Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BATCH - Supplemental - 0916 Shelburne Road
April 6, 2017 Re: #SP-17-18 Dear Applicant: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision rendered by the Administrative Officer concerning the above referenced application. Please note the conditions of approval including that a zoning permit must be obtained within six (6) months. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincere R mond J. Belair Administrative Officer Encl. 575 Dorset Street -South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburI.com Permit Number SP- ( (office use only) APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW pAdministrative ElDevelopment Review Board All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. 1. OWNER(S) OF RECORD (Name(s) as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax ft DS Realty LLC 3050 Fuller Mt Rd, N Ferrisburgh, VT 05473 802-578-2483 2. LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED(S) (Book and page #): Vol 1317 p300-308 3. APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax ft same 4. CONTACT PERSON (person who will receive all correspondence from Staff. Include name, address, phone & fax ft Robert Davis, same info as above 4a. CONTACT EMAIL ADDRESS:: rtdavis@me.com 5. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 916 Shelburne Rd 6. TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office): 1540-00916 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. General project description (explain what you want approval for): Addition of a 20x30ft frame tent (such as provided by VT Tent Co) and a 4x4ft deluxe portable toilet for 10 weeks during the summer months. Expansion of garbage/recycling screen b. Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use): artist production studio - 3490sf standard restaurant - 650sf residential - 1644sf c. Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): tent (600sf) and toilet (16sf) will add 616sf to artist production studio use d. Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain): 6400sf new total e. Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine): tent heiaht 14ft existinq buildinq - 2 floors with basement and mezzanine £ Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain): 3 existinq units remaininq g. Number of employees (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees): h. Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): tent will not be in use during PM peak hour Site Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 8. LOT COVERAGE Total Parcel Size: 70, 600 Sq. Ft. a. Building: Existing % / 5 C + sq. ft. Proposed % / (0 4-D 0 sq. ft. b. Overall impervious coverage (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing 1 % / 221 Z-7 9 sq. ft. Proposed 3 Z % / ZZ 9 S sq. ft. c. Front yard (along each street) Existing % / S So sq. ft. Proposed % / sq. ft. d. Total area to be disturbed during construction (sq. ft.) * * Projects disturbing more than one-half acre of land must follow the City's specifications for erosion control in Article 16 of the Land Development Regulations. Projects disturbing more than one acre require a permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. 9. COST ESTIMATES a. Building (including interior renovations) b. Landscaping: c. Other site improvements (please list with cost): garbage screen expansion $500 10. ESTIMATED TRAFFIC $ 4000 a. P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): 20.58 vtes 11. PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 12. PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: 13. ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: June 18 14. SITE PLAN AND FEE A site plan shall be submitted which shows the information required by the City's Land Development Regulations. Five (5)' regular size copies, one reduced copy (I V x 17"), and one digital (PDF-format) copy of the site plan must be submitted A site plan application fee shall be paid to the City at the time ofsubmitting the site /plan gapplication in accordance with the city's fee schedul'kimi m g ' Administrative site plan applications require three (3) regular size copies, one reduced copy (11" x 17"), and one digital (PDF-format) copy. 3 Site Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 NOTE: NOTIFICATION of ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: Notification of adjoining property owners, in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4464(a) and Section 17.06(B) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, is the responsibility of the applicant. After deeming an application complete, the Administrative Officer will provide the applicant with a draft meeting agendas or public hearing notice and sample certificate of service. The sworn certificate of service shall be returned to the City prior to the start of any public hearing. I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. SIGN URE OF APPLICANT Robert Davis SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER PRINT NAME Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: `7 7 REVIEW AUTHORITY: 0 Development Review Board 2Administrative Officer I have reviewed this site plan application and find it to be: Complete Inco 1 Administrative Officer Dat The applicant orpermittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant statepermits for this project. Call (802) 879-5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. Site Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 . I 1 .._ (,� (.✓i a.z..H4 r'f0✓ A. I ! I O b r 4 f wi 1 0 F /L O f/ C R 16 f✓ d t �` // ' 5 W T*\ - C'F,-b�IELD, VA Drum u_ " YJOOD Pave �— a OOOrJnood D e o00 0 oacv0 CZPaa 007 cd Q0 o�0o}1 d&o o cp0 a0o ti o Aa o o c+ooe j; �� Gx.a rf✓v ��... S j < t W � r(y I En II b'ILIVI''rr. I. I EE() 1 �, r✓` �`� Exf6 rf r Z o e c G I 1 N I I c✓6 <.eT I• d X' i CE I ..-----11 10 ? 014, V1 I NEW CONDENSER yeE�CS ON CONCRETE PAD Rmo</r o I, -6-TM # - Exfe rf-✓G I Im-_a'A f., -I _ cd 2K//GE NcuSe I ,y '^ I• T/5 __— v I�- L I \ a' 0 iQ,awl1 J I I I I N I I I i i G9_ i .E t (9J I I � I - ---� a <. z r f ,✓e -¢ I PROPOSED STAIR d. e z f 3 r r ✓ \ �, TOWER ; a d✓ ll _.I. �`1 P ✓ E !1 E N T d < ✓ ' 1 r I _ 'rapt} -i�✓_.-� W G'n c/u ,c� si ERG 2 ✓ ✓O� � I - I 1 4_ 4 _---------- - '• / — -l Elx sr v <eodR ✓E_- oGE' 1 I ' i I i I ll i os 1 E ) ac r. 28 , f949. e✓ 4 •✓ rcOc c 01✓%.E 65 /L/F oa rf0 �pC/"I'1G d x� �. �1AncLE>J rc'J J, Syok «6� 02? ago/sue PLANT. SPACING PLANT CENTER PLANT ROW ALL EQUAL OR AS SHOWN ON PLANTING PLAN NUMBER OF SPACING-D` RMW PLANTSISO. FT. . 0'OG.C.C. . 141., Si' ,WS 0.01 O.OT WO.C. 3 _ 0.12 30'G.G. 26W D.1S 24'O.C. 20.76' 0.2B NOTE: 1. OUAMITY OF SHRUBS MID SPACING AS NOTED IN PLANTING SCHEDULE. 2.0 NVOUS PUNTING PITS FILLED WITH PLANTING MU PER THE DEPTH AS NOTED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS M REQUIRED. FINISH GRADE MULCH, AS SPECIFIED SHRUB ROOTBALL CONTINUOUS PLANTING PIT FILLED WITH PLANTING MIX REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR SSPACIN ro PUN 02916 SOIL PREPARATION / MIN F F G � SUB GRADE A SHRUB PLANTING SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" PLANT LIST I KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME OTY. SIZE REMARKS SHRUBS. TM T xus media a x ed a Spreading Yew 6 24-30" Dia. C.G.. Full NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY ALL PLANT QUANTITIES FOUND IN THE PLANTING PLANS. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 2. FINAL LAYOUT AND PLACEMENT OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL TO BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO SEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS AND LAWN DETAIL. 4. REFER TO DETAIL A/LA-100 FOR PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION. 5. ALL TREE, SHRUB AND PERENNIAL PLANTING BEDS ARE TO BE CONTINUOUS, COMPLETELY DUG OUT AND BACKFILLED WITH THE PROPER PLANTING BED BACKFILL MATERIAL TO DEPTH SPECIFIED IN DETAILS AND SOIL PREPARATION SPECIFICATION. 6, IF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PROPOSES A SUBSTITUTE PLANT SPECIES, ALL SUBSTITUTES NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON IN WRITING PRIOR TO ORDERING. 0 10' 20' 40' Graphic Scale: 1"=20' DAVIS STUDIO 916 Shelburne Road South Burlington, Vermont %SE GROUP Du C..glon VT 05,0, e gx e62 oose 2 865 2- se LaMu A,c s aM Ra 11 Issued for Permit Scale. 1-=20' Dare. 10I282015 Drawn BY MKW Checked By Rav MKW Tltle PLANTING PLAN Sheet Number LA-100 Proj- Number File Project Name & Address Property Owner Effective Date TOTAL IMPACT FEE Value of New Construction: South Burlington Planning Zoning New Non -Residential Construction Impact Fees Project Completed by April 1, 2016 Type of Construction Fireproofed Steel Skeleton or Reinforced Type of Use Concrete Industrial/Manufacturing S66- Eneineerine & Research S88 General Office S123 Medical Office 5133 General Retail - -_ _--__S84 Auto Service Facilitv Elder Care_ Facilitv Total Value of New Structure: Total Value of New Structure & Contents: Current grand list value of property: Post construction value of structure & land Road Impact Fee PM Peak Hour VTEs Past payments credit: Future payments credit: OTHER CREDITS: NET ROAD IMPACT FEE SF Masonry °r Concrete Bearing S69 _S96 - S113 - - - S71 - _ S54 S84 S74 Wood SF Frame Structure S65 SF Pre -Fab Steel Structure S64 _ S88 S104 - S67 S41 S79 572 - S93 S110 -- -_S69 —S51_ S81 --572 $0 $0 $1,144, 200 $1,144, 200.00 0.58 $2,255.50 $446.24 $0. Police Impact Fee Square Feet of New Structure or Addition Base Fee: SF x South Burlington Planning Zoning New Non -Residential Construction Impact Fees WNW Project Completed by April 1, 2o16 Square feet of existing structure to be removed Creditable amount Existing Single family homes to be removed Existing 2-3 Family structures to be removed Existing 4+ Family Structures to be removed Creditable Amount Current Grand List Value of Site Past Payments credit: Estimated Post -Construction Value Future payments credit: NET POLICE IMPACT FEE 1 $0.00 1 $0.00 1144200 $606.43 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TABLE PD-7 ESTIMATED POST -DEVELOPMENT VALUES PER SQUARE FOOT OF FLOOR SPACE Type of Use Industrial/Manufa cturing $76 Engineerin g and $100 Office (General) $141 Medical Office $152 General Retail $96 Auto Service NA Elderly Care $117 Motels NA Fireproofed Steel Sketloton or Reinforced Concrete Structure SF Masonry or Concrete Bearing Wall Structure $56 $79 $110 $129 $81 $62 $96 $85 SF Wood Frame Structure $53 $74 $106 1 $126 $79 1 $58 $93 $82 SF Pre -Fab Steel Structure $53 $73 $101 $119 1 $77 $47 $89 $82 SF 07/25/2016 City of South Burlington Grand List Page 1 of 1 08:45 am Parcel Report ray For Parcel: 1540-00916. PERKINS CHARLES N & JANET B Name PERKINS CHARLES N & JANET B 80 SOUTH COVE RD BURLINGTON VT 05401 Location 911 916 SHELBURNE RD Tax Map 44-090-000 Codes: (1) (Category)C (Equipment) (Owner)S Wood Crop Pasture Other Site Total Acres: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.62 Real Land Building Equipment Inventory Values: 1,144,200 1,046,800 97,400 0 0 Homestead Veterans Farm Stab. L.U. Acres Land Use 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Contract Lease Prev. Eqpm Land Use Amt Prev. Real 0 0.00 0 0.00 1,144,200 Housesite Special Exmp Grand List 0.00 0.00 11,442.00 Misc: Status: T Bill #: 55359 Updated: 06/13/2016 Last sale was: Invalid on 06/01/1982 for $0 recorded on 180/371 Grievance Info: Flag: N Remarks: (1) Misc Fields: (0): 150365000 (8) : N (9): 03/13/01 SPAN: 600-188-14911 July 21, 2016 Re: #SP-16-43 Dear Applicant: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision rendered by the Administrative Officer concerning the above referenced application. Please note the conditions of approval including that a zoning permit must be obtained within six (6) monthc If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, J ' Fi� aymond J. Belair Administrative Officer Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com D1. �77C7L70.. -.... .I- � C-�I;�IEI-D• MA 01301 — o 3� l� nyt W° 7 � 1 02� �/F � -Ob TQ/A/�O FQOf/ Ci1/G/✓d4 _'U.L s/A r/o:r_/, daft - 01✓ h/ L 2 3 , eB/ c/c f..c - F/d t:0 OocoA/E ,✓rar/o :✓ T-to e4� N•�h rYd(l r�-I'Gna� L�G+I qRJ f,- a—f k,.a15e. oZo/S Ur 1 N'±1=2 tovlz _ _ - Sep _. a. OOOVUoodo®0000eL��sc� d®c�eU0Q`000019c��oo�dada4 oaeo oc919oo /. �1s�w( 3 G Q✓ /e C 3 �I Geo�a✓' '�K-L-S /,ua <.y.t ✓6EJ CeD EE I+J m I cr!<e r v I3 lid V X' E� -iN J EE o S A r I I I�° 6-TM C` �� Si � I I it I. Mo I 0 a 1 d. I'!fr K _{ �' < E%/5 r/✓G M Q b jcpiE F/ f P/ ✓ F A/ E N r- j /�./eNes /r) rt C _ ; SJtew '>�- ,� �f^•f I\\ , T/'asll � lI /G'%9'K7%uiJ EQGi o✓NO� A. _Q- — -- A'"---- �� GIX/sr/,✓G caves //EOGE,� <. L le r/u/G pE/✓E rG arru.uva CENTER ROW IUAL OR )WN ON NG PLAN NUMBER OF SPACING 'p' NOW 'A' PLANTSBO.FT. S O.C. 51.W OA4 4' O.C. 41.52' OAT w O.C. 31.2r 0.12 W.O.C. 28.00' 0.18 W O.C. 20.26' am NOTE: 1. QUANTITY OF SHRUBS AND SPACING AS NOTED IN PLANTING SCHEDULE. 2. CONTINUOUS PLANTING PITS FILLED WITH PUNTING wpm THE DEPTH AS NOTED IN THE SMOFICATIONS m REOUIRED. FINISH GRADE MULCH, AS SPECIFIED SHRUB ROOTBALL CONTINUOUS PLANTING PIT FILLED WITH PLANTING MIX REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS 02916 SOIL PREPARATION SUB GRADE OA-A-"� SHRUB PLANTING SCALE: 1/2" = 11-0rr PLANT LIST KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME QTY. SIZE REMARKS SHRUBS: TM Taxus x media Spreading Yew 6 24-30" Dia. C.G., Full NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY ALL PLANT QUANTITIES FOUND IN THE PLANTING PLANS, IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 2. FINAL LAYOUT AND PLACEMENT OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL TO BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO SEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS AND LAWN DETAIL. 4. REFER TO DETAIL A/LA-100 FOR PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION. 5. ALL TREE, SHRUB AND PERENNIAL PLANTING BEDS ARE TO BE CONTINUOUS, COMPLETELY DUG OUT AND BACKFILLED WITH THE PROPER PLANTING BED BACKFILL MATERIAL TO DEPTH SPECIFIED IN DETAILS AND SOIL PREPARATION SPECIFICATION. 6. IF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PROPOSES A SUBSTITUTE PLANT SPECIES, ALL SUBSTITUTES NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON IN WRITING PRIOR TO ORDERING, 0 10, 29 4U Graphic Scale: 1'=20- DAVIS STUDIO 916 Shelburne Road South Burlington, Vermont OSEGROUP 131 C h u r c h S I r. a I Sure l nq L. n. VT 05 401 8g2.BB2.gq9B lev: 802.888.2440 r.v. .egrou p.c m Lwq.c.pa ArtlHx1. aN Hvu,en Issued for Permit North Scale: 1"=20' Date: 10/2812015 0- By MKW Checked By. l Revisions: Title PLANTING PLAN Sheet Numbe,. LA-100 Project Number: File: / 6Sv°���,�3.Sj�IurE�e d�c�aM7 „ / G south � )urlin ton PLANNING & ZONING Permit Number SP- 16 F6- 3 (office use only) APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW [Administrative ❑Development Review Board All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. 1. OWNER(S) OF RECORD (Name(s) as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #): I� S Rc-A L-tLt t U-c- 310 FOL U-�VL Vu r (20 �1 21i2t v�12Gt4-, VT &7z 94-7� f3G2-�7E3 -Z4�3 802-S&Z -E3b'00 F,*qbL 2. LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED(S) (Book and page #): 600W- 1317 Pw;�--& Z83-284- 3. APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #): sYNV� C %- TACF A, P090�-]L 4. CONTACT PERSON (person who will receive all correspondence from Staff. Include name, address, phone & fax #): 5ptW4-- 4a. CONTACT EMAIL ADDRESS:: 1ZTbAVIS (9 M6 - COI^\ 5. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS:-9 [(9 Sl-fe '3uao(,- kt, , 6. TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office): 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sbuil.com 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. General project description (explain what you want approval for): CoNy�c22r� raC� (05© sr: of!�- )A -kQT- P2czvaloc t. &T Xbt b To S Afia�vRi2D R-�STr d `T use' b. Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use): 4140 sf- N-Ttsr ,r4)o�.. Tc (a S-r - 400 sf- - PcStiJ&A-4Ttoo.. c. Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): '349 D SE - PiKrts i PfZ06c•.5_D5' T"utt O (0505�- -Sm (ems c 14vt,2�a �r 40 6 �� - �R t� rt►4 t_ 1 A- Fa.-4vv4_- 1Z'-14 sr-- d. Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain): j i 84 s F e. Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine): CCRAt-VCR '1::�L0 S w/ ► I Mt4t t-4 RLbG - `a- f. Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain): 3 exv&-n(-_�0 -- N o C 4V4AUL g. Number of employees (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees): NIC) CkA"G L h. Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): 2 Site Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 I 8. LOT COVERAGE Total Parcel Size: '70, 6DO Sq. Ft. a. Building: Existing S % / SC) 6'1- sq. ft. Proposed % / sq. ft. b. Overall impervious coverage (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing % / "ZZ, Z`Zo1 sq. ft. Proposed % / sq. ft. c. Front yard (along each street) Existing l % / ti3$O sq. ft. Proposed % / _ _ sq. ft. d. Total area to be disturbed during construction (sq. ft.) * Projects disturbing more than one-half acre of land must follow the City's specifications for erosion control in Article 16 of the Land Development Regulations. Projects disturbing more than one acre require a permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. 9. COST ESTIMATES a. Building (including interior renovations): $ c� b. Landscaping: $ D c. Other site improvements (please list with cost): 10. ESTIMATED TRAFFIC a. P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): 11. PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 12. PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: 13. ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 14. SITE PLAN AND FEE A site plan shall be submitted which shows the information required by the City's Land Development Regulations. Five (5)' regular size copies, one reduced copy (11" x 17"), and one digital (PDF-format) copy of the site plan must be submitted A site plan application fee shall be paid to the Ci at the time f urf,— ting the site plan application in accordance with the city's fee schedule. �Wl Administrative site plan applications require three (3) regular size copies, one reduced copy (11" x 17"), and one digital (PDF-format) copy. 3 Site Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 1 NOTE: NOTIFICATION of ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: Notification of adjoining property owners, in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4464(a) and Section 17.06(B) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, is the responsibility of the applicant. After deeming an application complete, the Administrative Officer will provide the applicant with a draft meeting agendas or public hearing notice and sample certificate of service. The sworn certificate of service shall be returned to the City prior to the start of any public hearing. I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. SI SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT Do not write below this line PRINT NAME DATE OF SUBMISSION: (� F� REVIEW AUTHORITY: ❑ Development Review Board 2Administrative Officer I have reviewed this site plan application and find it to be: Complete Ir ministrative G Date The applicant or permitlee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call (802) 879-5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. Site Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 VERMONT State of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Department of Environmental Conservation [phone) 802-879-5656 Drinldng Water and Groundwater Protection Division [fax] 802-879-3871 Essex Regional Office iii West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452-4695 www.sgptic.vt.gov April 29, 2016 Chuck Perkins 8o South Cove Road Burlington VT 05401 Subject WW-4-4613 Davis Studio change of use from a retail store to an arts and crafts educational facility with cafateris, sixty six students, twelve employees with municipal water and sewer serviceson the existing 1.62 acre lot located on 916 Shelburne Road in South Burlington, Vermont. Dear Ladies & Gentlemen: I reviewed your application and technical information. Unfortunately, there were items that were not included or were insufficient and I was unable to determine if this project meets the minimum standards of the Environmental Protection Rules. I am enclosing a copy of the Technical Review Checklist with the missing or incomplete items marked. Please respond within sixty, (6o) days from the date of this letter. Please note the Division may deny the project if the information is not received within 6o days of the date of this letter. I will continue my review of the project once I receive the information requested. If you submitted your application electronically through eDEC, you will need to upload any revisions and send an email to Ernestine Chevrier and me notifying us that you have resubmitted. This email should reference both the eDEC number and the WW number for the project. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jessanne Wyman Regional Engineer Enclosures: Technical Review Checklist cc: South Burlington Planning Commission Roger J. Dickinson Regional Of -Montpelier/EssexJct./Rutland/Springfield/St Johnsbury WW-4-4613 April 29, 2o16 Technical Review Checklist - 1/22/2o16 Check Mark Item Item Required to Complete an Application Indicates Item Not Number Received ✓Please provide the basis of design for the existing flows. Please clarify the uses for the proposed flows; will the cafeteria Basis of design provided for calculating and sizing, wastewater system require a Health Dept 1 components are provided with the application License (specify type of license), will the educational facility be licensed, will there be 2 sessions per day with a maximum of 33 students session? Hydrogeologic or performance based calculations for system are provided 2 with the application Construction details and notes for all wastewater system components 3 provided on the plans or.included with the application Groundwater monitor locations and readings are provided with the 4 application Vertical isolation distances between the bottom of the ieachfield and 5 limiting soil condition comply with the Rules Horizontal isolation distances between the leachfield and items of concern 6 comply with the Rules ✓Please clarify if the other structures on the property are storage only and have no sewer services. All existing and approved but not installed wastewater systems that may be Please clarify the size affected or be affected by the project shown on the plans and material of the sewer service. Please confirm that it is adequate for the increase in design flows. Presumptive zones for the wastewater system shown on the plans even if 8 the zones remain on the lot Locations of all soil borings and percolation tests conducted on the lot 9 shown on the plans including soil borings and percolation tests conducted on the lot but not used for the design of the wastewaters stem Soil descriptions accurately described per the Rules with corresponding test 1O it numbers shown on the plan Percolation test results reported with corresponding percolation test 11 numbers shown on the plan Basis of design for calculating and sizing the water system components are ✓See #1 12 provided with the application Hydrogeologic analysis for water source, for water quantity or interference 13 when required by Rule is provided with the application ✓See #� re water Construction details and notes for the water system components are shown lines. Please clarify the size and material 14 on the plans or included with the application of the water service. Please confirm that it r i ` is adequate for the increase in design flows. All existing and approved but not installed water supplies are shown on the 15 plans 16 Presumptive zones for a water source are shown on the plans even if the zones remain on the lot Construction benchmark as required by the Rules and existing and final 17 contours for the potable water supply and wastewater systems are shown on the plans i8 Man-made features including driveways, roadways, parking areas, buildings, and filled areas are shown on the plans All natural features including lakes, streams, ponds, brooks, swamps, and 19 wetlands are shown on the plans 20 Delineation for the too -year flood plain is shown on the plans Sources of contamination/hazardous waste sites are identified on the plans 21 as required by the Rules with justification or supporting data the source of contamination will not adversely affect the water source Sources of contamination/hazardous waste site identified post submittal of 22 the application requiring mitigation measures for the water source 23 Variance request(s) with justification is provided with the application 24 Deeded Rights -of -Ways or Easements are shown on the plans i VER.MONT State of Vermont department of Environmental Conservation Agency of Natural Resources Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection Division WASTEWATER SYSTEM AND POTABLE WATER SUPPLY PERMIT LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED io V.S.A. Chapter 64, Potable Water Supply and Wastewater System Permit Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Rules, Effective September 29, 2007 Chapter 21, Water Supply Rules, Effective December 1, 2010 Landowner(s): Chuck Perkins Permit Number: WW-4-4613 8o South Cove Road PIN: EJ16-0093 Burlington VT 05401 This permit affects property identified as Town Tax Parcel ID # South Burlington: 154o-oo916 referenced in a deed recorded in Book 18o Page(s) 371 of the Land Records in South Burlington, Vermont. This project, consisting of the change of use from a retail store to an arts and crafts educational facility with cafeteria (for students and staff only), 33 students per 1/2 day session, twelve employees, on the existing 1.62 acre lot with an existing Carriage House with two 1-bedroom apartment and a Chalet with one 1-bedroom apartment, all served by municipal water supply services and municipal wastewater disposal services located on 916 Shelburne Road in South Burlington, Vermont, is hereby approved under the requirements of the regulations named above subject to the following conditions. i. GENERAL 1.1 )2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 The project shall be completed as shown on the following plans and/or documents prepared by Roger J. Dickinson, P.E., with the stamped plans listed as follows: Sheet Number Title Plan Date Plan Revision Date 1 David Studio Utilities Plan 05/05/2016 This permit does not relieve the landowner from obtaining all other approvals and permits PRIOR to construction including, but not limited to, those that may be required from the Act 25o District Environmental Commission; the Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection Division; the Watershed Management Division; the Division. of Fire Safety; the Vermont Department of Health; the Family Services Division; other State departments; or local officials. The conditions of this permit shall run with the land and will be binding upon and enforceable against the landowner and all assigns and successors in interest. The landowner shall record and index this permit in the South Burlington Land Records within thirty, (3o) days of issuance of this permit and prior to the conveyance of any lot subject to the jurisdiction of this permit. This project is approved for the change of use in one building and the existing uses in the other buildings. Construction of additional nonexempt buildings, including commercial and residential buildings, is not allowed without prior review and approval by the Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection Division and such approval will not be granted unless the proposal conforms to the applicable laws and regulations. No construction is allowed that will cause non-compliance with an existing permit. Each purchaser of any portion of the project shall be shown a copy of the Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit and the stamped plan(s), if applicable, prior to conveyance of any portion of the project to that purchaser. By acceptance of this permit, the landowner agrees to allow representatives of the State of Vermont access to the property covered by the permit, at reasonable times, for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the Vermont environmental and health statutes and regulations, and permit conditions. Regional Offices —Montpelier/EssexJct./Rutland/Springfield/St Johnsbury ) Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit W W-4-4613 Page 2 of 2 1.7 Any person aggrieved by this permit may appeal to the Environmental Court within 3o days of the date of issuance of this permit in accordance with io V.S.A. Chapter 220 and the Vermont Rules of Environmental Court Proceedings. 2.WATER SUPPLY 2.1 This project is approved for the existing connections to the water supply system owned by the City of South Burlington as depicted on the plan(s) stamped by the Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection Division. The project is approved for a maximum of 1161 gallons of water per day. 2.2 The landowner shall install and maintain backflow prevention devices that conform to Vermont Department of Public Safety standards and NFPA 13 for any connection of a sprinkler fire suppression system to a public drinking water system. 2.3 This project is approved with the existing buildings water service lines. The Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection Division assumes no liability for the adequacy of this water service. Should the water supply fail and not qualify for the minor repair or replacement exemption, the landowner shall engage a Licensed Designer to evaluate the cause of the failure and to submit a permit amendment application to this office, and receive approval thereof, prior to correcting the failure. 2.4 This permit is based, in part, on a municipal approval for connection to their water distribution system. If the municipal approval expires, this permit shall be invalid unless the municipality renews its approval. If the municipality approval expires, a new permit must be issued for the project. An updated application form and an application fee will be required for the project. A new municipal approval.letter shall be required. The rules in effect at the time of the filing of the application for a new permit will be applied to the project. .q.WASTEWATER DISPOSAL 3.1 This project is approved for the existing connection to the City of South Burlington wastewater treatment facility as depicted on the plan(s) stamped by the Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection Division. The project is approved for a maximum of 1092 gallons of wastewater per day. 3.2 This project is approved with the existing buildings sewer lines. The Drinking Water and Groundwater Protectior Division assumes no liability for the adequacy of this sewer line. Should the line fail and not qualify for the mino, J repair or replacement exemption, the landowner shall engage a Licensed Designer to evaluate the cause of the failure and to submit an amendment application to this office prior to correcting the failure. 3.3 This permit is based, in part, on a municipal approval for connection to their wastewater treatment facility. If the municipal approval expires, this permit shall be invalid unless the municipality renews its approval. If the municipality approval expires, a new permit must be issued for the project. An updated,application form and an application fee will be required for the project. A new municipal approval letter shall be required if the project is served by the municipal wastewater collection system. The rules in effect at the time of the filing of the application for a new permit will be applied to the project. Alyssa B. Schuren, Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation By Dated May 13,2o16 Jessanne Wyman, Regional Engineer Essex Regional Office Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection Division cc South Burlington Planning Commission Roger J. Dickinson Department of Public Safety, Division of Fire Safety Department of Health — Food & Lodging Licenses o State of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Department of Environmental Conservation (phone] 802-879-5656 Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection Division [fax] 802-879-3871 Essex Regional Office in West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452-4695 www.septic.vt.gov March 25, 2oi6 Chuck Perkins 8o South Cove Road Burlington VT 05461 RE: WW-4-4613, Davis Studio; change of use from a retail store to an arts and crafts educational facility with cafeteria, sixty- six students, twelve employees with municipal water and sewer services located Shelburne Road in South Burlington, Vermont. Dear Applicant: We received your completed application for the above -referenced project on March 24, 2016, including a fee of $270.00 paid by check #3403. Under the performance standards for this program, we will have a maximum of 45 days of "in-house" time to review your application. If we require further information from you to make a decision, the time until we receive it is not included in the in-house performance standards. If you have any questions about the review process, or if you have not received a decision on your application within the 45 in-house days, please contact this office. We have forwarded the information contained in your application to the Information Specialist for this region. A Project Review Sheet will be sent to you indicating other state agencies and departments you should contact regarding additional permits or approvals you may need under their programs. If you have not already done so, you should also check with town officials about any necessary town permits. If you submitted your application electronically through eDEC, your consultant will need to upload any revisions and send an email to Ernestine Chevrier and the reviewer notifying us that you have resubmitted information. This email should reference both the eDEC number and the WW number for the project. For the Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection Division Ernestine Chevrier Regional Office Coordinator cc: South Burlington Planning Commission Roger J. Dickinson/Lamoureux & Dickinson 12 Regional Offices — Montpelier/EssexJct./Rutland/Springfield/St. Johnsbury November 12, 2015 Re: #SP-15-71 Dear Applicant: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision rendered by the Administrative Officer concerning the above referenced application. Please note the conditions of approval including that a zoning permit must be obtained within six (6) months. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincer y, 9 " Raymond J. )Belair Administrative Officer Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburI.com -V Permit Number SP- (office use only) APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW ✓❑Administrative ElDevelopment Review Board All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. 1.OWNER(S) OF RECORD (Name(s) as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #): Charles and Janet Perkins, 80 South Cove Rd., Burlington, VT 05401 802-862-7094 home; 802-734-5885 mobile 2. LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED(S) (Book and page #): Book 180 page 371 3. APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #): DS Realty LLC, 3050 Fuller Mt Rd, N.Ferrisburgh, VT 05473 802-578-2483 mobile 4. CONTACT PERSON (person who will receive all correspondence from Staff. Include name, address, phone & fax #): Robert Davis, 3050 Fuller Mt Rd, N.Ferrisburgh, VT 05473 802-578-2483 mobile 4a. CONTACT EMAIL ADDRESS:: rtdavis@me.com 5. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 916 Shelburne Rd 6. TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office): 1540-00916 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. General project description (explain what you want approval for): Exterior addition to accomodate a required egress stair from the second floor. b. Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use): Existing retail space approximately 4140sf on two levels. Existing apartment rental out buildings to remain as is approximately 1650sf c. Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): Art production studio and preschool space to be housed within the existing 4140sf. d. Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain): Existing buildings to remain 5784sf e. Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine): Existing to remain is approximately 29 feet from grade to midpoint of sloped roof. Proposed addition to be approximately 26 feet high. f. Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain): 3 existing units to remain. g. Number of employees (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees): 4.2 FTE non -office employees proposed 0 existing h. Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): At the Deputy Fire Chief's request: 1)the Fire Dept Connection will be relocated to the south side of the building, 2) 911 street address identification will be added near the front door. The numbers will be less that 10 inches tall and read "916". A small exhaust vent will be added to the north wall to accommodate an interior portable kiln. A new condenser will be added on a concrete pad on the north side to add A/C to the second floor. Site Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 1 8. LOT COVERAGE a. Building: Total Parcel Size: 70,600 Sq. Ft. Existing 8 % / Proposed <0.5 % / 5784 200 sq. ft. sq. ft. b. Overall impervious coverage (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing 31 % / 22,079 sq. ft. Proposed <0.5 % / 200 sq. ft. c. Front yard (along each street) Existing 11 % / 880 sq. ft. Proposed same % / same sq. ft. d. Total area to be disturbed during construction (sq. ft.) 200sf * * Projects disturbing more than one-half acre of land must follow the City's specifications for erosion control in Article 16 of the Land Development Regulations. Projects disturbing more than one acre require a permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. 9. COST ESTIMATES a. Building (including interior renovations): b. Landscaping: c. Other site improvements (please list with cost): 10. ESTIMATED TRAFFIC $ 16,000 $ 500 a. P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): 17 vte/hr (see attached) 11. PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 4-5 pm 12. PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: weekd 13. ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: Feb.15, 2016 14. SITE PLAN AND FEE A site plan shall be submitted which shows the information required by the City's Land Development Regulations. Five (5)1 regular size copies, one reduced copy (11" x 17"), and one digital (PDF-format) copy of the site plan must be submitted A site plan application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the site plan application in accordance with the city'sfee schedule. ,n lv y /� Administrative site plan applications require three (3) regular size copies, one reduced copy (11" x 17"), and one digital (PDF-format) copy. 3 Site Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 NOTE: NOTIFICATION of ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: Notification of adjoining property owners, in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4464(a) and Section 17.06(B) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, is the responsibility of the applicant. After deeming an application complete, the Administrative Officer will provide the applicant with a draft meeting agendas or public hearing notice and sample certificate of service. The sworn certificate of service shall be returned to the City prior to the start of any public hearing. I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. kJ A A-Y- U- '9IGNYTORE OT APPLICANT SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER PRINT NAME Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: REVIEW AUTHORITY: FDevelopment Review Board Administrative Officer I have reviewed this site plan application and find it to be: The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call (802) 879-5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. Site Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 SE GROUP 131 Church Street, Burlington, Vermont 05401 STATEMENT OF PROBABLE COST Project Name Davis Studio Drawing Referenced: LA-100 - Planting Plan Date Prepared: October 28, 2015 Date of Prices: Fall 2015 Project Status: Pemit Application Revisions: Sheet 1 of 1 KEY ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUB TOTAL REMARKS SHRUBS TM Spreadinq Yew 6 EA. $80.00 $480.00 C.G., Full Total: $480.00 ray From: Craig Lambert Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 11:32 AM To: ray Subject: RE: 916 Shelburne Road The spreading yews will work fine. Craig Lambert South Burlington City Arborist 104 Landfill Rd South Burlington, VT 05403 Ph: 802-658-7961 Fax: 802-658-7976 email: clambert(@sburl.com Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: ray Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 2:54 PM To: Craig Lambert <clambert@sburl.com> Subject: 916 Shelburne Road Craig, I'm sending a plan your way for you to review and comment on the proposal to add 6 Spreading Yews at 916 Shelburne Road to screen an HVAC unit. Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainabilitV.com Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. �VERMONT State of Vermont Agency of Transportation Policy, Planning & Intermodal Development Division Policy, Planning and Research Bureau Development Review & Permitting Services Section One National Life Drive [phone] 802-828-2653 Montpelier, VT 05633-5001 [fax] 802-828-2456 vtrans.vermont.gov [ttd] 800-253-0191 October 30, 2015 Roger Dickinson, P.E.,PTOE Lamoureux & Dickinson 14 Morse Drive Essex, VT 05452 RE: Jurisdictional Opinion, 916 Shelburne Road, South Burlington Dear Roger: This jurisdictional opinion is written in response to your letter dated October 20th, regarding your client's option to purchase and change the use of the above -referenced site into an artist production and education facility. A new 19 V.S.A. Section 1111 Permit will not be required for the change of use and we are hereby withdrawing the application. This determined that a Section 1111 permit is not required for this property at this time is based upon the factors that: • No physical work is proposed in the US 7 State highway right-of-way • Your current access meets VTrans' minimum standards for a commercial access and therefore, no work is required in the US 7 State highway right-of-way • The existing access was previously permitted on June 21, 1989 (see attached Permit #1822. If you have any further question about this matter, please contact me at 828-2485. Sincerely, Craig S. Keller, P.E., Chief of Permitting Services attachments cc: Rdaert & Teresa Davis South Burlington Zoning Adm nstrator District Transportation Office #5 Lamoureux Et Dickinson Engineers Surveyors Planners Wetland & Soil Scientists October 7, 2015 Robert & Teresa Davis Davis Art Studio 3050 Fuller Mountain Rd North Ferrisburgh, VT 05473 RE: 916 Shelburne Road, South Burlington PM Peak Period Trip Generation Analysis Dear Robert & Teresa, We are writing to report the findings of our examination of the existing and proposed weekday pm peak hour vehicular trip generation of the 916 Shelburne Road parcel. This parcel was formerly occupied by Country Curtains. We understand that you are interested in relocating the Davis Studio and Gallery to the existing building on this parcel. Davis Studio and Gallery presently occupies 3,400 sf of gross floor area at 4 Howard Street in Burlington, and offers a wide range of classes and camps for adults and children to explore their artistic possibilities. The City of South Burlington has, as part of their Land Development Regulations, established traffic overlay districts and related regulations. Each parcel along designated heavily traveled corridors (Shelburne Road being one of them) is limited to a certain number of vehicular trips during any one - hour period between 4:00-6:00 pm on weekdays, depending on the location and size of the parcel and the nature of its access onto the corridor. In this case, 916 Shelburne Road is located at the corner of Shelburne Road and Lindenwood Drive, and accesses Shelburne Road directly via a private driveway. This area is designated as Traffic Overlay Zone 1; which limits the weekday pm peak vehicular trip generation to 15 vehicle trip ends per hour (vte/hr) per 40,000 sf of land area. The property survey provided indicates that this parcel is 1.62 acres or 70,600± sf in size. Based on that, we calculate 916 Shelburne Road's allowed weekday pm peak hour vehicle trip generation (otherwise known as the Traffic Budget) to be 26 vte/hr (15 vte/hr x 70,600 sf/40,000 sf). We understand, however, that in the February 19, 1991 site plan approval by the South Burlington Planning Commission for this property, it's permitted weekday pm peak hour trip generation is given as 20 vte/hr. We reviewed the City of South Burlington's Planning and Zoning Department's file for this property, and could not find any documentation of how the 20 vte/hr was calculated other than that it equaled the ITE estimated trip generation for the then proposed land -uses in that application. With that background, it is our opinion that the Traffic Budget for 916 Shelburne Rd equals 26 vte/hr. 14 Morse Drive, Essex, VT 05452 802.878.4450 www.LDengineering.com ♦ Innovative Solutions ♦ Quality Service Robert & Teresa Davis October 7, 2015 Page 2 Estimates of the vehicular trip generation of a particular land -use such as this are typically developed through the use of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication "Trip Generation". Unfortunately, the ITE does not have a land -use category applicable to arts and craft schools or art studios. With that, we proceeded to perform a local traffic generation study having a minimum of four data points. In discussions with you, the following locations were identified: 1. Davis Studio (4 Howard St, Burlington) - Multiple building entrances and parking locations makes counting vehicular trips very difficult. It was also noted that many of the younger students are dropped off and then later picked up by their parents. For these reasons, it was decided to instead interview (copy of questionaire enclosed) everyone entering and exiting the studio between 4:00-6:00 pm. 2. Shelburne Craft School (60 Harbor Rd, Shelburne) - Has both on -site parking plus observable public parking on opposite side of Harbor Rd. The largest of all four schools with a gross floor area of 6,976 sf and the largest selection of art and crafts. 3. Wingspan Studio (4 Howard St, Burlington) - Wingspan Studio is a smaller studio with less frequent classes and parking/counting issues similar to those of the Davis Studio. 4. Burlington City Arts (Memorial Auditorium, Burlington) - No on -site parking; difficult if not impossible to observe vehicular trips generated at this location. From the above potential sites, we elected to perform local trip generation studies Monday -Thursday at the Shelburne Craft School (4 data points) plus Tuesday/Thursday at the Davis Studio (2 data points) during the week of September 281h - October 2"d. The results of those counts are detailed in the attached spreadsheet and summarized in the following table: Peak Hour Trips Trip Generation Rate (vte/hr) (vte/hr/ksf) Shelburne Craft School 20 2.87 Monday, Sept. 28`h Tuesday, Sept. 29`h 5 0.72 Wednesday, Sept. 30`h 6 0.86 Thursday, Oct. 15` 8 1.15 Average 9.75 1.40 Davis Studio Tuesday, Sept. 29`h 12 3.53 Thursday, Oct. 1" 6 1.76 Average 9 2.65 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate* 1.64 * weighted by gross floor area per ITE procedures For the proposed use of 916 Shelburne Road, we understand that the Davis Studio will occupy 4,140 sf in the former Country Curtain building. There are also three apartment units on this parcel located in a Robert & Teresa Davis October 7, 2015 Page 3 separate building. The average weekday pm peak hour vehicular trip generation of these uses can be estimated as follows: 4,140 sf art studio x 1.64 vte/hr/ksf = 7 vte/hr 3 apartments x 0.62 vte/hr/unit' = 2 vte hr Total: 9 vte/hr Appendix B of the City's Traffic Overlay District regulations also requires an examination of daily traffic variations. In this case, both the Shelburne Craft School and the Davis Studio exhibit distinct peak days. Applying the highest observed trip generation rate to the proposed Davis Studio results in the following: 4,140 sf art studio x 3.53 vte/hr/ksf = 15 vte/hr 3 apartments x 0.62 vte/hr/unit' = 2 vte hr Total: 17 vte/hr Both results are well below the 26 vte/hr Traffic Budget permitted for 916 Shelburne Road. Should you have any questions or if additional information is desired, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Rog r Dickinson, P.E., iPTOE Enclosures P:\2015\15105\davis trip generation letter.wpd 1 ITE Land -Use Category #220 - Apartment e® PLANNING & ZONING October 23, 2015 Re: #SP-15-29 916 Shelburne Road Dear Applicant: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision rendered by the Development Review Board concerning your recent application. Please note the conditions of approval including that a zoning permit must be obtained within six (6) mnnthc If you have any questions, please contact me. Sin ly, aymond J. Belair Administrative Officer Encl. CERTIFIED MAIL -Return Receipt Requested # 7015 0640 0007 8199 3297 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com 916 Shelburne Rd South Burlington, VT New Landscaping Budget October 1, 2015 50 x 6ft Cedar Trees $4,609 2 x 1 1/2" Maple Trees $250 2 x 8-10' Clump River Birch Trees $500 Labor $1,605 Total expenses $6 964 S: �Vermont�So. Burlington 1916 Shelburne Rd I New Landscaping Budget - 916 Shelburne Rd /% ,NWE NIN southburlington PLANNING & ZONING Permit Number SP- / - � 7 P (office use only) APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW ❑ Administrative ❑ Development Review Board All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. 1. OWNER(S) OF RECORD (Name(s) as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #): LHARI- s dn• AAIVF--t PMON-S In RuRLI/0ta UERMaN-t" oS�oi RH0101= 80.E Y6,2-1I0,yq W FAX 2. LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED(S) (Book and page #): 3. APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #): _ rJlAaLe S Amp A ANI:+ AcPk/Its 80 Nc. ed.? �o9� BuRLIN6-foH1, VERMOII) - os'Yat No FAQ 4. CONTACT PERSON (person who will receive all correspondence from Staff. Include name, address, phone & fax #): C RyRt_11I 6 �rT�MON�' dS'f0� P QNE �Da �6��709y Po FAk 4a. CONTACT EMAIL ADDRESS:: a4 f(,tn Aldo • nco 5. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 9 l d Stiff b u r.Yi e /\o a� — S014R ,�/I h It OS` y03 6. TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office): { 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. General project description (explain what you want approval for): + Ioh e h_ Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use): c. Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): e h — n q d. Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain): e. Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine): Al d f. Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain): g. Number of employees (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees): h. Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): beokse See a1te- e, S J �o 2 Site Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 ' 0 8. LOT COVERAGE C-►/GIhJ e p�/irr 144h Total arcel Size: v ee l U c _q �►,1q S V. Ft. r a. Building: Existing % / sq. ft. Proposed % / sq. ft. b. Overall impervious coverage (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing % / sq. ft. Proposed % / sq. ft. c. Front yard (along each street) Existing % / sq. ft. Proposed % / sq. ft. d. Total area to be disturbed during construction (sq. ft.) * Projects disturbing more than one-half acre of land must follow the City's specifications for erosion control in Article 16 of the Land Development Regulations. Projects disturbing more than one acre require a permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. 9. COST ESTIMATES a. Building (including interior renovations): $ n o A., ct 9 _Alo c es� b. Landscaping: $ 9 �0 c. Other site improvements (please list with cost): 10. ESTIMATED TRAFFIC a. P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out):_ ) o 11. PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION:4A e Q 12. PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: o n e r �e 13. ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 14. SITE PLAN AND FEE A site plan shall be submitted which shows the in ormation required by the City's Land Development Regulations. Five (5)1 regular size copies, one reduced copy (11" x 17"), and one digital (PDF-format) copy of the site plan must be submitted A site plan application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the site plan applicc'at'on iiinaaccJcor a ce th the city's fee schedule. �, e n c e I �'�'�'/ �✓ 1 D�� � �'alI �►;\1 Administrativ site plan applicailons requik three (3) regular size copies, one reduced copy (11" x 17"), and one digital (PDF-format) copy. 3 Site Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 NOTE: NOTIFICATION of ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: Notification of adjoining property owners, in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4464(a) and Section 17.06(B) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, is the responsibility of the applicant. After deeming an application complete, the Administrative Officer will provide the applicant with a draft meeting agendas or public hearing notice and sample certificate of service. The sworn certificate of service shall be returned to the City prior to the start of any public hearing. I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. 1 S IGNATtfRITOF APPLICANT Me SIGNATURE Off' PROPERTY OWNER v PRINT NAME Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: REVIEW AUTHORITY: 2 Development Review Board ❑ Administrative Officer I have reviewed this site plan application and find it to be: r, Comp] The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call (802) 879-5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. 4 Site Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 mo(EI. Wv1 vl o i J � Q 9W\ ? � U 7 �I a / 7 C ••� L A l 40 � 4 I TI /I• J� � t''itj — UNGENWOOP gave _ 1,57 1 _- _. <IA 7-10 Al FC G. T,y/C Ire Pc L,✓ O ASr!/ FJ 2 c F R O Al L' K /6 /✓ d L L< ✓ ."a I O1 re.o o.r 2$ /f¢9. BY Lr -✓ ✓C A:+ 4 3/ _. c1✓//e 23 /uf 06 i//f/o✓/ /uo �ordi•Ffonai %hart J€1tyJrcic� by 'Te}} /t!•ck ScP.-Ad' AA, a&if a sF —u --- —0 se/. O000OOOd O e 000 0 0 mco0 ®oV 00CJ gno mpO�dao a and a po ID 0 o'a p o 0000 its Gxrs r/E/G _�I I Geofe 7-^ a eyIT 1 ll[YlJ W I I d Ila I l T ✓5 I Ec a 1 20 ✓ ruG +i/� sc Y- l W I ex/e r,✓G 1 \ � �a�°EO I c✓d <G r If i �I\EE NE B'5,001 OMIT' _ d 3 a a7al A� I �E � f d I v W G I 0 Eolil iI ...OWe1U 3 YE D/9I I f I c JJs' ,r- Mn(e, O x s I k � Y ✓ � • ,J'(4�< Ep "'r 7tC e x / s r r NG `� ' L V /NE N I✓cOC /F/.✓ �i � ` „d Y/aI _ Iz 7 U Los/ N -_-' I1 N ® I c `l m. ! 1 / I I.., A lyg I I I I I ` PO,Q,t/A/G"5 +` ex1_ r/uc. 1 ° i " j: ®iE I F / 2 rs / c/ ! I " 9 \. W I J% d V I F AlE N 72 l v . a \ \ \ �P s ✓ e tr e u r I . Snow yl I.. >< _ / \\ pdLL/✓G P/<c/.✓G-S ill /O'X Y' yi n EAG' ✓/./c A.i----A'. --�=_- �-`_ G,f f3 sr,vG c! o d K ✓COGf -s I 1' I i G G L/ e r✓ ✓✓ c r/✓ t e o All I I � I--1 Li:ll� flG... Lwoirc Sionc p �t LEGEND L,a" Ise To De e�wW W ,.,J® `i > - Tpl ¢mc ry TaeL ' TO tE RaocsTEG -Q Q17LE L"P, -iOE�- F1XE OF E%19(I fD.JENEI.IT b ftns w1,51 LL't PeAwx EF -•-c- Wt')Gp FE+IL6 -r�(� -+- �-6W OZn1413CE ❑ cc'x"TE MONUVIEUT W pwcT UOUS 1-86 b WALL KO Lr KS 'U$ 1bF'-�l�J5EED6o ------ 4<tL LIMMS. 8 6YERL1KEFf.1'(kEES . ---- pOOPFely uuEs WD45 MW '— LEUTER. uweE ' 1F sUDQ -40p4E --Tot Ica OF DWK --` -_---------p 5[10r.MPe4WAO ,I ram`-��T-1-,�_`_' :'----�.---^�-v—�-----. I i s I /rr II LAew :tL".I- f=F�LLT - • fc T`/Prc,Q.L 2c7-c,L/$Jc.mil Cf7-rAl -:: re P .a /L '9 1 A/4' / L/ L ':t AE L r .f r G x /3 r/✓G L/.✓Of N..rCCC /✓✓ - 9fy 4'F Zb,7 - _''c- ° •Rd._rc •tEvu.w„C /aerLr� lc rJ<a. cdKrc•✓ls , s. rf^E 'L� SFdcE3 L E �OrfS r..d ue_._ srzc P' ---- e{..- Jr�edcJ M,Z' 14 SEQ 2 2 2015 F c ;Z A; i t /cam /- City of So. Burlington h h E r. f L,r r.16 �. _ -�, .^ v s.z ..- - `(`:L r L .• / G ( -.. S/, 7,4 SF �-i %Z t/c• ` m a cL.L ,�< .. !F c Bv�LC1/JF �r'AKK fN(. /✓c ` e�f_•/a r__L_.� G:.rLl:.vr/ / -.__ _.rrs rCE =. TO a. d(ee �0 J � J 9�q/ JS City of So. Burlington SIT[ J ptlfl-EIS Nor_, T 7 ( llpL WV`Z V 0 J ` � 0 / Va a efex E I4 C-E</E aQL -- NcTE .� F/LE /IYPLeNr A. Dz1. INC: Ger-�rla-p, w, 01301 i t I V. cl PAY - O CEDAR HEDGE REPLACED WITH NEW 50 TREE REPLACEMENT CEDAR HEDGE REPLACED WITH NEW 50 TREE REPLACEMENT //✓N✓d LSJ G%/3T/NG /.✓P/Lb/ G%/Sr/NL>i cep IE. WE P7-p TYP/cd< f'PR- // 3 NR ✓E 3 /S SER V/c E5 2eq✓/gep r/3 /No c.Id ✓GE) W 1 I e.Pu✓o uYJ I O 1� /L"F/NP/A. l.• I Nodc.4d NGE I (� vennr�acn ouo ¢cnc+rr, ✓i i�, 1 d A'IAVLE TREE MAPLE TREE OE %/S r/</h • Q E✓ E 6 G L E E N T6 E E I SNOW STORAGE AREA L W G EO/dl 5 � BIKE J�'YE✓ I I /.mil R4 EO }' EX /6"rf r-:/E �► s"S 4./14E/i1VPOD IA!✓ -� -S-- S�--- PLPP0-5Ep EEC E%/3T/NG -s N � a -- \ doom/P✓ I) V I u 1 I > CLX--- qLZAit i N©�-_.j"1r -✓ I(TE f.� L>I\ I 1 \\r rr� /./�2'aePLL:(r/�'� Fd.�E/✓G-5 Psacla/G-5 I �. tiCJ� '�-1 O�.-_:T.-� ♦� II � I 11 4 jI Q I I 1 \?EF. GE<1 I % / c \EO `J ,✓CTE L '� _� to c I Z � E s E .0 <_ / F✓ n �d . i �.. i � i `� _ riE <oer/c,✓:) ;� p- 1 C\cr {` NL - j i \ 5 I___----------_- CAL /7r/Ny :Ed V/c EX /b ,d id/C+ GL/✓E /re, & It a-p / / V--EX/ST/NG cEPdQ dEOGE -) EK/= r/✓G !�d/✓E Tc LEGEND Tez TO eE PEMGVEO twrtc rL TeeL. TO DE MOCK F9 t o FOX- LQq'R ' -E09P— C-jx� OF Ex0901J4 f"MEmr O 'FDWE - FOtE -+- - CHww UNK FEIJ=E E%t5pL4 PrrawnyE - -•- • WOOD FEucE MONUVIEWT CO fODP05W OVAJUA40 pECroULRIs:1-- ❑ b Comcps-Tv WAIL MP LW6 ro7aL/sEEOEP - - - - - - !.,¢AM Llw- rwpazly-Limes - HMP5 P.w/ -- c"a UmE5 ! --cow 'SFORO[vE TOD TGD OF Dxwv a STORMG>z< wAc'E N i Y I I GE da ,/<l J5/6LF/ FLEE/c CE E4>G/dL T%Plc.9 L. 2 E 7-6/-/5/oL/ Z /7-C reLnE t LI cIJ YV 0 Ll-NC OLIE FIE: o-H u ttr5 - Fhc f< L EP !'! C.C.✓C. ECG uL'Nfd� L✓,TS Gf E iL ,6 L. ,L.J T E 5 /✓F PL <Id T/P Al Fo.L r1l O/TE P<6✓ 'o-Ard/Mep .c,a PLl - 'prc lG/✓dL 3NL✓EY od rE o Pc r. zf , /94'J. LY 4 ✓ dock C u'NE2s /✓P PB.<//T/O✓, /uo do ru!< f/LLp ooc u NE Nr A r/oAl BY 4/c HS /NL. 'j,. NE{V e_,Ad-.e SNd LL SE O<dcdp d OP/tPx«//Te Lv ZP' NP6s'N of Ex/br/LIC> /N rE 63TL rb P//L E<r/c NQL S/GN a✓O /N L/✓E /Jc4P FLPN) rld.4 4Vd E-E//o e- GNLEi - Cdr, g, EX/3 r/NG E✓rLd NCE C✓aeE✓rLY SA+dd.Eo +✓/rd r/d,fHl, Spd<L 4E dL rB 260 r0 AlP.4E-4-dLLV pEF/✓E r/L//H/'S EL/rLd NCE dNa L+PLE Ga FELe' 0 /EE<l r6dfF/c TP FEa LI✓3 L•Gr Sc .6EE✓EC rLd311 OrP&dGE dLE! A' Lo'A L/'A//Gd -001O FE✓cE Pa Ld rr/cE GO NSTL✓cT/PN /✓/ � /<GE53 Gd TE3. Fj, PLO PP SEP Qoo/r/d'✓ i/%l8 3F), 3/u4LB SrP d. •/ wPoo SfL ecru LE. P /L /c /'v& /A/ f D .0 LI d r /oLJ City ofli $UHLINGTON I ,1J [ryryr� f /� IIQQ GL- �IVIV P /Lp PPSEC LErd/< FLPc a: SP/GE E % /E r/uG <<NpEN.✓nnc IN✓ dop/rIPN rc L/uPEN�✓CCp /uu - /I/B iF TGrL< tE�z `P �. sz sF - /Ec � tP a<Es .DEL:✓/�sQ / 6Er!/� /e rL/dL Pd LCC 19T: 4�L'a e ES LGc a T C P 11/ rN/A/ Z; </E c RECEIVED AUG 12 2015 r_av of So. Burlington /3 L d A./ 7-/ ,l/ C+ f G /J E O U L E SYM. 47C d//r <P</NP✓ NaIrE go j. N6</E -/.E P5f _ub. F'Y2lL!//.'/</PNG/r/-' '✓Ew //'��" E6 - E X /3 r/NL E ✓e �.ca=eJ - OlE rr,v l+ neck /JO T E 5 �. SEf QLL P4 Ed.<f /NC- /N @Ep PF Ea2r.L I/c/LcN g. //PNrlo dL� /-Le Nr/.�/c+ dE EE_S <//,✓/,./ua/ 1:.. •, G, <csr Pc E!.<d PL/Nr/NL+ r✓LL UCE> /L<!T/, LLd rrL1 {/ :=EE. L,o r /A,/ F p /L A/ f r/,0 A./ /. LG </E � •/j Z. LC -/' k'.•4 I .'�// �' T<f! Lr.. / "/,i/% �// Ld ✓L'3<. PEL_. 14Bz- °'Sc'-sF /Flc /. �r-dG.� /�;.-F�yFP .' i ., •cc :L/r /l'f LA,Nc duo CUTE !- Fic Q-E E✓ p/NG/PQ/_.-/JC. L"-" ,'UT.'./<E _TC L.L+E FEB13 1991 City of So. Burlington v u Vfd 0 2�l Z n0 v I `� CX/S r/✓t. Z U I uoj I 0 W.A: iJ_.IN� _ MA. D301 0" / l.x�o� �rLci I i ps G@P/,L 'v""'. w G • rya �E EE/t) FX/6 T/✓G l N{ iS, A}G G/L/DLv''I 14 n, EX /f r/NG a0/•�� I I e r V e6 dv W G ( EDffl %naPI`'D % '44 r/NG -—� �-� > L/NDENWoo n /NL/ ---I ICi I 2m/!GE //Cu•C i V , y ^y(� R •L tt:. o !3'IrG i 24:'/NYEuSF{ewle I I ?e.Rx/NGI'5 Q I J EX/_-r/✓G V I p 6 ✓ E L/ E .c/ I / N _� I_ _I--_� _i•� I iF I I \ p i I r / h .�\r . Y (. 8 I � � (; .-•-.-._. li I I � I Sn,w,w t l: I I � I I�• ��/� � /� �@� '\ ' ----I __.�=��__ —__ '-'-•-^- � �� LIX !S T/Nb cEPAm /fEPGE p_<rL T/uG Ca ' RG♦r/r// u✓L //d r./hEo I A;_ �P ham a I 1 L-01,12cyA-slcnc LEGEND 0 LjV4; I I eeiloveo [:> - ".Icr TD!!L TO DE Rs-1.00R(EC --Q FOL� WH(5 , N� --eoq— arico of e%IST w'{A.ameur 1p`�'•yp(i]tb • yiii r as , (� —+— — LWJIJ LINK FEi.rE —••. EXISjIICk GQ-^11Y4E 1 °<4y<; , • a•WOW FENCe Ce-gMPo(E ❑ CCICXEjE pp.UM" /�rtOFCmUOU5 T7:E5 y1:M/RIF' Axe.- .rPL EP_fUJ AL. WALL — __—___ CeX)F DLYaIRS ueaoe E.vew'4ZEex+TY.+:cs . rs_./>i. /' n< .0 R!e L <E 2 PWPWTY LIIJE5 - �---� IiEDGE gzw — LEU(ER UIJES ! SUOvJ S(OXPlB TOe T06 op.aLuk I� 5joenceninlLc� G„ S.. L 2 E T'c A-16 / 0 t/ C / TG City of t3URLINOTON c Zzd Z. ffor€� _ /- .... ?.AJ,, 1 ,E A/ d r /V Al 604 T.✓/V 7 / rG '0 Id {F � . 'O'6 re /AALO F,idA/ "DE/6/✓dL 5!/RV@Y o—.,:—�0-=� ae rEo oL r. s8 , /949. er !.•v ✓Pen 4.3., ` OI✓,..Ems /L/f P6 A//T/O A// IA/D eL rJ!/c _ _ f/2 L7J Ovev,,1B,Vrdr1VA1 BY C>/cN3rIA— ;.1-i6hd/ (�han Prduroe<oI by 'Te.kY A1/•L� 'E UUIT RECEIVED SEP 0 9 2015 ---- _ —Mardi for .o. e` / > o a a eV `OV•n�C�N A OF �' V 1 ` V M Q O Q r- / N G ul O®. • SYM. LfL A//T CO N40L/ NA//E — -Urf �P Tc //A/ C _I-FW - 5/Sf - cc ST .Sud. - T _.— ® A 7 !Ar'/•'Em/✓F c dtee �� S�-/ P SW{ Li tf• fYE(N/n/L �Pc6/r/e VGw ��C J�r! /��'I r� Gig/•ir`t� (� n ZZ eds e•e E. //<-Z _-- OnEC'!c/C- No r E 5 L. SEr !LL OLE✓T/✓C- /N EFL GP f to /:I/c<N P<d G, cclT C� 6/<// PL/L/r/V(--ucLu/_.. A<cdT/C R/ •-EE. F'O /L A/ /. Zr c:E �. / I_-/ •._'/! [, i.t/.: µe !_. ..,i T<rt. /.cT /:r,t/Y '-/; Ld•'r! I•r1C ACG[ ... 7/;,. //1F :/ /y •l /_Ae. /. L<(,:fL AaCA " ac/L sf cL -•/.• /d ./ e/ A : 5/,394 sF ,.L OL%, /. �) f <= %V'Ln/[/(.-//'f CX /IJ! duP Eu' /' .,. (FA'C:✓mi'.-t//I� c✓r^/r.a -re L /<+E N / - ^/r> / rd ^. e .., L[/r3/PE STPR d(>E 9 '. Ite.u� S� City of So. Burlington i1 i ray From: ray Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:37 AM To: 'Jeff Nick' Subject: FW: 916 Shelburne Road Jeff, See comments from the City Arborist below. Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing infi�rmation relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Craig Lambert Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:07 AM To: ray <ray@sburl.com> Subject: RE: 916 Shelburne Road Ray, I stopped by the site this morning. It appears that they have already done what is proposed on the plan. There are several of the newly planted cedars which will need to be replaced next spring. It's a bit difficult to make recommendations about the tree that was removed without seeing what condition it was in. Since it was a large mature tree I'd say that adding a couple of 2.5-3inch caliper trees might be appropriate if the tree was on the original site plan. Craig Lambert South Burlington City Arborist 104 Landfill Rd South Burlington, VT 05403 Ph: 802-658-7961 Fax: 802-658-7976 email: clam bert .sburl.com Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. NEW AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE TREES' w i ���'. Ems. S � r � � y t y • t i, -= _ - fej Iva 1 i r lAwior ' \� ►SWU 3 _ Am TREES THAT WERE REMOVED No Text ti '• A T 1 Sk �� .. ,7n;'�4.,. ` �* ���� •.di.�{-_ w� a�".dam 916 SHELBURNE ROAD TREE INSTALLATION THE TREE INSTALLATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED: ENCLOSED ARE THE INVOICES FOR THE TREES PLANTED AS WELL AS THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT HAS BEEN PLANTED. THE TRENCH WAS DUG BY DARLING TREE SERVICE: THE INSTALLATION WAS DONE BY CHUCK PERKINS, LOREN DARLING AND A HELPER. THE TRASH ENCLOSURE WAS COMPLETED BY GREEN MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION. h k � C uc & Jann Perkins 80 South Cove Road Burlington, Vermont 05401 (802) 862-7094 916 SHELBURNE ROAD REMOVED CEDAR HEDGE HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH A NEW 50 TREE CEDAR HEDGE 43 CEDAR TREES RECEIVED FROM: 7 CEDAR TREES RECEIVED FROM: B & B NURSERIES 1056 STAGECOACH RD. MORRISVILLE, VT. GARDENERS SUPPLY 472 MARSHALL AVENUE WILLISTON, VERMONT 2 AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE TREES FROM: GARDENERS SUPPLY 472 MARSHALL AVENUE WILLISTON, VERMONT TREE INSTALLATIONS FROM: DUMPSTER INCLOSURE FROM: FOUR SIDED LOREN DARLING LANDSCAPING GOLF COURSE ROAD MORRISVILLE, VERMONT GREEN MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION 100 LAMBERT LANE JOHNSON, VERMONT ALL WORK HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND ALL NEIGHBORS HAVE STOPPED TO SAY HOW MUCH THEY LIKE IT. MR. IRISH EVEN TOOK A SHOVEL AND HELPED PUT IN ONE TREE. 916 SHELBURNE ROAD TREE EXPENSE B AND B NURSERIES: B AND B NURSERIES GARDENERS SUPPLY DARLING LAND SERVICE TOTAL HEDGE AND TREES: INVOICE 34761 $3,784.20 INVOICE 34762 90.10 INVOICE 7414 994.03 INVOICE 729 1,245.00 $6,113.33 B and B Nurseries, LLC P O Box 1057 Morrisville, VT 05661 Invoice Number: 34761 Invoice Date: 7/8/15 Page: 1 Voice: 802-888-7284 Duplicate Fax: 802-888-2818 Biil To: CUSTOMER SALES Customer ID ' Customer PO Payment Terms CUSTOMER perldns C.O.D. Item Description )KAM060A I Cedar Dark American Check/Credit Memo No: cc 3784.20 Subtotal Sales Tax Total Invoice Amount Payment/Credit Applied 2% Interest charged on invoices over 30 days. Unit Price 85.00 Due Dabs 7/8/15 Amount 3,570.00 3,570.00 21420 3,784.20 3,784.20 0.00 8 AND 8 NURSERIES 1056 STAGECOACH RD MORRISVILLE. VT 05661 802-888-7284 xxxxxx Mrrchaut I0: 346900134609 Ref B: 000? Phone Order XXXXXXXXXXXX8003 VISA Entry Method: Manual Total: $ 90.10 LLC i Invoice Number. 34762 Invoice Date: 7/8/15 Page: 1 07/08/15 12:47:30 Inv a: 000007 Appr Code: 01945D Transaction ID: 305189604507i49 Apprvd: Online Batches: 000068 Customer PO Payment Terms AVS Code: EXACT MATCH Y — _ - pe rkins C. O. D_ Plants are not returnable. A restocidng fee of 15%for any stone returned. No returns on special orders or sale items Due Date 7/8/15 Quantity Item Description Unit Price Amount 1.00 BBTHUDKAM060A Cedar Dark American r Subtotal 85.00 85.00 Check/Credit Memo No: cc 90.10 85.00 Sales Tax 5.10 Total Invoice Amount 90.10 Payment/Credit Applied 90.10 TOTAL 0.00 2% Interest charged on invoices over 30 days. Gardeners Supply Williston Sales Receipt 472 Marshall Avenue Work Order #: 7414 Williston, VT 05495 Transaction #: 296949 • 802-658-2433 Account #: 881177 Page: 1 of 1 Date: 7/16/2015 Time: 9:37:16 AM Cashier: Courtneyl Register #: 5 Bill To: LOREN DARLING Ship To: LOREN DARLING DARLINGS LAND SERVICE DARLINGS LAND SERVICE 346 GOLF COURSE RD 346 GOLF COURSE RD MORRISVILLE, VT 05661 MORRISVILLE, VT 05661 802-793-7629 802-793-7629 Item Description 62-163 ARBORVITAE NIGRA 6' Thuja occidentalis 'Nigra' 6' Discount code: 145 64-427 MAPLE AUTUMN BLAZE 10G Acer x freemanii 'Autumn Blaze' 10G Thank you for shopping Gardeners Supply Williston Please come again! 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 296949 RTD On Ord._ P / Up Full Price Price Extended 0 0 7 $189.99 $99.00 $693.00 0 0 2 $189-99 $118.00 $236.00 Sub Total $929.00 Sales Tax $65.03 Total $994.03 CHECK Tendered $994.03 Change Due $0.00 G,:.irling's Land Service, Inc. 1 6 • (802) 888-1177 N0 6 729 Date KI S/ 20 S To: Terms: Service charge of 11h% per month will be added to all invoices over 30 days due. Date Description Amount JET U. % r re- &k _'Z'' ;OF r .O � v News & Citizen, Inc. u018wling 'oS to A1!j 1661 CT83j /j 7J lS :ii•:75 7 ->v d;Z..g , 7'77''01^. a0/{1 nJ :,c>•)n/77Yd/ Jn/O>/n7 aH97?1 ,} sJ/clnp on/ '7n/a7/d/Jn •/>:ng % hL `=� dS Eye+)/ . Jn/7D)a/.)n/H>/ng % ZL �t J OLo'/y - 7> i7 17d1/;vn/•J n➢ %,�,.q qp Js ;/� gs %/ 1, > >! -V n:>n aV"v r/> . vn/✓>/n� (J: L/�'//./ J» .1J>f 'sf 9n/7>/n7 (/%.'. Hn/a-/np i'"'..._J N•3 7 /f .7T 'z (!:� i ->J /•> 7n>� •/ /Y 0/1 Y/-/ 7/0 1 0•7 ram' /YH/1 I>)Y1 Sn/ G70n »/Y/ ')n/Jnl>,/ /'e/r f0 1G0> •> „ Z/ /fn /r/n./p sl7 aY �n/1n I>✓ »Y unno// 9 h>vn/,' �7Dr do oag n/ H///Jnv vv »Y - • > sn vn>/aap v/r/J r/xa y 1 _ vn' p7 0 ` /:•aa r9q ina Jn/ls/xg - �3 e^t t(jf /Z' sar.>aa ZZ o ,7.'I aHogn 7vvr> 6 > C� •.�/ /'7/A 7/J/iYp�>/Oi/>v ied �Z 9 '9n{ JG.» +JL/i rH/n109 it>yn Wen/fpa /N1 717 3 n o 3 // u016ug•m8 •oS 10 43 510Z 0 £ ddb C13AI303H as>7ds y� .'ap/n»d �n/77 ZvYZ >: zoilz 7YJoJz a>Ydi wa7J a 7/Y1 a7 p aGOd J7d �W N010bilia s [W Ai!O /7 C/ 1 Y/7717_Y/7/ %/7, 7/-7/ v'd /»1r0 /7o/91-Y?-Z9TJ -7 ^77 779 I I � I _`�'�-'� 7:.n•--tea y I _ (J iJ />e f/?rJ 91nH/i Hn/lc x2 R I /nroa�waolS o AnscJo aol aoi a4>aols'Aaw a sarana31nn --- /xlu 5,DCON r 7 53NIJ mzs4md -- s3relN ;n-a gqsh�a� S�Nn 3a Ca1N — -- 5/1 59*al-Snooaaw '*m -mm 1nawnr' w Cl ❑ 3hOmwd - -tLLgg-"') 3�IY3i COON —•—•— '34vroved `mtivm �—...— Ann nrorn 31gl ci JtNawa l L;N&U a d0 SWa —i3oa— 3 �--� Ga1Vo/33 34 of . � 1d91 -I� .- � ma7Jal d3m7rsaasal aai I I 1 o a4n7n>nn n///f q7 I-- v1 —� / 9 (onno hHr7onnJ (r4s/ ve/70 �a>/errs .n,Jc/ra ' I Q _1 � ; / �� L't �.� � �'1 ; � — I � \l!.. �Y (7 - —4 —+� � a (vn•o,1D>o>J a,J I °",, 3 // (iJ a3 V I �Qf S - vn/77!d S-qn/7.7 rd ♦(aJ s: Dag> y m ��•I —_ \. i I,AOro ae/mat/ _ --- I�- 4 � uUq tin LL �N N NON I eos � � U AC i cti rp° /-Y Y '7 d b, C AA G 4 L e@� 6 glvn L an r n @ -- >v7anav 1 nH/s- 7/ddarJ nL ?oU u _ C C p P In n nC 11 I I I sJ//+n >/1n.rg ->e.s _ �"� q •` (vlII s a.( uA7 Hn/•X l7.> p7t.>J>qy I ! @ i 1 I , Aoora39 3n0-Z oB sodoyd 1 _ _ r'IOJ> fi r 1 1 J 5 J 11 S (9t2rlVFi7 OrIJ ��loN ,l`P1:1 v3av3ovaa.smoNs 3a 11 f9n I•+�`�35 3rvo Oa,zcjcj1 -ra+fve 1'1 Hn/1 G/Y7 'a7 n1>n7Ji claim /A•7'as 77 qn/S na,1/O0p 09S Od 07d 'CJ ' 97119 {S7 »/ � /nl n0/1>n714n O> >/1 J 9770 7>n ay OOpnI —71 ///.7 r,%M,Q .. -7a7Y rH17'O1i /YC/g1 aplx3o Y>s '1 v7 sn/7 r7d of >/yd Y71 J171/17 .A77>Ya ova", aor R—lvin7 7n/dap /A77/a>n rip/> O1 0977171 79 >vYn's //fPh11 xa— o7'1/ns n7Jr/ a 1Yng a>n 17Jna Jn/l f/r7 's 'sn7 - a7n7 >GnaH r7/nt 7r/1 (Ir07y TTp»i, an/7 /r/ on9 //7/g >/no/L7ar/d 91>1L7i1n/ rin/J57/Y7 OO h170/r ,OT n> al /H /Yo7/dd y Oa>/vd av 7>rnr a>nl rJnr e17n 'Z '7n/ {H>/g ,AS I, "'a P,a 7/fn>ap O>Y/y 71"rf p/fY >/'o,JY/>7o s/ri sq rnnap /'9'7 gYvp 'Al p A7 'L 46r Sz 17o Ga110 .�gn7ns fyn/H/7o nvey. J.7n/v1 Sd /rY701 P1/47 17/111 '70> 1 .Ab OnnOQ %n/nOy frl ad Oav! 34p g I a/ G a, /A' -arpr> bn/J a/r7 3JN3.f -,IVN lflds H11M 03a%gd3N 30 01 03AOW3N 300'dNN 7n/1a,Xa p i I f/711'�O7g y. fnaw,pJ' Nova3we .:-� 0 m Oat l7c ^(� 3r7/ nag 7•l7 D�7 av I (a pn the en/ ns S•7>/n aas n/ r �n/1 {/>•a _I 3-MA IMN JJ ld$ H1IM o3JV-Id3113N 01 1xio VFW QT3I�33 .. _�7N1 - "Y7-A n a7/d - ' ---- H — k\ i) �C1 ^qu \ Q N N �lh Z i.. \Y P y y, r A \ y Z "p` a P v C 0 v ra a U %Z 70 /09/rZ4 I PZ 70 >D f, fP/6/ •'a9yreig aa'stn0 . gg I'r d1/. I01/41 na en/ "w 77 yd/'n'07/n9 a9yr010 30'4Jnd onI 9N/r7 /D/9n/07//1'9 , bL 'ra s4 fi 99/0/ onv 9n/7r rd / 9n/07/np' ZG -ra df Atf'/9 raj/ ord►7coNr7 %,7-4 7a /r 9'c' to /ar/ ass r70ON►7 °/,%/ ra>0 v/Q/ '71,1 : /77r aPd rr4 a, r7 %77 Yo dr 9,79S '7J1 1009 - 14na/r Ar 70, % /, 7a d4.PGGb'. •''1-i >s 9/6/ - Ovoodox•d d4T80 - 1 17r/ry /C 9/6/ - oroodord >4 0/6£ - qN/JC/rf JPfzf/-aCno// a9r/3rra. si Off/ - 9n/J4/X9 gn/aIlly g 7N/oe/nq h0/47//76? (JG 6/T'/G/ 107 7/J of '� (s4(,S9'o2f t-7 In'oT 'Z (dl Z°/S'oSf /-a rnoT Gae1r77A07 10'7.1(• /vo/1 Y/y va!/r/ 1 07 fay /r0'1I>7/14n/ CaOn77ry/ 9ry/Jry/>d /v7/3 •'O Jf07 •? ;YZ/ wn/>/n/H Crrrr, qn/Jry rid 77r orrnaH '9 .p77/7w +7r9 se oa9 ry/ gn'r.Jnr7d 77r JVp 'y G _� 1 e7 ev ZZ O ,y -Ir ava,N 7rd,a 6 ? C- GP ,� '9np J4 ea ,r/C iN fN '109 /H yry NoHHoa Jt r 7l7 'HAC 77/7a Ir a i 'J /l / 1 /y p 71_/ / -O In as N/NJ/A' 0/1 y 10 1 of>900 9Z 0I0/AOrd -,7n/7r7rd 7rn17r' -r//JIL / OaTi/nblY CV7rd9 s OS/ >• Z'/9Z >c 7 7 1 Z 7rlo1 sC P/6/ - NN/ oOon,N ron/+ 0J /ro/1'aar �'t 646 - Nry/ aoa,Nry�On/7 qn/{ 4/ x a - sv rdG Tao» 7/r1 a7 0740d old /7'v/1r/77vo'/r/ q/>'/77-7/ yd NoioNtiuni lip 4 o 4{/nn 7rJn/11I -ra> -!N'-r7/a' orsdd17 3no 1MRAINQo"AA NUSI xa-,/.'7/' v�r>S wv' rrsc sOr/ aneJC -srnoa se viayss />r7/w Sggq��g�b 7PA y7v �A�°n em YPs4n U // ro klutid 17/Nd G/. �3n'OJ4 N7d0 ro i I n� J, HV5 I s (Ocb]s 9N/d7/nP / G1 N9/7 Onn07'J ► rjrnrvw wa01s C -Amw d0 ml 401 vwwls Pwv s 4 m%SIM --- v�f�J naazh�an3 selm wf&.> :----- aaa Sam alw 1w - a sae3L'SnOna7.aC CID 1na4m mow alorx-0) O 8'701YMD�Q99ad� .r- - =mj do0/A —•—•- 9Mmr2d "Iwxs -..•— TXAJ 74n nrm7 - -•- skd zatow O lranurodhnJF;ixa JO sari —JaO3- -.bm a-W a-• doemia 14 01 'Ijal Mali %a'I' l •- G`7 Mho" A so of asl CN95M - orhn rN7A'n n'1HOr 9n'14/xI 01 aA/rd ,an/JG/Xa �Onn0747IOnn [r9L/ sA'ra 9n,rf'C/Ito9/1 I O 1i �/o no/snr{/7 I p (iJ,a nN/77d 4 - hn./ i -rrd h(o/s7rosv,y llJ' \ �fOJ/I �Ile J `dry a...H ^ �...--'--/ I I / I ! try//r I A / 0, I 0\ I qry/1 i,xa A \ 6 �P I \ (9J CnVA s tZ . e P 0 I 0ti 15 •I I t 'he R f qn rN, aN I f>narasar � � Es I - ----.--_. no/1r►07 L n9/C gryrl//xf r/ o,ra (eJ r rro,7° pi of 19" la ON (//CN9A/9 ON �71Jr�o9, r' O [4Jo/ . �ra rJ /rrf7g70AI 37 �O/ lirrn Nooaoa■ eno onsodoyJ �' W ' P7 nJ7n iJi' OOOAI A-ra10 7'70n/G /ra/1/00I OIt Od Old 'ej '1rJ r9 Ci f7a/ f /As n0/J7n7/Sno? f7/JJr7 r0 a>/r P? (° Oa AI W-7//r /r7 r , 9 0,17 - rP7r P9rwaar Afr71 OP1If,87S =�• 10, GN/7sad al 7/0//r-1 Js/7/O ,.77drV 97a/f aNr I?n17Jns C,/1,f1A'r1 Pry/s00 A7701170 PVOH OJ 0,77I17y a9 77/dr '/Nln/1 /rJ/Ar Orrr/rG A7Jn//rns P7nr7Jnf 9n'Jr/XI '.tns - f7/77 a sn oN a7 rm I7/1 [H07y C4a7>r/ a/7''7 N/ cN)I n'q'4 '1r Na'J>f P/O 91IJS7 rJ N/. •7nr fV/YI 0`0 N.Lron,oT A7a.1r/r1Vd T/dd/ OP7f7d av 77r/'r r7n /7.en/ A1a/r "l 'sN/ VwrIv A9 /ro/1V1n 3/ina00 C'iy,y 7rnJ 7/ ONr '/r0'Jr/l7Os/r/ Cr INnlO 10'7 •J/0/r A. / A9 'bib/ ' 9T '170 O I1 r0 AIn7nC rr/r/9/so :./rdfd Or/•'/r190 /rr7o' f1/C S �1O/'r -7 Z / y'7 /70� a9nrna oN 1� I on/J 4/Xj► ,47onno4r op I O/r/J C/X p MINI Of 0/L !6%? M (Ivnrha aryl Ofs/nb/'7 I 4a7/A INC if 4InsN0 /a40 /N '710r� bjn/l 4/xp �'79//n/ hn/J O/Xjr _� I 9a 9 °111IIO va CJ1 '+rs'dAJ (t7rnnn/J c1/77n9 7as'o7d � •Ik ti iU M �'I o olIof t.k h nnn ova too ZL NCN m r � � s �Cu A � buy I Atiq nuA 00 -7d .71/S Cis U;t C sn '£ ,JaN P ^ C ^ -. 7yr PnaJ I Nq/C' +/Ydrr1 �0* N �o a tnu L � L\ AulYn yn � u �^ o* Pu �r ^L r - anea aoornry - - � V\ I - � 1nva O.{n 97iy �-- -1-10W _)v415 0v" ray From: Renee DeCelle <rdd1058@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 4:55 PM To: ray Subject: Lindenwood Drive Mr. Ray Belair- I am a resident on 2 Lindenwood Drive (I have lived here since 8/2011) & would like to express my concern regarding the property across from Lindenwood Drive (where the Custom Curtain business used to be); the hedge that was there was a beautiful hedge that provided noise protection as well as privacy; it also allowed us a visual to Shelburne Road as we pull out from Lindenwood Drive onto Shelburne Road. Putting up a fence would be absolutely unappealing visually; and would NOT follow the beauty and design of the neighborhood. There is also a lot of nature and wildlife that lives along this little road and in and around all the houses and the fence would NOT allow the wildlife to get across the road to protection. I believe that the hedge should be replaced with a hedge as was originally there and that it follows the the design of Lindenwood Drive. Thank you for your time and consideration. Renee DeCelle (802) 238-0726 2 Lindenwood Drive So Burlington VT 05403 TO: Ray Belair — Administrator Officer June 12, 2015 Department of Planning & Zoning — So. Burlington, VT From: Raymond & Patricia Jewett 4 Lindenwood Drive, So. Burlington, VT— property owners since 1985 RE: Replacement of Lindenwood Drive Hedge previously bordering Residential & Commercial Property Dear Mr. Belair, it has come to our attention that there is an upcoming meeting to discuss replacement of the hedge that previously bordered Lindenwood Drive & the former Lindenwood Inn property. We were not notified of any meeting to discuss this issue, and only found out about it on 6/10/1S. We will be in Florida on business matters and unable to attend the meeting. We kindly request that you express our concerns regarding the proposed replacement of the former hedge. 1.) The 8-10 foot cedar hedge was chopped down to ground level without notifying us, or any of the affected neighbors. Additionally, my wife & I were not notified by Mr. Perkins of his plans to replace the hedge. 2.) The hedge, which was located directly across the street and highly visible from our home at 4 Lindenwood Drive, was an attractive barrier bordering this residential and commercial property. The tall hedge provided a dense, natural barrier which blocked the sight of the former Lindenwood Inn commercial property. Since the hedge has been chopped down to ground level, the commercial property is highly visible from our home at 4 Lindenwood Drive. 3.) We feel that removal of this natural barrier and border has significantly affected the property value of our home and its potential resale value. We are sickened that this beautiful hedge was destroyed without consulting the affected neighbors and seeking their input, as removal of the hedge has had a serious effect on the entire Lindenwood Drive neighborhood. The hedge provided a buffer sound -absorbing barrier, reducing noise and pollution from Shelburne RD traffic as well as activities on the Lindenwood Inn commercial property, from affecting our home and neighboring homes on Lindenwood Drive. The hedge affected wind velocity and direction, protecting residents from the constant noise and pollution of traffic on Shelburne RD. 4.) We request that the hedge be replaced by a natural, green, cedar hedge that is the same height, same length and density, as the previous cedar hedge, and that it entirely blocks view of the commercial property from our 4 Lindenwood Drive property. 5.) We do not agree to a split rail fence or a stockade fence as a replacement barrier and border to the commercial property. A wood, metal or rock wall fence, tall enough to obscure the commercial property from view, would devalue our property, as it would look like a fortress, and would not have the same wind, sound, and pollution absorbing capability as the former 10 foot cedar hedge. 6. We believe that the cedar hedge was part of the permit issued by the city many years ago. 7. We understand that the property at the end of Lindenwood Drive (Dattilio's Sunoco station), has to keep a vegetation barrier as well as a setback area, and we think that this would also be appropriate in this case. We do not know if the other 6 owners of properties abutting the commercial Lindenwood Inn property were notified of the meeting to discuss the replacement of the hedge. We request that a hearing be scheduled no sooner than June 29 to allow us, and other interested persons and neighbors, to participate in the discussion concerning the hedge replacement. Thank you for your attention to this matter. aymond and Patrzciajewett Tel: 802-238-7892 j Petition Replacement of Lindenwood Drive Hedge Bordering Residential and Commercial Property We the residents of Lindenwood drive feel that the hedge is an important buffer between the Commercial property at the bottom of the street and the surrounding residential neighborhood. This is a dead end street that has a bike path that is in constant use and is your first impression of the street. As it sits now with the hedge removed, it is no longer as attractive as it was with the hedge. The use of the bike path is also affected with the hedge being removed. Previously, as you turned up the street, the hedge would begin to block the noise of Shelburne road making for a quiet pleasant shaded path to Farrell Park and beyond. The tall cedar hedge provided a dense, natural barrier which blocked the sight of the former Lindenwood Inn commercial property. Since the hedge has been chopped down to ground level, the commercial property is highly visible and opens up a view to Shelburne Rd as well an unattractive view of the Gas stations, tire store, Kmart, bank and hotel across the street. We feel that the removal of this natural barrier and border has significantly affected the property value, potential resale value, and privacy and enjoyment of the families on the street, their visitors and the many area residents who use the bike path. The hedge was a natural sound absorbing barrier, reducing noise, car lights and pollution from Shelburne Road traffic as well as activities on the Lindenwood Inn commercial property from affecting our homes on Lindenwood Drive. We request that the hedge be replaced by a natural, green, cedar hedge that is the,same size and density as the previous cedar hedge, and that it entirely blocks the view of the commercial property. We the residents and land owners of Lindenwood drive request the development review board deny the request of Charles and Janet Perkins to amend their original agreement to have and maintain a solid screening fence. The Hedge is very important to maintaining a separation of commercial and residential life. 1. rA 2. 3. 4. ��iS� 6C�11t rJJI1►� 5. 4 (fit / ) . (A / ni/Pn Z 011 �Z) 15�u•� lu/ w`�t-rjvv000 0S. i30ea- S C4--&s' -3 J►7 �/is- Petition Replacement of Lindenwood Drive Hedge Bordering Residential and Commercial Property A z tl',hdth �bY. ' u2> Sq8-f9R4 9. �' 20 L�'rid nwv fir. 10. ,I 1�-.' ZZ I •� 11. ��` _ 7 2 (_ a n o�p lnwe�CLILV � � 12. ,13 /J�/►� ��t� / �/<y/i. fi/!C'G�lib':ZP 13. /� �D.Z - -�- 76 14. &2 Z.0-T 2-(c 1 17. WMIWFA'/ ii1. IdFiPA��7F.' .r MA- 21. 22. 23. 24. / I q L i vice eo wnrx �> U rc1 - 4f97-1 % 7,1 �F-02��3("7z19 202- jai CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on thik:-*j day of U 20,Af' a copy of the foregoing public notice foi6,Je_?�%g d,�<!iJ (type of a licallonJ [application number], was sent by U.S. mail, postage prepaid to the owners of all properties adjoining the subject property to development, without regard to any public right-of-way, and including the description of the property and accompanying information provided by the City of South Burlington. I further certify that this notification was provided to the following parties in accordance with 24 V.S.A. &4464(a) and Section 17.06(B) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: List of recipients: J (full names and addresses) v Dated a (town/cityJ. Vermont, this day of 20 b�- Printed Name: Phone number and email: Signature: Date: Remit to: City of South Burlington Department of Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 cely South Burlington Sample Certificate of Service Form. Rev. 1-2012 } APRIL 25, 2015 916 SHELBURNE ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT REQUEST TO REMOVE THE CEDAR HEDGE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY LINE. WE ARE SORRY WE REMOVED THE HEDGE WITHOUT PERMISSION, WE DID NOT REALIZE THAT WE NEEDED A PERMIT. 1982 THE HEDGE WAS INSTALLED WHEN WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 1982. THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN USED AS A MOTEL, AND WE CONTINUED TO USE THE PROPERTY AS IT HAD BEEN USED BY THE FORMER OWNERS. 1989 WE ADDED TREES TO THE HEDGE WHEN WE CHANGED THE BUILDING USE AND RENOVATED THE PROPERTY FOR A RETAIL STORE. 2015 REASON FOR HEDGE REMOVAL. 1. THE HEDGE BEING CLOSE TO THE ROAD HAS RECEIVED A LOT OF SALT SPRAY IN WINTER CAUSING A LOT OF DEAD TREES. 2. A LOT OF OVERGROWTH OF WEEDS AND BAD TREES HAS FILLED THE SPACE. 3. THE AREA HAS BEEN EXTREMELY HARD TO KEEP CLEAN BECAUSE OF TRASH BLOWING AND COLLECTING IN THE GROWTH. 4. OUR TREE SERVICE SAID THAT THERE WERE TOO MANY HIGH TREES IN THE VACINITY OF THE HEDGE PROVIDING SHADING AND CEDAR NEEDS MORE SUN. HE FELT THAT WAS THE REASON MANY HAD DIED. THE MAIN REASON WE WANTED TO ELIMINATE THE HEDGE. A CHANGE IN THE USE OF THE HEDGE OCCURRED WHEN THE CITY INSTALLED A BUS STOP IN THAT LOCATION. WE DO NOT FEEL IT IS A SAFE PLACE_BECAUSE OF THE BUS STOP, NOT ONLY FOR OUR PROPERTY, BUT FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN WAITING FOR THE BUS. THE AREA BEING CLOSED OFF SEEMS TO BE A GREAT PLACE TO HIDE. 1. THE HEDGE HAS RECEIVED A LOT MORE TRASH SINCE THE BUS STOP WAS INSTALLED. 2. MEN USING THE BUS STOP HAVE FOUND IT WAS A VERY CONVENIENT PLACE TO URINATE. THEY HAVE DONE SO EVEN WHEN I HAVE BEEN ON THE FRONT STEPS IN DAYLIGHT. OCCASIONALLY MOMS HAVE USED IT AS A CHILDS POTTY STOP. 3. WHILE TRYING TO KEEP THE AREA CLEAN IT HAS BEEN A CONSTANT SOURCE OF BOTTLES, SODA AND BEER CANS. 4. WE HAVE SEEN MEN HIDING THERE POSSIBLY DEALING DRUGS, SEEING WE HAVE PICKED UP WASTE DRUG PARAPHERNALIA AND EVEN CONDOMS. 5. WE ARE CONSTANTLY REMOVING AND RETURNING CARTS FROM ACROSS THE ROAD THAT PEOPLE TRY TO HIDE BY PUSHING THEM PART WAY INTO THE HEDGE BEFORE THEY BOARD THE BUS. HOW CAN THE PROBLEMS BE SOLVED. WE REQUEST PERMISSION TO INSTALL AN ESTHETICALLY PLEASING SPLIT RAIL FENCE ALONG THAT PROPERTY LINE. 1. THIS WILL MAKE THE AREA A MUCH SAFER PLACE FOR PEOPLE WAITING FOR THE BUS OR JUST PASSING BY ON FOOT. 2. THIS WILL ELIMINATE UNSIGHTLY ACTIVITIES. J 3. IT WILL BE MUCH EASIER TO KEEP CLEAN AND NEAT. 4. THE FENCE WILL HOPEFULLY DETER PEOPLE FROM TAKING SHORT CUTS ACROSS THE LAWN INSTEAD OF USING THE SIDEWALK. 4. IN THE EVENT THAT TRASH OCCURS WE WILL NOT HAVE TO CRAWL THROUGH THE WASTE REMOVE IT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TO OUR REQUEST_ CHUCK AND JANN PERKINS ray From: ray Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 11:27 AM To: Ichuckandjann@yahoo.com' Subject: 916 Shelburne Road Site Plan Application - Incomplete Chuck & Janet, I have reviewed the site plan application you recently submitted and find that it is incomplete as the following required information is missing: 1. The site plan is required to include snow storage areas and these areas are not shown. 2. The site plan is required to include a bike rack and a bike rack is not shown. 3. The application must include 3 full sized plans, one (1) reduced to 11" X 17", and a digital copy in pdf format. You only submitted one (1) full sixed plan so we need the remaining plan submission. 4. The fee for this after -the -fact application is $425.50. Once I receive the above listed information, the application will be complete and I will then schedule you for review before the Development Review Board. Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. TO: Ray Belair —Administrator Officer June 12, 2015 Department of Planning & Zoning — So. Burlington, VT From: Raymond & Patricia Jewett 4 Lindenwood Drive, So. Burlington, VT — property owners since 1985 RE: Replacement of Lindenwood Drive Hedge previously bordering Residential & Commercial Property Dear Mr. Belair, It has come to our attention that there is an upcoming meeting to discuss replacement of the hedge that previously bordered Lindenwood Drive & the former Lindenwood Inn property. We were not notified of any meeting to discuss this issue, and only found out about it on 6/10/15. We will be in Florida on business matters and unable to attend the meeting. We kindly request that you express our concerns regarding the proposed replacement of the former hedge. 1.) The 8-10 foot cedar hedge was chopped down to ground level without notifying us, or any of the affected neighbors. Additionally, my wife & I were not notified by Mr. Perkins of his plans to replace the hedge. 2.) The hedge, which was located directly across the street and highly visible from our home at 4 Lindenwood Drive, was an attractive barrier bordering this residential and commercial property. The tall hedge provided a dense, natural barrier which blocked the sight of the former Lindenwood Inn commercial property. Since the hedge has been chopped down to ground level, the commercial property is highly visible from our home at 4 Lindenwood Drive. 3.) We feel that removal of this natural barrier and border has significantly affected the property value of our home and its potential resale value. We are sickened that this beautiful hedge was destroyed without consulting the affected neighbors and seeking their input, as removal of the hedge has had a serious effect on the entire Lindenwood Drive neighborhood. The hedge provided a buffer sound -absorbing barrier, reducing noise and pollution from Shelburne RD traffic as well as activities on the Lindenwood Inn commercial property, from affecting our home and neighboring homes on Lindenwood Drive. The hedge affected wind velocity and direction, protecting residents from the constant noise and pollution of traffic on Shelburne RD. 4.) We request that the hedge be replaced by a natural, green, cedar hedge that is the same height, same length and density, as the previous cedar hedge, and that it entirely blocks view of the commercial property from our 4 Lindenwood Drive property. 5.) We do not agree to a split rail fence or a stockade fence as a replacement barrier and border to the commercial property. A wood, metal or rock wall fence, tall enough to obscure the commercial property from view, would devalue our property, as it would look like a fortress, and would not have the same wind, sound, and pollution absorbing capability as the former 10 foot cedar hedge. 6. We believe that the cedar hedge was part of the permit issued by the city many years ago. 7. We understand that the property at the end of Lindenwood Drive (Dattilio's Sunoco station), has to keep a vegetation barrier as well as a setback area, and we think that this would also be appropriate in this case. We do not know if the other 6 owners of properties abutting the commercial Lindenwood Inn property were notified of the meeting to discuss the replacement of the hedge. We request that a hearing be scheduled no sooner than June 29 to allow us, and other interested persons and neighbors, to participate in the discussion concerning the hedge replacement. Thank you for your attention to this matter. kaymond and Patricia, Jewett Tel: 802-238-7892 PLANNING COMMISSION 19 FEBRUARY 1991 page 3 7..-The -Commission -waives -the _50_foot_frant _vard_setback_reouire_= menu s_ ursuaat_to'Secti_on,11_5Q7_of_the_zoninq_requlations — The Commission_approves-the -new—hildinewith-a-10_foot-setback from the _new_Dorset _Street-right=of sway- 8._The,plans_shall-be-revised_ rior_to_final-plat-to-show-20_foot wide_aisles_for_the-existing-camact-car-rows-on-the-southerly s i d ee _ o f_ S t e i n b a c e s 9-_The_applicant-shall-submit-plans to-CCTA—for-review-and commentserior-toµEinal-Plat- 10._The-plan_shall-bearevised_orior_to_final�Llolat_to_show_the Paquette__easement_for-future-_access-over_the_niversitV-mall mouer t r� - - .---._ _........________..___....� ._____.....�,.,.,,.,. ,.,.,....._..__ 11-The_final-plat_shall_be-su6mitted_within_12_months_or_this �aepnoval_is_au11_and_vofd Mr--Sheahan-seconded---Motion-passed-unanimously- 4- Revised site plan applicatipn of Chuck Perkins for conversion of two (2) existing buildings into three (3) residential units on a parcel which also contains 3,740 sq. ft. of retail use, 916 Shelburne Road; Mr. Perkins noted the residential portion of the lot is 200 ft. from Shelburne Rd. There is one building with 4 motel units in it and 1 chalet building. The plan is to convert the 4 motel units into 2 apartments and rent them and the chalet on a monthly basis. Mr. Weith said there will be no changes in parking, Ms--Peacock_moved_the_Plannin _Commission_aoorove-the_site-plan ao ticatio`n_of_Chuce_Perkins_for_conversion_of_two_t2),_existino buildings _into_three,4i).-residential -units _on,aearcel_which_also containsw3,740_sq,_ft._of__retail_use_as_depicted_onµa-plan~en- � titled_"Lindenwoodlah_Alteration�st-S16_Shelburne_Roadx-South_Bur= linotony_uermmmont,"_ re2aredy_nMa hGGraohic/Constructionagement Services,. _Inc,_and _dated-4/27/89r-last _revised-2/13191 r-with -the followino�stioulatioest 1—The_stipulations-con tained-in _the_5�23,C89_aoRroval,_and-not su�erseded�thiszaoproval-shallremain-inµeffect w' 2.._Based-upon-theexpressed_representation_of_the_applicant,-the second floor _third floor_and_}aasemeet_of_the_retail_buldino PLANNING COMMISSION 19 February 1991- page 4 shall -not -be -used -for _a y__2uroose_in_order—to_meet_trio_geaera= tiOn_re-uirements_ Article-XVIl-of-the-South-Burlipgton-Zoning &eaulations- Mrs._Maher_secondedµ--Motion-passed-unanimously_ 5. Consider request of Ralph Goodrich for permission to alter and relocate a water course located within a conservation district, Green Acres property, Hinesburg Road: Mr. Sheahan stepped down from the Commission to avoid possible conflict of interest as an abutting property owner. Mr. Goodrich noted that in January he met with Bill Szymanski to ask advice on a watershed property. Mr. Goodrich noted the loca- tion of the property on the map. He said it was a farm and it was being flooded by runoff from adjacent developments (Butler Farms, Oak Creek and Ledge Knoll). He said they have excavated a ditch along an existing ditch line so the water will no longer flow onto the farm. Mr. Craig said it was his beliefyall the water from those develop- ments drained into Potash Brook. Mr. Weith said it appears that all of Oak Creek is piped to Potash Brook. An area between one street in Oak Creek and Hinesburg Rd. would flow toward the Good- rich property. The plan was approved that way. All other streets have runoff that flows the opposite way. Mr. Burgess asked if Mr. Goodrich was contending the developments were not built according to plans. He said it is also a question as to whether to allow the drainage ditch or to have Oak Creek and the other developments redo their drainage systems. Mr. Craig said he had no knowledge or experience to know if what Mr. Goodrich says is true. He wanted a second opinion as to how much additional water is coming from the developments. Mrs. Maher raised the question of safety with small children in the area. The ditch is close to people's backyards. Mr Craig noted the Conservation Zone now extends into people's backyards, creating non -conforming structures in the yards. He said in essence, Mr. Goodrich moved the CO District from his land to the neighbors' land. Mr. Llewellyn said he didn't believe Oak Creek contributed 75% more flow to the Goodrich property. He also couldn't understand why the swale had to be rebuilt to the south. Memorandum - Planning February 19, 1991 agenda items February 15, 1991 Page 2 3) CHUCK PERKINS, 3 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. SHELBURNE ROAD This application is to obtain approval for the use of four (4) former motel units as two (2) efficiency apartments and a chalet formerly rented on a nightly basis to be rented out at a monthly basis. This use was approved by the Zoning Board on August 28, 1989 (minutes enclosed) but specifically not considered by the Planning Commission on May 23, 1989 (minutes enclosed, see condi- tion W . At a joint Planning Commission and Zoning Board meet- ing (6/6/90), the use of these buildings as residential units was discussed (minutes enclosed). Therefore, the use of these build- ings for residential use requires formal site plan approval by the Planning Commission. The property is zoned Commercial 1 and Residential 4. The pro- posed residential uses are entirely within this R4 zone. The property is bounded on the east by a single-family home, on the south by single-family homes and an oriental rug business, on the west by Shelburne Road, and on the north by Lindenwood Drive. Single-family residences and a gas station are located across Lindenwood Drive to the north. Access/circulation: Access to the residential portion of the property is provided by a 30 foot wide curb cut on Shelburne Road and 24 foot wide access drive through the commercial portion of the property. Circulation pattern is acceptable. Setbacks/coverage: There will be no change in existing setbacks. Building coverage in the R4 zone is 11% (maximum allowed is 20%). Overall coverage in the R4 zone is 21% (maximum allowed is 40%). Parking: There are no specific parking requirements listed in Table I of the zoning regulations for single and two-family dwellings but standard practice is to require 2 spaces per dwell- ing unit. This project would therefore require 6 spaces and only 5 spaces are being provided. Staff feels that since 2 of the units are efficiency apartments, 5 spaces are adequate. Traffic: The property is located in Traffic Overlay Zone 1 which allows 20 peak hour trips. Based on I.T.E. trip generation rates, the retail portion of the property will generate 18 trip ends during the peak hour and the residential portion will gener- ate 2 trip ends for a total of 20 trip ends during the peak hour. 2 Memorandum - February 19, February 13, Page 3 Planning 1991 agenda items 1991 Landscaping: The minimum landscaping requirement for this project is $150. The residential portion of the site is present- ly well landscaped with lawn and existing mature trees. Section 19.104a. of the zoning regulations allows the Planning Commission to grant credit for existing trees. Given the amount of existing landscaping and the small amount of landscaping required staff feels that this requirement is being met without additional plantings. Sewer: The previous 5 motel rooms required a sewer allocation of 500 gpd. The 3 residential units require 450 gpd. Therefore, the proposed use fits within the existing allocation. 4) RALPH GOODRICH, DRAINAGE DITCH Ralph Goodrich has altered and relocated a watercourse on his property located at 1170 Hinesburg Road without first obtaining approval from the Planning Commission as required under Section 3.307 of the zoning regulations. The relocated ditch is approxi- mately 2,600 feet in length and runs in an east -west direction with the water flowing in an easterly direction and draining into an existing pond. This pond drains to the north flowing eventu- ally into Potash Brook. This property is located on the easterly side of Hinesburg Road just north of and abutting the Ledge Knoll development. Accord- ing to Mr. Goodrich the increased runoff from Ledge Knoll, Butler Farms and Oak Creek developments was flooding and eroding his farm so this ditch was dug to control this runoff. The easterly portion of the ditch was constructed along the edge of a Class II wetland and within the 50 foot buffer area required for all such wetlands. The State Agency of Natural Resources is aware of this encroachment. The ditch runs along the rear of several residential lots in the Ledge Knoll development. This new watercourse also results in the relocation of a CO District within 50 feet of the centerline of the ditch. The new CO District extends approximately 40 feet onto the adjoining Ledgeknoll properties. There are several sheds and playground structures which are now nonconforming. This new conservation zone places greater restrictions on the use of these adjoining properties. 3 2/19/91 JW MOTION OF APPROVAL I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan application of Chuck Perkins for conversion of two (2) existing buildings into three (3) residential units on a parcel which also contains 3,740 square feet of retail use as depicted on a plan entitled "Lindenwood Inn Alterations, 916 Shelburne Road, South Burlington, Vermont", prepared by Graphic/Construc- tion Management Services, Inc., and dated 4/27//89, last revised 2/13/91,with the following stipulations: 1. The stipulations contained in the 5/23/89 approval and not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. Based upon the expressed representation of the applicant, the second floor, third floor and basement of the retail building shall not be used for any purpose in order to meet trip genera- tion requirements (Article XVII of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations). PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 March 22, 1991 Chuck Perkins 80 South Cove Road Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Residential/Retail Use, 916 Shelburne Road Dear Mr. Perkins: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed, please find a copy of the February 19, 1991 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Joe Weith,� City Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 March 18, 1991 Mr. Chuck Perkins 80 South Cove Road Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Residential/Retail Use, 916 Shelburne Road Dear Mr. Perkins: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact & Decision on the above referenced project. If you have any questions, please give me a call. cerely, Joe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp I ) f 575 Bor-rt �trert ; i3uutb I-Rurlinutun. Vertuout ll_t-IUa 1 ` (802) 658-7960 TO: SO. BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CHIEF GODDETTE RE: TUESDAY FEBRUARY 1921991 AGENDA ITEM DATE: THURSDAY JANUARY 311991 1, Lindenwood Inn Alterations SHELBURNE ROAD Plans were reviewed by the fire department and at this time I do not see a problem for the fire department given emergency protection if needed. memoproject M E M O R A N D U M To: Project File From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: Preliminary Comments - February 19, 1991 agenda Date: February 4, 1991 CHUCK PERKINS - 3 RESIDENTIAL UNITS - SITE PLAN Additional information required: site plan should show existing landscaping as per the re- vised landscaping plan dated September 26, 1990, plan should also include a planting schedule which lists the quantity, type and sizes of the new plantings. plan should indicate which plantings were new and which were existing. Other: six (6) parking spaces required and only five (5) are being provided. Since 2 of the units will be efficiency units, 5 spaces will be adequate and the requirement for the 1 additional space can be waived by the Planning Commission. remove barricade gate from plan. City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has no problems. PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 February 15, 1991 Mr. Chuck Perkins 80 South Cove Road Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Residential/Retail Use, 916 Shelburne Road Dear Mr. Perkins: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, February 19, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. cerely, iJoe Weith, City Planner Encls JW/mcp PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 February 5, 1991 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Chuck Perkins 80 South Cove Road Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Site Plan Amendment, 3 Residential Units, 981 Shelburne Road Dear Mr. Perkins: Enclosed for your review, please find preliminary comments from Fire Chief Goddette and myself. Please submit the revised site plan at least one week prior to the February 19th meeting. Sincerely, ooe Weit h, City Planner 2 Encls JW/mcp City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 January 8, 1991 Mr. Charles Perkins 80 South Cove Road Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: 916 Shelburne Road Dear Mr. Perkins: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 This is to follow-up on your letter of September 2, 1990 with regards to the residential use of the R-4 portion of your proper- ty at 916 Shelburne Road. I would call to your attention para- graph #7 on the enclosed Findings of Fact from the Planning Commission. This paragraph clearly states that you can not use the buildings in the R-4 portion of your property for any purpose unless you obtain approval from the Planning Commission. I would agree that you have permission to use these buildings as three (3) dwelling units from the Zoning Board of Adjustment but approval from the Planning Commission is also required. There- fore, please contact City Planner Joe Weith as soon as possible to be placed on the agenda for the next available Planning Com- mission meeting. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. SinceFely, Raymond J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant 1 Encl RJB/mcp S NiL _C� u- N-_-----_1_o_pE_r--- Li { _LAND SCAfC PLAN ft ,I 9 a�- Z LU Q 11 z 0. )HAP« rife c HALEt A f t. 5FA&AC4/ L-AWA) L- AWN I (3 AK CFO/!I? yeAGE 8Jl1DLeW*eA{M S PRucE rIR c AR91AG e HotkSE a A Pts_ 17- - i� - 7....... APPIF 0 F►R 0-� wc )RAIL FEINcc- --O 13ucKEf5 o F FLcwERSO SHt-a(,c9�jc Ro A D Q September 27, 1990 Mr. Raymond J. Belair 1 Zoning and Planning Assistant City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Belair: As requested in your letter of August 27, 1990, please find enclosed a plan of our existing landscaping. I have tried to make it as complete as possible. I wrote you a letter on September 2, 1990 responding to the other concerns in your letter, notably the need for additional barricades separating the commercial portion of the property from the residential portion, and the use of the chalet for living purposes. I sent the letter to you with copies going to Mr. Joe Weith, Mr. Dick Ward and Mr. Fred Blais. As of today, I have not received any reply. Thank you for your concern and understanding. Sincerely, Chuck Perkins 80 South Cove Road Burlington, Vermont 05401 rA September 2, 1990 Mr. Raymond J. Belair Zoning and Planning Assistant City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Belair: Having received your letter dated August 27,1990, I want to respond to it. In response to Paragraph 1, I wiii be glad to submit a planting plan to your office which shows our existing landscaping. Most of the plantings on the property are mature plantings and have been in place for many years, but I did do new plantings around the new construction and the sign. I replaced this past spring all of the plantings that did not make it through the winter, and they all seem to be doing well at this time. I will submit a current planting plan to your office as you requested. In response to Paragraph 2, I thought I had installed all the barricades that were required. There is only a 20 foot driveway opening that allows the people that live in the two buildings on the residential portion of the property to enter their homes. The rest of it is barricaded by a split rail fence and the handicap ramp. I have to leave a drive for these people because it was preferred that 1 have the drive from Shelburne Road rather than to have a driveway from Lindenwood Drive. The reason for the barricade was so the store customers would not park in the residential portion of the property. I have 25 commercial parking spaces and, unfortunately, the most cars I have ever seen on the commercial portion of the property is 6. In fact, I have resorted to keeping two of my own cars over there just so it looks like we have some cars in the yard. Therefore, I can not imagine the need for any more barricades than i already have. I am sure that no commercial customer has ever parked on the residential portion of the property and that was the intent of the barricade. If there is need for additional barricades, I will gladly comply, but I need clarification on this point. In response to Paragraph 3, the chalet is being used for living purposes and I definitely received permission for this. Just as a little summary, my wife and I ran the property at 916 Shelburne Road as a country inn for approximately 6 years. When we decided to convert it over to retail, I was given permission to convert the "carriage house" from 4 motel units to 2 apartments which we did. I was also given permission to use the "chalet" as a monthly rental unit instead of a nightly rental unit as we had been doing previously. These are the 3 rental units that I have on the residential portion of the property. I am sure that Joe Weith, Dick Ward, and Fred Blais would remember the conversations that lead to my being granted permission for 3 rental residential units in place of the 5 nightly rental units that I use to have on this portion of the property I definitely want to comply with all regulations and requirements, but I feel there has been some misunderstanding in this situation. Page 2. Thank you for your understanding and consideration. Sincerely, 6" V-Qj� Chuck Perkins 80 South Cove Road Burlington, Vermont 05401 cc. Mr. Joe Weith Mr. Dick Ward Mr. Fred Blais I � City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 August 27, 1990 Charles Perkins 80 South Cove Road Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: 916 Shelburne Road Dear Mr. Perkins: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 I recently visited your property at 916 Shelburne Road to compare the site improvements with the plan approved by the Planning Commission on May 23, 1989. I found that you have made substan- tial changes to the landscape plan. I would therefore request that you submit a revised planting plan and schedule to this office so that we may have on file a plan which shows your exist- ing landscaping. I also found that you have not installed the barricade to the rear portion of your property as required. This is in violation of condition 2 of the Findings of Fact. It also appeared that the chalet was being used for living pur- poses. This is a violation of condition 7 of the Findings of Fact. The City requests that the above two (2) violations be corrected immediately. Failure, to take corrective measures may result in legal action. I will check your property again in two (2) weeks in order to determine compliance. Sincerely, Raymond J. Belair, Zoning & Planning Assistant RJB/mcp City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 February 5, 1990 Chuck Perkins 80 South Cove Road Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Chuck: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find your copy of Findings of Fact. If you have any questions please call me. Sincerely, Joe Weith, City Planner JW/mcp 1 Encl t City, of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 August 27, 1990 Charles Perkins 80 South Cove Road Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: 916 Shelburne Road Dear Mr. Perkins: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 I recently visited your property at 916 Shelburne Road to compare the site improvements with the plan approved by the Planning Commission on May 23, 1989. I found that you have made substan- tial changes to the landscape plan. I would therefore request that you submit a revised planting plan and schedule to this office so that we may have on file a plan which shows your exist- ing landscaping. I also found that you have not installed the barricade to the rear portion of your property as required. This is in violation of condition 2 of the Findings of Fact. It also appeared that the chalet was being used for living pur- poses. This is a violation of condition 7 of the Findings of Fact. The City requests that the above two (2) violations be corrected immediately. Failure, to take corrective measures may result in legal action. I will check your property again in two (2) weeks in order to determine compliance. Sincerely, f� Raymond J. Belair, Zoning & Planning Assistant` RJB/mcp r4./---' �r City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 January 8, 1991 Mr. Charles Perkins 80 South Cove Road Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: 916 Shelburne Road Dear Mr. Perkins: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 This is to follow-up on your letter of September 2, 1990 with regards to the residential use of the R-4 portion of your proper- ty at 916 Shelburne Road. I would call to your attention para- graph #7 on the enclosed Findings of Fact from the Planning Commission. This paragraph clearly states that you can not use the buildings in the R-4 portion of your property for any purpose unless you obtain approval from the Planning Commission. I would agree that you have permission to use these buildings as three (3) dwelling units from the Zoning Board of Adjustment but approval from the Planning Commission is also required. There- fore, please contact City Planner Joe Weith as soon as possible to be placed on the agenda for the next available Planning Com- mission meeting. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Since ely, Raymond J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant 1 Encl 181A :1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON SITE PLAN APPLICATION 1) OWNER. OF RECORD (name, address, phone #)C-_HQ: aRLI /U A7o 2) APPLICANT (name, address, phone #) QjU C it Per /0 S o Sei c©y€ Rb u9L 111)6toA) (?6OR - 7aI Ll 3) CONTACT PERSON (name, aiddress , phone -)Sc CoYE RO.. W8LI/1)6*61J 1761"-7 L! 4) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: (%(, ,5Y&Lj9L4 A)L1 Rtj So fj?(4Kc//j6�p/j 5) LOT NUMBER (if applicable) 6) PROPOSED USE (S) 1-©it/'ln0fLL uA; /fi Naw REPf" A s a &-rF/(-eNcY Aft-S. ANb CKALIt 1•oKNErLY REIJfE`9 01j A)16HtLj' 8AS1S NOW o/J MoNfNc!- b IM-5 7) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e. total building square footage, # units, maximum height and # floors, square feet per floor) &0 /1rew C4'/J5i/1K-- -f'OlL)_ 1=1 �c �rW�cY l'f. Q'►lL PIMA 3 c N L F1- (yy 8) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES C "1 9) LOT COVERAGE: building _%1 %; landscaped areas1 r% building, parking, outside storag)e_.� % hS�.��r`C 3 5'ink/S�v✓Z/1rZ�.r�jerilot• 10) COST ESTIMATES: Buildings $ OOO , Landscaping $ (� r Other Site Improvements (please list with cost) $ Q �± _ ej can Q ¢v� !J i'� c� .:� . is 1v 11) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 12) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in and out) Estimated trip ends (in and out) during the following hours: Monday through Friday 11-12 noon C, 12-1p.m. 0 ; 1-2 p.m.0_; 2-3 p.m. 3-4 p.m. 0 4-5 p.m. 0; 5-6 p.m.e_; 6-7 p.m.�_�n S 13) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 14) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: / /a '� /9 / _ V il, " DA OF SUBMISSION SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT / DA E Ot HEARING N PLEASE SUBMIT FIVE COPIES AND ONE REDUCED COPY (11 X 17) OF THE SITE PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: Lot drawn to scale (20 foot scale if possible.) Location of streets, abutting properties, fire hydrants, existing buildings, existing landscaping. Existing and proposed curb cuts, pavement, walkways. Proposed landscaping plan (number, variety and size) equal to of greater than the required amount in the Zoning Regulations. Number and location of Parking Spaces: (9' x 18') with 22 or 24 foot aisles as required. Number and location of compact car spaces. (This requires sepa- rate Planning Commission approval). Number and location of handicapped spaces as required. (13 feet by 20 feet in size, one per every fifty spaces). Location of septic tanks (if applicable). Location of any easements. Lot coverage information: Building footprint, building, parking and outside storage, and landscaped areas. Location of site (Street # and lot #). North arrow Name of person or firm preparing site plan and date. E September 28, 1990 Mr. Joe Weith City Planner Administrator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Joe: Due to a severe financial hardship, we are requesting permission to rent the second and third floors of our property at 916 Shelburne Road for office use. It is with regret that we submit this request, but our expenses to maintain the property are far outstripping our income and we feel we must make this request. We felt that we could make enough income with just the first floor to maintain the building and pay our mortgage, but we are not able to do so. Our taxes on the property are based on the entire structure and are $10,340.34 per year. Our insurance also has to cover the entire structure and our annual premium is $5,016. Our income is just not adequate to cover our expenses. The State of Vermont Labor and Industry Department required us to install a sprinkler system in the basement as well as on the main floor, the second floor and the third floor at a cost of $31,369.06, even though we only had permission to use the main floor. Even when we were required to do this, we still thought we could cover the expenses for the entire building with the use of only the first floor, but it is not possible. We are also forced to heat the upper floors because of the sprinkler system and the water pipes. We installed a new gas furnace to heat the main floor, but because of the plastered walls and the fact it is an old building, my heating contractor felt it would be best to use the heating system that was already in the building to heat the upper floors, so we are forced to run two heating systems. Under the zoning requirements, we were required to provide 25 parking spaces, but the most cars we have ever seen in the yard at any one time is 8. Jann and I generally park our cars in the yard at Snow Country as much as we can so as to not make the yard appear so overwhelming. Our average number of sales in a day computed since we first opened on October 9, 1989 is 8.17. We also have computed that we sell one out of every 2.4 customers that come into Snow Country thereby making an in and out of approximately 19.60 trips per day. Snow Country is open from 10 A.M. to 9 P.M., or 11 hours per day, so we average less than 2 ins and outs per hour, far less than our allotted number. Our business is distributed fairly evenly throughout the day so we really have no peak hours. Since we are making the above request, we would also like to ask permission to store our seasonal store fixtures and out -of - season stock in the basement. At present we are running it back and forth to The Alpine Shop, but this is an inconvenience. It also makes more travel on the highway, uses more gasoline, and occasionally, causes us to miss a sale to a customer who is looking for an out -of -season garment. Page 2. We are not asking permission to do any construction or alterations whatsoever, but to only have permission to use the building as it now stands. As I stated before, we thought we could cover the full expenses of the property with only the use of the first floor, but we miscalculated greatly. I am sorry to have to make this request, but there is no way that we feel we can continue without some financial assistance from the second and third floors. We hope you understand our situation and can act favorably on it. Than;; you very much. Sincerely, d" 61 Chuck and Jann Perkins 80 South Cove Road Burlington, Vermont 05401 No Text .,IrAl to MICROSOLVE CAMA SYSTEM gg R Y� ROPERTY: 1�40-00916C 20996 I17 r[Z] Z 1/Z STY [3I 1 OLD SECTION DWL - 171 V A FRAME 1 STY s NO HEAT ADDITION LI$I13� OD 3i 52 �- I4 I s 1 STY 4 UNIT MOTEL LC5] sa d .,CHXF- A AREA 1 �1582 12 126 3 1 4 1901 64 4 �� 5 9 6 266 7 450,; 8 : 78 PERIMETER i : 186 2 : 46 3 : 180 4 : 154 5 : 12 6 : 188 7 86 8 38 x r/ N G L/ A1,C v n / A-1Al op V-UR :) ►J E rEGrc>oH U Kl ITS C Q /:� k- / .✓ ly Tc rem 2FG Z �F �Pd4-ES /.,.EGa�lC r�re' iA- �a L rL��L Pe L' !L /All, % i C ✓ /oE {'� 4 S '.S %�dGES L- o c d r E o / T Al / A/ Z G A-1 E c-/; f` /Y'`7/ L, A-1 7-/ ,v G SZ 41E u L E SYM. LTQ Q/1r cc- A-1 6 2¢ Gyxll//plc/c�F/r�� L ..� . _ r Q D ZZ c ` nz s �, E.E.. E X / T t✓�� E 1/E ti0rE5 Ad LL. O� e r /A.lG 6D GF C. 4 2 AL f G, Gosr cs• EGcc,/ c/C ul�� /�5r/,LLLTiL'� r—EE 6q ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 11. 1991 The South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment held a meeting on Monday, February 11, 1991 at 7:00 P.M. at the City Hall Confer- ence Room, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Fred Blais, Chairman, Don Graf, Maureen O'Brien, Joe Randazzo, George Chamberland and Dan King Others Present Dick Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer, Sid Poger, The Other Paper, Keith P. Wright, Keith M. Wright, Richard Bushey and Kevin Dragon, Trudell Consulting Engineers Appeal of M. Keith Wright and Ormond Bushey, seeking approval from Section 19.35 Removal of earth products. Request is for permission to remove approximately 9600 cubic yards of top soil from a eight (8) acre parcel of land, located at 900 Hinesburg Road. Mr. Ward informed members that Section 19.35 from the zoning regulations require that removing or filling with earth products is subject to Zoning Board of Adjustment approval. The area is zoned Ag-Industrial District. Mr. Wright owns ten acres and is requesting to strip eight acres, approximately 9600 cubic yards at a depth of 12 inches. The stripping is proposed in three phases, stripping 2.5 to 3 acres per phase. Average daily trip end projected will be 22. Mr. Szymanski has concerns about dirt control. Chairman Blais requested a brief presentation from Mr. Dragon outlining the project as submitted by written documentation. Mr. Dragon stated that tests were conducted, stripping should average 12 inches leaving 3 to 4 inches of top soil for reseed- ing. Stripped topsoil will be stock piled and hauled as needed. as an option, Mr. Bushey may remove the top soil to another site. Stripping is proposed in three phases each area to be reclaimed as area is completed. Once site is totally stripped entire area will be restored including haul road. Soil erosion and traffic control is main concerns, written docu- ment addresses these issues. Mr. Blais questioned Mr. Dragon as to who will monitor the strip- ping allowing enough top soil- for reseeding. Both Mr. Wright and Mr. Bushey are responsible. PLANNING COMMISSION 23 May 1989 page 4 5. Continue Site Plan application of Charles Perkins for con- struction of a 1,918 sq. ft. addition to a 1,820 sq. ft. build- ing (footprint) and conversion of the property to retail use, 916 Shelburne Road Mr. Ingram reviewed the plan, locating parking and the addition. Mrs. Maher stressed that for this discussion, the 2 buildings in back are not part of this plan. Mr. Ingram noted the Zoning Board wants to reward hearing their multi -use request as they have a problem with the 2 zones of this property. Mrs. Maher raised the question of the second floor of the building. Mr. Ingram said they want to use if for retail. There are 3 bathrooms up there and 2 other rooms. They would be used for fitting rooms. Mr. Weith said he didn't count that for parking but did count it for traffic generation. Ms. Peacock asked about office space upstairs. Mr. Ingram said Mr. Perkins would use some of the upstairs for office use for this business. He said it culd be as part of one of the changing rooms. Mr. Belter said the applicant had claimed there would be no altera- tions to the upstairs. Mrs. Maher said she didn't feel the Com- mission was getting a true answer to what's happening upstairs. Mr. Perkins said the space is there but he didn't know what to do with it. He said he could just leave it empty. It wasn't a crucial concern. Mr. Belter said that traffic would dictate what could be done with it. Mr. Weith noted that 18 peak hour trip ends are allowed and that with the second floor the buisness would generate 23. Members were unanimous in no wanting to allow the additional trip ends. Mr. Jewett asked about the size of the residential lot along Lindenwood. He said he had heard three different figures; 75 ft., 60 ft., and 81 ft. Mr. Craig said that was a good question because if the residential lot was bigger than what the plans show, there would be less commercial area do fewer trip ends al- lowed. Mr. Weith said he had assumed it was 75 ft. but would check with Mr. Ward. Mr. Jewett also raised the question of the basement and noted there had been a small crafts store there once. Mr. Perkins affirmed he will not use the basement or third floor. Ms. Samara asked about outside lighting. Mr. Ingram said the existing fixtureswill be relocated to the perimeter of the parking area. There will be two small lights onto the front of the building. Ms. Samara also asked about paving near the base of trees. Mr. Ingram said he was confident the trees will be saved. Mr. Weith noted the City Engineer wants a drainage study and the Fire Chief wants a hydrant on the property. PLANNING COMMISSION 23 May 1989 paqe 5 Ms. Peacock moved the Planning Commission approve the Site Plan application of Charles Perkins for construction of a 1918 sq. ft. addition to an existinq 1820 sq. ft. building (footprint), and conversion of the property to retail use as depicted on a plan titled "Lindenwood Inn Alterations, Site Plan" prepared by Graphic Construction Manaqement Services, Inc, and dated 4/27/89 with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall post a $2,250, 3-year landscapinq bond prior to permit. 2. The plan shall be revised to show the zone boundary line throuqh the property. 3. No parking for this use shall be allowed in the R-4 portion of the poperty. The existing parking area in the R-4 portion shall be barricaded at all times to prevent use of this parking area. This shall be indicated on the plan. 4. The applicant shall contribute an amount to be determined by the City Planner to the Shelburne Road Intersection Improvement Fund based on the 18 peak hour trips to be qenerated by the project, minus the existing trips. 5. A drainage study shall be performed by a professional enqineer prior to permit and shall be submitted to the City Enqineer for review and approval. The applicant shall install any drainaqe improvements recommended by the City Engineer. These improvements shall be shown on the plan. 6. Based upon the expressed representation of the applicant, the buildings located in the R-4 portion of the property shall not be used for any purpose unless approved by the Planning Commission. 7. The plan shall be revised prior to permit to show the sidewalk continuous across the driveway. The sidewalk shall be 8 inches in thickness. 8. A fire hydrant shall be installed in a location to be approved by the Fire Chief. This hydrant shall be shown on the plan. 9. The plan shall be revised to address stipulations 2,3,5,7 and 8 and shall be submitted to the City Planner and City Engineer for approval prior to permit. 10. Based on expressed representation of applicant, second floor, third floor and basement will not be used for any purpose. PLANNING COMMISSION 23 MAY 1989 page 6 11. The zoning permit shall be obtained within 6 months or this approval is null and void. Mr. Belter seconded. Motion passed 4-1, Ms. Pugh voting against because she felt any plan should include the entire property. 6. Site Plan application of W.W. Grainger, Inc, for construction of a 14,982 sq. ft. building for wholesale distribution use, lot 13, Green Tree Park Industrial Subdivision, Gregory Drive Ms. Pederson said the lot is 2.7 acres. Mrs. Maher noted the City Planner's comments and asked why the building is situated as it is shown. Ms. Pederson said the client requested it that way for several reasons: visibility from both roads, grading conditions, and having the parking lot not blocked by the building so it can have the sun melt snow and ice. She noted much more fill would be needed if the building is placed as the Planner recommends. Mr. Weith said his concern is the relation of the curb cut to Shunpike Rd., especially with exiting trucks and cars turning onto Shunpike Rd. Mr. Craiq agreed this was a hazardous situation. The appli- cant said that environmental people have a concern with salt use and if they keep the driveway where it is, they won't have to use salt except in extreme conditions. With the driveway on the north, salt use would be a must. Ms. Peacock sugqested moving the building 90 degrees and flipping the parking to the other side where it can qet the sun. Ms. Pederson said this would still re- quire a lot of fill. Mr. Weith noted that Phases II and III will require large amounts of fill anyway. Mr. Craiq felt that with a building right on the corner, visibility is not a problem. The applicant noted there is a berm that will screen parking and also landscaping to screen the loading dock. He felt this is the best location for the building. Mr. Craiq sugqested moving the drive- way and turning the building just a bit. Mrs. Maher felt this might be a good compromise and sugqested the applicant go back to the drawing board and see what they can come up with. Mr. Craiq noted that 17 parking spaces are needed and asked why 26 have been planned. The applicant said they have a standard book for their stores around the country and this is recommended. They also need room for their trucks to maneuver. Mr. Craiq said he was concerned with the aesthetics of a parking lot on the corner, and making it unduly large didn't help. Ms. Pedersen said there will be a berm to help screen it. Regarding landscaping, Mrs. Maher felt the white pines should be changed to Austrian pines due to a salt tolerance problem. Ms. Pederson outlined the plan including Norway maple at the entrance, cedars on either side of the door, and the pines near the berm. She then showed an artist's rendering of the building. There will 43 !m Ie jRb/ Ml Marlow tells the board there are 21 service stations in South Burlington, 7 with convenience stores. Mobil has 25% of the stations, and does 45% of the business in the area. Mobil is proposing to eliminate the bays in the garage and to expand the snack shop. There will be no changes outside of the building. They will sell usual convenience items, will not have a deli and will not sell grocery items. Mobil conducted a traffic study in three areas (survey done by outside firm of Lewellyn & Fitzpatrick) and found that stations with bays get more traffic those without bays (see traffic data sheet provided by Mobil). Convenience stores do a higher volume of gas with fewer trips in to the station. Blais mentioned that the board didn't get the traffic data. Ward supplied them with it. Randazzo doubted the accuracy of the traffic findings. Austin asked if Mobil owned the building. Marlow said no, they have a 4 year lease. They would like to purchase the land or get a longer lease. Marlow explained that insurance costs, obtaining qualified mechanics, and computerized technology in cars today contribute to an exorbitant cost factor. Convenience stores are a much cheaper alternative to a full bay garage. Mobil will restrict any vending machines outside the station. From the outside, won't see anything. Austin asked how the particular stations in the traffic study were chosen. Marlow said he chose Mobil stations because he could get exact gas volume data from Mobil, and he wanted Mobil Mart information. Blais told the board that their primary concern in the past was that Gulf had wanted an additional bay, then additional storage area, and that Randazzo was worried about increased traffic because the bays still being there. Austin was still concerned about traffic problems, and asked about parking. Marlow showed on the site plan where specific parking places were designated. Blais called the appeal to question. Unanimous granting of appeal. No 4 Tabled Perkins Appeal Tabled appeal of Charles Perkins (7/10/89) to convert two existing structures into three dwelling units, formerly Lindenwood Inn, located at 916 Shelburne Road. Blais told the Perkins's that the members of the board were prepared to vote on the question. He said they are all aware of the problems this appeal presented and asked for comments and questions. Sid Pager asked why the appeal was tabled in the first place. Blais said that in the course of discussion about the appeal last time, rationale was lost. The table was to give everyone a chance to cool off. Ward said the formal warning to be voted on was an extension of nonconforming use (June 26th). It was rewarned for consideration for multiple use. So the vote is on multiple use and extension for nonconforming use: multiple use because the front building is used for retail purposes. It was first tabled to see what the Planning Commission would say about intent. Austin asked if the 3 residential units in an R-4 area would be a problem. Wade said no, since they meet density requirements. No Lindenwood curb cut would be needed. Neither density nor use is at issue. Austin asked Perkins the nature of the retail business. Perkins answered sportswear. Blais called appeal to question. Thibault wanted to know the original number and appeal date. Ward said June 26, 1989, Appeal #5. Blais announced the appeal was approved, 4 yes, 1 abstention(Chamberland). Negative vote must be recorded. Thibault moved to accept minutes. Austin seconded. Unanimous approval. Thibault moved to adjourn. Austin seconded. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Clerk f tf 1 C, LI V i hTFi QFyERMON'T' .QOU QF GH I TTBM2 N CITY QF SOUTH DUELINGTON DECISION & FINDING QF F= On the 28th day of August, 1989, the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment heard evidence regarding the appeal of Charles Perkins, 916 Shelburne Road based on the following facts and findings: 1) Parcel divided by zoning district boundary. 2) Pre-existing, no changes in use, only number of units and the term of rental. 3) Neighborhood supports residential use and the number of units proposed. 4) Hardship created by zoning by-laws and not the appellant. Based upon the above stated facts and findings the appel- lant's request for riance use is hereby approved. of the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment ARLIN6 t= P 1 1 798t City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 August 27, 1990 Charles Perkins 80 South Cove Road Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: 916 Shelburne Road Dear Mr. Perkins: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 I recently visited your property at 916 Shelburne Road to compare the site improvements with the plan approved by the Planning Commission on May 23, 1989. I found that you have made substan- tial changes to the landscape plan. I would therefore request that. you submit a revised planting plan and schedule. to this office so that we may have on file a plan which shows your exist- ing landscaping. I also found that you have not installed the barricade to the rear portion of your property as required. This is in violation of condition 2 of the Findings of Fact. It_ also appeared that the chalet was being used for living pur- poses. This is a violation of condition 7 of the Findings of Fact.. The City requests that the above two (2) violations be corrected immediately. Failure, to take corrective measures may result in legal action. I will check your property again in two (2) weeks in order to determine compliance. Sincerely, Raymond J. Belair, Zoning & Planning Assistant. RJBi mcp M•• THIS Ater, in triplicate, by and between Charles and Janet Perkins, hereinafter referred to as "Developer", the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGPON, hereinafter referred to as "Municipality", and Chitte.nden Bank, hereinafter referred to as "Bank". W I T N E S S E T H: MflaZFAS, Developer has received site plan review from the Municipality's Planning Commission for the construction and development of an addition to '"The Lindenwood Inn", to be known as Lindenwood Inn Alterations as depicted on a plan entitled "Legend on Final Plat" dated June 7, 1989, prepared by Graphic Construction Management Service, Inc. and WHEREAS, the parties to this agreement wish to establish an escrow account to secure the obligations of the Developer as set forth in the site plan review approval; and WHEREAS, the Bank executes this agreement solely in the capacity of escrow agent. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Developer will at its own expense complete the following improvements in connection with its development: Landscaping Bond for Planting Schedule (setting plants in beds, mound planting areas). 2. `Ihe Developer shall ccaplete the improvements set forth in paragraph one no later than October 1, 1989. 3. The Developer shall repair or replace any faulty or defective work or improper material which may appear within 1 year of completion. 4. For the guaranty of Developer's performance of all requirements hereinabave set forth, Developer and Bank agree that the sum of $(Two Thousand Two it2y1red Fifty Dollars) shall be set aside and held in escrow by the Bank and shall be available for payment to the Municipality, in accordance with the terms herein set forth. 5. If the Municipality shall file with the Bank a statement that Developer is in the judgement of the Municipality in sixty (60) day default under the terms of this agreement, the Bank shall from time to time pay monies from said escrow fund to the Municipality, in amawnts not to exceed a total enabling the Municipality to complete the improvements and requirements set forth in this agreement. 6. The Municipality will prcimptly submit to the Developer a copy of such statement as it files with the Bank. The consent of the Developer to such payment by the Bank to the Municipality shall not be required. The Bank shall incur no liability to the Developer on account of making such payment to the Municipality, nor shall the Bank be required to inquire into the propriety of any claim by the Municipality of default on the part of the Developer or into the use of such funds by the Municipality in completing such improvements. 7. qhe Municipality shall not file with the Bank a statement of default until sixty (60) days after notice has been sent by it to the Developer by certified mail, return receipt requested, setting forth its intention to do so. -2- In 8. All monies released by the Bank to the Municipality pursuant to paragraph 6 shall be used by the Municipality solely for the purpose of performing obligations ii upon the Developer by that portion of this agreement upon which the Developer is then in default. Any work to be performed by the Municipality pursuant hereto shall be let on a contractual basis, or on a time and material basis, or shall be performed by the Municipality with its own work force and equipment or shall be alished in such manner as in the judgement of the Municipality shall accomplish the work most expeditiously and economically. 9. If monies are released by the Bank to the Municipality pursuant to paragraph 6 and it shall later develop that a portion of the released monies are surplus to the Municipality's needs, any such surplus shall be refunded by the Municipality to the Bank to be held and distributed by the Bank pursuant to the terms of this agreement. 10. The Bank will not refuse or delay to make such payments to the Municipality when requested by the Municipality by the appropriate statement, and Developer will not interfere with or hinder such payments by the Bank to the Municipality. Said statement shall contain a certificate of cmpliance with the notice requirements of paragraph 8 of this agreement. 11. This agreement shall terminate and shall be of no force or effect upon performance of all requirements contemplated hereby and the c mpletion of the warranty period set forth in paragraph 3. -3- 0 12. Upon request of Developer, but only at the sole discretion of the Municipality, the Municipality may release a portion of said escrow funds if the Municipality believes that the retention of said funds is not necessary to protect its interests after a portion of said work has been completed. Hank may release such funds only upon written consent of the Municipality. 13. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph U the sum of $2,250.00 shall be in any event maintained in escrow until certification to the Bank by the Municipality of the completion of the warranty period set forth in paragraph 3. 14. `This agreement shall not only be binding upon the parties hereto, but also their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. Dated this /�2 'il day of June , 1989. This agreement shall expire no later than June /� "11' 4 IN Tf E PRESENCE OF: ello 7— ccJ r , N W'W' I ..►., i 1992. Its Duly Authorized Agent CITY OF SOUPH RMLItPION By: —C--" Its Duly Authoriz Agent (BANK) c wL�e.+ cfs._ &,� . Its Duly Authorized Agent CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON SITE PLAN APPLICATION - 1) OWNER OF RECORD (name, address, phone #) Charles N._an_d Janet B H 862-7094 Perkins, 80 South Cove Road, Burlington, VT 05401 W 862-2714 2) APPLICANT ( name, address, phone #) Charles Perkins (see above) 3) CONTACT PERSON (name, address, phone #) Joe Ingram, c/o Graphic Services Inc., P.O. Box 5219, Essex Junction, VT 05453 879-4220 4) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 916 Shelburne Road _ ;a 5) LOT NUMBER (if applicable) 6) PROPOSED USE (S) Retail, o ff ee n„a rssi a.ti�l re tel 7) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e. total building square footage, # units, maximum height and # floors, square feet per floor)__ Existing 1820 SF + Addition 1880 SF = 3700 SF 8) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES three 9).LOT COVERAGE: building _ 8_%; landscaped areas 69 % - building, parking, outside storage 31 % 10) COST ESTIMATES: Buildings $ 75,000 __, Landscaping $ 1,840 Other Site Improvements (please list with cost) $5,000 paving 11 ) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: August 15, 1989 12) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in and out) Estimated trip ends (in and out) during the following hours: Monday through Friday 11-12 noon __; 12-1p..m. _; 1-2 p.m. ; 2-3 p.m._____ 3-4 p.m.-----� 4-5 p.m.------� 5-6 p.m. _; 6-7 p.m..... _._. 13) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. Hours Mon - Sat 10 - 9 14) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: Saturday Sun 12 - 5 April 14, 1989 DATE OF SUBMISSION SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT May 2, 1989 _ DATE OF HEARING PLEASE SUBMIT FIVE COPIES OF THE SITE PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING I NFO}RMAT I ON Lot drawn to scale (20 foot, scale if ble. ) Location of streets, abutting properties, fire hydrants, existing buildings, existing landscaping. Existing and proposed curbcuts, pavement, walkways. Proposed landscaping plan (number, variety and size) equal to of greater than the required amount in the Zoning Regulations. Number and location of Parking Spaces: (9' x 181) with 22 or 24 foot aisles as required. Number and location of compact car spaces. ( This requires separate Planning Commission approval). Number and location of handicapped spaces as required. (13 feet by 20 feet in size, one per every fifty spaces) Location of septic tanks (if applicable). Location of any easements. Lot coverage information: Building footprint, building, parking and outside storage, and landscaped areas. Location of site (Street # and lot #). North arrow. Name of person or firm preparing site plan and date. 2 .• I2 rJ CALcS CI s-/ zt = 53, Q4o s.F � 9w �/��/�' ekEv, s/o f/e9 8 e',, p rt^I x 17.9 /$ `TP,4r Eiyps J you l�X' 5 T-/ 4/(TTill n G,6A1Cnn-n,,,,, /4ss,)w, �.✓ S f2uarn f i 7gs X � %va/7s - ,�S t7 /fib eA clS \i t S � � T►21 � C ABC � � � �< y / �y 1000 3 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 MAY 1989 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 2 May 1989, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Peter Jacob, Chairman; William Burgess, Catherine Peacock, Mary - Barbara Maher, John Belter, William Craig, Ann Pugh Also Present Joe Weith, City Planner; Charles Hafter, City Manager; Sid Poqer, The Other Paper; Joe Ingram, Tony Lafayette, Paul Godard, Moe Cloutier, Byron Hills, John Pastore,- John Simson, Lawrence Popp, Frederick Hannon, Georqe Boccuzzi, Palmer Irish, C. R. Miller, Emerson Whitinq, Harvey & R. L. Ruel, Dorothy Whitney, Patricia Jewett, Raymond Jewett, Elizabeth Millette, Harriet Piche, Chip Ward, Dennis Webster, Lance Llewellyn, Bruce Wade 1. Minutes of 4/11 and 4/18 Mrs. Maher moved the Minutes of 4/11 be approved as written. Mr r.ur_aess seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Burgess moved the Minutes of 4/18 be approved as written Mr. Craig seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Site plan application of Charles Perkins for construction of a 1918 sq. ft. addition to a 1820 sq. ft. building and conversion of the property to retail use, 916 Shelburne Rd Mrs. Maher raised the question of the use of the carriage house. Mr. Ingram said they will go to the Zoning Board for permission to use it for a multi -family residence. Mr. Weith noted the R-4 land cannot be used for any use. It would have to be vacated. The applicant would have to get a multi -use variance from the Zoning Board and they haven't done that yet. Mr. Ingram said they propose to use the main building of the Lindenwood Inn for a retail dress store. The addition would be in the same style as the present building. They would move the curb cut to directly opposite the Tire Warehouse and would widen it to 30 ft. Mr. Ingram said they will disturb as little of the pro- perty as possible and will maintain almost all the trees. One will be relocated. There will be 25 parking spaces which will be placed as far from the R-4 district as possible. Mr. Weith said 19 spaces are required, and he had no problem with circulation. Mr. Ingram said existing lighting will be relocated. Two cone lights will be directed at the building. J PLANNING COMMISSION 2 May 1989 page 2 Mr. Jacob asked what is across the back of the property for land- scapinq. Mr. Inqram said there is an existinq cedar hedge about 4 feet high. Mr. Inqram said they are not proposinq to utilize the second floor for retail use but that Mr. Perkins will use it for office space for himself. 1820 sq. ft. is the retail area. The addition will be one story. Mr. Belter felt the Commission would have to limit the possibility of leasing the upstairs office space, Mr. Burqess felt this isn't reasonable and that you can't calculate almost 2.000 sq. ft. in parking and traffic fiqures. He said there is a question as to whether Mr. Perkins other buiiness offices will be located here, and the Commission needs to know how much of the square footage he is goinq to use as it may not be an office associated with the business downstairs. Mr. Craig added that the last time the applicant was in they said how valuable this property is and that he(.ouldn't believe, they were not going to use that 1800 sq. ft. upstairs. He said he is uneasy about that. He felt that if the Commission grants an approval, it should reserve the riqht to inspect the property to see that it stays vacant upstairs. He also felt that since there is more parkinq than required, the parkinq in front could be removed. Mrs. Maher felt that a retail use needs some visible parking in front. Mr. Craiq asked if there is a third floor. Mr. Ingram said there is but it has anqled ceilings which would not be qood for anythinq but a quest house room. Mr. Irish, who borders the property on the east side, said that for 255 ft. they are separated by a hedqe that is in joint owner- ship. He is concerned about the strip along the east side and whether that is included in this proposal package. Mr. Jacob said that is R-4 area and that the applicant wants to use it for apart- ments but will need a multiple use permit from the Zoninq Board. Moe Cloutier asked for confirmation that there will be no access from Lindenwood Drive. Mr. Inqram said that is correct and that they will also close the openinq in the hedqe that has been used in the past. Mr. Jacob said anything concerning the R-4 land would have to be taken to the Zoninq Board hearing. Mr. Boccuzzi asked if there will be one store or more. Mr. Inqram said one store only. Another neighbor asked if after the building is enlarged they would be able to put in a restaurant or somethinq else. Mrs. Maher said a restaurant would not meet traffic restraints. Mr. Burqess said they could not automatically put in a restaurant but would have to come back to the Commission for any change in use. Mr. Weith noted that the zone boundary must be shown on the plan. The City Engineer also wants a drainage study done prior to PLANNING COMMISSION 2 May 1989 page 3 permit and that a fire hydrant will be needed in a location approved by the Fire Chief. Mrs. Maher moved to continue the site plan until the developer states specific uses of the upper floor and gives the square footage of floor space for office or any other use whatsoever. Mr. Craig seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Public Hearing: Final Plat application of Tony Lafayette for construction of a 32-unit condominium building on a 21,000 sq ft lot located at 125 White Street. said Mr. Lafayette there has been a survey done which shows more of an angle from White Street. Setbacks are still met. They have shown a chainlink fence on the property line and also show inlets for surface drainage. There will be 3 townhouse units with 8 parkinq spaces, There will be no garages, Mrs. Piche asked why the parking lot has to be in front. Mr. Lafayette said to keep as much green space for play areas in back. Another resident noted the land has been pretty wet. Mr. Lafayette said they will have on site drainaqe to tie into the storm drain, The lot will also be qraded to drain toward inlets. Ms. Millette was concerned that the fence comes to their property line to protect children from goinq to their pool. Mr. Lafayette said the units will be sold as condos in the $85.000 range. Ms. Peacock moved to approve the Final Plat application of Tony Lafayette for construction of a 3-unit residential building on a 21,000 square foot lot as depicted on a plan titled "White Street Condos, Site Plan & Plantings," prepared by Tony Lafayette, dated 0 2 , last revised 3 20 89, with the following stipulations: 1. A $4,500, 3-year landscape bond shall be posted prior to permit. 2. A sewer allocation of 900 qpd is granted for the 2 additional units proposed tor the site existinq sFn-qle-family home on the site already has sewer allocation). The applicant shall pay the 2.50 qpd fee for the 900 qpd allocation prior to permit_ 3. The applicant shall pay a $200 per unit recreation fee for the additional 2 units prior to permit. 4. The plan shall be revised prior to recording to include a note indicating that the dashed line along the south property line re- presents a cyclone fence to be installed and maintained. 5. The plan shall be revised prior to recording to include a note indicating that drainaqe pipes will be plastic and a minimum of 8 inches. 5/23/89 JW MOTION OF APPROVAL I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the Site Plan application of Charles Perkins for construction of a 1,918 square foot addition to an existing 1,820 square foot building (footprint), and conversion of the property to retail use as depicted on a plan titled "Lindenwood Inn Alterations, Site Plan" prepared by Graphic/Construction Management Services, Inc. and dated 4/27/89 with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall post a $2,250, 3-year landscaping bond prior to permit. 2. The plan shall be revised to show the zone boundary line through the property. 3. No parking for this use shall be allowed in the R-4 portion of the property. The existing parking area in the R-4 portion shall be barricaded at all times to prevent use of this parking area. This shall be indicated on the plan. G� 4. The applicant shall contribute V to the Shelburne Road`% 4 ' Intersection Improvement Fund based on the 1$ 00 eak houur- trips to be generated by this project, -ay 5. "A drainage study shall be performed by a professional engineer prior to permit and shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The applicant shall install any drainage improvements recommended by the City Engineer. These improvements shall be shown on the plan. 6. Based upon the expressed representation of the applicant, the buildings located in the R-4 portion of the property shall not be used for any purpose unless approved by the Planning Commission. 7. The plan shall be revised prior to permit to show the sidewalk continuous across the driveway. The sidewalk shall be 8 inches in thickness. 8. A fire hydrant shall be installed in a location to be approved by the Fire Chief. This hydrant shall be shown on the plan. 9. The plan shall be revised to address stipulations 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 and shall be submitted to the City Planner and City Engi- neer for approval prior to permit. N..a. The zoning permit shall be obtained within 6 months or this approval is null and void. .�l 1 d ji� U"n Ev r'r�.t 55 Fes/ ie_r� is .. e„ui.,�-wti� �j K%'/`'L�.to`"'�� � •• � } 15/23/89 /'►�GT � ly (/Sec./ ✓"J �o' `. M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: May 23, 1989 agenda items Date: May 19, 1.989 3) OFFICE BUILDING, 3065 WILLISTON ROAD E Mr. Eugene Ward, III proposes to construct a 3 story, 15,000 square foot office building on the corner of Shunpike Road and Williston Road. An existing single-family home would be removed. The property is zoned I-C. Since the first reviw of this project (5/2/89), revised plans have been submitted which address the concerns raised at the meeting. The following changes have been made: 1) A 30 foot aisle width is shown; 2) Side yard setback from east property line of 17.5 feet; 3) foundation plantings; and 4) widened Shunpike Road. Concerns which were not addressed in the revised plan include the following: 1) Maximum distance between building and access aisle of 30 feet. The proposed distance is 50 feet; an 2) double, staggered row of cedars along the south property line. The plan still shows a single row. other: See Bill Szymanski's comments. 4) LINDENWOOD MOTEL PROPERTY, ADDITION AND RE`1'AIL USE,, SHELBURNE ROAD Charles Perkins proposes to construct a 1,918 square foot addition to the existing 1,820 Lindenwood Motel and convert the building to retail use. The existing carriage house and chalet will not be used for any purpose. The property is bounded on the east by a single-family home, on the south by single-family homes and an oriental rug bu-;ines's, on the west by Shelburne Road, and on the north by Lindenwood Drive. Single-family r.•esidences and a gas station are located across Lindenwood Drive to the north. } Memorandum - Planning May 23, 1989 agenda items May 19, 1989 Page 2 Status: At the first review (5/2/89), Plannirg Commission requested additional information on how the upstairs will be used. The applicant has indicated that he wishes the Planning Commission to consider the use of the 2nd floor as retail. The square footage use of the 2nd floor is broken down as follows: * Proposed retail floor area 572 sq. ft. * Stair area 80 sq. ft. * 3 bathrooms, 1 changing room, 1 fitting room 782 sq. ft. 1,434 sq. ft. Parking: The use requires 23 parking spaces, 25 are proposed. Trip generation: The parcel allows 18 commercial peak hour trips. The proposed use would generate 23 peak hour trip ends based on I.T.E. rates. Other: See enclosed memo dated 4/28/89 for additional information. 5) W.W. GRAINGER, LOT 13,_ GREEN TREE PARK W.W. Grainger, Inc. proposes to construct a 14,982 square foot building for wholesale distribution use on a 2.7 acre lot in Green Tree Park. The ultimate building size will be 23,662 square feet and will be completed in.3 phases. This application is only for Phase 1 (14,982 square f(-et) The parcel is zoned I-C. The parcel is bounded on the north by a vacant. industrial. lot, on the. east by Muddy Brook, on the south by Shunpike Road and on the west. by Gre-gory Drive. Access/Circulation: Access will be provided by a 30 foot wide curb out on Gregory Drive. This drive leads to a parking lot Located in front of the building (south side). No circulation is provided on the north, east or west sides of the building. A loading dock is also shown on the south side of the building with access through the parking lot. Parking: The use requires 17 parking spaces. 26 are proposed. Memorandum - Planning May 2, 1989 agenda items May 28, 1989 Page 5 LINDENWOOD MOTEL PROPERTY, SHELBURNE ROAD Charles Perkins proposes to construct a 1,918 square foot addi- tion to the existing 1,820 Lindenwood Motel and convert the building to retail use. The existing carriage house and chalet will not be used for any purpose. The applicant would like to operate the main building as retail and use the carriage house and chalet as residential apartments. I informed the applicant that they would have to get a multiple use approval from the Zoning Board before coming to the Planning Commission. They elected to come before the Planning Commission with the present plan (retail only) and at a later date appeal the zoning board for a multiple use approval. If the multiple use is granted, the applicant will have to come back to the Planning Commission for approval to use the back buildings for residential purposes. The property is zoned Commercial 1 and Residential 4. Since retail uses are being proposed, only the Commercial 1 zoned portion of the property can be considered for coverage, traffic, etc. Additionally, the residential zoned portion of the lot cannot be used for any commercial purpose (i.e., parking, stor- age, access, etc.). The zone line should be shown on the plan. The property is bounded on the east by a single-family home, on the south by single-family homes and an oriental rug business, on the west by Shelburne Road, and on the north by Lindenwood Drive. Single-family residences and a gas station are located across Lindenwood Drive to the north. Access/Circulation: Access would be provided by a 30 foot wide curb cut on Shelburne Road. This access drive would be located approximately 20 feet north of the existing drive. Circulation would be provided in front and along the south side of the build- ing. The plan shows the existing access drive to the back car- riage house to be maintained. Since no commercial use (i.e., parking) is allowed in the R-4 zone, this parking area should be removed or blocked off. Setbacks/Coverage: All setback and coverage requirements are met. Parking: The project requires 19 parking spaces. The plan shows 24 spaces not including the 4 existing spaces located in the R-4 zone. 5 Memorandum - Planning May 2, 1989 agenda items April 28, 1989 Page 6 Traffic: The property is located in traffic overlay zone 1 which allows 20 peak hour trips. Based on I.T.E. trip generation rates, the project will generate 18 trip ends during the peak �hour. The project requires $'2,250 in new landscaping. The plan shows new yew, cedar hedge, juniper and rhododendron which is valued at $1,810. The property is currently nicely landscaped with a number of mature pine trees and full cedar hedges. There are a number of very large pine trees along the existing drive- way. The plan shows these trees as being preserved except for one. It appears that the tree will be cut down in order to make room for parking. It appears this tree can be preserved by eliminating or moving one or two spaces. Drainage: The City Engineer, Bill Szymanski, has recommended that a drainage study be performed. It should be stipulated that a drainage study will be performed by a professional engineer and submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to permit. Other: See Bill Szymanski's and Chief Goddette's comments. PLANNING 6 JUNE 1 PAGE 2 COMMISSION -f- ZC_--&)1A3CX .10 ► a- P'Zr- will have to come to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Maher stressed the applicant wouldn't get carte blanche from the Commission. She felt affordable housing was a good thing for that location. It would also generate much less traffic than full retail use. Mr. Blais said he felt there was a question of what the Board should be looking for that is in the interest of the community. He cited the recent Martin's problem with the market being located so near the residences and creating a noise disturbance. He felt the same potential existed in the proposed development if commercial uses will be located nearby. Mr. Weith noted the whole 30 acres is en- titled to 850-900 peak hour trips. Mr. Randazzo felt if all the lots are developed to overlay capacity there will be a gridlock all the way to Ferrisburg. Mr. Weith said the Reg- ulations say intersections have to operate at Level C. Mr. Burgess suggested the Board use the services of Craig Leiner of Regional Planning to evaluate any traffic study they get. He added that the Board can ask the developer for improve- ments such as lights, turning lanes, etc., if a traffic problem is created. Mr. Weith added that any traffic study should include a reasonable estimate of new development in the area. Mr. Ward noted that the applicant would also not address the question of a second access, noting that there is a 20 foot difference in elevation where the road is planned. Mr. Jacob said the Commission told the applicant they have to have another access. It would be their problem to engineer it. Mr. Ward said that the applicant told him they could not address the 5 criteria. Mr. Burgess suggested if the Board has a real problem on whether they can address only the res- idential development, they could call the City Attorney for an opinion. b) Application of Charles Perkins for conversion of two existing structures into three dwelling units and multiple use of the Lindenwood Motel Property for residential and retail use, Shelburne Rd. Mr. Burgess summarized the situation, noting that the Com- mission wouldn't let the applicant use the basement or upstairs as it would exceed the traffic capacity for the lot. Only the first floor can be developed. Mr. Blais said the Zoning Board is being asked for multiple residential use of the back of the property which is zoned R-4. The applicant did not provide the R-4 dimension. Mr. Craig suggested sub- tracting what the Commission used as Commercial from the total of the lot. Mr. Ward said the tax map shows 200 ft. for commercial, 81 feet for residential. The requested waiver would allow for three units of residential. There is also a question of access of Shelburne Rd. Mr. Boehm had suggested subdivision. The applicant has come in for mul- PLANNING COMMISSION 6 JUNE 1989 PAGE 3 tiple use, commercial and residential. Mr. Graf said the question was the size of the units. The Board thought they were below the standard. All members of the Commission still felt the back piece should be residential. Ms. Simara, a neighbor, said they are concerned the property retain the nature it has now. Mr. Jewett said he was concerned with the boundary between residential and commercial. The size of the residential lot will determine setbacks in the commercial area. Mr. Jacob said the Commission gave approval on 75 ft. residential zone. If it turns out to be 81 ft., it may have to be looked at again. Mr. Irish said the neighbors are very happy with both Boards so far. He noted the carriage house comes within 3 ft. of their property line and they are con- cerned about it. He said there is a question of whether a vehicle could be driven between the carriage house and the new addition. The Commission had no problem with mixed use. The question of size of the residential units will have to be addressed. c) Discussion of Sect. 18.113, Minimum Size of Dwelling, of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations Mr. Ward said that the current wording allows a one bedroom house of 425 sq. ft. Mr. Burgess said the Commission was trying to allow for "mother-in-law" apartments. Mr. Ward said that by definition such an apartment should not have a separate access. Mr. Jacob suggested Mr. Ward and Mr. Weith work together on this issue. He also suggested sending a note to the Council indicating that language is being changed to it is not confusing. The concensus of the Boards was to allow for "mother-in-law" apartments providing there is no change to the outside of the buidling. The question did arise as to what would happen when the relative is no longer using the apartment. The suggestion was made to make such a use conditional. Members agreed on 425 sq. ft. for a multi- family dwelling and 864 for a separate dwelling. Other Business Mr. Ward suggested a check list for the Zoning Board. Mr. Jacob noted the Commission will be discussing the Master Plan and then the Zoning Regs. Mr. Craig raised the question of the expansion of the gas station on Hinesburg/Kennedy Drives. Mr. Ward said he didn't feel it was an expansion because they didn't add an island, they just extended an island and added a pump. Mrs. Maher said the number of hoses is a big part from the point of view of traffic. The Commission asked Mr. Ward to send such re - questions to the Commission in the future. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 July 10, 1989 Chuck Perkins 80 South Cove Road Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Retail Use, 916 Shelburne Road Dear Chuck: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 This letter is to officially inform you that your request to construct a basement under your addition at 916 Shelburne Road is approved. As we discussed, this basement space cannot be used for any purpose (i.e., retail space, office, storage, etc.). This is because the proposed square footage approved by the Planning Commission already meets the maximum number of generated trip ends allowed by the City's Zoning regulations. Any more "usable" square footage would exceed the maximum allowed. If you have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Joe Weith, City Planner JW/mcp ffffl�N��N.fix June 11, 1989 Graphic Services Attn: Paul Wamsganz P.O. Box 5219 Essex Jct., Vermont 05452 Re: Lindenwood Inn Stormwater Review Dear Paul: I have performed an evaluation of the proposed site changes to the above project with respect to stormwater management. Based on information presented on the plan storm runoff is to be directed to the edge of pavement for overland flow and in- filtration into the soils consistent with present drainage patterns. I would recommend that the new entrance be given a suitable crown along the centerline to direct runoff to the north and south and minimize the amount of water to reach Shelburne Road. Feel free to contact me if you have any comments or ques- tions. Regard , CJoh H. Stuart, P.E. JHS/eps CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL F:N' JEERS P.O BOX 367, ESSFX CTR., VERMONT 05451 TELEPHONE 802 • 878 • 5171 7 L i ndenwood Drive South Burlington, Vt. 05403 August 7, 1989 Mr. & Mrs. Chuck Perkins 80 South Cove Road Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Perkins, We want to thank you for letting us look at the Plat your surveyor prepared for the Lindenwood Inn lot. In reviewing this Plat with the reap Mrs. Austin had prepared of our lot, part � �f your lot and the entire sub -division of Lindenwo od Drive along with the deed descriptions of your lot and our lots we find some substantial differences. 1. The angle on your northeast corner has been changed from 90 degrees that appears on the deeds and the original map Mrs. Austin had prepared to 89 degrees, 42 minutes and 50 seconds. 2. The length of your easterly boundary line which is also my westerly boundary has been changed from 254.77 feet to 254.37 feet. 3. The angle on your southeast corner has been changed from 89 degrees 54 minutes to 90 degrees, cU minutes and 20 seconds. 4. The length of your southerly boundary line has been changed from 275.6 feet to 275.52 feet. 5. The angle on your southwest corner has been changed from 91 degrees 11 minutes to 91 degrees, 01 minutes and 50 seconds. Although these changes may seem small, it appears to us that by using the new plat with the changes made in the dimensions, that by the stroke of a pen you have arbitari ly taken some of our property from us on our westerly sideline. We have gone out to look at where your surveyor put the iron posts in and could not find one on the southeast corner of your lot which is also the southwest corner of our lot. In fact we couldn't find the iron pipe we had on this corner. Do you know �w where it went? Mr. & Mrs. Chuck Perkins (cant.) page We respectfully ask, that you or your surveyor please explain to lls in writing, why the dimensions have changed s� � as t� � have taken some of our property away from us and that you do not install your proposed fence along the boundary between your lot and ours until this boundary has been properly established and marked to the mutual satis- faction � �f both parties. We realize that you are very anxious to get started in installing this fence, but before the fence is actually erected perhaps in the wrong location, we believe that it would be in the best interest of all parties involved to resolve this boundary difference first. Yours truly, He en It sh Palmer Irish cc: City of South Burlington Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington Planning Administrator 0� 7 Lindenwo od Drive South Burlington, Vt. 05403 August 7, 1989 Mr. & Mrs. Chuck Perkins 80 South Cove Road Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Perkins, We want to thank you for letting us look at the Plat your surveyor prepared for the Lindenwood Inn lot. In reviewing this Plat with the map Mrs. Austin had prepared of our lot, part of your lot and the entire sub -division of Lindenwood Drive along with the deed descriptions of your lot and our lots we find some substantial differences. 1. The angle on your northeast corner has been changed from 90 degrees that appears on the deeds and the original map Mrs. Austin had prepared to 89 degrees, 42 minutes and 50 seconds. 2. The length of your easterly boundary line which is also my westerly boundary has been changed from 254.77 feet to 254.37 feet. 3. The angle on your southeast corner has been changed from 89 degrees 54 minutes to 90 degrees, 20 minutes and `U seconds. 4. The length of your southerly boundary line has been changed from 275.6 feet to 275.52 feet. 5. The angle on your southwest corner has been changed from 91 degrees 11 minutes to 91 degrees, 01 minutes and 50 seconds. Although these changes may seem small, it appears to us that by using the new plat with the changes made in the dimensions, that by the stroke of a pen you have arbitari ly taken some of our property from us on our westerly sideline. We have gone out to look at where your surveyor put the iron posts in and could not find one on the southeast corner � �f your lot which is also the southwest corner of our lot. In fact we couldn't find the iron pipe we had on this corner. Do you know where it went? Mr. R Mrs. Chuck. Perkins (cunt.) page We respectfully ask, that you or your surveyor please explain to I_is in writing, why the dimensions have changed so as to have taker, some of our property away from us and that you do not install your proposed fence along the boundary between your lot and ours until this boundary has been properly established and marked to the mutual satis- faction of both parties. We realize that you are very anxious to get started in installing this fence, but before the fence is actually erected perhaps in the wrong location, we believe that it would be in the best interest of all parties involved to resolve this boundary difference first. Yours truly, Helen Irish Palmer Irish cc: City of South Burlington Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington Planning Administrator 3 vP N IV Y I P � Ljj f i P9, 2 Sol, 4. 37 O 8� i V0L.1 �G:371 VC; L.1 t `. RG- G 5 1 • cj 2 4, i F r ISO i r I . ` . EPLAT CF5R1EY,. rH.Ft� E N. J.4N3'.. _._. PERKINS•PROPERT Y, 5H7L812RNE Pb-�o.EUR -'VT APPF4DRAWN BY A. � SCALE BY � � ; A � ,� �r�•A,�" _ OATS: NO..48 YAAIA - ,Dj `sZGtf% MAST ER FORM 1,23W3 4= City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 July 18, 1989 Charles Perkins 80 South Cove Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Retail use, 916 Shelburne Road Dear Mr. Perkins: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are the 5/23/89 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please meet the stipulations contained in the approval motion before applying for a building permit. Please call if you have any questions. Si erely i Joe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl cc: Joe Ingram JW/mcp August 26, 1989 Mrs. Helen Irish Mr. Palmer Irish 7 Lindenwood Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mrs. Helen Irish and Mr. Palmer Irish, Having just found your letter dated August 7, 1989 concerning our common boundary line, I want to respond to it immediately. You must have given the letter to my son while I was out of town and 1 t is is the fir st time 1 iiave seen !t. I drove a copy of the letter over to my surveyor, Mr. Warren A. Robenstien, and he said that he would be happy to discuss his findings with you in his office. He also said that you should hire your own surveyor to survey your property if you feel his findings are not right. In your letter you said and I quote, "by the stroke of a pen you have arbitrarily taken some of our property from us on our westerly sideline." I assure you that I do not want any of your property. I know nothing about surveying and that is why I hired Mr. Robenstien, a Registered Licensed Surveyor, to survey the property. You also mentioned that you could not find the iron pipe on the southeast corner of my lot which is also the southwest corner of your lot. Mr. Robenstien said there was a marker there when he surveyed the property. You also asked me if I knew where the marker went, and the answer is no, I do not know where it went. In fact, I did not even know it was missing. All I want is for you to have the property that is yours and for me to have the property that is mine. I hired Mr. Robenstien to survey my property and the only way I feel that we can resolve this problem is for you to hire a registered licensed surveyor to survey your property, and if he comes up with a different answer, then the proper authority will have to resolve the discrepancy. In the meantime, if you want to contact Mr. Robenstien, he said that he would be glad to go over his findings with you in his office. His telephone number is 878-2359. You also requested that I do not install a fence until the boundary between your lot and mine is properly established and marked to the mutual satisfaction of both parties. I thought when we last talked that we both felt a hedge made a nicer divider between our properties so I have dropped the plan of installing a fence. I did however, plan to have the hedge filled in where the trees have either died or are thin. I am really sorry that we have had all these problems. It is so much nicer when two neighbors can get along amicably and I really feel bad about the problems we have caused for each other. Hopefully, everything will work out to the mutual satisfaction of both of us and we can enjoy the friendship we use to share. Sincerely, Chuck Perkins cc. City of South Burlington Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington Planning Administrator 0 °'m d July 6, 1989 Mr. Joe Weith City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Joe: Pursuant to our conversation this morning, I appreciate your verbal permission to put a basement under my addition at 916 Shelburne Road. I have included it on both my zoning and State applications and I just wanted to clear it with you. I understand that I have permission to use for retail only my first floor. The reason for the basement is that I have to dig down 5' to put in a frost wall and the floor level of the existing structure is already approximately 3' above ground level. There are also many large pieces of cement and stones that have to be removed and it is more economical to haul dirt out rather than to bring it in. It will also be easier to wire, plumb and run heating pipes when we have access from underneath. Thanks again for your consideration. Cordially, e" W- e J�- Chuck Perkins 80 South Cove Road Burlington, Vermont 05401 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 June 19, 1989 Joe Ingram Graphic Services, Inc. P.O. Box 5219 Essex Junction, Vermont 05403 Re: Lindenwood Motel Property Dear Joe: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are the May 2, 1989 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please call if you have any questions. S' erely, Joe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl Jw/mcp City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 June 20, 1989 Mr. Joe Ingram Graphic Services, Inc. P.O. Box 5219 Essex Junction, Vermont 05453 Re: Addition, Lindenwood Motel Property Dear Joe: Enclosed are the June 6, 1989 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please call if you have any questions. Z er/eAly, Joe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl cc: Charles Perkins JW/mcp ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 GRAPHIC/CONSTRUCTION MGM'T. SERVICES, INC. 60 Pearl St. P. 0. Box 5219 ESSEX JCT. VERMONT 05453-5219 (802) 879-4220 WE ARE SENDING YOU 9Uf Attached ❑ Under separate cover via_ ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints Plays ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ LCUMA OF UMUMADUCTRL DATE / ' JOB NO. ATTENTIONs RE: illy AM L -S following items: ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION ®Rnisfotorec- THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: For approval ❑ Approved as submittec For your use ❑ Approved as noted As requested ❑ Returned for correctic-s ❑ For review and comment ❑ REMARKS ❑ FOR BIDS DUE ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints 19 _ ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US /g et Pit-& toll Arlzr &- Ak"A 4 z'&j1:nA )r�erm ::5; r &'o 0, jer COPY SIGNED: PRODUCT 240-3 � Iz, G.W, MM 01471. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 May 19, 1989 Mr. Joe Ingram Graphic Services P.O. Box 5219 Essex Junction, Vermont 05253 Re: Lindenwood Inn, 916 Shelburne Road Dear Joe: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed in the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, May 23, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. Sincerely, 5 Joe Weith, City Planner Encls JW/mcp 1`5,outh S urltugtnu +R ire Department 575 Darset street : 3a�ttlt +�urlin��tnii, lilrrtitnnt 1154I13 ��� `` x (802) 658-7960 May 26,2989 The Atpine Shop M.s . Jann PeAk inns 1184 W U,zton Road So. BuAt ngton, Vermont 05403 Dean M.6 PeA ii.n s , On Thuwusday ajten noon I did an inzpeetion of your pnopeAty the L.indenwood Inn. Through the .cnzpection I did bind a hydrant at the connen o6 L.i"ndenwood Dni.ve and aZzo a second one at B&ewen Pkway and She2bu&ne Road. At th.%6 time I am pZe"ed to .in6onm you that bon the addition to your bu td.i.ng you wiU not be %equ.i&ed to .inzta,Y.e the hydnentit I nequuted when your plan went to the pfann,i.ng eommi.6.6 c.on. A copy o6 this tetten wilt be .bent to Mn. Weeith the city ptannen. 16 there .us any think I can do to be o6 hetp ptease fleet inee to eaU me. 1 woutd titre to thank you bon you& coneeAm .in trying to maize South Burr P,ington a za6e community to wonfz in. S " ee�c ee. y !�%/r�,� James W. Goddette St. Ch.ie� CITY OF SOUTH I3URLINGTON SITE PLAN APPLICATION 1) OWNER OF RECORD (name, address, phone #) Charles N. and Janet B. H 862-7094 Perkins, 80 South Cove Road, Burlington, VT 05401 W 862-2714 2) APPLICANT (name, address, phone #) Char les_Perkins (see above) 3) CONTACT PERSON (name, address, phone #) Joe Ingram, c/o Graphic Services Inc., P.O. Box 5219, Essex Junction, VT 05453 879-4220 4) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 916 Shelburne Road 5) LOT NUMBER (if applicable) 6) PROPOSED USE ( S ) Retail, AVAft*0a 460 C- L Z&r'X- 7) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e. total building square footage, # units, maximum height and # floors, square feet per floor) Existing 1820 SF + Addition SF = 153�W SF 8) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES three 2e ) 9)•LOT COVERAGE: building ± %; landscaped areas % building, parking, outside storage V % P� 4-z�-84 10) COST ESTIMATES: Buildings $ 75,000 , Landscaping $ 1,840 Other Site Improvements (please list with cost) $5,000 Paving 11) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: August 15, 1989 ' 12) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in and out Estimated trip ends (in and out) during the following hours: Monday through Friday 3 1-2 p.m. �- 2-3 p.m._ 11-12 noon ��; 12-lp.,m. , 3-4 p.m.--5-- 4-5 p.m. 5 5-6 p.m. 6-7 p.m. ---=- 13) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 11 a.m. to 3 P.m. Hours Mon - Sat 10 - 9 14) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: Saturday — _ _ Sun 12 - 5 April 14, 1989-- DATE OF SUBMISSION SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT May 2, 1989 DATE OF HEARING/'a�-S� • f . •� 1 L 54or,,4.-- -.eAa, -A.,y t---lA1r-:4 eftVK4 4 CE h".aA- 4r"4Aw"h Y4 -1 t S. S=/S-99 lsat,4� SIN-N of 14A,E--t- o 'T 14 n e e,- 5 r7Q -S tee t 'pPFt rM oarn 5 Can 0.v►�i Vn S P aNc) Fbo-r (2ro5-, F loar (kce a 14 '3 `I- S�►. Fe of Y � e Memorandum - City Manager May 2, 1989 agenda items April 28, 1989 Page 2 5? LINDENWOOD INN. SHELBURNE ROAD 1. Sidewalk along Shelburne Road shall be continuous across driveway and 8 inch in thickness 2. A State permit will be necessary for the relocation of the driveway. 3. The drainage from the parking lot will have to be intercepted and piped to the Shelburne Road drainage system. A retention basin to control runoff may be necessary. 1 �5,uutl N urliu9tau 5 irc 33epat uncut 575 Dorset street �§nutb +Nurlingtnn, Vermont 05403 TO: SO. BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CHIEF GODDETTE RE: TUESDAY MAY 2,1989 AGENDA ITEMS DATE: WEDNESDAY APRIL 26,1989 1. 1100 HINESBURG ROAD OFFICE COMPLEX • (802) 658-7960 PLANS REVIEWED BY THIS DEPARTMENT ON A SET OF PLANS DATED APRIL 89 PROJECT # 89030 FOR A NEW OFFICE BUILDING. AT THIS TIME I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM FOR EMERGENCY PROTECTION. 2. EUGENE WARD OFFICE BUILDING 3065 WILLISTON ROAD 3. PLANS WERE REVIEWED AND AT THIS TIME THERE IS NO WAY WE COULD GIVE PROPER FIRE PROTECTION. ACCESS IS BAD AND MORE INFORMATION IS NEEDED ON THE WATER SYSTEM AND HYDRANTS LOCATION. LINDENWOOD INN SHELBURNE ROAD ADDITION PLANS WERE REVIEWED AND AT THIS TIME THE ONLY PROBLEM I SEE AT THIS TIME IS ONE HYDRANT IS REQUIRED AT THE MAIN DRIVE TO THE PROPERTY. 4. WHITE STREET CONDOS 125 WHITE STREET PLANS REVIEWED DATED REVISED 3-20-89 AND AT THIS TIME I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM FOR EMERGENCY PROTECTION. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 April 28, 1989 Mr. Joe Ingram c/o Graphic Services, Inc. P.O. Box 5219 Essex Junction, Vermont 05453 Re: Addition, Lindenwood Motel Property, Shelburne Road Dear Joe: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Also en- closed are Bill Szymanski's and Chief Goddette's comments. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, May 2, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. S' rely, oe Weith, City Planner Encls Jw/mcp To r, ,. Z: .:Z sF - /5v - 15,osccEs i1.E4u�� p /Z4rd ,f c r c/ L � ' 00 Id rc , ,c/ Cs P Q f- v c d T t o ev .1 r Al /,✓ Z o ,c./ �,z7�07 P L- Q A✓ T- / ,v G /;PC) 14.1 7_ 1. S--q-// 6/ j? s'=A/EOUL46 // 6 Ale EI/E Q. L- A.1 � C�c�s�� �fJG L./"/f✓!./b F�2 rU,tJEI re XUb cU6oi0strsl ccos/z. NEOl�E� �� r,vu�s Fe,y/may /�� T Z iS L t �/ ✓ . ,�E/.2 S .J c/ ,u %�s//ZVLF 2/,/DDo0L'A/ 5 Ar �$•ooiSO.oa �T ��C� I✓ Op 3'/5.00 r� C /Z4 - J J $ E r ,d P c e Al r/ A/& / ,a,/ /A E o o f 6 e ,2 a. It/�/ � c Al 6 L /,c:' u o ,u r/ ,✓ 4, d Q E 4 3 / 1/ ,v i ILI 4/ Al /Z sr E �/ c ,�,/ O IL Id AJ r /,c/L+ IAJe L 41,06 3 /us rA C L d rio Al Lor IL A/ /1 T / o Aj P-A /a Z�vB v NVeM ag yS�v PA �l o 5S0 /X/Y0 — "Or «ss Dr. 3,7 -8 - r3t,pCt /7, y3vlS3)oyo Description of Central District Zones District.mcp 5/8/87 Central District l: Beginning at a point 326.4 feet north of the Corporate Way right- of-way, being the northwesterly corner of the Anchorage Motel property and proceeding easterly along the northern boundary of the motel property, across land owned by the Ramada Inn to a point at the southwesterly corner of a lot at 33 Mary Street. Continuing easterly along the lot's southern boundary 120 feet, then turning north approximately 40 feet to the southern end of the Mary Street right-of-way proceeding easterly 50 feet across Mary Street to the southwesterly corner of the property at 28 Mary Street; proceeding easterly 150 feet along the lot's southern boundary; turning south for 84.21 feet along the common boundary between Central School and Corporate Circle to a point; turning east for a distance of 1022.09 feet along the southern boundary of the Central School property to a point. Then turning southeasterly for a distance of 750 feet to a point; turning westerly approximately 140 feet to the north east corner of the pump station. Proceeding in a southwesterly direction for approximately 400 feet to a point at the northwestern corner of a lot at 28 Iby Street, a point shared with the City owned park property. Proceeding westerly approximately 900 feet to a point at the north west corner of a lot at 16 San Remo Drive, proceeding northerly approximately 90 feet to a point at the north east corner of a lot at #6 San Remo Drive. Proceeding westerly 386.47 feet to a point at the easterly edge of the Dorset Street right-of-way. Then proceeding northerly along the eastern boundary of the Dorset Street right-of-way for a distance of approximately 1490 feet back to the point of beginning. Central District 2: Beginning at a point at the north west corner of a lot at #4 San Remo Drive located approximately 130 feet from the San Remo Drive right-of-way and proceeding easterly in a clockwise direction for a distance of 386.47 feet along the northern boundary of lots at #4 and #6 San Remo Drive to a point. Then turning south for a distance of approximately 80 feet to a point at the north west corner of a lot at #16 San Remo Drive. Continuing in a southerly direction down the center line of San Remo Drive approximately 1530 feet to a point at the southeast bend in San Remo Drive and continuing southerly approximately 230 feet. to a point on the southern boundary of #72 San Remo Drive. 'Then turning westerly along the southern boundary of 72 San Remo and #372 Dorset Street. approximately 420 feet to the center line of Dorset Street. Then turning northerly down the center line of Dorset Street approximately 1870 feet to point of beginning. LI�jG c.AL,Cs FL u ,j & s r a-c 0 '. 1 t� F L ti NSW "0 0-J 2'� sro-,Zs. VI APPENDICES Glossary Arterials: Arterials link the interstate and/or other arter- ials and carry inter and intra city traffic. (Williston Road-Rte. 2, Hinesburg Road-Rte.116 from Kennedy Drive to Williston Road, Rte. 7, Swift Street, Dorset Street north of Swift Street, Ken- nedy Drive, Kimball Drive, Allen Road.) Average trip rate for the peak hour of adjacent street traffic: Collectors: Collectors link arterials to the local street systems, carry intra-city traffic, provide land access and to a lesser extent are used for inter -city traffic. (Bartlett Bay Road, Queen City Park Road, Farrell Street, Spear Street, Dorset Street south of Swift Street, Patchen Road, White Street, Airport Drive, Airport Parkway, National Guard Avenue, Rte. 116 south of Kennedy Drive.) Level of service: A set of qualitative and quantitative criteria that describes the degree to which an intersection, roadway, weaving section or ramp efficiently serves peak hour and/or daily traffic. Level of Service Criteria Level of service A B C D E F for Signalized Intersections Stopped Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) less than or = 5.0 5.1 to 15.0 15.1 to 25.0 25.1 to 40.0 40.1 to 60.0 greater than 60.0 Level of service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Reserve Capacity Level of service Expected delay to Minor Street Traffic Greater than or Equal to 400 A Little or No Delay 300-399 B Short Traffic Delays 200-299 C Average Traffic Delays 100-199 D Long Traffic Delays 0-99 E Very long traffic Delays Peak hour The hour during which the maximum amount of traffic occurs. Trip: A single or one direction vehicular trip with either the origin or destination or both inside the study area. 7