HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-81-0000 - Decision - 0430 Shelburne Road5•
PLA14WINC COMMISSION
NoVI:PT,�;R 24, 1981
Site plan application by'Paul Perras 'for an addition to a dry cleaning
business at 340 Shelburne S-treet_
Mr. Spitz said this application had been to the Zoning Board for a
dimensional variance. The building contains the business on the first floor
and an apartment on the second. The addition will be a little smaller than
the size of the existing building. There are 14 employees and that will
not change. The reason for the addition is that the operation is cramped
and this will give them more room to move around. The applicant does not
feel it will lead to more employees, business, or traffic, to any significant
degree. Normally more landscaping would be required, but there are some
existing trees and there is no room for more landscaping. Mr. Spitz said
there was an area to the east which could be used for additional parking,
if needed. The apartment will not be expanded and the addition will be one
story.
Xr. Perras said he wanted to more his rack space to the addition and
put the sewing room in there. They now do sewing in the garage. The office
area will be in the addition. They want to leave the present door in place
for fresh air and for emergency exits.
Mr. Woolery moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve
the site plan application of Paul Perras for an addition to a drrcleanine:
buninpos on Shelburne Street as depicted on a plan entitled "Parking at Paul's
5ne Hour :4artinizing," dated 11 24 81, subject to the following, sti-pulations:
1. A parking area large enough to accommodate three additional cars
shall be shown along White Place north of the existing driveway. This parking
area shall be constructed if the City Planner deems it to be necessary
after the addition is built.
2. A revised site plan showing the above parking area and deleting
the two svaces_along the road just to the north of the existing building
shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to issuance_
of a building permit.
3. This a4)nroval expires in 6 months.
Mr. Jacoh seconded the motion.
Yr. Mona felt it should be noted in the minutes that no change in use
was indicated by this addition. There is also no increase in traffic indicated
by the addition.
The motion passed unanimously.
Review of budget recommendations for street, intersection, and sidewalk
im^.rovemerits for presentation to the City Council.
The Commission reviewed a memo submitted by Mr. Spitz on this item
dated 11/81. It said that the city should establish a realistic capital
budget program for major street improvements and include a yearly budget
amount for the work. His suggestion was $100,000 for intersection
improvements and Z50,000 for sidewalks. He did not feel that $100,000 was
enough to do both repairs and improvements, although there will be some
cross -over.
Mr. Jacob said another possibility would be a bond issue which could
be supported by �100,Uu0 per year, or $50,000 in the case of sidewalks.
That way the whole sidewalk system could be done at once and paid for over