUS SURVEY Fay LE0NAR,0 A. LAM- OU,PEUX, L S ' '38 . . X.�,( RICHARD A.SPOKES IOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI WILLIAM G. LMNCSTON SPOKES 8 OBUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. BOX 2325 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 February 11, 1980 South Burlington Planning Commission 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Midas Muffler Sign Issue Gentlemen: 1775 VVILLISTON ROAD TIEtFPHONE(802)863-2857 This letter is an attempt to answer the questions posed to me in Mr. Spitz's letter of January 9, 1980. In searching for a resolution, I have reviewed the City's sign ordinance and the material furnished to me by Mr. Spitz. I also met with Mr. Spitz and Mr. Ward. As you know, my office previously reviewed this question, and frankly we have found nothing which would alter our original thinking. In any event, the following respresents our thoughts to each question set forth in the City Planner's letter: 1. Is there any way under the waiverless sign ordinance that an off -premises sign can be permitted, either in the City right-of-way or on an adjacent owner's property? The answer to this question is very clearly "No". Section 8 of the sign ordinance prohibits off -premises signs for any purpose. As you know, the sign ordinance does not contain any variance or waiver provisions, and the proposed Midas sign does not fall within any of the exceptions set forth in Section 13 of the ordinance. 2. Is there any way that the sign can be considered on -premises, either by a narrow connecting strip of property or by a perpetual easement retained by the Midas lot within the corridor that is to become a city street? Again, we must answer this question in the negative. If the Midas lot were created in such a way as to include a narrow connecting strip or "rat tail" to Williston Road, it would still be impossible to erect a sign within the strip under Section 8(a) of the sign ordinance. Unfortunately, the integrity of the City's sign ordinance must be weighted South Burlington planning Commission February 11, 1980 Page 2 against the interest of The Partners. The narrow strip would constitute a reserve strip which in essence would give -the owners' total control of access onto a city street. This has.very serious legal implications as well as planning implications. The precedential value of permitting such an arrangement must also be considered by you. This situation has been raised on at least two previous occasions, and we Were also stymied in finding a solution in those cases. 3. If the sign is erected while the land is still private, can the City allow the sign to remain when it accepts the access road as a public street? The City could not allow the sign to remain within the public street right-of-way. Even if the street were to remain private, we feel it is extremely weak to consider A private street as part of the Midas premises. 4. if the Commission allows the access road to remain private until a connecting link is provided (i.e. to the Munson property in the rear)., can the Commission stipulate that all improvements to City standards are installed and all dedica- ti:ons.for future City acceptance are provided now? Even if it is not anticipated that the street will be accepted as a public street in the immediate future, it is our opinion that you may require the developer to construct the.street in accordance with City standards. The applicant can also be required to furnish an offer of dedication and warranty deed at this time. S. If the Commission allows the access road to remain private for a period of 20 years (the length of the Midas lease), is it possible and/or advisable for the City to obtain some sort of guaranteed access for the public without public maintenance responsibilities during that period? It is legally possible for the City to secure an easement for access on a public street and not assume the maintenance responsibilities. I wish we could accommodate the Midas people, but there are some very strong public considerations you should not lose sight of. The first is the integrity of the sign ordance. If this situation is not adequately addressed in the ordinance, the council South Burlington Planning Commission February 11, 1980 Page 3 should be encouraged to consider an amendment to the ordinance. Secondly, I don't think you should alter your policies concerning public streets to accommodate a sign. The policies certainly promote the interests of the City and the public, and these interests may be jeopardized by permitting the street to remain private for an extended length of time. Thirdly, the facade sign on the Midas building is clearly visible from Williston Road, and it is a matter of public knowledge that our sign ordinance does not permit off -premises signs. I must again emphasize that if this situation needs a remedy, it should be done by legislative decision of the council. Very' truly yours, Richar es RAS:mi.l cc: William Szymanski, City Manager 6/12/79 0SSP SUGGESTED MOTION OF APPROVAL - THE PARTNERS I move that 'zhe South Burlington Planning Commission approve the preliminary plat application of "The Partners", as depicted on a plan entitled "Property Division of Brassard Brothers Auto- motive..." drawn by J. Terry, dated 4/10/79, subject to the follow- ing stipulations: 1. A City street, to full City standards, shall be extended to lot 3, with a temporary turnaround @ the end. A 60' strip of land, for future road & utility extension shall be extended ,-in./121�--i a southwesterly direction to the school department property. This land shall be secured through an offer of irrevocable dedication; the exact alignment of the roadway extension is as sketched on the plan of record. It may be modified prior to final plat by adjusting the entire "S" curve north or south, based on applicant's preference. 2. The offer of dedication shall include a stipulation that it not jeopardize the status of either lot #2 or lot #3 with regard to dimensional or front yard green area requirements. 3. An 8" water main and 2 fire hydrants shall be installed] sewer & water mains shall be publicly owned and maintained. 4. The drainageway shall be dredged on site so as to improve f low i s N ­`" V I Mn4, f' 5. Other than road curve design,no waivers to required improve- ments have been requested, thus none are granted. 6. This approval is contingent on consumation of the land exchange w/Pomerleau. 7. The applicable sus of the previous subdivision approval are still in effect, 8. In light of t e impending shortfall of sewage capacity, applicant must diligen, y persue the necessary additional approvals (conditional use, site p an & final plat). M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington City Council From: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Midas Muffler sign Date: February 13, 1980 At its meeting of February 12, 1980, the Planning Commission passed the following motion by a 4 to 0 vote: "That the Planning Commission accept the City Attorney's advice that we seek legislative remedy to this dilemma". The Planning Commission asks the City Council to resolve this dilemma. The Planning Commission has no objections to the sign location per se but recommends that the issue be resolved maintaining the road as a City street. Enclosed are copies of various background correspondence and stipulations to aid in your consideration of this matter. 2. PLANNING COMitISSION FEBRUARY 12, 1980 Consideration of City Attorney's input on stipulations for The Partners The Commission read the Attorney's 2111 letter (copy on file with Planner). Mr. Spitz felt the Attorney was saying that the issue could not be resolved without a change in the sign ordinance and also that the sign problem should not affect the status of the street as a public street. Mr. Mona agreed that he had no intention of altering the position, which had existed from the beginning, that the street ultimately become a city street. Mr. Brassard noted that Mr. Poger, at a previous meeting, had stated that it was not the intent of the city to preclude development of the backland. He said the sign had to remain where it was, which meant that he and his brother had to sit on the land in the rear for the length of the lease (20 years with 4 5—Year options. Mr. Brassard said that if the City Council could not solve the problem, or the Planning Commission could not, it would have to be up to the courts to solve it. He felt it was not a problem of the developers' making. He felt the city had a stake in the problem, since it would not have the city street it wants in'that area until the backland is developed, and that cannot be done until the sign problem is settled. Mr. Levesque pointed out that all the documents in City Hall are available to the developer, and his attorney should have picked up on the possible problem. Mr. Brassard replied that the Chairman of the Commission and the Planner had both been surprised when the problem arose. Mr. Ilona felt that the most the Commission could do was to make a recommendation to the Council, noting that the City Attorney felt the remedy would be via a legislative decision of that body. Mr. Levesque thought that the city could lease the land for the sign. Mr. Brassard said he and his brother were willing to maintain the street if it remained private and he did not understand the reluctance of the city to do that. He was told it was in all Commission policies not to have private streets. Messrs. Ewing, Ilona, and Woolery wanted a city street. Mr. Brassard said he could not take the sign down. He was Willing to work with the city on the issue, but the sign had to stay. He felt that the developers had tried to give the city what it wanted in the area and that they Were now being penalized for it. The road right of way is 60' and the Brassards own 63.4' , so one solution was to have a 3.4' strip back to the building, which the City Attorney has said he does not like. The Commission wanted to tell the Council it did not object to the sign location but that it wanted a city street in that area. The: question of a narrower right of way for the road was discussed, such as 50'. Mr: Spitz said that would still produce a reserve strip. He said that with a 30' pavement, sidewalks and utilities, 60' was needed. Mr. Woolery felt that perhaps the Brassards could retain a 10' strip and Mr. Ewing added that the city could be given 40', from the sidewalk, curbing, paving, to the other curb. Then the Brassards would have 10' on 1 side of the road that was their land, leased to the city. Access to a public street through a private piece of land was also mentioned. Mr. Woolery noted that the Commission had never intended to deny the Midas sign, and he felt they should come up with a workable solution. Mr. Mona said, relative to the Midas ITuffler sign issue, I move that the Planning Commission accept the City Attorney's advice that we seek legislative remedy to the dilemma. The Planning Commission asks the City Council to resolve this dilemma. The Planning Commission has no objection to the sign location per se but recommends that the issue be resolved, maintaining the roadway as a city street. Mr. Ewing seconded the motion. Mr. Mona did not want to convey to the Council that the Commission was in an adversary relationship with the applicant, but rather to show that they were 3. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 1980 sympathetic. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Brassard said the stipulation on the road (and thus, the sign) was predicated on development of the backland, not subdivision, but Mr. Spitz said that in some cases subdivision did constitute development. It was noted that at some time in the future, the city or another developer might want to pave over the road, which would be on land neither of them own, before any development takes place on this backland. Other business Mr. Spitz said the Council had set a date for the public hearing on Cl-C2 and had discussed the Southeast Quadrant and Development Management Policy chapters of the Plan. Transfer of development rights was discusbed as a means of keeping open space in the Quadrant. The Commission discussed taxes and land use definitions as incentives for keeping open space. Mr. Spitz will look into the transfer of development rights. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm. Clerk RICHARD A. SPOKES JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI WILLIAM G. LIVINGSTON SPOKES & OBUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. Box 2325 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 February 13, 1980 Mr. Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator and Mr. David spitz, City Planner Municipal Offices 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Midas Muffler Sign Problem Dear Dick and David: 1775 WILLISTON ROAD TELEPHONE (802) 863-2857 I thought I should bring to your attention, in the context of the Midas sign issue, the State Travel Information Council's Rules of Procedure. I think Dick has reviewed this with Gil in connection with the Ramsey sign. It would appear that sub- paragraph 6 of the enclosed Rules prohibits the Midas Muffler sign. If I read subparagraph 6 correctly, the use of narrow strips of land does not satisfy the "on -premises" requirement of the State's sign regulations. Furthermore, the Travel Information Council's Rules indicate that a sign site will be considered off -premises when it is a common or private roadway or if the land interest is held by way of easement rights or a land interest constituting lesser title than that by which the principal premises are held. Very truly yours, Richard A. Spokes RAS:mil Enclosure 2. PLANNING C0,10TISSION FEBRUARY 12, 1980 Consideration of City Attorney's input on stipulations for The Partners The Commission read the Attorney's 2111 letter (copy on file with Planner). Mr. Spitz felt the Attorney was saying that the issue could not be resolved without a change in the sign ordinance and also that the sign problem should not affect the status of the street as a public street. Mr. Mona agreed that he had no intention of altering the position, which had existed from the beginning, that the street ultimately become a city street. Mr. Brassard noted that Mr. Poger, at a previous meeting, had stated that it was not the intent of the city to preclude development of the backland. He said the sign had to remain where it was, which meant that he and his brother had to sit on the land in the rear for the length of the lease (20 years with 4 5-Year options). Mr. Brassard said that if the City Council could not solve the problem, or the Planning Commission could not, it would have to be up to the courts to solve it. He felt it Was not a problem of the developers' making. He felt the city had a stake in the problem, since it would not have the city street it wants in that area until the backland is developed, and that cannot be done until the sign problem is settled. Mr. Levesque pointed out that all the documents in City Hall are available to the developer, and his attorney should have picked up on the possible problem. Mr. Brassard replied that the Chairman of the Commission and the Planner had both been surprised when the problem arose. Mr. Ilona felt that the most the Commission could do was to make a recommendation to the Council, noting that the City Attorney felt the remedy would be via a legislative decision of that body. Mr. Levesque thought that the city could lease the land for the sign. Mr. Brassard said he and his brother were willing to maintain the street if it remained private and he did not understand the reluctance of the city to do that. He was told it was in all Commission policies not to have private streets. Messrs. Ewing, Mona, and Woolery wanted a city street. Mr. Brassard said he could not take the sign down. He was willing to work with the city on the issue, but the sign had to stay. He felt that the developers had tried to give the city what it wanted in the area and that they were now being penalized for it. The road right of way is 60' and the Brassards own 63.4' , so one solution was to have a 3.4' strip back to the building, which the City Attorney has said he does not like. The Commission wanted to tell the Council it did not object to the sign location but that it wanted a city street in that area. The. question of a narrower right of way for the road was discussed, such as 50'. Mr: Spitz said that would still produce a reserve strip. He said that with a 30' pavement, sidewalks and utilities, 60' was needed. Mr. Woolery felt that perhaps the Brassards could retain a 10' strip and Mr. Ewing added that the city could be given 401, from the sidewalk, curbing, paving, to the other curb. Then the Brassards would have 10' on 1 side of the road that was their land, leased to the city. Access to a public street through a private piece of land was also mentioned. Mr. Woolery noted that the Commission had never intended to deny the Midas sign, and he felt they should come up with a workable solution. Mr. Mona said, relative to the Midas Muffler sign issue, I move that the Planning Commission accept the City Attorney's advice that we seek legislative remedy to the dilemma. The Planning Commission asks the City Council to resolve this dilemma. The Planning Commission has no objection to the sign location per se but recommends that the issue be resolved, maintaining the roadway as a city street. Mr. Ewing seconded the motion. Mr. Mona did not want to convey to the Council that the Commission was in an adversary relationship with the applicant, but rather to show that they were W PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 1980 sympathetic. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Brassard said the stipulation on the road (and thus, the sign) was predicated on development of the backland, not subdivision, but Mr. Spitz said that in some cases subdivision did constitute development. It was noted that at some time in the future, the city or another developer might want to .pave over the road, which would be on land neither of them own, before any development takes place on this backland. Other business Mr. Spitz said the Council had set a date for the public hearing on Cl-C2 and had discussed the Southeast Quadrant and Development Management Policy chapters of the Plan. Transfer of development rights was discussed as a means of keeping open space in the Quadrant. The Commission discussed taxes and land use definitions as incentives for keeping open space. Mr. Spitz will look into the transfer of development rights. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm. Clerk I Attorney Richard P.O. Box 2325 South Burlington, Dear Dick: Spokes Vermont 05402* January 9, 196U At its meeting of January 6, the Planning Commission heard a request from "the Partners" to reconsider a previous stipulation that the access road to Midas Muffler and to a proposed new office building become a city street. I have attached copies of several background items: Ute Commission's original stipulation, a plan of the application, the applicant's request for reconsideration, and my summary of events to the Commission. Zhere is also a letter in your files on this matter, written by Gil Uvi.ibston in response to some verbal questions from Dick ward. On January S the Planning Commission unanimously voted the iollowinb: "That the question of the City-iirassard-Midas sign problem be given to the City Attorney in such manner that he will be asked to provide a workable solution for the City's and the Brassard's mutual interests as soon as possible with the urging of the Planning Commission". The problem has already been todsed around to a considerable degree by the applicant, myself, Uick Ward, and Bill Szymanski; but no satisfactory outcome has been reached. The questions to be considered include at least the following: 1) Is there any way under the waiverless sign ordinance that an oir- premise sign can be permitted, either i1V the City right-of-way or an an adjacent owner's property? 2) Is there any way that the sign can be considered on -premise, either by a narrow connecting strip of property or by a perpetual easement retained by the Midas lot within the corridor that is to become a city street? 3) If the sign is erected while the land is still private, can the City allow the sign to remain when it accepts the access road as a public street? 4) If the Commission allows the access road to remain private until a connecting link is provided (i.e. to the Munson property is the rear), can the Commission stipulate that all improvements to City standards are installed and all dedications for future City acceptance are provided now? Attorney Richard Spokes January 9, 1980 Page 2 5) If the Commission allows the access road to remain private for a period of 2U years (the length of the Miday lease), is it possible and/or advisable for the City to obtain some sort of guaranteed access for the public without public maintenance responsibilities durinb that period? Any other suggested approaches to the problem that you may have would be greatly appreciated. DS/mcg 3 Enc1 cc: David Brassard ir Sincerely, David S. Spitz, City Planner M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Next week's agenda Date: 2/8/80 2) Sugar -Tree Condominiums Application will require City Council consideration under Interim Zoning but is being presented to the Planning Commission first for Sketch Plan comments. Proposed 34 unit condominium project would replace previously approved Colony Office Park. Curb cut must line up with entrance to Windridge Apartments across the street. Previous stipulations, such as water line extension and level driveway entrance, are relevant for this application, also. 3) The Partners City Attorney has not been able to "manufacture" a solution to the Williston Rd. sign controversy. A letter should be available by Tuesday's meeting. 4) Other Business Report on City Council's response to Cl-C2 zoning and to Southeast Quadrant and Development Management Policy chapters. RepoFrt on recent correspondence between City Planner and City Attorneys. RICHARD A.SPOKES )OSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI WILLIAM G. LMNCSTON SPOKES F6 OBUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. BOX 2325 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 February 11, 1980 South Burlington Planning Commission 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Midas Muffler Sign Issue Gentlemen: 1775 WILLISTON ROAD TELEPHONE (802) 863-2857 This letter is an attempt to answer the questions posed to me in Mr. Spitz's letter of January 9, 1980. In searching for a resolution, I have reviewed the City's sign ordinance and the material furnished to me by Mr. Spitz. I also met with Mr. Spitz and Mr. Ward. As you know, my office previously reviewed this question, and frankly we have found nothing which would alter our original thinking. In any event, the following respresents our thoughts to each question set forth in the City Planner's letter: 1. Is there any way under the waiverless sign ordinance that an off -premises sign can be permitted, either in the City right-of-way or on an adjacent owner's property? The answer to this question is very clearly "No". Section 8 of the sign ordinance prohibits off -premises signs for any purpose. As you know, the sign ordinance does not contain any variance or waiver provisions, and the proposed Midas sign does not fall within any of the exceptions set forth in Section 13 of the ordinance. 2. Is there any way that the sign can be considered on -premises, either by a narrow connecting strip of property or by a perpetual easement retained by the Midas lot within the corridor that is to become a city street? Again, we must answer this question in the negative. If the Midas lot were created in such a way as to include a narrow connecting strip or "rat tail" to Williston Road, it would still be impossible to erect a sign within the strip under Section 8(a) of the sign ordinance. Unfortunately, the integrity of the City's sign ordinance must be weighted South Burlington Planning Commission February 11, 1980 Page 2 against the interest of The Partners. The narrow strip would constitute a reserve strip which in essence would give the. owners' total control of access onto a city street. This has very serious legal implications as well as planning implications. The precedential value of permitting such an Arrangement must also be considered by you. This situation has; been raised on at least two previous occasions, and we were also stymied in finding a solution in those cases. 3. If the sign is erected while the land is still private, can the City allow the sign to remain when it accepts the access road as a public street? The City could not allow the sign to remain within the public street right-of-way. Even if the street were to remain private, we feel it is extremely weak to consider a private street as part of the Midas premises. 4. if the Commission allows the access road to remain private until a connecting link is provided (i.e. to the Munson property in the rear), can the Commission stipulate that all improvements to City standards are installed and all dedica- ti:ons.for future City acceptance are provided now? Even if it is not anticipated that the street will be Accepted as a public street in the immediate future, it is our opinion that you may require the developer to construct the.street in accordance with City standards. The applicant can also be required to furnish an offer of dedication and warranty deed at this time. 5. If the Commission allows the access road to remain private for a period of 20 years (the length of the Midas lease), I s it possible and/or advisable for the City to obtain some sort of guaranteed access for the public without public maintenance responsibilities during that period? It is legally possible for the City to secure an easement for access on a public street and not assume the maintenance responsibilities. I wish we could accommodate the Midas people, but there are some very strong public considerations you should not lose sight of. The first is the integrity of the sign ordance. If this situation is not adequately addressed in the ordinance, the council South Burlington Planning Commission February 11, 1980 Page 3 should be encouraged to consider an amendment to the ordinance. Secondly, I don't think you should alter your policies concerning public streets to accommodate a sign. The policies certainly promote the interests of the City and the public, and these interests may be jeopardized by permitting the street to remain private for an extended length of time. Thirdly, the facade sign on the Midas building is clearly visible from Williston Road, and it is a matter of public knowledge that our sign ordinance does not permit off -premises signs. I must again emphasize that if this situation needs a remedy, it should be done by legislative decision of the council. Very truly yours, Richar es RAS:mil cc: William Szymanski. City Manager ,if Attorney Richard P.O. Box 2325 South Burlington, Dear Dick: Spokes Vermont 05402 January 9, 19bU At its meeting of January 6, the Planning Commission heard a request from "the Partners" to reconsider a previous stipulation that the access road to Midas Muffler and to a proposed new office building become a city street. I have attached copies of several background items: the Commission's original stipulation, a plan of the application, the applicant's request for reconsideration, and my summary of events to the Commission. Zhere is also a letter in your files on this matter, written by Gil LivL.ibston in response to some verbal questions from Dick Ward. On January B the Planning Commission unanimously voted the following: "That the question of the City -Brassard -Midas sign problem be given to the City Attorney in such manner that he will be asked to provide a workably: solution for the City's and the Brassard's mutual interests as soon as possible with the urging of the Planning Commission". The problem has already been todsed around to a considerable degree by the applicant, myself, Dick Ward, and Bill Szymanski; but no satisfactory outcome has been reached. The questions to be considered include at least the following: 1) Is there any way under the waiverless sign ordinance that an ofi- premise sign can be permitted, either is/ the City right-of-way or an an adjacent owner's property? 2) Is there any way that the sign can be considered on -premise, either by a narrow connecting strip of property or by a perpetual easement retained by the Midas lot within the corridor that is to become a city street? 3) If the sign is erected while the land is still private, can the city allow the sign to remain when it accepts the access road as a public street? 4) If the Commission allows the access road to remain private until a connecting link is provided (i.e. to the k1unson property is the rear), can the Commission stipulate that all improvements to City standards are installed and all dedications for future City acceptance are provided now? Attorney Richard Spokes January 9, 1980 Page 2 5) If the Commission allows the access road to remain private for a period of 20 years (the length of the Midaq lease), is it possible and/or advisable for the City to obtain some sort of guaranteed access for the public without public maintenance responsibilities during that period? Any other suggested approaches to the problem that you may have would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, David S. Spitz, City Planner DS/mcg 3 Encl CC. David Brassard 0 RICHARD A. SPOKES JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI WILLIAM G. LIVING5TON SPOKES F6 OBUCHOWSKI ATTO RN EYS AT LAW P. O. BOX 2325 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMON7 05401 February 11, 1980 South Burlington Planning Commission 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Midas Muffler Sign Issue Gentlemen: 1775 WILL15TON ROAD TELEPHONE (802) 863-2857 This letter is an attempt to answer the questions posed to me in Mr. Spitz's letter of January 9, 1980. In searching for a resolution, I have reviewed the City's sign ordinance and the material furnished to me by Mr. Spitz. I also met with Mr. Spitz and Mr. Ward. As you know, my office previously reviewed this question, and frankly we have found nothing which would alter our original thinking. In any event, the following respresents our thoughts to each question set forth in the City Planner's letter: 1. Is there any way under the waiverless sign ordinance that an off -premises sign can be permitted, either in the City right-of-way or on an adjacent owner's property? The answer to this question is very clearly "No". Section 8 of the sign ordinance prohibits off -premises signs for any purpose. As you know, the sign ordinance does not contain any variance or waiver provisions, and the proposed Midas sign does not fall within any of the exceptions set forth in Section 13 of the ordinance. 2. Is there any way that the sign can be considered on -premises, either by a narrow connecting strip of property or by a perpetual easement retained by the Midas lot within the corridor that is to become a city street? Again, we must answer this question in the negative. If the Midas lot were created in such a way as to include a narrow connecting strip or "rat tail" to Williston Road, it would still be impossible to erect a sign within the strip under Section 8(a) of the sign ordinance. Unfortunately, the integrity of the City's sign ordinance must be weighted South Burlington Planning Commission February 11, 1980 Page 2. against the interest of The Partners. The narrow strip would constitute a reserve strip which in essence would give the, owners" total control of access onto a city street. This. has very serious legal implications as well as planning implications. The precedential value of permitting such an arrangement must also be considered by you. This situation has been raised on at least two previous occasions, and we were: also stymied in finding a solution in those cases. 3. If the sign is erected while the land is still private, can the City allow the sign to remain when it accepts the access road as a public street? The City could not allow the sign to remain within the public street right-of-way. Even if the street were to remain private, we feel it is extremely weak to consider a private street as part of the Midas premises. 4. if the Commission allows the access road to remain private until a connecting link is provided (i.e. to the Munson property in the rear), can the Commission stipulate that all improvements to City standards are installed and all dedica- tions for future City acceptance are provided now? Even if it is not anticipated that the street will be Accepted as a public street in the immediate future, it is our opinion that you may require the developer to construct the street in accordance with City standards. The applicant can also be required to furnish an offer of dedication and warranty deed at this time. 5. If the Commission allows the access road to remain private for a period of 20 years (the length of the Midas lease), is it possible and/or advisable for the City to obtain some sort of guaranteed access for the public without public maintenance responsibilities during that period? It is legally possible for the City to secure an easement for access on a public street and not assume the maintenance responsibilities. I wish we could accommodate the Midas people, but there are some very strong public considerations you should not lose sight of. The first is the. integrity of the sign ordance. If this situation is not adequately addressed in the ordinance, the council South Burlington Planning Commission February 11, 1980 Page 3 should be encouraged to consider an amendment to the ordinance. Secondly, I don't think you should alter your policies concerning public streets to accommodate a sign. The policies certainly promote the interests of the City and the public, and these interests may be jeopardized by permitting the street to remain private for an extended length of time. Thirdly, the facade sign on the Midas building is clearly visible from Williston Road, and it is a matter of public knowledge that our sign ordinance does not permit off -premises signs. I must again emphasize that if this situation needs a remedy, it should be done by legislative decision of the council. Very,truly yous, Richar es RAS:mil cc: William Szymanski City Manager 3. PLANNING COMMISSION JANUA_RY 8. 1980 Mr. Woolery moved to continue the public hearing to one week from tonight. January 15, at 7:30 pm at City Hall. Mr. Jacob seconded the motion. I,:r. Poger said he would vote no because he felt no major changes had been proposed tonight and he did not want to further delay the process. Mr. Walsh disagreed, feeling that the Commission should resolve the issues discussed so they could send the Council the best possible document. Yr. Vona agreed 'with Mr. roger and said he felt that if a citizen could take the time to write comments on the law, he could have taken time to submit them before this meeting., The motion carried, with Nessrs. Ewing, Poger and Mona voting no. Request from the Partners for reconsideration of previous stipulation that drivewav serving I-:idas lot and future development on backland be upgraded to a city street The sign ordinance will not allow Midasto erect their sign on Williston Road as they had planned to do, since that would be "off premise". Once the road in front of the Iidas lot becomes public, as the City has stipulated it must if a new office building is to be constructed, the sign on iilliston Road would become illegal and have to be removed. The Brassards did not objectly deeding the road to the City at the time, but they were never told the sign would have to come down if they did so. Xx. Dave Brassard told the Commission that the only reason Kidas aprroved the location for the building so far back from the road was because there would be a sign on the highway. Since one stipulation for further development of the backland is the upgrading of the road, they will not be able to develop that land for the duration of the Ididas lease (20 years) unless the stipulation is changed. If the land is subdivided, the access becomes a city street and the sign must come down. Since the sign cannot come down, the land cannot be subdivided for 20 years. He said that if they had known of this potential problem, they would have objected to the stipulation regarding the street. The question was raised that, if the sign is erected now and the street later becomes public, is the sign grandfathered and the answer is no. Mr. Alike Brassard asked whether the street could remain private and the City be given the right to use it. He was told the City preferred to have public streets so they could be sure they were serviced and maintained properly. Asked about a multiple .sign with Midas on it, Mr. Dave Brassard said it was not in Midas' best interests their position on the sign. He noted that the City wanted to have the access road. to downgrade Mr. Jacob suggested asking the City Attorney to solve the problem. He moved that the question of the City -Brassard -Midas sign problem be given to the City Attorney in such manner that he be asked to provide a workable solution in the City's and the Brassards' mutual interests as soon as possible with the urging of the Planning Commission. Mr. Ewing seconded the motion. Mr. Brassard hoped the City Attorney was aware that it was in the City's interests to have a future road in that location. The motion carried unanimously. Continuation of site plan review of parkin- lot expansion for A!cDonald's at 1225 Williston Road i*x. Ronald Schmucker said that Xr. Alling was the owner of the property on xi,ich both IrcDonald's and the Citgo station stood. fie said that the area McDonald's intended to improve was not 1,art of the leased area of Citgo. It is a strip of land that has been reserved by Xr. Alling and Champlain Oil has no interest in it. It is not now used for any purpose. The area involved is 96C0 sq. ft. in size. Xr. Schmucker said that certain questions had been raised at the last meeting. M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: David Spitz, City Planner Re: Next Week's Agenda Items Date: January 4, 1980 3) "The Partners" received preliminary approval last June°for a new office building with the first stipulation stating that the access road (in front of Midas) become a city street. Since that time the applicants have found that they will not be able to put their Midas sign on Williston Road as they had hoped to do. The sign would be in the public right-of-way ("off premise") which is not allowed under the sign ordinance, and the sign ordinance does not provide for any variances. The applicants claim that they did not forsee and that no one from the City warned them that the sign on Williston Road would become illegal once the street became public. The lease with Midas, including the sign agreement, was entered into after the stipulations of the Planning Commission were imposed. Options which have been explored with the applicant, unsuccess- fully so far, include the following: (1) Retain a narrow strip from the Midas lot to Williston Road (this is not legal) and (2) As part of expected land swap between "The Partners" and Mr. Pomerleau, arrange for a directory of signs including the Midas one on Pomerleau's land on Williston Road. 4) McDonalds Parking and drainage problems have memos). To this point I have received conforming lot" problem as pointed out letter dated November 9, 1979. been resolved (see attached no resolution of the "non - by Attorney Spokes in his January 2,1980 South Burlington Planning Commission 1175 Williston Rd. South Burlington, VT 05401 Re: The Partners Preliminary Plat Approval Gentlemen; A problem has arisen regarding the location of the Midas sign within the 60' right of way that the planning commission stipulates be upgraded to a city street upon development of the backland of the Midas lot. Contrac- tural lease committments with Midas International Inc. require that the free standing Midas sign remain within this right of way for the duration of the lease(20 years). The Partners request reconsideration of stipulation #1 requiring that the Midas drive be upgraded to a city street and `i; 3.at consideration be given to some method of keeping the Midas drive private. Sincerely, The Partners CC June 29, 1979 Mr. Rowland Peterson 1340 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05401 Re: The Partners application Dear Rowland: This is to formally confirm the action of the South Burlington Planning Commission in approving your preliminary plat application. A copy of the approved plan, and the stipulations of approval are enclosed. Your next step in p6rsuing this project is to apply to the City Council for conditional use approval under interim zoning. I strongly recommend that you revise your plan to conform to the conditions of preliminary plat approval and that you.site your proposed building and necessary parking accordingly, on the plan as you submit for Council's review. The review of traffic impact before Council should center around the level of service for the north and south approaches to the intersection of Williston Road and Hinesburg Road. It is your responsibility to evaluate the improvements necessary to bring these intersection approaches up to acceptable levels of service. As I have indicated to you before, I see no difficulty in the City retaining Bruce Houghton to perform this task, at your expense. Final approval of your project by the Planning Commission will hinge on assurances that the improvements necessary to attain a "C" level of service will be in place prior to occupancy of your proposed office building. When you have secured conditioaaluse approval from the Council, the Planning Commission can review your final plat and site plan simultaneously. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly, Stephen Page, Planner SP/mcg M E M O R A N D U M To: The South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: The Partners Subdivision Date: 6/5/79 1) It would be my preference to have a larger radii road 150' to 200' . (OP-. coAKAV� _ " C>e) 2) Road right-of-way should be concentric with road. This will facilitate the installation of utilities and future sidewalk. 3) The drainageway in the south-east corner must be cleaned and dredged. 4) Sewer force -main should be behind curbs at least 3 feet. 5) An easement of 8 feet must be provided for water main main- tenance. 6) Street drainage system must be provided. 7) Road width shall be 30 feet. MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Stephen Page, Planner Re: Next Meeting's Agenda Items Date: June 1, 1979 #2 Conceptual Highway Plan I have asked Bruce Houghton to prepare a 1 page synopsis of his proposal by next Tuesday's meeting. As you may know, virtually every road or road improvement in this plan has appeared at various times in the City's Transportation plans, with the exception of the north - south corridor concept. I think it is imperative that there be an early meeting of the minds between Council and Planning, before the Commission concentrates on more detailed recommendations. For Tuesday, I propose that the Commission take a position on the overall plan and set a date to meet with Council as soon as possible. #3 The Partners The two remaining issues are: a) providing access to the rear, and b) traffic impact on Williston Road and the constraints imposed by the prior subdivision approval. I will be meeting with the applicants on Monday morning to review alternative proposals for access to the lands of South Burlington Realty - apparently the "S" configuration which we have been working with causes some conflicts with lot layout for the existing Midas Muffler facility. As you may recall, any subdivision after the Midas proposal was predicated on a certain level of congestion ("C" or better) for all approaches to the two nearest signallized intersections (Route 2 & Dorset, Routes 24,1116). Early data from Bruce Houghton's traffic study indicate that only the Patchen Road and Route 116 approaches ("D & E" levels respectively) exceed the previously imposed limits. However, new information will be made available Tuesday, based on counts taken after the opening of University Mall, which will likely affect congestion levels at Dorset Street & Williston Road. Based on discussion with Bruce Houghton, it appears that the con- gestion at Williston Road and Patchen Road can be resolved by a relatively modest investment to the existing traffic control equipment (at the developer's expense). If the new data shows there is "excessive" congestion at Dorset and Williston, we have a real problem, because there is nothing more, in terms of signal equipment or roadway geometry„tto improve capa- city. If this is the case, there are 3 alternativee:l wJ4JCW rcae r cx = 1) deny the application 2) modify the condition of the previous approval by accepting a higher level of congestion (such as "D"). 3) consult with or defer to the City Council, which must review this project under interim zoning, before taking final action. City of South Burlington WATER DEPARTMENT -- 400DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 VERMONT'S NJNTH AND TEL. 864-4361 FASTEST GROWING CITY May 22, 1979 Mr. Stephen Page, Planner City of South Burlington City Hall South Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Brassard Bros. Automotive, Property Division - Plan dated April 10, 1979 Dear Mr. Page: I have reviewed the referenced preliminary plan as regards proposed water supply for the 2.6 acre lot #3. The proposed 8 inch water service, with hydrant will give adequate supply and fire protection to the property. The South Burlington Water Department approves this pre- liminary plan and will require submittal of construction drawings for review prior to construction of the water system. Very truly yours, SOUTH BURLINGTON WATER DEPT. - Edward Blak Manager sp cc: R. Gardner M E M O R A N D U M To: South 3urlington Planning Commission From: Stephen Page, Planner Re: Next Meeting's Agenda Items Date: 5/18/79 #2 The Partners Subdivision Considerable time has been spent in evaluating alternatives for providing access to the rear of this property. I suggest an "S" shaped extension of the right of way to the School Department property; this is based on soil suitability, keeping parking on the same side of the street as the planned building, the most economical configuration for the building, provision of access to the School Department property the need for a buffer for the apartments to the southeast and consuming ahreasonable"portion of the rear lot for the right of way extension. I will be appearing before the School Boa re this coming Wednesday (5/23) to formally present this plan for them to act on. Utilities have been verbally okayed by Champlain Water, the Fire Chief, and the City Engineer. These matters should be con- firmed in writing and shown as appropriate on the plan. The issue of traffic impact must still be assessed - Bruce Houghton will present his preliminary findings at the next Commission meeting (5/29) - At some point after that, we can expect his evaluation of this proposal. M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Stephen Page, Planner Re: Next Meeting's Agenda Items Date: May 4, 1979 #2 Meadowood South I have conferred with Dick Spokes on the access question; he has recommended clearing this up at the outset, and that the Commission not proceed towards a preliminary approval conditioned on the resolution of the road situation. I would add that the sewer and water lines to be extended to the new project, presently lie within the private street rights of way at Meadowood at Spear; consequently,they too are a part of the street issue. The other items left open for discussion at the last meeting were: drainage (see comments from City Engineer), pedestrian trail location (apparently no meeting has taken place yet), and parkland dedication or rquivalent fee - the site obligation works out to about 2/3 of an acre (equivalent fee would be about $900). My recommendation is to acquire the land in this situation. I will be consulting with Bruce O'Neil on this prior to the meeting. In summary, I strongly urge you to resolve the street and utility situation up front; I reiterate my very firm recommendation that public streets and utilities be required for this proposal - to do otherwise invites continued disputes with this and other developers, as well as home- owners, over utility extensions, school bussing, road maintainence, and other municipal services. #3 The Partners Subdivision A site inspection will be held 4:00 P.M. Monday, May 7, at the rear of the Grand Union building. A response from the School Board, on access across their property, is still pending. As far as traffic is concerned, Bruce Houghton has indicated he would prefer to present oN his preliminary findin s to the Commission and get their input be- fore making comments on this specific proposal. Bill Szymanski's d comments on drainage are attached. #4 Revised Preliminary Plat, Phase II of Stonehedge The phase II plan you last saw showed 109 multifamily units in seven clusters: this has been revised by dropping the number of units to 94, situated in six multifamily clusters and one cluster of 10 single family lots. The utilities and roadway serving the single family cluster should be built to City standards, and owned and maintained by the City. Memorandum (Bill) May 4, 1979 P� artner Will ston Road 1. The drainage way must be cleaned and dredged. 2. Sanitary sewage may have to be pumped. 2. IL PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 24, 1979 plow those streets because snow would be pushed into the carports. Mr. Mona expressed concern about the right angle turns in the roadway for phase 2 and the loss of visibility that might cause. He was told the loop (triangular) road would be a 1-way street. Mr. Judge said the units all had two bedrooms but that some were larger than others. One block of buildings will have 16 units in it and there is 30, between buildings. The site is very tight and the developers have twice had to reduce the number of units they Can put on the land. Mr. Judge was asked to find an area for a parking area for recreational vehicles. Mr. Page said the area was heavily wooded and that many of the trees were being retained. He felt the bulk of the landscaping would be shrubs around the buildings and said that in phase 1 the city gave them credit for saving existing trees. Xr. Page felt that �i10,000 would be enough to provide the necessary landscaping. The curb cut on Kennedy Drive now used for construction purposes will become an emergency access only. .V1r. Sprayregen felt that access could be chained in another 30 days when the inside work has been completed. The Commission felt it would give them 60 days to close it and make that a stipulation. Mr. Woolery moved to continue the public hearing and review of site layout for Treetops Condominiums until next week, May 1 at 7:30 pm at City Hall_. Mr. Jacob seconded the motion and all were in favor. Continue publichearing o n to the rear The Commission did not hear this application at the last meeting because the applicant was not ready. Mr. Page said the total amount of land was 3 112 acres behind Al's French Fries. When subdivision and site plan review was conducted, for the construction of a Midas Muffler shop, a number of conditions were attached to access, focusing mainly on having the minimum possible curb cuts. There has been a land swap between the Brassard brothers and Mr. Pomerleau, which is to the benefit of both. This has been worked out but is not yet in place. Mr. Page said one issue of subdivision approval would be the level of congestion at the two nearest intersections - Dorset and Williston Road and Hinesburg and Williston Roads. Mr. Page said he had traffic information indicating that the Dorset -Williston intersection was all right but that there were two approaches at the Hinesburg -Williston intersection which did not meet the standard set. He said he would talk to the city's traffic engineer about his recommendations for that intersection. Further development is predicated on the applicant's satisfying those congestion standards, Mr. Page said. Mr. Page also said a primary issue for subdivision approval is the extension of the 60' right of way, which should be built to city standards. There has been a lot of discussion about how to extend that road to the backland, called the "Superblock" area. Mr. Page said he planned to talk to the school department about a possible location of that road going over school property. Utility plans will have to be submitted. ?.r. Page said there was a large wet area on the land and there was a CO (conservation and open space) zone connected to that on the land. He said that would be important in determining where a building could be constructed and suggested the stream be pinpointed. Mr. Schuele suggested the Commission walk that area. The land swap will not give Mr. Pomerleau enough land for another lot but will allow an extension of the Grand Union building. Mr. Page said the city street was important because it would serve the land- locked parcel behind Midas, could serve the old Racine property, and eventually would provide access for Al's. As development of this parcel proceeds, access will be oriented more from the new street than from�*Williston Road. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 24, 1979 Mr. Brassard said there would be an office building built on the backland eventually. Mr. Page said the applicants would have to go to the Council under Interim Zoning on this application for preliminary approval and then come back to the Commission for final approval, at which time the Commission would look at building location. Mr. Page said he would try to have everything ready for another hearing in two weeks but was not sure that could be done. He has to talk to the school board and the traffic engineer. If two weeks is too soon, there will have to be another two week continuation at that time. Mr. Woolery moved to continue the -�)ublic hearing of the Partners Subdivision until two weeks from tonight on May 8 at City Hall at 7:30 pm. Mr. Levesque seconded the motion and it passed without dissent. A site visit to look at drainage was set for Monday May 7 at 4:00 pm and the members will meet behind the Grand Union building. The City Engineer will be asked for input on the situation and the Natural Resources Committee will be asked to come along. Mr. Page will call to remind the members of the visit. Public hearing on Ireland's Meadowood at Spear South, preliminary plat Mr. Mona asked the current status of the access road from Spear Street to this proposed development. Mr. Page said the Planning Commission had reviewed that road last December and felt at that time that the private road had not worked out well and that those streets should be public. They therefore wrote up the appropriate motion and passed it. That decision is now under appeal and the motion has not been complied with because of the appeal, leaving the road private. Mr. Mona felt that any discussion he might have on the new development would be on the condition that the street is public, as it has been approved to date. He felt that if the appeal were upheld, he would want to re -review the proposal in a new light. Ns. Ewing said they could withhold approval until they found out if the roads were going to be public or private and said that the street would not be public until the city was given the deed for it anyway. He said the way to determine whether a street was public or private was by the action of a deed, not acourt, and the Commission agreed. Mr. Poger recommended that the Commission look at Meadowood at Spear South preliminary plat now and that when they come in for final plat approval, it not be approved until the deed as approved is given to the city. Mr. Mona moved that the discussion concerning Meadowood at Spear South be within the context that Pheasant Way is a public street as approved by the Planning Commission on Fehritary a lg7q and that should Pheasant Wav not be public, that we re -review the Meadowood at Spear South proposal in light of that new information. Mr. Ewing seconded the motion. Mr. Page said the Commission was modifying what was proposed, not reviewing it. He said private streets were proposed, not public and wondered if the Commission should review the proposal as presented. Mr. Poger said the Commission could make any approval conditional on Pheasant Way being a public street and that if it were not a public street, that approval would lapse and the hearing process would have to begin again. Construction on Meadowood South could not begin until the courts had decided about the road and, if - it was to be public, the deed had been given to the city. Mr. Page felt the plan itself was pretty good but that it was almost ludicrous to start a review with a major issue like access unresolved. He felt the Commission should review the plan as submitted c`: not at all, but that it 4. PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 24, 1979 should not modify the proposal. Mr. Ireland was asked if he understood the motion on the floor and he replied that he did not. Mr. Poger said the Commission had decided earlier to make Pheasant Way public and that is how they will review the new proposal. Mr. Ireland asked that they review it with Pheasant Way being private. Mr. Poger said the Commission has decided to have it public and that if the court declares that they do not have the power to do that, then they will have to re -review this new proposal in light of questions about access. Mr. Draper moved to have a 5 minute recess and Mr. Mona seconded the motion. It failed with Messrs. Draper, Ewing and Jacob voting yes. Mr. Poger said he was not sure conditional approvals were good and Mr. Woolery agreed with the concept of the motion but wanted to look at the proposal on its own merits and not make conditions about it before it was reviewed. The motion failed with Messrs. Ewing, Draper and Fiona voting yes, Messrs. Woolery, Levesque, and Jacob voting no, and Mr. Poger abstaining. Mr. Poger then declared a 10 minute recess. Mr. Tyler Hart said the proposal was for 40 single family residential lots. There will be 6 large lots on the east and 34 smaller lots on the west side of the property with a large open area in between. All the roads will be built to city standards with a 60' right of way, 30' pavement width, curbs, sidewalks, sewer, water, and storm drainage. He showed the Commission how the drainage water would flow and where sewage would go. Water lines will be looped and provisions made for future extensions of them. A pedestrian easement has been provided and the open space parkland may be made accessible to pedestrian traffic, Mr. Hart said. He also said there would be some subsurface drainage along some of the lots. There is enough capacity in the Bartlett Bay treatment plant for the sewage from this development. The City Engineer will check both sewer and drainage in the area. The pedestrian easement will be on the line separating commercial land from residential land, which is a natural division by topography. Mr. Ireland is willing to give the city a piece of land 1.7 acres in size. Mr. Bill Meyers, of the Trails Committee, said that the pedestrian easement came up at the last meeting and that he and Mr. Ireland were to get together and talk about it. The Committee proposed a trail along the east and west boundaries and an east - west link also along the bottom of the land, which proposal Mr. Ireland did not like. They have been unable to get together so far but Mr. Meyers hoped to be able to do so soon and reach an agreement. As far as the parkland to be given to the city, Mr. Page said that the 1.7 acres was more than Mr. Ireland's pro -rated share under the city formula, and that if that land could be added to what the city might expect from development of the Irish land next to this land, it would make an adequate size park site. It was also mentioned that Mr. Ireland might prefer to pay a fee and Mr. Page was asked to compute what a fee would be. The common open space in the middle of the land in question will be for the sole use of these 40 lot owners, and Mr. Ireland said a poll taken of the present residents of Meadowood at Spear wanted it that way. he said the land to be offered to the city for a park was dry in the summer although it was pretty wet at this time of year. Mr. Hart said he had put in all the setback lines and that a home could be fit on every one of the lots shown, although some would have to be smaller than others. Mr. Woolery mentioned that all the drainage from this land would end up in one place eventually and he wondered if that would cause an erosion problem. Mr. Page felt the banks in the area were pretty stable. Mr. Hart said that in the area with the 6 lots, the soil was clay, in `the open space it was a P O M E R LEAU REAL ESTATE CO. COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT • SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT April 23, 1979 City of South Burlington South Burlington Vermont To Whom It May Concern: Re: Brassard Property & Pomerleau (formerly Rene Racine property). This is to advise you that we, Brassard and Pomerleau have verbally agreed on land boundaries, as per plans that the Brassard Brothers furnished to us. The Brassards have also agreed to give us a right-of-way on the proposed 60 foot street to allow our customers and delivery trucks to and from our parking lot as per plans submitted. We are now proceeding to have our lawyers draft up an agreement. I see no problem whatsoever. Very truly you/!�, 'l rltonio B. f�omerleau President ABP/n1b 184 SO. WINOOSKI AVENUE. BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401 TEL. 802/863-2841 MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Stephen Page Re: Morgan property access - Summary of conversation with traffic consultant Bob Shaw, Wilbur Smith & Associates, (4/10/78) Date: April 11, 1978 1) DORSET-HINESBURG CONNECTOR - this is a good concept which will provide some badly needed relief for Williston Road in this vicinity. Adequate right of way for 4 lanes is suggested. 2) NORTH -SOUTH CONNECTOR_ i HINESBURG CONNECTOR- also a good concept that will -aid local circulation. The option of making this a city street should be reserved. 3) SERVICE ACCESS - when and if the main access point is signallized, the service access could give customers of abutting properties the benefit of signal controls to make the difficult left turn exit movement, heading in a westerly direction. 4) WILLISTON ROAD TREATMENT - an interim proposal would consist of road widening sufficient to provide a center stacking lane, demarcated by "rumble strips, to provide unrestricted left turns (between I-189 and Hinesburg Road). A more advanced solution would consist of a partial barrier median, interrupted for signals with service roads or for jughandles, to provide limited left turn access. 5) WHITE STREET & WILLISTON ROAD - several alternatives are suggested: making White Street intersect at a right angle as shown, making White Street one way westerly, and/or prohibiting left turns from Williston Road onto White Street and shifting this movement to the Route 2 & Route 116 intersection, resulting in a counter clockwise flow around the Patchen-White-Route 2 triangle. 6) LOCATION OF ACCESS POINT TO MORGAN PROPERTY- realignment, or other changes to White Street are desirable possibilities. With these in mind as an eventual goal, the access point should hug the east property line. The angle of intersection being less than 90'/ is insignificant; further, a roadway alignment that does not parallel the property line would result in the creation of small, or odd - shaped lots; in addition, a road alignment paralleling the property line sets up future access for the Racine property. Conflicting left turns between White Street and this access point onto Williston Road are eliminated. One awkward movement that is possible is traffic exiting Morgan to turn onto White Street.. The easterly curb cut location, as shown, is the best access point as it is compatible with the relocation of the end of White Street. In addition, there is adequate distance to the Route 2 & Route 116 intersection, to make this access a viable signallized intersection. 1Gc'f� �ile+� Still z 4 2 PLANKING CGJ24ISSION AlaRIL 11, 1y78 The South Burlington Planning -Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, April 11, 1978 at 7:30_pm in the Confere3�ce Room, City Hall, 1175 Williston Road Members Present. William Wessel, Chairman; Sidney Poger, David Morency, George Bona, Kirk :r'oolery, Ernest Levesque (late) Member Absent James Ewing Others Present Stephen Page, Planner; Bill Brown, Ron Bouchard, Sid Levitsky, A;ery Brown, Del Carpenter, Lucille and Rene Racine, Rowland Peterson, Edward Smith, G. L. Neal, Ron Schmucker, Dave and Alike Brassard, Edward Black, Jerry Olson, Donald Moser, George Killen, Robert Crouchley, Carl Lisman, Terry Boyle, Richard Segal, Peter Judge Yinutes of April 4, 1978 It was moved by Mr. Po€er ans seconded by Mr. Morency to accept the ninutes of April 4, 1978 as circulated. The motion passed with 'Mr. Woolery abstaining. Continue public hearing on Lreliminary plat application for:2 lot subdivision of Horgan property, Williston Road, Yessrs. Schmucker and Brassard Mr. Page showed the Commission a copy of a letter sent to Robert Shaw, a traffic engineer, concerning access to this property, and he gave them a summery of a phone call he had received from Mr. Shaw. He said that the Dorset St - Hinesburg Road connector was a good concept which would help alleviate congestion and he felt it should be about 4 travel lanes in width. In addition, Mr. Shaw felt a north -south connector or right of way which ran parallel to and abutted the east line of the Yorgan property and then went southwest to connect to a Dorset St. - Hinesburg Road connector would be good particularly if the intersection with Williston Road could be signallized. Yx. Page said he mentioned the possibility of a service access parallelling Williston Road and Mr. Shaw felt it would be beneficial to abutting properties. He said this was only a potential thing, though. Mr. Shaw felt Williston Road might be improved by expanding the pavement width to 60' to provide for a center stacking lane with rumble strips (steel or concrete forms which would be mountable but the driver would know they were there). This would allow.- unlimited left turns from the center lane and in the future non -mountable barriers could be put up with breeks'for left turns. Suggestions made by Mr. Shaw Were that Yhite St. be relocated to come to a right angle with Williston Road and/or that left turns be prohibited into White St. or that it be made 1-way in a westerly direction. M.r. Page also said yr. Shaw felt the access to the Yorgan property was in the best place for it because 1) it hugs the property line and would provide access for the Racine property, 2) the fact that it does not make a right angle with Williston Road is not significant, 3) the left turns will not conflict between those turning into this land and these turning into .'kite St, and 4) the distance between the / ) 2. PLANNING COMISSION APRIL 11, 1978 access and Hinesburg Road great enough to signallize the access if the city wanted. -to. Mr. Poger aid the access could make a right angle with Williston Road and then curve and hug the property line. 14r. Page said Ys. Shaw had felt the only awkward movement would be people coming left out of the property and then turning right into White St. Xr. Morency felt the signal at Hinesburg Road would give them time to do that. Kr. Schmucker said that the Subdivision Regulations require an angle of 800 on a street with public use, but he said this was a private right of way and he asked that the Commission not consider the 800 angle when two traffic engineers have said it is insignificant. He said the road could be altered later. Yr. Poger asked if it would be a hardship to make it a right angle with Williston Road and 34;r. Schmucker said it would. Mr. Mona felt there should be a large turning radius on the east side of the access where it exits to the road. Mr. Schmucker said they would have Bruce Houghton lay out the approach. MIr. foolery asked if the building could be expanded and Mr. Schmucker said they would artificially reimpose the line that existed when this was a three -lot subdivision if the Commission wanted, to insure that they could not expand a lot. Mr. Poger moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Morency seconded the motion, which passed with all in favor. Yr. Levesque cane in. Mr. Woolery moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the preliminary plat application for a 2 lot subdivision of the Morgan property, drawn by i✓ACG, rev. 3 12 78, subject to the following stipulations: 1) The provisions in the "Agreed Statement of Facts", ;J1 - 10, shall apply, and be shown on the final plat, as appropriate. 2) Final utilities review shall be performed by the City %E gineer. 3) The following required sidewalks, street signs, outdoor is are waived: streets, curbs 4) Further development of lot 2 is predicated on level of service "C" conditions during peak pm. roadway hour for all approaches to the Williston Road - Dorset St. intersection and the Hinesburg Road -_Williston Toad - Patchen Road intersection, and upgrading of the access drive to a city street. 5) The site plan shall be amended to show a larger curb radius on the easterly s de of the access road. e motion was seconded by rrr.. Morency, and passed unanimously. Continue public hearing on preliminary plat application of the Glenwood Corporation, Yr. Terrance Boyle Mr. Boyle described the plan and Mr. Page said that he had given out information to the residents of Laurel Hill. Kr. Wessel said that xr. Szymanski reviewed the sewer situation and does not think the situation has changed significantly since the Paulsen'report was written. Approval is contingent on ti;e developer bonding for sewer improve=ents. Kr. Fage said the sewer line was inadequate to serve the entire 200 units proposed but it could handle a portion of the first p's.ase of the project. lhe developer has agreed that City Hall can check the flow below the level that is expected to fill the pipes to mate sure that the engineering estimates match what is actually in the field. He said the existing lines could handle some additional Memorandum April 6, 1979 Page 2 1. front, rear, and sideyard setbacks for the single family lots should be specified. 2. substantial screening or alternate locations should be provided for the cluster of units as well as the boat/trailer storage area, which are located 10-20 feet from the easternmost edge of the project. 3. the new drive onto Dorset Street should afford access to both abutting properties. 4. lot lines, when finally plotted, should be sufficient to allow a 60' ROW for the internal loop road; this ROW should be ex- tended northward, between lots 8 & 9 as a multi purpose corridor (sewer, water, pedestrian, possible street extension). #7 The Partners Subdivision The plan is incomplete at this time. I suggest tabling this matter until the plans are sufficiently improved to warrant your review. M E M 0 R A N D U M To: Rowland Peterson From: Steve Page Re: The Partners subdivision application Date: 3/29/79 The following should be done prior to the Commission's review of your plan on April 10: 1. Have plan redrawn to show location of Midas building and parking layout, and new lot line; also, lots should be numbered (Al's - #1, Midas - #2, Partners-#3) with acreage shown. 2. Water main extension should be reviewed with Ed Blake of Champlain Water District and Jim Goddette, and shown as appropriate on plan. 3. Storm drainage, sewer main extension, and street details should be reviewed with Bill Szymanski and shown as appropriate on plan. 4. Front, side, and rLar "yards",plus stream setback should be shown on plan to aid you in planning your proposed building. 5. The Patchen Road and Route 116 approaches to the Williston Road intersection are at "D" and "E" levels of service respectively. This conflicts with conditions of the previous subdivision approval. I have no objection to the City's retaining Bruce Houghton, at your expense, to evaluate this situation and suggest solutions. 6. I feel quite strongly about the retention of a 60' right of way to the rear property line in a sensible location. Also, I feel the configuration of the proposed building and parking area should be dictated by general circulation considerations, rather then the other way around. I would suggest you show what you feel is acceptable to you and we'll present our argument5to the Commission on April 10. 7 -r4s �nGf. r S�TVdTlt11•( ui/ WOinet LaAv E?,-e A,,'::,, Ae � ?04�0sr,EU-rz.. ) "gyp -VtAA-r -RAe*J W (L -- /�. i.)C' a C-t T-,f �,79Ge T To T4e IF7AC4<- T \vt)L-�- P T c� va t . To Tlt E c''f�two T FO IZ- 4 on+ �/,fit-•C- I o c� M E M O R A N D U M To: Rowland Peterson From: Steve Page Re: The Partners subdivision application Date: 3/29/79 The following should be done prior to the Commission's review of your plan on April 10: 1. Have plan redrawn to show location of Midas building and parking layout, and new lot line; also, lots should be numbered (Al's - #1, Midas - #2, Partners-#3) with acreage shown. 2. Water main extension should be reviewed with Ed Blake of Champlain Water District and Jim Goddette, and shown as appropriate on plan. 3. Storm drainage, sewer main extension, and street details should be reviewed with Bill Szymanski and shown as appropriate on plan. 4. Front, side, and rear "yards" plus stream setback should be shown on plan to aid you in planning your proposed building. 5. The Patchen Road and Route 116 approaches to the Williston Road intersection are at "D" and "E" levels of service respectively. This conflicts with conditions of the previous subdivision approval. I have no objection to the City's retaining Bruce Houghton, at your expense, to evaluate this situation and suggest solutions. 6. I feel quite strongly about the retention of a 60' right of way to the rear property line in a sensible location. Also, I feel the configuration of the proposed building and parking area should be dictated by general circulation considerations, rather then the other way around. I would suggest you show what you feel is acceptable to you and we'll present our argument�to the Commission on April 10. %. "TN-E1A �o4��r L iout.b �Pt%1UL'T a vat Qom. To -T t FOIL eori+ T1kF---- V \\ r A i U-i 1�-G-5U t� 412c u►� �. -#-E dF3l.� S//�A(-[- . rr ADMINISTRATIVE CHECKLISj PROJECT NAME/FILE REFERENCE Partners Corporation 1'. LETTER OF NOT I F ICAT ION & APPROVAL MOTION OR FINDINGS & ORDER 2. BONDING OR ESCROW AGREEMENTS LANDSCAPING SEWER WATER STORM DRAINAGE ROADS CURBS SIDEWALKS (NOTE ALL RELEASES OR AGREEMENT REVISIONS) 3. LIST APPROVALS GRANTED, WITH DATES, AND PERMITS GRANTER & SITE INSPECTIONS COMPLETED, ETC.: 4. UTILITY EASEMENTS *, BILLS OF SALE RECORDED ACCEPTED 5. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE x 6. ROADWAYS DEEDS FOR CITY STREETS ACCEPTED PRIVATE ROAD & WAIVER AGREEMENT x 7. FINAL PLAT OR RECORD COPY - STAMPED # SIGNED, & FILED OR RECORDED 8. PEDESTRIAN EASEMENTS ACCEPTED & RECORDED FILED 9. MISCELLANE)OUS AGREEMENTS LAND FOR ROAD WIDENING OFFER OF IRREVOCABLE DEDICATION FUTURE ACCESS POINTS SHARED ACCESS POINTS OTHER 10. COPY OF SURVEY TO ASSESSOR (IF CHANGE IN PROPERTY LINES) 11. FEES-CPAID/DATE H EAR ING BUILDING PERMIT ENGINEERING INSP. SEWER RECREATION (RECORD CALCULATIONS AND DEPOSIT IN ACCOUNT) 12. IMPACT FOLLOW UP i.e., "ON LINE" EVALUATION: SCHOOL KIDS CAR COUNTS MEMORANtLUP•+ TO: SOUTI) BURLINGTON PT,ANNING COMMISSION FROM: GEI�Ej. .7VE Mo0RCA1N, DAVID and MICHA.EL BRASSATM, and BRUCE HOUGHTON, Traffic Engineer DATE: 2°ARL'h 21, 1978 SUBDIVISION APPLIMION, YDRGAN PROPER CY, SOUTHERLY SIDE OF WILLISTON ROAD AGREED STATEX21T OF FACTS The undersigaaa6 Nish by this Memorandum to place bnfore the South Burlington Planning Commission an agreed upon Statement of Facts which have beer arrived at to date through negotiations '.etween themselves and <_-''Orough -,!or', sessions with Mr. Steve Page and Mr. Dick WRrd. 1~ '. Brassard presently have purchase options on the nr..rr ench Frys on the gout eriy d,'_e of Lillistor. Road anti on the property of J. R. Racine which aejoins the Al's French Prys property to the east. In addition, David and Michael Brassard have an option to buy all of the property owned by renevieve `1org;an situated southerly of the Al's Trench "rys property. These properties are shown tio:e clr:a::•iy on Subdivision applicatio . --r cuxents which hive been presented i.o the Sout_b 3urlington Planning Comisaion. 2 The Brassards and Genevieve Noma.; The vpose a taro lot subd'.vision with; (a) The property now occupied by : "I ° s French Frys a d as shown o ; the survey submitted with the Subdlvis i r iplication as the first lot, aru) (b) The Pi ;dos lot and all of the remaining; 'Acr�-.:n property as shown o,. tl:e aforesaid survey compriFing the second lot. 3. Said subdivision .•ill be served by a 60 foot r ghL of way with a 22 foot paved travel way as ohown on the aforesaid Survey. Said riyrht of wny will be used by the rirassards, their heirs and assig %s, and by '•enevieve 1�iorgan, her heirs and assigns. 4. The Brassard brothers agree that in the event they exercise their option ozi. the Racine property and become owners thereof, that the Racine curb _59tx now ingr on Williston Roan w Ill be closed and access will be limited to the aforebnent.iotied 60 foot right of way. 5. 'n the event, however, the Brassard brothers do not become the owners of tl:e Racine property, the7 will nevertheless by contractual document sati.sfactOILy io the City of South Burlington permit its Planning Commlarion i7l, VV L ,Yr. � C'/ to impose ingress and egress to and from the Racine property by and through the 60 foot right of way previously mentioned. 6. Furthermore, Genevieve Morgan agrees that at such tir:e as the travel way shown within the 60 foot right of way is constructed and the Midas Muffler Shop as shown on the plans presented to the South Burlington Planning; Commission is constructed, the easterly most curb cut serving Al's French Frys which now exists will be c osed. 7. Genevieve Morgan further agrees that at such time as all of the remainder of her property is fully developed (that portion of the Morg na property not part of the Midas Muffler Development) then the middle curb cut as it now QkbsTS serving Al's French Frys will close. This agreement is not intended to impede and will not impede the Planning Commission in the performance of its functions under site plan review to deal with the Al's French Frys property in the event that that property is in issue before Oiem through site plan review or some future use. 8. Genevieve Morgan further agrees curb cut now serving Al's French Frys is next above paragraph, then the most weste Frys will be converted for right -turn -in that at such time that the middle closed under the provisions of the rly curb cut now serving Al's French traffic 9. Genevieve Ptorgar.. and the Brssgards agree that the common boundary line between the Al's French Frys property and the proposed 91das property will be straighitenesi so that the irregular lip of land shown on plans previously submitted will be eliminated. 10. The 3rassard brothers further agree that .approval of the subdivision application proposed for use by them as a Midas Muffler Shop will be limited for use as a Midas Muffler Shop. This will not impede, however, the Brassard brothers in the future from coming before the South Burlington Planning Commission to seek a .further subdivision of the Morgan property as was their desire when this subdivision was a three -lot subdivision in its initial subdivision presentation to the South Burlington Planning Commission. 11. Mr. Houghton, Traffic Engineer, states that he }-gas taker. additional information o-Ter and above t..a information gathered by Mr. Richard Ward and shown on Mr. Ward's Memo of March 1, 1978, and is on that basis able to confirm Mr. Ward's findings that the Midas Muffler Shop is a low traffic generator w�trips distributed throughout its hours of operation with some minor peaking in the a.m. and p.m. Mr. Houghton estimates the a.m., peak hour trips to be 77 trips entering and 9 trips exiting, and esti.matee the p.m. peak hour trips to be 9 trips entering and 27 trips exiting. 12. Mr. Houghton further states that the intended use of the Morgan property as a location for a Midas Muffler Shop is a use which generates far less traffic than any use now permitted under business retail for which the area is zoned. -2- 13. Mr. Houghton further states that he was in communication with the Vermont Department of Highways and the contractor (Lafayette -Sheldon, Inc.) from whom he determined that construction of the UQv_eineants to the Dorset Str pt-Williston Road intersection will begin on April 24, 1978 and will be completed by July 1. 197$.,, —" 14. Mr. Houghton further states that based upon his previous involve- ment in the design of the Williston_ Road -Dorset Street improvements, his current intersection capacity analysis using., trips generated by the Midas Muffler Shop indicates a possible 0.5-1.0 percent increase in level of capacity for the Williston Road northwest approach and a possible 1.5-3.9 percent increase in level of capacity for the Wil.listor. Road southeast approach. This projected increase in level of capacitywill be available after completion o t e Wi Liston Road -Dorset Street intersection improvements. 15. Mr. Houghton further states that an intersection capacity analysis of the Williston Road -Hinesburg Road-Patchen Road intersection using estimated. trips to be generated by the Midas Muffler Shop during peak periods indicates a 1.5-3.0 percent increase in level of capacity for the Williston Road northwest approach and a 0.5-1.0 percent increase in level of capacity for the Williston Road southeast approach. This projected increase in level of capacity will still allow the Wlilliston Poad aprroaches to operatelL within acceptable limits. 16. Mr. Houghton further states that the potential for creating., a signalized intersection with Williston Road, the 60 foot Midas access roadway so-called, and a possible realignment of White Street would improve traffic conditions on :Iilliston road by developin,a the movement o vehicles in p__goons.' Platooninz of vehicles creates larger tire space gaps iT1 the flow of traffic. Gcnevieve Morgan Bruce Houghton, Traffic Engineer C 1C vidi Brassard 4 fc eel Brasr`d n1�� �M + lY'IWl.1 'IR..� . s,o- ,r _ •�k.m r•,aiau Memorandum" ;l , wJO�v r 3/9/79 Page 2 _ #5 Brassard Subdivision The attached map shows the 4.1 acre site, from which the Al's French Fries lot wait se*- off last summer. The current proposal is to divide the backland into a .8 acre lot for the Midas Muffler building (site work has been started) and a 3.3 acre lot. Any use of this 3 acre lot is subject to interim zoning. Based on the stipulations of the Planning Commission's subdivision approval, the Zoning Board's use variance for Midas, and a preliminary review of this proposal, these are the primary issues: 1) adequate level of service for two nearest signallized intersections. 2) extension of City street and sewer & water mains to the new -lot. 3) lot sizing to insure the Midas lot meets minimum zoning requirements and also allows some room for expansion. 4) a coordinated circulation plan for abutting properties. 5) minimal conflicts between residential and commercial zoning at rear of property. �Q--�-�-loN /M,P- �t�Bp►vlS��, cam_ T NoS�T� W��O&tp 6 eu _ g 5. PLANNING COMMISSION JULT 25, 1978 Public hearing on final plat application of Brassard brothers for a 2 lot commercial subdivision of the Morgan property, 1251 Williston Road, and site plan of Midas Muffler Mr. Page said that the Zoning Board had granted a variance to Midas for a shop•. on the rear lot of.thie land-and.imposed several stipulations, some relating to curb cuts. As a result there will -be two curb cuts. for Al's Fre•nch^Fries - one on Williston Road and one. on the. new access road. fir. Page told the Commission -what other stipulations had been placed on the application. He said.. they had asked for a waiver of 92,000 worth of land- scaping for credit for existing vegetation and suggested this be granted provided the -Tree, Committee. agreed. Mr. Pager was concerned about what would happen if this road eventually was connected to all the Munson property in the back but he did not think it would happen for many years and Mr. Brassard said that any development behind Midas would have to have subdivision approval from the Commission and major issues could be addressed at. .that -time... . Mr. George Alling. said -he; was a, neighbor to.�he. vest and was against the proposal because. he, did not think. it tool-• into, consideration the: value of the land behind Midas and,. because he did not feel Ahere-should be•another access to Williston Road, where- there. were already too many.- He said there had been two accidents at the corner of Williston Road, and White St. -in 1975, three in.1976iand 7;last year, so they were proliferating. He did not want to see -anything. done with: the, land until there was a comprehensive plan for the backland. Mr. Pager told him the city and the landowner were working on such a plan. He also said that the number of curb cuts in the immediate area was being. reduced by this plan. Mr. Ray Unsworth said he was a property owner to the south and he owned Ulage Green Apartments. One of the amenities of the apartments was that they were located in the quiet of woods and he was interested in the effect this proposal would have -on the life of the tenants in the buildings. Mr. Pager told him this proposal would not **feet the apartments but recommended he talk to the Planner. about the tentative de►elopment.plans for the backland. Mr. Woolery moved. that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve (a) - the final plat application of David and Michael Brassard-forptwo-lot subdivision of the Morgan property and b accompanying site plan for Kidas Muffler as depicted on 2 plans, (a)"Midas Muffler. .Transit Survey". ed 7 2 8 drawn by John A. Marsh and b "Site P1an...Midas Muffler A dated 7 20 78 drawn by MACG. Inc.. subiect to the following stimulations: 1. A landscaping bond of $4500 shall be posted; -the amount of credit allowed, -up to a maximum of $2,000, for existing vegetation, shall.be as - determined by the Tree Committee-af%er construction is.completed. 2. Access -to the -lots (which shall be numbered on the plan to be recorded) is -correctly -shown on the final plat and is further governed.by the stipulation made to- the Zonine•Board and P1annlnx Commission, dated respectively... 3. The -stipulations of preliminary plat approval remain in full force. 4. Bonds for closing of old curb cuts and installation of new cuts shall be as determined by the City Rngineer._ •, f 6 Bl PLANNING COMMISSION JULZ 25, 1973 5. Site plan approval expires 6-months- from this date. 6. The agreement for providing access to the Racine property shall be approved by.the:City Attorney prior to the issuanoe of a building permit. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mona. Mr.- Page.read the preliminary plat stipulations. The question of curbing on the new access road was discussed and. -the Brassards told the Commission that curbing would define both sides of the cut for Al's on the new access road. The motioa_passed unanimously. Sketch plan review - 1 lot subdivision of the Chittenden pro erty crest of Hinesburg Road _ Mr- Page said this subdivision was located deep in the recesses of the Southeast Quadrant and was a 10 acre lot.. It is a minor subdivision and the sole issue is access to the road. He said that the preliminary indication from the State was that with some brush clearing there will be adequate sight distance. There are also plans to straighten the curve in the area and those plans have been held up but the State expects to go through with them later. He also said that he understood the State was planning to improve the intersection with Cheesefactory Road, so there will be fairly high speed traffic in the areal. Mr. Page said he wanted confirmation of adequate sight distance and told the C6mmission that the Chittenden family owned a lot of land in the area and could set off another 10 acre parcel without this one's access problems. The right of way to the land is pre-existing. Mrs. Nadeau said that her father was Mr. Chittenden and the reason they did not want to set aside another lot somewhere else was because the land behind them is being farmed now. Review Zoning Board agenda Mr. Page said that at the Council meeting the night before Mr. Flaherty had objected to the developer (in this case Treetops) getting approval as best he could and then coming in later to the Zoning Board for variances. Mr. Yoolery felt that even though this plan looked better than the previous one, people in the city did not like piecemeal approaches to things. The Commission decided not to do anything formally but they did feel that they would not oppose the appeal. Mr. Poger noted that he wanted to discuss another Zoning Board appeal which had not been on the agenda and that was the Emerson appeal for the brown building on the triangle of land between White St. and Williston Road. He said that he opposed in general the placing of parking spaces for the building across White.St. so that people have to cross that heavily travelled road, which he felt might pose a serious hazard for pedestrians. Xr. Jacob added that it was hard enough to go up White St. in the winter watching for cars without having to watch out for a lot of pedestrians also. There was general agreement on the point. The Commission felt Mr. Poger should send a letter to the Zoning Board expressing their feelings and should have a copy sent to the City Council. Discussion of meeting with City Council and setting of next agenda Mr. Poger said the Council was going to meet Thursday night to t �a�L-�,-✓.r.-w.`. kw� � �iti. GCu"""od°..0 `�dQ- �c�az¢ (-&vu,�,� -: o !N uh.TL s16t-� � VP `m "G" LVL� - A� -:tt rc a A-►P d ckj f Z2 41, �o Ft TRAVEL INFORMATION COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE Rule No. 13. On -Premise Signs a. Characteristics of an On -Premise Sign 1) A sign, display, or device will be considered to be an on -premise sign if it meets the following requirements: u. (a) Premises - the sign must be located on the same premises as the activity or property advertised. (b) Pu` rpos - the sign must have as its purpose (1) the identification of the activity, or its products or services or (2) the sale or lease of the property on which the sign is located, rather than the purpose of general advertising. b. Premises Test For the purposes of these Rules, the following criter{a shall be used for determining whether a sign, display, or device is located on the same premises as the activity or property advertised. 1) The premises shall be that part of the owner's or occupant's real property to which the public is invited and on which the business, profession, commodity, service or entertainment to which an on -premise sign directs attention, is carried on, sold or offered. 2) An on -premise sign shall not be located more than 1500 feet from a main entrance from that highway to the activity or premises advertised. The 1500 foot distance shall be measured along the center line of the highway or highways between the sign and a main entrance. 3) A main entrance shall be a principal, private roadway or driveway which leads from a public highway to the activity or premises advertised. 4) An on -premise sign advertising the sale of real estate by the owner or his agent shall not have an area of more than 6 square feet, including panel and frame. 5) The following will not be considered to be a part of the premises on which the activity is conducted, and any signs located on such land will be considered "off -premise" advertising: (a) Any land which is not used as an integral part of the principal activity. This would include, but is not limited to, land which is separated from the activity by a roadway, highway, or other obstruction, and not used by the activity, and extensive undeveloped highway frontage contiguous to the land actually used by a commercial facility, even though it might be under the same ownership. (b) Any land which is used for, or devoted to, a separate purpose unrelated to the advertised activity. For example, land adjacent to or adjoining a service station but devoted to raisin; of crons, residence or farmstead uses or other commercial or industrial uses having no relationship to the service station activity would not be a part of the premises of the service station, even though tinder the same ownership. (c) Anv land which is 1) at some distance from the principal activity, and 2) in closer proximity to the highway than the principal activity, and 3) developed or used only in the area of the sign site, or between the sign site and the principal activity, and 4) occupied solely by structures or uses which are only incidental to the principal activity, and which serve no reasonable or integrated purpose related to the activity other than to attempt to aualify the land for signing purposes. Generally, these will be h inexpensive facilities, such as picnic, playground, or camping areas, dog kennels, golf -driving ranges, skeet ranges, common or private roadways or easements, walking paths, fences, and sign maintenance sheds. 6) Narrow Strips ldhere the sign site is located at or neat the end of a narrow strip contiguous to the advertised activity, the sign site shall not he considered part of the premises on which the activity being advertised is conducted. A narrow strip shall include any configuration of land which is such that it cannot be put to any reasonable use re- lated to the activity other than for signing purposes. In no event shall a sign site be considered part of the premises on which the advertised activity is conducted if it is located upon a narrow strip of land: (a) which is nonhuildable land, such as swampland, marshland, or other wetland, or (b) which is a common o; private roadway, or (c) held by easement or other lesser interest than the oremises where the advertised activity is located. c. Purposes Test For the purposes of these Rules, the following shall be used for determining whether a sign, display or device, has as its purpose .1) the identification of the activity located on the premises or its products or services, or 2) the sale )r lease of the property on which the sign is located, rather than the business of outdoor advert 1.si.ng. 1) General (a) Any sign which consists solely of the name of the establishment is an on -premise sign. (b) A sign which identifies the establishment's principal or accessory products or services offered on the premises is an on -premise sign. An example c•f an accessory product would be a brand of tires offered for Cale at a servi._ station. 2) Business of Outdoor Advertising (a) kThen a sien (1) brings rental income to the property owner, (2) consists principally of brand name or trade name advertising, and (3) the product or servic advertised is onlv incldent:al to the principal. activity, it shall be consid_red tl business of outdoor advertising and not an an -premise sign. An example would be a typical. billboard located at a service station advertising a brand of cigarett,as c chewing; gum which is incidentally sold in a vending machine on the. property. (h) A sign which advertises activities conducted on the premises, but which also advertises, in a prominent manner, activities not conducted on the premises, is n( an on -premise sign. An example would be a sign advertising a motel or restaurant not located on the premises with a notation or attachment stating "Skeet Range he, or "Dog Kennels here." The on -premise activity would only be the skeet range or the dog. kennels. 3) Sale or Lease Signs A sale or lease sien which also advertises and unrelated to the business of selling or located is not an on -premise sign. any product or service not located upo; leasing the land on which the sign is (2) ISM IAA 5TC44 Cc) s G C. $ FATS M Ma Ufa) 1-, t:t (,E r State of Vermont w �r LAND USE PERMIT CASE No. PB-4-0417 LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED APPLICANT Brassard Automotive Services ) Vermont State Board of Health ADDRESS 699 Pine Street ) Regulations, Chapter 5, Sanitary Burlington, Vermont 05401 ) Engineering, Subchapter 1, Public Buildings and Subchapter 15, Plumbing This project, consisting of the construction of a Midas Muffler Shop, lo- cated at 1261 Williston Road in South Burlington, Vermont, is hereby approved under the requirements of the regulations named above, subject to the following conditions: (1) The project must be completed as shown on the plans prepared by MACG, Incorporated, and which have been stamped "Approved" by the Division of Protection. No alteration of these plans shall be allowed except where written application has been made t o the Agency of Environmental Con- servation and approval obtained. (2) A copy of the approved plans and the Land Use Permit shall remain on the project during all phases of construction and, upon request, shall be made available for inspection by State or Local Personnel. (3) This project is approved for municipal water supply and sewage treatment through the facilities of the City of South Burlington. (4) All sewer and water lines are to be constructed in accordance with the ten state standards. The trenches are to be filled with a granular back fill material as indicated on page HV.P2 of the approved set of plans. (5) A minimum vertical separation distance of 18" shall be provided between the water line and sewer line at the point of cross -over. In addition, the sewer line shall be centered under/over the water line so that the pipe joints are equidistant from the point of cross -over. (6) The water lines shall be disinfected prior to use. FOR THE DIVISION -OF PROTECTION EB/lsw Eric Blatt, Asst. Regional Engineer Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont this 30th day of July, 1979. cc: Division of Protection Planning Commission MACG, Incorporated Tw_ Ptzh UdA4,t) -Z,� 4) L� Ae,44 44,046 ) AA-� PRESENT REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL BOARD MAY 230 1979 �!IDDLE SCHOOL 7:30 P.M. David Miller, David Gravelle, Marilyn Meyer, Dennis Snyder, Sarah Albee, Stephen Newton, Lawrence LeCours, John Lucas and eleven (11) guests As this was the organizational meeting of the South Burlington School Board, Assistant Superintendent LeCours called the meeting to order at 7:37 P.M. and asked for nominations for the position of Chairperson of the South Burlington School Board for the 1979-80 year. Mr. Gravelle nominated Mr. David Miller and the nomination was seconded by Ms. Meyer. Ms. Meyer moved that nominations be closed and it was seconded by Mr. Snyder. The motion to close nominations was approved unanimously. Mr. LeCours then called for a vote on the nomination of Mr. Miller to serve as Chairperson of the South Burlington School Board for the ensuing year The vote for Mr. Miller was unanimous and Mr. r9iller was declared Chair- person of the Board. Mr. Miller assumed the Chair and called for nominations for the position of Clerk of the Board. Mr. Gravelle nominated Mrs. Luginbuhl and it was seconded by Mr. Snyder. Ms. Meyer moved that nominations be closed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gravelle and approved unanimously. Mr. Miller called for a vote on the nomination of Mrs. Luginbuhl to serve as Clerk of the Board for the 1979-80 year. The vote was unanimous for Mrs. Lugin- buhl and she was declared Clerk by Mr. Miller. COMMENTS & Chairperson Miller asked if there were comments or questions from the QUESTIONS FROM public not related to the agenda. Ms. Meyer stated that she was concerned THE PUBLIC that WCAX had chosen to preempt a scheduled health education program on Channel 3 on Monday evening the 21st of May for the E.T.V. Auction. She stated that the health education program was an excellent one and she felt it was most unfortunate that the manager of the station had chosen to entar into this fora of censorship. She asked if it would be possible to have the Board take action. 9"ressing its dismay over the action taken by WCAX in this matter. Mr. ;Miller asked Ms. Meyer if she would object to bringing up the matter under other business. Ms. Meyer agreed to Mr. Miller's request. CONSIDER Mr. Stephen Page of the City Planning Office was present to review the REQUEST TO request to reserve a right-of-way across the northeast corner of the RESERVE RIGHT- Central School property. Mr. LeCours stated that Mr. "age, Mr. Lucas, OF -WAY ACROSS Mr. Marcotte and he had inspected the specific area in question. The NORTHEAST property is in a remote corner of the school lot and as it would con - CORNER OF tribute to the long range plan to gain a rear access to the Central CENTRAL SCHOOL School parking lot and as the City of South Burlington still hopes to PROPERTY - straighten out White Street so a signaled entrance could be mac',. upon STEPHEN PAGE '"'illiston Road, Mr. LeCours su�-c,Teste:' that the rbquost.made by Mr. Page could be in the School District's interest. He went on to explain that he would request the Board withhold action until the Department of Education gives an opinion on the site size of Central as it relates to minimum standards. !.r. Gravelle asked if it would be possible to ask the developer to place a fence between the proposed street and school property. Mr. Page felt this could be entered as a factor in the agreement. Mr. Page also added that he had examined the other school sites in South Burlington and that this situation does not exist at any other site. (Mr. Page's request is included with rationale.) The discussion was closed with the understanding that it appears the School District would have no objection to the request. However, formal action would be taken at the next meeting, upon receipt of the opinion from the Department of Education. PRESENTATION Foreign Language Department Chairperson Timothy Kahn introduced each mem- OF FOREIGN bey of the staff. Mr. Kahn stated that he had been invited to testify LANGUAGE before President Carter's Commission on Foreign Languages. He stated that PROGRAM - South Burlington continues to have an exceptionally high number of stu- MR. KAHN dents enrolled in foreign languages. He went nn to show a slide presen- tation which includes pictures of classrooms in South Burlington which is being shown across the country. !,lith the assistance of Mr. Lockhart, a video-tape presentation was made which demonstrated the method of in- struction used in South Burlington for-ign language; classrooms. The method has been exceptionally successful in getting students to a level of flu- ency in the languages taught. Members of the staff_ addressed different aspects of the presentation. Mr. Millar asked about prerequisites identi- fied in the Syllabus which had been distributed to the Board. t.Rr. Robert Schermer, a member of the Foreign Languag. Department staff, addressed the Board and gave a fine presentation on the extensive ex- changa program that exists between South Burlington, France and Germany. Mr. Gravelle stated that his son had brenefited greatly from this ex- perience. Mr. Kahn said that every effort is made to make scholarships available so all students who wish to participate may do so. Mr. Kahn addressed the question of competencies and correlated the activ- ities occurring in foreign languarz classrooms with the Vermont Basic Competencies. The Board members -xpressed their thanks to the entire department for the fine presentation. P1r. Kahn closed by saying that the next level of work is to establish performance objectives for each level within each course in foreign languages. CONSIDER Mr. LeCours presented the general application under Section 436 as APPLICATION FOR amended by Section 1231 of P.L. 95-561. Mr. LeCours stated that the form FEDERAL FUNDS was in order and that approval of the general application is required FOR ASSISTANCE - before grant awards may be issued for any program to which Section 436 MR. LECOURS may apply. Mr. LeCours recommended that the Chairperson be authorized to sign the docurw�nt which includes assurances that Federal laws will be followed when Federal funds are accepted. Mr. Gravelle moved and Ms. Meyer seconded the motion that Chairperson Miller be authorized to sign -2- Ad, 6A�a/��� oil REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL BOARD JUNE 13, 1979 MIDDLE SCHOOL 8:00 P.M. PRESENT David Miller, Viola Luginbuhl, David Gravelle, Marilyn Meyer, Dennis Snyder, Frederick Tuttle, Lawrence LeCours, John Lucas and ten (10) guests COMMENTS & Mr. Miller called the meeting to order at 8:02 P.M. and asked if there QUESTIONS FROM were comments or questions from the public not related to the agenda. THE PUBLIC There were none. As Mr. Craig Spafford had not arrived to discuss his proposed 30 unit housing project, this item was postponed until later in the evening. CONSIDER A Assistant Superintendent LeCours recommended that the Board of School REQUEST TO Directors approve the request to reserve an easement across the south - RESERVE A east corner of the Central School property as identified in City Planner RIGHT-OF-WAY Page's request to the Board dated May 22, 1979. ACROSS THE CORNER OF Mrs. Luginbuhl moved and Mr. Gravelle seconded the motion that the Board CENTRAL SCHOOL of School Directors approve the request to reserve an easement across the PROPERTY - southeast corner of the Central School property as identified in City MR. LECOURS Planner Page's memorandum to the Board dated May 22, 1979 because it will contribute to the South Burlington School Board's long expressed desire to gain a rear access to the Central School site and as the proposed easement is -in a remote corner- of the school -property and as the Depart- ment of Education has stated that it will not violate minimum site size standards, it is deemed that this action is in the best interest of the school district. This motion is made with the following qualifications: a) That the School District will have the opportunity to visit the area and approve of the precise location of the easement after it is staked out. This will occur before legal documentation is prepared. b) That an appropriate fence will be constructed, at other than school expense, between the street and the school property. c) That South Burlington Realty or owner at the time of construction of the street guarantee availability of rear access to Central School if the School District still desires this access at the time of construction. d) That the City of South Burlington's liability and other related insurance will cover the easement as it does for any other street. e) That the School District enter an agreement with the City of South Burlington to effect the foregoing and that the School District Attorney approve said agree- ment as to form. There being no further discussion the motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Miller reminded those present that should the City of South Burling- ton not initiate action regarding the above approved action during the tenure of the present Board, a future Board could decide to reexamine the issue. CONSIDER IMPACT Mr. Craig Spafford arrived to present a proposal to the Board relating ON SCHOOL to a 30 unit Housing Project which involves the two street extension of DISTRICT OF A Oakwood and Brookwood. He described the homes as moderate price housing PROPOSED 30 ranging in the $50,000 category. The homes would be in the two to three UNIT HOUSING bedroom size. The project is on a 10.3 acre plot and completion is an - PROJECT -- ticipated by late 1980. The Board and Mr. Tuttle asked Mr. Spafford a MR. CRAIG number of questions relating to the project. The Board agreed it would SPAFFORD examine the proposal in the context of whether it will place an undue burden upon the municipality to provide educational services and respond at a future meeting. 1979-1980 Dr. Stone presented the 1979-1980 Title I Grant for review and approval. TITLE I GRANT - She highlighted the various aspects of the plan and stated that the DR. STONE Advisory Ccmmittee required for this grant continues to be a difficult aspect of the law to implement in an effective manrior. The members of the Board asked Dr. Stone a number of questions. There being no further discussion Mrs. Luginbuhl moved and Mr. Gravelle seconded the motion to approve the Title I Grant proposal for 1979-1980 as prepared by Dr. Stone. It was approved unanimously. CONSIDER LETTER School District Nurse Betty Hooper reviewed the new law requiring all TO PARENTS new entries in Vermont schools to be immunized. Mrs. Hooper asked the OUTLINING Board to broaden the requirement in South Burlington to include all PROPOSAL OF students currently in attendance as well as new entries. Ms. Meyer agreed SCHOOL DISTRICT this was a good suggestion. Mr. Miller asked what evidence of immunization RE: PUPIL would be required for entry or continued attendance in the South Burling - IMMUNIZATION - ton Schools if the Board should choose to broaden the requirement to MRS. HOOPER include all students. Mr. Pell of the Health Department was present and he DR. STONE responded by saying that regular state forms could be used. After further discussion there appeared to be concern that the draft of the letter to be sent to parents, if the Board approved, would require that all students go back to their family physicians for adequate evidence of immunization. Nurse Hooper went on to say that students in the system are not as well immunized as one might think and she urged a more rigid requirement to ensure that all students were covered. She cited the measles clinic hosted by the School District a couple of years ago when more than 800 students were immunized, as an indicator of her concern. Mr. Gravelle urged that clinics be held at regular intervals in the district's schools to be sure that no student would be without protection. Mr. Miller closed the discussion by saying that he felt the Board had no problem with the recomended concept being proposed by Nurse Hooper but that he felt there was a need to rewrite the letter so that it did not suggest a clean sweep was necessary which would drive everyone back to their family physicians. Ms. Meyer stated that she felt there was a need to train personnel in the schools in dealing with basic health problems. She cited her own situation -2- SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 FREDERICK H. TUTTLE Superintendent LAWRENCE E. LECOURS Assistant Superintendent Mr. Stephen Page City Planner City of South Burlington South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Page: OFFICE: SOUTH BURLINGTON HIGH SCHOOL 550 Dorset Street June 21, 1979 The South Burlington Board of School Directors adopted the following motion at their regular meeting of June 13, 1979. Mrs. Luginbuhl moved and Mr. Gravelle seconded the motion: "That the Board of School Directors approve the request to reserve an easement across the southeast corner of the Central School property as identified in City Planner Page's memorandum to the Board dated May 22, 1979 because it will contribute to the South Burlington School Board's long expressed desire to gain a rear access to the Central School site and as the proposed easement is in a remote corner of the school property and as the Department of Edu- cation has stated that it will not violate minimum site size standards, it is deemed that this action is in the best in- terest of the school district. This motion is made with the following qualifications: a) That the School District will have the opportunity to visit the area and approve of the precise loca- tion of the easement after it is staked out. This will occur before legal documentation is prepared. b) That an appropriate fence will be constructed, at other than school expense, between the street and the school property. c) That South Burlington Realty or owner at the time of construction of the street guarantees availability of rear access to Central School if the School Dis- trict still desires this access at the time of con- struction. Mr. Stephen Page .Tune 21, 1979 Page two d) That the City of South Burlington's liability and other related insurance will cover the ease- ment as it does for any other city street. e) That the School District enter an agreement with the City of South Burlington to effect the fore- going and that the South Burlington School District Attorney approve said agreement as to form." There being no further discussion the motion was approved unanimously. I would remind you that should the City of South Burlington not initiate action regarding the above during the tenure of the present Board, a future Board could decide to reexamine the issue. Please call if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, �r�..M. Lawrence E. LeCours Assistant Superintendent LEL:cl cc: Mr. Frederick II. Tuttle M EMO NNDUM To: South Burlington School Board From: Stephen Page, Planner 15V Re: Access Across Central School Property Date: 5/22/79 -_The Planning Commission is currently reviewing a proposal for a 1 lot commercial subdivision lying directly to the east of the Central School property. One of the most important a, principles of subdivision review is the assurance of a complete, sizes 'V A0,+ '� orderly, and continuous street system. In this case, the issue &ter ap GF `1M 0-00'1 is choosing a route for a future city street, through the -R-h= CXTIT. subject property, to "backland" owned by others. To properly evaluate the alternative locations for such a route, the Com- mission would like to know if the Board would find acceptable a route which crosses the extreme southeast corner of the Central School property. The attached location map shows the Central School propert,7 in relation to the proposed commercial lot, a new city street, and a schematic layout for the street's extension. This appears to be the most suitable location at present, because: a) the soils get progresively poorer, and there is an environmentally sensitive area on the east side of the proposed lot, b) there is residential zoning and development on the easterly side, and c) confining the road extension entirely to the proposed lot consumes about 25% of the lot, which is not acceptable to the developer, and may not be justified from a legal standpoint. The following factors should also be considered: 1) the road in question will be a low speed city street, to be extended at the developer's (South Burlington Realty) expense. 2) about 1/3 of an acre of School Department land would be consumed in the roadway right of way; utility extensions (sewer, water) would be possible in this right of way. 3) access, and thus value, of the School Department's lands would be enhanced, although this is the most remote portion of the Central School property. 4) the extension of this roadway will probably not occur for 4-5 years, based on the lack of sewer capacity in the area for further substantive development. 5) the cooperation of South Burlington Realty will be helpful in providing direct access to the rear of the Central School Building itself, when a subdivision plan is submitted. (a)Nvt' LIB 'S` - M VAZ—P k 04 0TV4—;'_9_. e)4 IJT- Wo ;d - 11 406 IF C. 1nTU . 5I BI-::F9 X 4V N to l 'sp, M UA K61 TW-- CX`T- �� • ., ► �� i ♦ • I MwpI J �I • ido c z T EZ&tVj 1= ct���10� AT 'eO�Vlduf� car.Af�4 �-STi� QP.A�t-1QG� t-i�� t�lh P�t�t.l-Dt�.{L► Bt�t-ECG l �OF�?t�� . oblcwBoD R+.� P `!✓ALV�;, -iw-_ 2 0-) -: Gl K- a/ !zt A+4 &4eE93D UfVP �V��Dtti-t�•c ��V �L.,C� . 41V Z5 4"v 7.D I pay i vo� cv -mcA --to pv-y I!motNt Kw__ Ud 'V 2 �Lv�j> a & pow Dc " Af--- P44P-TI4005 4�-OW:P Mr-40�-4 C-;ei?V LcE i::O g- P-T- Z b l i-1 ®tom ,�;CV aOOL. VGPT —rW— Pam' t� 4�0VA:;, bVVr-4ok4 /. LC--- , tGeF i2TE- Z Lek T10t 46 OT-- eou!Gfi VJ iZtt 3 . �-PeQeP- � V&TEta- 'co Act F-5c— 4,c� G� 5 lrh 440000 / .koQ lamt 000)g AI --4 G Cs~ — 0 ' (2 le"o -- Q -Y b'SS of Y7, CH . cw_.- / 46 Z-7-79 NOLIOAV /NN EXIT NO,O7Y AST APj,=',pCACH TOTAL A PP/ROAC" ��bC NOUR vcv-um& : Y/G /eAT/O: . / 98 tEVGrl O� .St�� r r G)qT_r-: /-/T-79 CAPACI zs3 b 4 : 30 A W&-LISTON 120AD SOU7-PE,45r AFPROAC14 - ,<TR.4/G"7- 77-1lPOUGH AND f yr,"r 7ulav LANES f�K "GUR' yOx1/r7cs : o .s its= 9B / V/c RA7-70. % LET To4r,)V Z-AIVE / FED NOU�C YGY u/`t� • / -9 V HY /6 9 V/c IPAno : ,763 LEVE[- OF.SEC'YKE: C poly / TOTA L- .4 dp CH I/V PEAK "OUR vcxlfME: e04 VP.44 G4AsrJTY' io93 V/c KAPO! .606 Z eVE1- OF S£,CViCG DDRSET ST/PEE T ,� S4iUTti WF_ST A�ROA�-I i S7-R,q/Gh/T Ti1/Rr7UG" AND LEG7- 7Z/A/ LA/vE � I -,�• /so V,Cw CsAW-1 ry .4-EAk /wDUR Vo [.EVE1 0FS45 ev/[E: A v/L RA 70 r ,S LEl=T % UFi1/ LSE .yss- Fr-4K : HCC�J� /cEt A V� kA770:4/7 RiGH T TURN L-An/ E �r a/c "C?Ulr vcl- M ' /00 VPN U Ty 7-07-,4L 14 OACH q�c /./ou > vo�tu�E 4H ✓PH �pp*C 897 ,Ci4Ti0t .sLJ L�vCd- G1-.5E4-V/CE A DATE . 1-17- 79 .t t k—,/ I / {k---. / / ! 4:30 PI%i ) - ♦ 1'l Y/ 5"• 30 /2CA 0 4PPROACH 2064 -7H AND W LA/VES VPN CAP.4Ury - 9Z.4 .tVEt"OF.SACAVICe B rV GAAIE VPH CA-- �ry : /69 LEVEL oF%_SEeVK.t: C Z0/4 CA-1 VP" CAPAC/ry • /�93 c---V4C oF, 4CV'cc B M7Er I-17-79 EE T ROACt-/ aN AND A/VE Cf ock*-- oFStRv/CE: A LANE .APV%urY : 33� .OFSEI1/KE: A �-4/V E cq,- J r v 301 pF,SE�v/CC ' A AC.H C,4PloGirY• -997 Z 0F,.5 44VI E A / - / 7- 79 WILL /S TON 20A D /VD/:Z,7W lES7- APYPAIOACH TOTAL APPROACH FLAK HpuR VAL(JME : 730 VoH CA/-YIUTY /049 v/� Rario: 6 q6 �EI/E4 cX -rAC, Y/GE B GwTE i /-u-79 PA7-CY /E-N l�A0 AP,ch'ON C H TOTAL _ F-�AK HOUR VczUryE- 0i9 YFav CAI:' U7"Y • zoo ",E /PATIO : . 7SZ 4CVC4 O�- .SE�PViG~ : O Q4TFr: /-//-79 r � W/L L lS TON i'C/-AU TOTAL Af P/" C'L Cf PCAt HO✓,? V47--u`70 661 VPH VIC RA no S97 cFv�� of sERv/ct . SOUTH A�RJACf-/ ti TOTAL Ai='P/-?OACII , PCA,t HOUR VOLc.PlC : 3// V lq/ G4PACi7"Y : 3'S� V/c RAnO 9A� LEVGc Or sE�v�Ci E i ROAO rPOC, 7H AND ,W Z—ANES VPN GaAoc ry 9Z4 CLVEL� OF SEQY/C6 � B �V LAAIE VI9Y CAI=44 rV /69 LEVEL C ZoAGH/ VA4/ 64P)V /rY /093 4,--VEt aF SA5e VI Ce I d agr)rr /-/7-79 t,T iF EE T RUAC�-/ 5" AND AIV G40C C/Ty . ZSI oFSF.�ev/cE: A LAA/E :APAury : ! A/V E GvFi•1C/T'f -TOP ►AC14 Cj4PACI?'Y= S97 L GF..�,CwcE A / - / 7- 79 0 WILL /STOM 1?OAD /VO/277AWE.57- AFY::>/GaOACH TUTAt— APPROAC14 Fi��iC HOrc//? v"laLt/M�E : 730 VOH CA/�G7y : /a#9 . 6 Q6 t-Evec cvc sEicv/CZ 3 B GgRiE l /—//-79 PATCHE'IV /FAO Atc>,�DRON c H TOTAL APPi?O/aC/� _ f AK HOUR V(XUME= 0/9 VFW / C:vAaG/T)' ZSo v,E RATIO.- .7$Z LCYEL /—//-79 r WIL L IS TO/V RC, A f 5Ou77I4C'.�ST ..�•-`• TOTAL PEAk HOUR VCt&Ao^ E 664 VPH CN.'laGjY: ///1 •' �� v/c RA770' .S97 4-F or —Rv/cc < SOUTH AP)L--;'ROACH i TOTAL A/"PRL'AO-1 :�--i4t HOUR VO[.c./`iE : 3// V IC7" CAA4G/ TY VA RA7-10 ' W 44-404 01 SERVICE LATE-: /-//- 79 330 E pu e9 /6 9 C �>93 a 0 W/LL /S TON /�10/1 D /VOR7-PWES7L1Pi-->f aOACH TOTAL APPROACH l A,C Hpcdl VU'L!/M.E : 730 VPH CA/-4C/7"y : /0~9 V14, jrWrio: . 6 S'6 /1-- Wr4 G1� SERVIC<' i B LwVTE 1 /-u-79 PA7-04EN /SAD TDiA1-- AF�hi�c:�:'1CH _ Fr,M< HOUR VtXth-,I: • 2/9 t c � GuI�+G/n Zzo v#e RATIO A g4TF : / - //- 79 W/Lt l� 7�lV A�;0 TOTAL PEAK Fro✓R Vvu.v'Ir 6G9 VPH CA,'r4C/7y. ///I V/G RAT70 ' S97 LFYlt �7F�SE!?v/Cc" D/+'P t- i:-7ni r TOTAL Ar�10h'L'/1 C/-/ �-�' �— FEAL NJUK' VCLc./vE : 3// Va I C Jol, c 7-Y -;. ✓�C RATiO ' .`}� LE✓,�L Or SF/cv/Ci. 79 , , rz'A70 :04CIt✓ / 96 �. FJE�/GB � A i Z-7 NOuOAY INN EXIT / VORTI-1EAS7 AG�ROACH / TOTAL APPIRVACH pm-f HOUR VQLc/ME: SO VPN CR C u3 V/G / 1,9 770 : .195 LEVEL Or ,St �Ir [.k •' A / 4Wr-�: /-/7-79 1 - CAPIACI 4 30 W/LUSTON ROAD 5CX)TNEAST AF�i�AIJ-/ STR.4 /Gl /T 77 / UGH ANo ' R/GNT 7umv LANES PcAX "OUR YGjc[1rycS : SSS VPH CArW ry : 92A /v/c. RA770! bo/ c�vEL C4F, vitE B / ! T 7,(//a'1/ L,4n/E ! �iAt, NoU,C Yal//` = /Z9 V,191Y CA.44".0" /69 ,763 LC -TOTAL gF�q,r HOUR VcYLME 684 yAC,gfa0""-79 OOR,SET S- I E- T SO4UTH l,✓�ST AF�RC7AC/�1 ,q/GNT TN/Q�7[JGN AND LEF7T 7Z/AW LAME /so v�.v Cam' n' �E.4k lapUR VOLX4'.iE' „S3r L.EvEI oFSe"ic.E. A ,LEI=7- 7-U/Fi1/ LANE' Q V,&- R>AT70: .4/7 4,Fy--4 0FSElL"vKE1 A ' • RlokJ T TURN "ti E )r--noK "OUR VoL-uME, /so VAY C-r-) c Ty �+ �l 1 v/c RA770- S v LLveL Q L� ao 7-07-41- APPROACH AvoLu/_)E . 4H VI?H C,4r-O UT V : S97 ,rATi O t . SL! L� vG L GF .SEA//CE A DATE .• / - / 7- 79 4CH. OFJE�/� A -z-7-79 14000A`1 /NM EXIT' / NOWV-IE., 7 APr=ROAC,'-! TOTAL APPRC21404 PEAK HOuR VfXUME SO VP/•r Gggq�/TY ZS3 L/G (QATiO : / 98 c.EVEl or- .tr 2Vi [� A f OArE: i-i7-79 CAPACI 4 : 30 wrLLISrOw /;Z>oAa SOUTHEAST APPROACH ST,QA1GNT 7-1y1ootu6H A/VO RJGN r TUB LAVES K NUu^2 yqu�1,7e- Vf'N GaPAUiY % 9r4 60/ LLVEL 01-.SE.Q1//C- B v/c 2AT/O: 7- >A1 LAA1 r' LEFT / f3FAlt NOUO• YCX_ (./Mr : /Z9 VFH L��/ �-' C V/c. RAn o : . 763 LE TpTA4- AP�Oi4CH 09 P1 4K HOUR VcaL[fME .6Z6 cEVEL O� sF-+eV,CC ► t3 /- /7-79 D-, / Jt ` DORSE T ,STiPE'E T .. P 1 � . \ SOUTHWEST A�Rc7ACf-/ STRA/GNT TNiQOC /G/ AND �j IN, LEG 7 7Z1QV LANE 1y� 11' Q� �E,yc NOU/P VO!_[I^'�fE•' /SO V/JH CAL7-/TY - �i y L.EvEc v/L Beano r ,ssa oFSc evrcF: A � �. � f=T T U,�/ LANE 'T 0 0 rx.u/r2C:144 yPH CAPVV-4rY: -� J J R�.oK f/C.' V 4/7 LEVEL OFSCO--VKE: A u toQ 2 V v/C "r7o �► '� y RiGH T TuRN LA/N E fi�AK !•/OC/R VOLI�"1E' /SO V ✓� O ,�•�V,CG ' 30, h ti J v/c ,eAno: s98 TOTAL APP!?OACH J p �vrc /oc,Q vocur�E : 479 VPH C/aAaL'T Y 897 J Q sV/c- 4ATi O z.8 � vcc GY�.SE• V,CE A 7- 79 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - PRELIMINARY PLAT 1) Name,of Applicant 2) Name of Subdivision 3) Describe Subdivision (i.e. total acreaae, number of lots or units, type of land use, include gross floor area if comm- ercial.) 4) Indicate any changes to name, address, or phone number of owner of record,applicant, or contact person since sketch plan application: _ 5. Name, address, and phone number of: a. Engineer b. Surveyor - - - -- --- Essex 7`u► N� ,o,� V f. 8 9 Fr S;z 3 --- c. Attorney o��l JaY✓rs d. Plnt Desinner 7J-0(10N_ Vvtuvx.4 _ Ca -2- 6) indicate any changes to the subdivision such as number of lots 7) or units, property lines, applicant's legal interest in the property, etc., since this proposal was last before the Commission: List names and mailing addresses of owners of record of all cont- igous properties: 8) State title, drawing number, date of original plus any revisions, and designer(s),of the preliminary map(s) accompanying this appli- cation: M �a,s INt Ole2Ly 7 revatA. e 4478 C—�'3 3 Ike i arinevs 'ino'x,4 d. A Jo, 4,,fjy-t Ser0ces mac. 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 in:--Liediately adjacent and the names of owners of record of adjacent acreage. 5) The location and size of any existing sewers and water 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, date 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 proposed� location and results of tests to ascertain subsurface Taoil, rock and ground water conditions, depth to around water unless pits are dry at depth of five feet; location and results of percolation tests. 13) Provisions for collecting and discharging storm drainage in the form of drainage plan. 14) Preliminary designs of any bridges or culverts which may be required. 15) The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the Commission to locate readily and appraise the basic lay- out in the field. Unless an existing street intersection is shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall be shown. 15) 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) April - erOWKI"ry Ogt C 0�+1NG(lf Ca�d►t�ow�►! Use I iA _ F IAftl PJaf w S*Je 1O/a11 11) List the waivers applicant desires from the requirements of these regulations: -4- 12) Attach a vicinity map showing the following: I) All existing subdivisions, approximate tract lines and acreage of adjacent parcels, together with the names of the record ot•mers of all adjacent parcels of land, namely, those directly abutting or directly across any street ad- joining the proposed subdivision. 2) Locations, widths and names of existing filed or proposed streets, curb cuts, easements, building lines and alleys pertaining to the proposed subdivision and to the adjacent properties as designated in paragraph 1 above. 3) An outline of the platted area together with its street system =nd an indication of the future -probable street system of the remaining portion of the tract, if the Preliminary Plat sulaiitted covers only part of the sub - divider's entire holding. (signature) aonlicant or contact person Cate