HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 1085 Shelburne Road (2)PLANNING COMMISSION
The South Burlington
meeting on Tuesday,
Conference Room, City
Members Present
3 JANUARY 1989
Planning Commission held a regular
3 January 1989, at 7:30 pm, in the
Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
Peter Jacob, Chairman; William Burgess, William Craig, John
Belter, Catherine Peacock
Also Present
Joe Weith, City Planner; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Fred
Blais, Zoning Board; Michael Dugan
1. Continue Site Plan Application of R.E.M. Development Co.
for construction of a 2520 sq. ft. building for an oil change
and tune up business, 1085 Shelburne Rd.
Mr. Jacob advised that the applicant wants to withdraw. Mr.
Weith said he instructed them to write a letter of
withdrawal.
Mr. Burgess moved to continue the site plan application of
R.E.M. Development until 10 January 1989. Mr. Belter
seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
2. Sketch plan application of Michael Dugan for construction
of a 3-unit residential building on a 20,909 sq. ft. parcel
located on the northwest corner of White and Charles Streets
Mr. Dugan said there is now a single family house with
attached garage on the lot. They will add 2 town house units
of 1200 sq. ft. each. They will close off the White Street
entrance and have the entrance on Charles Street. There will
be landscape berms 30 ft. back from the corners so as not to
obstruct views at the corner. There will also be landscape
berms to block headlights from going into the residential
units. There will be a 20 foot driveway. Mr. Weith noted
the Fire Chief has asked for 20 ft. in front of the garage.
Mr. Dugan said they plan on 12 ft. Members felt 12 ft. was
adequate. Members asked that the location of hydrants be
shown on the plan. The site will be sheet drained off the
parking lot. Mr Dugan noted the site is flat. The question
of sidewalks was raised. Mr- Jacob suggested asked for a
cash contribution for sidewalks which are needed elsewhere in
the area.
3. Discussion on Zoning in the Queen C_it Park Neighborhood
Mr. Blais said the Zoning Board has had an emphasis on
following the guidelines of the 5 criteria. This has created
a problem, especially in Queen City Park. While no one
L PEFDEE OF PIE
T E L I`ro . C.037-431 -1 f .Cj Dec 9 , 8O 2 : 20 No . 01 P . WW12
c_ .6- C 'c.;0
City of Portland
389 Congress St.
Portland, ME 04101,
RE: Traffic Flow Study
SpeteDee oil Change
March 5, 1988
March 7, 1988
& Tune -Up Facilities
At the request of. Two Partners, Inc. (a Maine
Corporation) SpQoDee Oil Change & Tune -Up of New England
conducted a traffic flow study di. LIIL-t.G 9paeDee locations nn
Saturday, March a, 1988 from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
The study made note of the number of vehicles parked on
site in permanent parking spaces on an hourly basis. The
study also made note of the number of vehicles stacked
(quad) awaiting service at 15 minute intervals.
The study was conducted in Portsmouth, NH at the New
England Regional Headquarters by Daniel Duffy, President of
SpeeDee Oil. Change & Tune -Up of New England. Data was
collected via telephone from the Managers of the Somersworth
and Concord locations on an hourly basis.
Site Characteristics:
Portsmouth: 4452 sq ft 3-bay building
14 permanent parking spaces
14 full-time employees
Somersworth: 2226 sq ft 3-bay building
9 permanent parking spaces
7 full-time employees
Concord: 2226 sq ft 3-bay building
9 permanent parking spaces
6 full-time employees
Si EEDEE OF NE TEL No .t>rj3-431-1560
0
Dec 9,88 2:20 No.001 P.03
Portsmouth
Somersworth
ConCOrd
stacked
perm
stacked perm
stacked perm
Soo
0
5
1 5
2 4
0
015
0
0
830
0
0
1
845
0
0
3 5
3 5
900
2
7
2
0
915
1
1
1
930
1
1
1
945
2
1 5
1 5
1000
1
8
0
2
101.5
1
0
1030
0
1
1
1045
0
0
1 5
1 5
1100
1
8
5
111.5
3
2
3
1130
4
4
2
1145
6
4
6 5
4 5
1200
0
9
1
1215
2
3
3
1230
2
2
1
1245
4
4
2 5
2 6
100
3
8
2
1
115
0
1
0
130
0
1
145
1
2 5
p 6
200
0
$
1
215
1
0
1
230
1
2
0
245
1
0
0 6
1 5
300
0
8
0
315
1
0
1
330
0
1
0
345
0
0 5
0 5
400
0
6
0
415
0
0
1
430
0
0
0
445
0
0
0 5
0 5
500
0
5
p
515
0
1
0
530
0
0
545
0
0 5
0 5
600
0
630
0
o
a
SPEEDEE OF NE TEL No.6t_17-431-1560
Dec 9,88 2:20 No.001 P.04
Total put thru,for each store on Saturday, March 5
was as follows:
Portsmouth: 65 cars
Somersworth: 68 cars
Concord: 71 cars
Additional Information:
The Portsmouth store -Operates as a model franchise
and training center which accounts for the Larger number of
permanent parking spaces.
The capacity of the building is such that quite
often there are no vehicles stacked. Based on a 70 car per
day volume. On January 16, 1988 the Portsmouth store
serviced 152 vehicles with a maximum stacking of ten
vehicles.
Respectfully submitted,
SPEEDEE OIL CHANGE & TUNE-UP
OF NEW ENGLAND, INC.
Daniel T. Duffy
President
DTD/dcw
` CTTY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
SITF PLAN APPLICATION
1) OWNER OF RECORD (name, address, phone #)
Char1ea—& Suzan Wilkins
2) APPLICANT (name, address, phone
R.E.M,]�evelopment �o._.� 15 Ave. D, Williston, Vt.
3) CONTACT PERSON (name, address, phone #)-__-864-5899
_$_MA-11er, _Wi.11ist�o.n, Vermont
4) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: -Shplburne
5) LOT NUMBER (if applicable)_ 1085
6) PROPOSED USE (S )--peeL_u1�e—_---------_-_-------------.___.._._----__-_-
7) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e. total building square footage, # units,
maximum height and # floors, square feet per floor) _
1 _f l n o r - 2,52n s a f_ ___ - -- --- ---- - --------- .
8) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 6
9) LOT COVERAGE: building %; landscaped areas %
building, parking, outside storage___-_%
10) COST ESTIMATES: Buildings $ 90, 000, Landscaping $ 5..L(200.
Other Site Improvements (please list with cost) $_30rggg._�i
paving, seeding, fill
11) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: Ma89
12) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in and out) 90
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:
1 4) PE'Ah DAYS OF 0PF'IZA'Y ION:
DATE OF SUBMISSION SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
DATE OF HEARING
Destination Code: SPD 2
Product Name: Pylon Sign
Drawing No.: SPD 2
DESCRIPTION:
Logo pylon and readerboard.
Client: SpeeDee
Client Sheet No.: 102-3
Last Revision:
SIZE:
Logo 4'-0" high x 10'-0" wide. Readerboard 3'-0" high x 6'-0" wide.
FACES:
Logo is 2" deep, pan formed X-15 Acrysteel acrylic with embossed copy.
Readerboard is 2" deep, pan formed X-15 Acrysteel acrylic with rib mold.
GRAPHICS:
Logo - SpeeDee logo blue letters and
white background. Decorative border is
SpeeDee logo blue.
Readerboard - White background with
chemically welded track to
accommodate 8" zip change letters.
CABINETS:
Both cabinets are aluminum extrusion
or square tube wrapped with aluminum.
Retainers to be aluminum. Cabinets to
be painted white, retainers to be painted
#174 PMS.
ILLUMINATION/ELECTRICAL:
High output fluorescent lighting.
Requires 1-20 amps circuit at 110 volts
at 60 hertz.
POLE COVER:
Aluminum painted #174 PMS. Border to
be painted white.
POLE:
Furnished by others. One steel tube
8" x 8" x 5'16" wall, painted with
rust prohibitive primer.
FOUNDATION:
Furnished by others. 3.0 cubic yards,
2500 PSI concrete.
104,
SpeeDee
ally
OIL CHANGE 41
& TUNE-UP
27" — 3'0"
:i
1
6
/WAY-
,06f1/4
SpeeDee Oil Change and Tune -Up
Kenner, Louisiana
Building Area ......................... 2,700 sq. ft.
Height of Building ....... ............ 1-floor-16'from floor to roof with a 4'-6"
parapet making overall height of 20'-6"
Structural System ...................... Structural steel frame
Exterior Skin .......................... Rock face metal panels and overhead
glass door
The exterior features the SpeeDee Oil colors of sky blue, white, and country red. The available land dictates the
size of the building. The material used to construct the exterior walls may be changed to allow the final building
appearance to utilize local available materials.
SpeeDee Oil Change and Tune -Up is a competitor in a rapidly growing industry which is commonly called "Fast-Lube"
or "Quick-Lube." The "Quick-Lube" industry is now a 650 million dollar industry and by the year 1990 the industry
predicts 7 billon dollars in sales.
Stewart Enterprises, Inc.
P.O. Drawer 19925, New Orleans, LA 70179, 504/837-5880
R• E•M
development
company
January 04, 1989
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset St.
So. Burlington, Vermont 05403
Attention: Joe Weith
City Planner
Dear Joe:
REAL ESTATE PLANNERS
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
Due to the planning commissions proposed denial for our
SpeeDee Lube on Shelburne Road, we hereby notify you that we
will no longer proceed with the approval process at the
proposed location for this project.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Miller
REM/sal
15 Avenue D • Williston, VT 05495 • (802) 864-5830
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
PLANNER
658-7955
February 6, 1989
Mr. Robert Miller
R.E.M. Development Company
15 Avenue D
Williston, Vermont 05495
Re: SpeeDee Oil Change, Shelburne Road
Dear Mr. Miller:
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
658-7958
Enclosed are the December 13, 1988 and January 10, 1989
Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please call if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
oe Weith,
- City Planner
JW/mcp
1 Encl
PLANNING COMMISSION ]a JANUARY 1989
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular
meeting on Tuesday, 10 January 1989, at 7:30 pm, in the
Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
Members Present
Peter Jacob, Chairman; William Burgess, Mary -Barbara Maher,
Ann Pugh, William Craig, John Belter
Also Present
Joe Weith, City Planner; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Chip
Burr, Paul Savas, Fred Brynn, Peter Brynn, Allen F. Gear
1. Minutes of 6 December 1988
Ms. Pugh moved the Minutes of 6 December be approved as
written. Mr. Burgess seconded. Motion passed 6-0, Ms.
Peacock abstaining.
2. Continue Site Plan Application o R.E.M. Development Co.
for construction of a 2520 sq. ft. building _ e
and tune up business, 1085 Shelburne Rd.
The City Planner advised that a letter had been received from
the applicant withdrawing their application.
3. Sketch plan application of IBIS Corp. for a 3-lot sub-
division of a 6.8 acre lot located on the east side of Spear
Street directly opposite Deerfield Drive
Mr. Gear noted that an irrevocable offer of dedication and
deed has been given to the City for the extension on
Deerfield Drive. Mrs. Maher asked if this parcel was part of
the larger Nowland lot. Mr. Weith said it is not. Mr. Gear
explained that there had been a boundary adjustment which
created this lot. Members questioned how there could have
been a "boundary adjustment" creating a 750 ft. lot from what
had been a 150 ft. lot. Mr. Gear said Fred Moulton bought
the Bill Stevens house and then bought an additional 5.33
acre piece of land. The city allowed the boundary adjustment
because Deerfield Drive was to be extended with the irrevo-
cable dedication of land. Members were concerned that pieces
were being whittled away from the larger Nowland lot with no
plan in place for the whole parcel. Mr. Burgess questioned
whether a 600 ft. "boundary adjustment" is legal. Mr. Weith
said he will talk with the City Attorney in greater detail.
Mrs. Maher noted that the Commission had given approval to a
subdivision several weeks ago and questioned whether the
piece of land in the present plan had been shown as part of
the larger Nowland piece at that time. Mr. Weith will also
check on this.
PLANNING COMMISSION
13 DECEMBER 1988
PAGE 4
lowing:
a) sewer and water mains along Williston Road
b) an additional hydrant near the front entrance drive.
The location of the hydrant shall be approved � the Fire
Chief
3. The applicant shall contribute a fee to be determined
the City Planner in lieu of constructing —a sidewalk along
Williston Road. This fee shall be paid prior to permit.
4. The display of automobiles shall be limited to the 28
spaces located in front of the addition.
5. No parallel parking shall be allowed along the private
road.
6. The fire lane shall remain unobstructed at all times.
7. The addition shall remain a one floor building as proposed
by the applicant.
8. The zoning permit shall be obtained within 6 months or
this approval is null and void.
Mr. Burgess seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
3. Site plan applicatio _ .E.M. Development C for con-
struction of a 2520 sq. ft. buil ing or an ange & lube
business, 1085 Shelburne Rd.
Mr. Miller located the building across from Val Preda
Cadillac and next to So. Burlington Chrysler -Plymouth. He
said there are 3 businesses in the location now. The plan
has been changed to relocate the curb cut in its present
location instead of moving it. They also now meet the green
space requirement of 300. Mr. Miller said he felt they meet
the traffic overlay requirement. Mr. Weith said they do not
as the allowable traffic is 12 cars per peak hour and the ap-
plicant shows 25-32. Mrs. Maher asked what the current uses
generate. Mr. Weith said 8. Mr. Miller then explained how
the business would operate. There would be 3 lanes of cars
with one car in each lane being serviced while others were
stacked behind. Service would include oil change, lubing,
chaning belts, etc., and might take from 15-30 minutes per
car. Their Portland, Maine, operation has a maximum of 90
cars per day, not as many as a carwash. Mr. Belter noted if
there are only 90 per day, with 25-30 in the peak hour, there
must be a lot of doing nothing time. Mr. Weith noted the
overlay could be waived if the applicant can make an improve-
PLANNING COMMISSION
13 DECEMBER 1988
PAGE 5
ment over what is theie now, such as closing curb cuts, re-
ducing traffic, etc. Mrs. Maher felt this was a bad location
for the business from a safety standpoint and since they
would exceed the oveiiay, she could not in good conscience
vote for it. Ms. PuUii agreed and felt she could not go for a
waiver of the overlay since the applicant was making no im-
provement over what ij there now. Mrs. Maher added, if the
location were at a ccliner with a traffic light, she could go
for it. Mr. Miller slid he didn't think the existing uses
had only 8 cars in the Peak hour and suggested they do a
traffic study to see if their project was an improvement.
Ms. Peacock said she Wouldn't vote for the plan as is but
might reconsider if ti,ey could show a dramatic improvement
over what is there nc,W- Mr. Belter agreed. Mr. Miller
agreed to get a traffic engineer to do a study.
Ms. Pugh moved to continue the application until 20 December.
Mr. Burgess seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
4. Discussion with le.1al counsel on zoning questions
Mr. Stitzel began wits, some general comments on zone changes.
He noted that when the Commission acts to change a zone, it
is acting in a legisl,itive, not a quasi-judicial, capacity.
In a legislative capa,=ity, one is supposed to be thinking of
the general welfare c-r the city, not looking at a particular
site with a particular Project in mind. Zoning should
conform to the city's Comprehensive Plan, so that if an area
is designated as residential in the Comprehensive Plan,
zoning should be residential and exclude commercial. If a
zone change is desirp,l, the Comprehensive Plan should be
amended at the same time as the zoning change. The Plan must
represent a vision '?f the orderly development of the com-
munity. He said that zone changes for specific pieces of
land can be viewed as "spot zoning" which is illegal. He
said that Court hist,.i"y has usually been that if the area of
zone change is 3 acres or less, it has been found to be spot
zoning. If the area is 11 acres or more, it has not. In the
3-11 acre cases, decisions have been mixed, often depending
on compatibility wit), adjacent land uses. Mr. Jacob
explained that the situation in question is of R-4 Zoning
with commercial on the south and R-4 on the north. The ap-
plicant is asking fo) R-7 in order to put in offices. Mr.
Stitzel said that hip remarks were general remarks and the
Commission is entitlod to discuss specific pieces of property
in Executive Session.
Mr. Burgess then moveli the Commission meet in Executive
Session to consider �.oning questions relating to specific
pieces of property. Mrs. Maher seconded. Motion passed
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
PLANNER
658-7955
January 6, 1989
Robert 'tiller
R.E.M. Development Company
15 Avenue D
Williston, Vermont 05495
Re: Speedee Oil Change, 1085 Shelburne Road
Dear Mr. Miller:
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
658-7958
Enclosed is the agenda for the January 10, 1989 Planning
Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
P
Jae Weith,
City Planner
JW/mcp
Encis
M E M O R A N I) U N
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: Joe Weith, City Planner
Re: January 10, 1989 agenda items
Date: January 6, 1989
1) SPEEDEE OIL CHANGE, 1085 SHELBURNE ROAD
Enclosed is a letter from Bob Miller requesting that: R.E.i`1.'s
site plan application for construction of a Speedee Oil Change
and Tune -Up facility be withdrawn. Mr. Miller has informed me
that they will be doing this project in Essex.
2) 3-LOT SUBDIVISION, 1570 SPEAR STREET
IBIS Corporation proposes a 3-lot subdivision of a parcel
containing approximately 6.8 acres located on the east side of
Spear Street directly opposite Deerfield Drive (see enclosed
plan). Lot 1 has an existing single-family house and is
approximately 1.9 acres with a 199 foot fror Cage on Spear Street.
Lot 2 is approximately 1.5 acres and has a 170 foot frontage.
Lot 3 is approximately 2.7 acres and has a 291. foot frontage. An
80 foot right of way to be deeded to the City of South Burlington
is proposed across from Deerfield Drive.
The enclosed plan actually shows a 4-lot subdivision consisting
of 3 residential lots and one lot to be deeded to the City. I
would recommend that the proposed r.o.w, be included in either.
lot 1 or lot 2 with the stipulation that, it be deeded to the City
upon subdivision of the remaining Nowland Property. This would
keep the proposed r.o.w. under private ownership until. future
development and would correctly represent. a 3-lot subdivision.
The City's subdivision regulations define a 3-.Lot, subdivision as
a minor subdivision and a 4-lot subdivision as a major -
subdivision.
Lot Size/Frontage: The parcel is zoned r•esident.ial 1. The
proposed plan meets minimum lot size and lot; frontage
requirements.
Access: Proposed access to the three lot. is not shown on the
plan. I recommend that access to lots 1 and 2 be i)rov ided by a.
shared driveway from the 80 foot r . o . w . This would require
relocation of the existing driveway for the house on lot 1 and
the curb cut on Spear Street to be closed. Lot.. 3 would recltii►•e
access from Spear Street. The driveway for lot :i should be
placed so that headlights do not shine into windows of hotises
located across Spear Street. The proposed drive t'or• the 3 l o t,b
should be shown on the plan along with a note. indicating tha t
lots 1 and 2 shall have shared access.
1
PLANNING COMMISSION 20 DECEMBER 1988
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular
meeting on Tuesday, 20 December 1988, at 7:30 pm, in the
Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
Members Present
Peter Jacob, Chairman; William Burgess, Mary -Barbara Maher,
Ann Pugh, William Craig, John Belter
Also Present
Joe Weith, City Planner; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; R & H
Miller, W. Schuele, V. Bolduc, R. Hoehl, M. Simoneau, H.
Harley, R. Berard, G. Lang, S. & M Freedman, B. & G. Allen,
A. & K. Blair, L. Kleh, G. Rabideau, L. Llewellyn, G.Milot,
A. Bartlett, M. Scollins, F. Boerger, J. Larkein, S. & J.
Jewett, T. Kleh, R. Echo, D. Reed, M. Brown, D. Viehman
1. Minutes of 29 November 1988
Ms. Pugh moved the Minutes of 29 November be approved as
written. Mr. Craig seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
2. Continue Site Plan Application of R.E.M. Development Co.
for construction of a 2520 sq. ft. building for an oil change
and tune 112 business, 1085 Shelburne Rd.
Mr. Miller said they checked the actual traffic counts for
what is there now and found that on Friday, 16 December, 3-4
Pm is the peak hour with 35 trips. The original estimate was
the proposed business would generate 32 trips at its peak hour.
Mr. Craig said this count doesn't include postal cars, cars
that come in and leave because of too long a waits, etc. The
applicant's estimate only counted cars that were in the
stacking lane and this is the most optimistic picture there
is. Mrs. Maher said there are other variables such as the
nature of Shelburne Rd. as a generator of traffic, also the
question of accessibility. This lot is not readily
accessible. She added that today she had observed cars wait
over a minute to get out and then have to shoot out to do it.
Mr. Craig said he didn't feel the data is sufficient. Ms.
Pugh said that stacked cars and parked cars are different to
her than trip ends. Mr. Craig added that using the
applicant's methodology, you get 38 cars but the memo says
there were 65. Therefore, the number of trip ends has to be
higher. Ms. Peacock said she is not convinced this would be
an improvement. Mr. Burgess said he felt if the Commission
is going to deny the application, the City Attorney should
see it.
Ms. Peacock then moved to continue the hearing until 3
January in order to consult with the City Attorney, Mr.
Burgess seconded. Motion assed unanimously.
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
PLANNER
658-7955
January 13, 1989
Mr. Robert Miller
R.E.M. Development Company
15 Avenue D
Williston, Vermont 05495
Re: Speedee Oil Change, Shelburne Road
Dear Mr. Miller:
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
658-7958
Enclosed are the December 20, 1988 and January 3, 1989
Planning Commission meeting minutes. Your withdrawal was rec-
ognized at the January 10, 1989 meeting. I will send you
the January 10, 1989 meeting minutes as soon as they are
available. Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Joe Weith,
City Planner
JW/mcp
2 Encl
A,
MOTION OF DENIAL
I move the South Burlington Planning Commission deny the Site
Plan application of R.E.M. Development Company for construction
of a 2520 square foot building for a SpeeDee Oil Change and Tune -
Up business as depicted on a 3 page set of plans titled "SpeeDee
Oil Change & Tune Up, 1085 Shelburne Road, South Burlington,"
prepared by R.E.M. Development Company and dated 12/3/88, last
revised 12/9/88 for the following reasons:
1. Based on traffic generation dataCforSpeeDee Oilhange &
Tune -Up facilities provided by the aer dated
3/7/88 from Daniel Duffy to City of Portland, Maine), the
estimated number of peak hour trips to be generated by the
proposed project exceeds the 12 peak hour trip maximum allowed
for this property (Article XVII, Traffic Overlay District, South
Burlington Zoning Regulations).
2. The South Burlington Planning Commission has determined that
the traffic generation data referenced above does not
sufficiently show an improvement over current traffic generation
from the site. The Planning Commission concludes that the
traffic data referenced above does not specifically indicate the
number of peak hour trips generated by such uses and for this
reason is an unreliable indicator of peak hour trip generation.
Absent clear and persuasive evidence of anticipated peak hour
trip generation from the proposed use, the Commission cannot
conclude that the proposed use will result in an improvement over
existing conditions as presented in the Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn
traffic counts on December 16, 1988.
i
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: Joe Weith, City Planner
Re: January 3, 1989 agenda items
Date: December 30, 1989
1) SPEEDEE OIL CHANG , ELBURNE ROAD
closed raft motion of denial which was reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney, Steve Stitzel.
2) 3-UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. WHITE & CHARLES STREETS
Michael Dugan proposes to add two townhouse units to an existing
single-family dwelling located on the northwest corner of White
Street and Charles Street, thereby creating a 3-unit residential
building. The existing dwelling is 1,512 square feet. The two
new units would be 1200 square feet each. All three units meet
minimum dwelling unit size requirements.
The property is bounded by a single -story duplex to the north, a
single-family residence to the south, White Street to the east
and Charles Street to the north. South of the site, towards
Patchen Road are mixed uses including single-family, commercial
and multi -family structures. The proposed project is consistent
with the character of the neighborhood.
The lot is zoned R-4; the proposed project is a permitted use.
Coverage/lot size/setbacks: Coverage and minimum lot size
requirements are met. Setback requirements are met with one
exception. The southeast corner of the existing garage is only
28 feet from the west property line along Charles Street. The
required setback is 30 feet.
_Access/Circulation• Access will be provided by an 18 foot wide
curb cut on Charles Street. The existing curb cut on White
Street will be closed and converted to lawn. Circulation is
provided on the east side of the building.
Parking: The project requires 7 spaces and 7 spaces are shown on
the plan. Each unit has an attached one -space garage. The other
4 spaces are shown in an uncovered parking area in front of the
building.
Landscapi►,g: The project requires $4,200 in new landscaping.
The landscaping plan shows new red oak, sugar maple, red maple,
white cedar., hawthorne, spruce, dogwood, juniper, burning bush
and other assorted shrubs. The plan meets the required value.
Three foot high planted berms are proposed along Charles Street.
/Z
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
PLANNER
658-7955
December 30, 1988
Mr. Robert Miller
R.E.M. Development Company
15 Avenue D
Williston, Vermont 05495
Re: SpeeDee Oil Change, 1085 Shelburne Road
Dear Mr. Miller:
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, January 3, 1989 at 7:30 P.M.
to represent your request.
JW/mcp
Encls
Sincerely,
Joe Weith,
City Planner
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
PLANNER
658-7955
December 9, 1988
Mr. Robert Miller
R.E.M. Development Company
15 Avenue D
Williston, Vermont 05495
Re: SpeeDee Oil Change, 1085 Shelburne Road
Dear Mr. Miller:
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
658-7958
Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission
meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Also
enclosed are Bill Szymanski's and Chief Goddette's comments.
Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, December 13, 1988
at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request.
Sincerely,
(�
oe Weith,
City Planner
JW/mcp
Encls
�iz,
PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION *
SPEEDEE OIL CHANGE* & TUNE-UP FACILITIES
Facility Time
In
Out
Total
Portsmouth 11:15
3
1
4
11:30
4
3
7
11:45
6
4
10
12:00
0
6
6
27 Peak Hour Trips
Somersworth 11:45
4
4
8
12:00
6
4
10
12:15
3
6
9
12:30
2
3
5
32 Peak Hour Trips
Concord 11:15
5
1 6
11:30
3
5 8
11:45
2
3 5
12:00
4
2 6
25 Peak Hour Trips
*Based on data indicating the number of vehicles stacked awaiting
service. It was assumed that stacked vehicles entered during the
15 minute interval indicated and exited during the following 15
minute interval.
SPEEllEE OF NE--- -- TEL No .603-431-156il
Portsmouth
Somersworth
stacked
perm
stacked perm
800
0
5
1 b
815
0
0
830
0
0
845
0
0
3 5
900
2
7
915
1
2
930
1
1
945
2
1
1
1000
1
8
1015
1
0
1030
0
1
1045
0
0
1 5
1100
1
8
1115
3
2
1130
4
4
1145
6
4
6 J
1200
0
9`
3
1215
2
2
1230
2
1245
4
4
2 5
100
3
S
2
115
0
1
130
0
1
145
1
2 5
200
0
8
215
1
0
210
1
0
245
1
0 6
300
0
8
315
1
1.
330
0
1.
345
0
0
0 5
400
0
6
415
0
0
430
0
0
445
0
0 5
500
0
r
_>
515
0
1
5 :3 0
0
0
545
0
,
600
0
630
0
0 O
Dec 9,88 2:20 No.001 P.03
Concord
stacked perm
2 4
0
0
1
3 5
0
1
1
1 5
2
0
1
1 5
5
3
2
4 5
1
3
1
2 6
1
0
1
0 6
1
1
0
1 5
0
1
0
0 5
0
1
0
0 5
0
0
0
0 0
LOCATION: 1085 SHELBURNE ROAD OMAN : FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1966
SUUIH HURLINNTUN, VT JOB: 88174
INTERVAL ENTER EXIT TOTAL
BE6INNIN6
070i�
0
0
0
ir'730
0
0
0
0800
1
1
2
0830
3
1
4
0Y00
2
i
3
0930
2
3
5
1000
4
2
6
1030
3
3
6
1100
3
3
6
1130
8
9
17`,
1200
3
1
4 ,.
1230
5
5
10
1300
5
b
10
1330
2
4
6
1400
8
8
16
1430
8
4
12
I500
13
V
22�`
1530
6
7
13
1600
3
Y
12
1630
3
4
7
161AL
82
74
161
FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED
Engineering and Planning Services
12/20/88
JW
MOTION OF DENIAL
I move the South Burlington Planning Commission deny the Site
Plan application of R.E.M. Development Company for construction
of a 2520 square foot building for a SpeeDee Oil Change and Tune -
Up business as depicted on a 3 page set of plans titled "SpeeDee
Oil Change & Tune Up, 1085 Shelburne Road, South Burlington,"
prepared by R.E.M. Development Company and dated 12/3/88, last
revised 12/9/88 for the following reason:
1. Based on trip generation data provided by the applicant, the
estimated 25 to 32 peak hour trips to be generate by the proposed
project exceeds the 12 peak hour trip maximum allowed for this
property (Article XVII, Traffic Overlay District, South
Burlington Zoning Regulations). It has further been shown by
data provided by the applicant that the proposed project will not
improve the traffic generation situation currently being
experienced on the site.
tI�j w 6 Lk IA -is Pr,,vPaYzq�f-
:ALA
!-4 0
•
12/20/88
JW
MOTION OF APPROVAL
I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the Site
Plan application of R.E. M. Development Company for construction
of a 2520 square foot building for a SpeeDee Oil Change and Tune -
Up business as depicted on a 3 page set of plans titled "SpeeDee
Oil Change & Tune Up, 1085 Shelburne Road, South Burlington,"
prepared by R.E.M. Development Company and dated 12/3/88, last
revised 12/9/88, with the following stipulations:
1. A $2,700 landscaping bond shall be posted prior to permit.
The existing mature oak tree along the southern property line
shall remain if possible and the plan shall be revised to
indicate this. The plan shall also be revised to show the
existing birch tree and cedar clump in the front yard. These
trees shall remain.
2. The building shall be equipped with a grease and grit trap
and the details of this trap shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for approval prior to permit.
3. The revised plan shall be submitted to the City Planner for
approval prior to permit.
4. The Planning Commission realizes that the estimated trips to
be generated by the proposed project exceed the maximum allowed
under Article XVII, Traffic Overlay District of the City zoning
regulations. It has been determined that the proposed project
will not worsen existing traffic generation from the site.
Therefore, the Planning Commission waives the maximum trip
generation standard as allowed under Section 17.504 of the City
zoning regulations.
5. The zoning permit must be obtained within 6 months or this
approval is null and void.
�vtltlj 16urlingtvtt + ire Department
575 Burset street
3utttb Nurlingtnn, llermnnt 0-5401
f
TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CHIEF GODDETFE
RE: TUESDAY DECEMBER 13,1988 AGENDA ITEM
DATE: WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 7,1988
1. SPEEDEE OIL CHANGE & TUNE UP
1085 SHELBURNE ROAD
PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE FIRE DEPAR'nlENT
AND AT THIS TIME I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM WITH
THIS PROJECT.
F
OFFICE OF
JAMES W. GODDETTE, SR.
CHIEF
(802) 658-7960
Memorandum - William Szymanski
December 13, 1988 agenda items
December 9, 1988
Page 2
3) SPEEDEE OIL CHANGE & TUNE UP, SHELBURNE ROAD
1. Method of draining the site should be shown. I would
recommend that the storm water be intercepted with a catch basin
and piped to the nearby drainageway.
2. Building shall be equipped with a grease and grit trap and
the details of this trap shall be furnished to the City for
approval.
3. A sidewalk shall be constructed along Shelburne Road.
4. Elevation details on page three show signs that do not
conform to City ordinance.
2
r
' l
riemorandum - Planning
W ember 13, 1988 agenda items
1J,ecember 9, 1988
Page :3
Dugan said that all new parking will not be on the private road
(7/28/87 minutes, page 6). It should be stipulated that no cars
be allowed to park on the private road.
Landscaping: The same landscaping plan as before is proposed.
The same stipulations contained in the 8/11/87 approval should
apply.
Other: See Bill Szymanski's and Chief Goddette's comments.
3) R.E.M. DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 1085 SHELBURNE ROAD
R.E.M. Development Company proposes to construct a 2,520 square
foot building for a SpeeDee Oil Change and Tune -Up business at
1085 Shelburne Road. There is an existing 1,600 square foot
building on the site which would be removed. The existing
building houses a hair salon, quick print, and sporting goods
store.
The property is zoned Commercial 1. The property is bounded by
South Burlington Chrysler -Plymouth on the south and west. To the
north is a cemetery. Perry's Fish House is located to the east,
across Shelburne Road.
Access/Circulation: Access is shown from a single 30 foot wide
driveway on Shelburne Road. Circulation is provided in front,
along the north side, and in back of the building.
The driveway is located 180 feet north of the signalized
intersection of Shelburne Road/Baldwin Avenue/Chrysler Plymouth
entrance. The zoning ordinance requires a 200 foot minimum
distance between driveways and signalized intersections. It
appears the proposed driveway can be moved 20 feet to the north
without disrupting proposed on -site circulation.
Parking: The proposed use requires 5 parking spaces. The plan
shows 13.
Traffic: The property is located in Traffic Overlay Zone 2.
This allows a maximum peak hour trip generation of 12 trips for
this lot. The I.T.E. trip generation manual does not provide
trip data for this type of use. Based on trip data for car
washes, this project would generate 24 trips during the peak
hour.
Based on the I.T.E. trip generation manual, the current uses
generate 8 trips during the peak hour.
3
Memorandum - Planning
L¢cember 13, 1988 agenda items
December 9, 1988
Page 4
Landscaping: The project requires $2,700 in landscaping. The
plan is valued at $2,880. It appears that the project will not
disrupt the existing oak tree in back or the existing birch tree
in front. These trees should remain and should be indicated on
the plan. Also, the existing cedar clump near the sign should be
relocated rather than removed.
Coverage/setbacks: The plan meets building and total lot
coverage. Proposed front yard coverage is 38.6% (maximum of 30%
allowed). Setback requirements are met.
Other: There is a drainageway/stream just beyond the northwest
corner of the lot. The plan shows pavement within 50 feet of
this drainageway. I am not sure if the conservation zone applies
in this case. This property currently has pavement within 50
feet of the drainageway and it appears Chrysler -Plymouth also
does not comply with the undisturbed 50 foot conservation zone
rule.
Removal of old oil and its frequency should be explained. The
plan shows no outside storage and this should be agreed to by
applicant.
A sidewalk should be constructed.
4) DISCUSSION WITH CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING ZONE CHANGE
PROCEDURES
A few meetings ago, I was instructed to schedule Steve Stitzel
for a discussion on zone change procedures, in particular,
whether or not a zone change can be done based on a particular
project. Steve will be attending the meeting to discuss this
issue and hopefully, if time allows, any other questions we may
have.
2
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: Joe Weith, City Planner
Re: December 20, 1988 agenda items
Date: December 16, 1988
2) SPEEDEE OIL CHANGE, 1085 SHELBURNE ROAD
At the 12/13/88 meeting, the Planning Commission instructed the
applicant to hire a consultant to take counts and determine the
peak hour trips currently being generated by existing uses on the
site. The applicant informed me that he has hired Fitzpatrick -
Llewellyn to take counts, which will be conducted on Friday,
12/16/88. The applicant also informed me that he took counts on
Wednesday 12/14/88, and found that during the peak hour (11:A.M.
to 12:00, noon), 34 trips were generated. This is higher than
the 25-32 trips expected to be generated- by the proposed use,
based on trip data provided by the applicant.
3) SOUTHEAST SUMMIT, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, DORSET
STREET
G. Milot, J. Larkin and A. Bartlett have submitted a revised
sketch plan for the planned residential development called
Southeast Summit which is located on Dorset Street at the
Shelburne Town line. The total lot size is 202.2 acres. This
consists of approximately 157 acres on the west side of Dorset
Street and 45 acres on the east side of Dorset Street. Enclosed
are the minutes from the 8/9/88 meeting at which the first sketch
plan submittal was reviewed.
Layout: The revised plan shows a total of 286 dwelling units.
This consists of 126 single-family lots (1/3 acre minimum lot
size) and 40 four -unit multi -family buildings. Of the proposed
units, 44% are single-family while 56% are multi -family. The
original plan proposed 98 four -unit buildings totaling 392 units.
All of the proposed units are shown on the 157 acres west of
Dorset Street. All 126 single-family units are shown north of
the proposed Allen Road extension. The multi -family buildings
are shown south of the Allen Road Extension. The closest lot to
Dorset Street is 600 feet.
1
�§vutb Nurliugtnn Nire 0epttrtinent
575 Dvri3et *treet
�§nutb Burlington, Vermont 05401
TO: SO. BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CHIEF GODDETTE
SUBJECT: TUESDAY DECEMBER 20,1988 AGENDA ITEMS
DATE:
1.
THURSDAY DECEMBER 15,1988
ETIIAN ALLEN FARM
R.M.H. ASSOC.
LOT #4
PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THIS DEPARTMENT AND
AT -THIS TIME 'TI'.l'" ACCI'. rI-) IS NEEDED IF WE ARE TO
GIVE PROPER FIRE PROTECTION.
ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO BRING OT YOUR ATTENTION
THAT WE WERE TOLD THAT THERE IS 868 GPM. OF WATER
AT 20 LBS. THE FIRE WE HAD LAST WEEK AT THE FARM
WE FOUND TO HAVE LESS THE 500 GPM. AND COULD NOT
SUPPLY 3-HAND LINES.
2. HODS ROAD COMMERCIAL B.D.P. PROPERTY
PLANS WERE REVIE ED BY THIS DEPARTMENT AND
T11E FOLLOWING IS NEEDED FOR PROPER FIRE PROTECTION:
B . AT LEAST 2-HYDRAWS ON THE PROPERTY DUE TO TI iI
SIZE OF THE BUILDING AT A LOCATION APPRO%R D BY
'PHIS DEPARTMENT.
1 Y�
OFFICE OF
JAMES W. GODDETTE, SF.
CHIEF
(802) 658-7960
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager
Re: December 20, 1988 agenda items
Date: December 16, 1988
3) SOUTHEAST SUMMIT, DORSET STREET
1. There should be a clearance (10' minimum) between the Velco
easement line and the multi -family units. Residents should not
have to encroach upon the easement when they exit out their back
door.
2. The sewage pumping station and long force main (15,000 feet
+) should be maintained by an association. Pumping sewage that
distance will be expensive to operate and maintain.
3. Additional water storage facilities will be required for the
area as it develops a impact fee for that purpose should be
assessed.
4. Dorset Street in the area is in very poor condition and in
need of reconstruction, widening and repaving.
4) HOLMES ROAD COMMERCIAL, SHELBURNE ROAD _ HOLMES ROAD
1. The pipe for the storm drainage system shall be concrete or
plastic not metal or aluminum.
2. Traffic signal faces will have to be added ror Holmes Road
unless it will be done under the IDX project to the south.
3. Plans with revision date of 12/7/88 are acceptable.
5) H.M.H. ASSOCIATES VERSATILE GRAPHICS, ETHAN ALLEN DRIVE
I. The above referenced plan dated 11/4/88 prepared by J.G.
Architects, --Inc is acceptable.
M E M 0 R A N D U M.
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: Joe Weith, City Planner
Re: December 20, 1988 agenda items
Date: December 16, 1988
2) SPEEDEE OIL CHANGE, 1085 SHELBURNE ROAD
At the 12/13/88 meeting, the Planning Commission instructed the
applicant to hire a consultant to take counts and determine the
peak hour trips currently being generated by existing uses on the
site. The applicant informed me that he has hired Fitzpatrick -
Llewellyn to take counts, which will be conducted on Friday,
12/16/88. The applicant also informed me that he took counts on
Wednesday 12/14/88, and found that during the peak hour (11:A.M.
to 12:00, noon), 34 trips were generated. This is higher than
the 25-32 trips expected to be generated by the proposed use,
based on trip data provided by the applicant.
3) SOUTHEAST SUMMIT, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, DORSET
STREET
G. Milot, J. Larkin and A. Bartlett have submitted a revised
sketch plan for the planned residential development called
Southeast Summit which is located on Dorset Street at the
Shelburne Town line. The total lot size is 202.2 acres. This
consists of approximately 157 acres on the west side of Dorset
Street and 45 acres on the east side of Dorset Street. Enclosed
are the minutes from the 8/9/88 meeting at which the first sketch
plan submittal was reviewed.
Layout: The revised plan shows a total of 286 dwelling units.
This consists of 126 single-family lots (1/3 acre minimum lot
size) and 40 four -unit multi -family buildings. Of the proposed
units, 44% are single-family while 56% are multi -family. The
original plan proposed 98 four -unit buildings totaling 392 units.
All of the proposed units are shown on the 157 acres west of
Dorset Street. All 126 single-family units are shown north of
the proposed Allen Road extension. The multi -family buildings
are shown south of the Allen Road Extension. The closest lot to
Dorset Street is 600 feet.
1
EPA:
Housing
EPA (Intl. arm)
25OW and lower
(Except 250W; HPS)
I.6 ft.2/.17 m2
&
25OW !all
400W (all sources)
2.3 ft?r.22m2
1000W (all sources)
3.0 ft.2i.28 m2
For MA deduct .6 it.2i.06m2 from above values.
Sharp Cutoff Architectural Lighting
FKAB SERIES Rectilinear, 70/1000 W. HID
SAME AS TBB
(�o Wet Locations
HOUSING Heavy -gauge aluminum, continuously seam -welded. Fully gasketed aluminum door
frame with Impact -resistant tempered glass lens. Stainless steel external hardware.
Dark bronze polyester powder finish standard.
OPTICS Anodized, formed aluminum reflector.
BALLAST- High power factor. Electrical components isolated from optical chamber for
optimum operation.
INSTALLATION - Extruded aluminum arm for pole/wall mount standard; mast -arm optional.
APPLICATION -Parking lots, driveways, malls.
ORDERING INFORMATION
Lamp i ype c;atalog
Voltage Ballast Lamp Length
Depth
Width
Weight
& Wattage Number"
(Specify) Type Dese. In. - cm.
In. -cm.
In. -cm.
Lbs.- Kg.
70 KAB 70S SP12
21 -53.34
71/4-18.42
15 -38.10
17 - 7.73
100 KAB 100S SP12
HX-HPF Mog/CLear 21 - 53.34
71/4 -18.42
15 -38.10
17 - 7.73
High 150+ KAB 150SSP12
21-53.34
71/4-18.42
15 -38A0
20-- 9.09
Pressure
200
KAB 200S SP12
Sodium
250
KAB 250S SP12
120
400
KAB 400S SP12
208
1000
KAB 1000S SP12
240
175
KAB 175MP SP12--
277
Metal
250
KAB 250M SP12
480
Halide
400
KAB 400M SP12
_
1000
KAB 1000M SP12
100
KAB 100H SP12
Mercury
175
KAB 175H SP12
Vapor
250
KAB 2501-1 SP12
400
KAB 40UH SP12
1000
KAB 1000H SP12
21 -- 53.34 71/4 -18.42 15 - 38.10 22 -- 10.00--
Auto. Mog/Clear 24 60.96 91/2 - 24.13 191/2 -49.53 24--10.91
Reg. 24 - 60.96 91/2 - 24.13 191/2 -49.53 39 - 17.73
30 - 76.20 101/2 - 26.67 231/9 - 58.74 53 - 24-09
21 - 53.34
71/2 -18.42
15 -38.10
19 - 8.64
Peak Mog/Clear 21 -53.34
71/2-18.42
15 -38.10
21 - 9.54
Lead 24 - 60.96
91/2 - 24.13
191/2 - 49.53
31 -14.09
30 - 76.20
101/2 - 26.67
231/9 - 58.74
47 - 21.36 AIM
21 - 53.34
71/4 -18.42
15 -38.10
15 - 6.82 f
21 - 53.34
71/4 -18.42
15 -38.10
18 -- 8.18
CWA Mog/Clear ,y 21 - 53.34
71/4--18.42
15 -38.10
19 - 8.64
24 - 60.96
91/2 - 24.13
191/2 - 49.53
30 -13.64
30-76.20
101/2-26.67
23Va-RA7A
dr._0ner:
'Square pole mounting is shown. Round pole mounting (RP12) and wall (WB12) or wood mounting (WWI 2) are available as standard. Mast Arm (MA) option available in
medium and large housings only. Optional degree Arm provides adjustable up -tilt capabilities in 5 degree increments to 30 degrees from horizontal. Specify DA12P for round or
square pole mounting and DA12W for wall mounting. If the above mountings are desired, change catalog number. Example KAB 70S RP12 120.
+ Uses 55 volt lamp, 100 volt available, specify on order.
NOTE: All arms are shipped as separate item.
"KAB 175MP includes socket for universal burning and position oriented lamps. KAB 250M includes socket or universal burning lamps only. When using lamps requiring a
position oriented socket a P must be added to catalog number. Example KAB 250 MP SP12.
For additional information and photometric data, refer to Hi-Tek Submittal Sheet: KAB
A
OPTIONS
ACCESSORIES
Suffix to
Cat. No. Description
Catalog
Number
Description
- PER/PE NEMA Twist -Lock PE Receptacle &
KAAVGS
Vandal Guard, KAB 200
Photocontrol for 120, 208, 240V
KAAVGM
Vandal Guard, KAB 400
-PER/PE4 NEMA Twist -Lock PE Receptacle &
Photocontrol for 480V
KAAVGL
Vandal Guard, KAB 1000
-PER/PE7 NEMA Twist -Lock PE Receptacle--&-
T2-XXX
2" IPS Tenon Adapter
--
Photocontrol for 277V
T3-XXX
21/2" IPS Tenon Adapter
-PER NEMA Twist -Lock Receptacle only.
T4-XXX
31/2" IPS Tenon Adapter
No Photocontrol
NOTE: For more details, see Architectural Accessories, p. 100.
-ORS Quartz Restrike System
-TB Multi Tap Ballast (120, 208. 240, 277V)
T ■ J Y
q
-DC Architectural Color (Specify - see p. 161)
1 2 2 3
3 4
-MA Mast Arm Adaptor' +
T.non
sin
n.ture neu,M ftxturb 11XI-6.
al /so• .t goo n 12o
ttxtun. mtur
„9o• .190•
-DA12P Degree Arm for Pole'
9
2-%-O.D.
2- 0D
T2-190 T2-200 T2-T90 T2-320
T3.190 T3.290 T3-290 73-320
T2-390 T2490
T3.390 T3490
4- OD,.-.
T4 /90 T4-290 T4-M T4-320
T4.390 T4490
-DA12W Degree Arm for Wall'
.To
0/1
order, replace SP12 designation in the catalog number with
the desired optional mounting designation.
+Available in medium and large housing only.
NOTE: For more details, see Architectural Options p. 98.
90 ®® LITHOAVIA
HI-TEK
(a v zh ►� c: c. s
s
I'�1545 `d�7SU 57 Flo
Nov
A G E N D A
South Burlington Planning Commission
City Hall Conference Room
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, Vermont
Special Meeting 97:30 P.M. Tuesday, March 31, 1987
1) Minutes of March 17, 1987.
2) Continue discussion of site plan application of Hobie
Richards, John Rao and Antonio Pomerleau for conversion of
the existing building to a wholesale/retail establishment at
1525 Shelburne Road.
Work Session: IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING SPECIAL MEETING
3) Continue Discussion of South Burlington Zoning Regulations.
a. Airport Approach Cones: (Sections 14.303, 15.303, 19.45,
and 22.104).
b. Dimensional Requirements: (Section 18.00).
C. Miscellaneous:
Section 19.152 on undevelopable land for density
and coverage;
Sections 18.104 and 22.102 - Setbacks from inter-
state ramps.
Respectfully
submitted,
I
Jane B. Lafleur,
City Planner
1
C �.t G � �S l.. GS
Q) IAi C-r
A / d-/ C.)
14 4-z. v� � � C � g s � �,{
z
font"/1
4-o
0? eo
�I,(,j�y�,�,or lwu�.d,��iNq kYV �U,rvvrvtu.Q
0 OA
Y� ws 4 - -64
r
, ess
66f,
Au r
,to
0 MA 4\, We
q)o U.S
v!J
t7�� Abu
IJ
[At -flA
dx
kAVVV\
6� V
r�W,�4 use �
"id �Itl
.- it I OvAqe
I, � 1C,.ci%(,Q r 1 3 ,
5A- I 0 �.n� I,Q � rid -lo
pby
NY oz s co &Av."a at � Ss 1-�\" S 0 �".'
�,Q,u,,auw c� ��^^ u-('�„�t�,� bpoK, NwwrJ oF uIJ A A/l&J
-t 1 411�llwo-j /
< T;4 4vs—
v
U,P'wvvw."Ut DUZ�-Vaj
Vlc�-,Y'
1, st Cr- ems.
1-� W,�
bOIZ4--j> 1
FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED
Engineering and Planning Services
One Wentworth Drive
WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495
TO A ` t l
V
lklllll 41
WE ARE SENDING YOU KAttached ❑ Under separate cover via
LIEVUEEQ @)F UQQRMEDTTM
DATE ! z — 7—
JOB NO. (iCj
/.6�;./,�`
ATTENTION/C
l� �` C C (/, / /JC
the following items:
❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order a
COPIES
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
107X _f
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval
Xj For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution
K As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints
❑ For review and comment ❑
❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRIINNNTTS- RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMAR S
e GAS Shy �� `?c-cu%P
&C �vr
Shoes
1w_1'e j14a � A� c t / ce . .r�lez'- <-c
COPY
PRODUCT 140-2 � Inc., Gmt., Ma 01471.
SIGNED
If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.
26.055 In approving a conditional use, the Board may attach additional
requirements as it may deem necessary to implement the provisions of the
Vermont Planning and Development Act and these regulations.
26.056 Any alteration, extension or other change to an existing conditional
use shall require review under the requirements of this section.
26.10 Site Plan Review
The Planning Commission shall be required to approve a site plan prior to the
issuance of a zoning permit for any new use, change in use, or expansion of use in
any district, other than agricultural and forestry uses and one and two-family
dwellings on single lots. In reviewing site plans, the Planning Commission may
impose appropriate conditions and safeguards with respect to the adequacy of
pedestrian and vehicular access, circulation, parking, landscaping and screening,
and to protecting the utilization of renewable energy resources.
The Planning Commission shall act to approve or disapprove any such site plans
within 60 days after the date upon which it first reviews the proposed plan, and
failure to so act within said period shall be deemed approval. Copies of the Planning
Commission's decision, along with findings of fact, shall be sent to the applicant.
26.101 Applications
A site plan application and five sets of plans, drawn to scale shall be
submitted and shall include the following information:
(a) Features of the existing site including lot dimensional information,
survey data and contours (i.e., if required by the Planning
Commission) , vegetation and natural features, structures, access
points, easements and zoning boundaries. Existing structures and
access points on adjacent properties, including those directly across a
public street may also be required.
(b) Proposed improvements including structures, parking areas,
access points, sidewalks and other walkways, loading docks, outside
storage areas, sewage disposal areas, landscaping, screening and
site grading. Building information, including elevations and floor
plans, may also be required.
(c) Detailed specifications of the exterior lighting, planting and
landscaping materials to be used.
(d) Period of time in which all site improvements will be completed.
(e) Cost estimate of all site improvements.
(f) Estimate of daily and peak hour traffic generation, and an estimate
of traffic generation during the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic.
(g) Lot coverage calculations including building, overall and front
yard coverage.
M
(h) Any other information or data that the Planning Commission shall
require.
26.102 Review Standards
The Planning Commission, during site plan review, shall consider and may
impose conditions on the following items:
(a) Pedestrian and vehicular access: including location, number and
width of access points, curve radii at access points, acceleration or
deceleration lanes on adjacent public streets, sight distance
improvements, shared access with adjoining properties, and location of
sidewalks and/or other walkways.
(b) Circulation: including appropriate aisle widths to accommodate
emergency vehicles and vehicular and pedestrian movement patterns,
location of parking areas to prevent conflicts with entering and exiting
traffic onto a public street, prevention of conflicts between vehicles
and pedestrians, and location of loading docks.
(c) Parking: including number, size and location of parking spaces,
and appropriate aisle widths to access parking spaces.
(d) Landscaping and screening: including size, variety, number and
location of trees, front yard green space, other buffer yards, and
screening of outside storage areas, other unsightly areas and exterior
lighting from public streets and/or adjoining properties.
(e) Other: including drainage, fire protection, outdoor lighting,
aesthetics, and similar site factors that are directly interrelated with
the above aspects of site plan review.
26.103 Driveway and Street Requirements
The following standards for driveways and their intersections with public
streets shall apply during site plan review:
(a) Unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission there
shall be a maximum of one driveway per lot accessing a public street.
This provision shall not exclude a shared driveway between two or more
lots, or dual driveways where one lane is marked for entering traffic
and one lane for exiting traffic.
(b) Driveways shall meet the following standards unless a different
size is required by the Planning Commission due to special
circumstances: Residential - 12 feet minimum width, 36 feet maximum
width; Commercial - 20 feet minimum width, 36 feet maximum width.
(c) The Planning Commission may require installation of acceleration
and/or deceleration lanes on the adjacent public street if it deems
necessary.
(d) Driveways shall be located more than 200 feet from signalized
street intersections (measured between the near edges of the driveway
and intersection) . Greater distances shall be encouraged on streets
with high traffic volumes ( see PUD guidelines in Section 12.403) .
26.104 Access to Abutting Properties
The Planning Commission may require reservation of land on any lot for
provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed
necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide
additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general
access and circulation in the area.
26.105 Landscaping and Screening Requirements
The following standards for landscaping, screening and buffer yards shall
apply during site plan review.
(a) Minimum planting costs for all site plans shall be according to the
following schedule:
Minimum Planting Cost
Total Building Construction/ (% of Total Building
Improvement Cost Construction/Improvement Cost)
0-$250,000 3%
Next $250, 000 2%
Excess over $500,000 1%
In evaluating landscaping requirements, the Planning Commission may
grant some credit for existing trees or for site improvements other than
tree planting as long as the objectives of this section are not reduced.
(b) Front Yards - In the case of non-residential uses, the required
front yard shall be suitably landscaped and maintained in good
appearance.
(c) Planning Commission may also require additional landscaping above
and beyond the formula for the purpose of adding a buffer strip along
I-89 to properly screen development from the highway.
(d) Additional Screening - The Planning Commission may require
additional plantings or attractive solid fencing, above the normal
landscaping requirement, whenever it determines a particular site
warrants such additional landscaping, such as to adequately screen two
adjacent dissimilar uses from each other, or to improve the appearance
of a property which is covered excessively with pavement or structures
or is otherwise insufficiently landscaped. All outdoor lighting or
parking from public or commercial uses shall be screened from the view
of the ground floor of adjacent residential buildings. Auto service
stations shall be screened in the same manner from all abutting
70
Ch.
ch. 117 MUNICIPAL & REGIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
'es, and prohil
res each;
all ocher land
es including
ent except For
hoard of
n the zoning
use g
will
of adversely
I'ds
(D) If the application of this procedure results in lands available for park, recreation, open space or
other municipal purposes, the planning commission as a condition of its approval may establish such
conditions on the ownership, use and maintenance of such lands as it deems necessary to assure the
preservation of such lands for their intended purposes;
(E) Any modification of the zoning regulations approved under this section shall be specifically set
forth in terms of standards and criteria for the design, bulk and spacing of buildings and the sizes of
lots and open spaces which shall be required, and these shall be noted or appended to the plat.
(4) Parking and loading facilities. Provisions setting forth standards for permitted and required facilities for
off-street parking and loading which may vary by district and by uses within each district. Such regulations may also
include provisions covering the location, size, design, access, landscaping and screening of such facilities.
t, (5) Site plan approval. As prerequisite to the approval of any use other than one- and two-family dwellings,
the approval of site plans by the planning commission may be required. In reviewing site plans, the planning commis-
sion may impose appropriate conditions and safeguards with respect only to the adequacy of traffic access, of circula-
4on-and-parking, and of landscaping and screening, and to protecting the utilization of renewable energy resources.
` The planning commission shall act to approve or disapprove any such site plan within sixty days after the date upon
which it receives the proposed plan, and failure to so act within such period shall be deemed approval. The zoning
regulations shall specify the maps, data and other information to be presented with applications for site plan approval.
(6) Design control districts. Zoning regulations may contain provisions for the establishment of design
control districts. Prior to the establishment of such a district, the planning commission shall prepare a report describ-
ing the particular planning and design problems of the proposed district and setting forth a design plan for the areas
which shall include recommended planning and design criteria to guide future development -'The planning commis-
sion shall hold a public hearing, after public notice, on such report. After such hearing, the planning commission may
recommend to the legislative body such design control district. A design control district can be created for any area
containing structures of historical, architectural or cultural merit, and other areas in which there is a concentration of
community interest and participation such as a central business district, civic center or a similar grouping or focus of
activities. Such areas may include townscape areas which resemble in important aspects the earliest permanent
settlements, including a concentrated urban settlement with striking vistas, viewj_extending across open fields and up
to the forest edge, a central focal point and town green, and buildings of high architectural quality including styles of
the early nineteenth century. Within such a designated design control district no structure may be erected, recon-
structed, substantially altered, restored, moved, demolished or changed in use or type of occupancy without approval
of the plans therefor by the planning commission. A design review board may be appointed by the legislative body of
the municipality to advise the planning commission, which board shall have such term of office, and such procedural
rules, as the legislative body determines.
(7) Performance standards. As an alternative or supplement to the listing of specific uses permitted in
districts specifically in, but not limited to, manufacturing or industrial districts, zoning regulations may specify
acceptable standards or levels of performance which will be required in connection with any use. Such regulations
shall specifically describe the levels of operation which are acceptable and not likely to affect adversely the use of the
surrounding area by the emission of such dangerous or objectionable elements as noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odor,
or other form of air pollution, heat, cold, dampness, electromagnetic or other disturbance, glare, liquid or solid refuse
or wastes; or create any dangerous, injurious, noxious, fire, explosive, or other hazard. The land planning policies and
development regulations manual shall contain recommended forms of alternative performance standards, and the
assistance of the agency of development and community affairs shall be available to any municipality which requests
aid in the adoption or enforcement of such regulations.
(8) Bonds to assure restoration of sites. Regulations governing the operation of sand and gravel excava-
tions or soil removal may contain provisions requiring the submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of
the site at the conclusion of the operations and a bond to assure the rehabilitation. However, this provision does not
apply to mining or quarrying.
35
V-11
r
rx-
5.j1,C.%�
✓- q 15
dO'.,t U�Ott
No Text
L9
Z-
kilo
---- /�/,
Ss, ,
41 s v cMe c, G - a oe-
`�W�..yw,
.6-A az& ,,.,.j
;kv-� ,
O Nu J
C9 vs t--J- J-a—� dwil-i ntd� a-,�� --a�
�u� �� w ...��,; 9 �•�—�.� � ��--r-!�� d� o � - Gam- �, o. j
�AL
s D O l G,v�
/,� onn- -,� -4� r&4., /A72M,4,
Z.
s On/ Aec..,.,Az o
/7u'
OrAe �A7.
16
}
UP SkAW14,
No Text
� �,. S�j"�
U
IN RE APPEAL OF WILKINS AND MCLEAN HOLDING CORP.
Vermont Environmental Court
Docket No. E95-049
A. Background:
name; residence
- -how-long
- occupation
- by whom employed
what responsibilities
other employment experience
how long so employed
educational background
- affiliations with planning organizations
II.
- familiar with Shelburne Rd. as it passes though S.B.
familiar with the property that is the subject of this
appeal
- where located
- familiar with the site plan review criteria set forth
in the S.B. Zoning Regulations (1994)
- what, if any, role in developing those zoning
regulations
familiar with the S.B. Comprehensive Plan (1991)
what, if any, role in developing the comp. plan
specifically familiar with Chapter 10, Subsection E,
involving highway transportation
III. Comprehensive Plan/City Policy
does the City have a policy regarding highway access
management
does the City have a policy regarding access on high volume
arterial highways
are aspects of that policy specific to Route 7
- familiar with that policy
- what is the City's policy relative to curb cuts on arterial
highways such as Route 7
what access management techniques has the City utilized to
facilitate access management (closure; consolidation)
OPINION whether Appellant's proposal is consistent with the
City policy regarding access on arterial highways
what is that opinion
basis
- what does the City want the Court to do in this case
REDIRECT:
- has policy been implemented/enforced during your tenure as
City Planner
how many times has the City required closure/consolidation
of curb cuts since 1988
identify specific projects
did any of those projects involve situations where ownership
was under common control
- OPINION whether the City has consistently applied its policy
regarding access to arterial highways
- what is that opinion
basis
how is Pizzaria Uno situation distinguishable from this case
(Imperial Drive subdivision; no signalized intersection)
WILKIN'S APPEAL
1. What is the City's policy relative to curb cuts?
The City's long standing policy has been to eliminate unecessary
curb -cuts whenever possible. In addition, it has been the general
policy to encourage the use of shared curb -cuts between adjoining
properties; encourage vehicular connections between properties;
encourage the utilization of frontage or backage roads; and
encourage access from side streets, in particular those that are
signalized. These types of access techniques are typically
referred to as access management techniques.
2. What is the rationale underlying the City's policy to eliminate
curb cuts on arterial highways whenever reasonably possible.
The rationale is based upon a large amount of research conducted
over the years which has consistently shown that as the number of
driveways increase along a high volume roadway such as Shelburne
Road, the potential for and actual number of accidents also
increase.
By eliminating unecessary curb -cuts, you are reducing the conflict
between higher speed through traffic and lower speed, high turning
movement local traffic. By reducing the conflict, you reduce the
potential for accidents, thereby creating a safer situation in
terms of traffic movement.
3. What is your opinion regarding the conformity or non -conformity
of the proposal with the standards and guidelines set forth in the
zoning and comp plan?
In terms of the comp. plan, the proposal clearly does not comply
with the goals and recommendations contained therein. The plan
specifically states that for arterial roadways, such as Shelburne
Road, the accommodation of "through traffic" carries a higher
priority than access to frontage properties. The plan goes on to
recommend ways to better accommodate through traffic. It states
that:
the consolidation of curb cuts is warranted to minimize
conflicting mid -block turning movements
long term solutions include the closure of all curb cuts and
provision of land access by service roads
The plan specifically recommends that in order to ameloriate pre-
existing problems and maintain safe traffic movement along the
arterial highways, the city should:
reduce conflicting midblock turning movements through
consolidation of curb cuts.
encourage the implementation of all types of access management
techniques include the limitation of curb cuts
The proposal to maintain an uncontrolled curb cut when a access
through an existing signalized driveway is available goes against
all of these goas and recommendations regarding appropriate traffic
access.
In terms of the zoning regulations, the proposal does not comply
with site plan review criteria which pertain to safe and adequate
vehicular access. This property can be adequately served by a much
safer existing signalized driveway. This curb cut would divert
existing traffic which currently uses a signalized access, thereby
resulting in a less safe, potentially hazardous situation.
4. Is it desireable from a planning perspective to eliminate
highway access points like the one at issue.
Yes. One of the purposes of planning is to promote an efficient
and safe transportation system. For all of the reasons I mentioned
above, the elimination of unecessary curb cuts along arterial
roadways will generally result in a safer and more efficient
transportation corridor.
5. From a planning perspective, is it advisable to permit the
maintenance of multiple highway access points where a singe,
consolidated access is reasonable available.
No. see above response.
(wilkin)
--I
CHAPTER III
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS
This plan has been drawn to insure that the needs of the citizens
of South Burlington for employment opportunity, education,
housing, health, safety, culture, recreation and social well-
being are met now and in the future through efficient use of our
limited human, financial, and natural resources.
Regional Cooperation
Through reciprocal cooperation with neighboring towns, regional
agencies and entities with regional influence, the City plans to
promote economical and efficient administration of certain public
services including water supply, fire and police protection,
transportation, parks, water quality improvement, and waste
disposal. In addition, the City recognizes its role within a
larger regional context and shall plan in cooperation with neigh-
boring municipalities and other towns in the region.
ualit Environment
The City plans to protect the aesthetic quality and maintain the
diversity of the living environment, both natural and man-made,
through open space preservation; minimized view disruption;
acquisition of adequate lakeshore properties; protection of
watercourses, wetlands, and wildlife habitats; requirements for
landscaping, buffers, and setbacks; protection for historic and
cultural resources; and maintenance of ample outdoor recreation
facilities. Both fiscal and statutory resources shall be used to
this end.
Land Use Distribution
The City shall encourage a land use pattern generally consisting
of a higher density, compact urban core in the Dorset
Street/Corporate Way area (i.e., proposed City Center), continued
investment and growth in the City's existing developed corridors
(i.e., Shelburne Road and Williston Road corridors), and general-
ly decreasing densities and less intensive uses toward the more
rural comunities to the south and southeast. The City shall
strive to maintain an appropriate balance between residential,
commercial and industrial development and open space and natural
resource preservation.
City Identity
The City shall strive to establish a vital and dynamic focal
point consisting of residential and commercial uses and public
spaces in the Dorset Street area. This City Center shall welcome
travelers to the City and provide an exciting area for residents
and visitors to live, work, shop and recreate.
I
�Q, G o
..�
�do, Q, N�
CHAPTER IX
AESTHETIC, HISTORICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
South Burlington is undergoing a rapid transformation of its
historic, aesthetic, and cultural landscape. While further
growth and development are anticipated, the inclusion of
aesthetics and historic and cultural resources as development
review criteria will minimize unnecessary adverse impacts.
A. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
The history of South Burlington and the surrounding area is amply
documented in the Chittenden County Regional plan, by the Chit-
tenden County Historical Society (13), and by the Historical
Preservation Program at the University of Vermont (14). In addi-
tion, archaeological assessments undertaken as a result of the
Chace Mill hydroelectric project, Southern Connector Extension
proposal and various development proposals along Kimball Avenue
provide insight into the area's prehistoric past. Recovered
prehistoric artifacts, dating back to 5000 BC have been associat-
ed with significant prehistoric activity.
The evidence of South Burlington's history is manifested in a
variety of ways: landscape patterns formed by stone walls, old
quarries, tree lines and apple orchards, transportation corridors
such as Route 2 and 7, abandoned roads or railway beds, farm
complexes throughout the City, early planned neighborhood units
such as Queen City Park, gracious estate homes and gardens,
churches, cemeteries, and more utilitarian structures such as
early filling stations or diners.
Because these sites and features are so diverse in both location
and character, it is difficult to implement any specific policy
within the constraints of the current enabling authority. More-
over, no attempt has been made to evaluate or rank the importance
of these resources. Given the lack of appropriate changes in the
enabling authority, or a detailed field survey, the City can aid
in protecting these resources by participating in reviews such as
Act 250 or highway corridor hearings. By using the best avail-
able data and expertise, the resources in question and the
threats to them may be accurately evaluated. The City recognizes
that consideration of cultural and historic resources is one
among many planning determinants. To the extent it is feasible
and consonant with the balance of this plan, the City intends to
maintain a reasonable variety of these historic elements so as to
minimize the uniformity of the built environment in age, style or
scale. By doing so, the City seeks to maintain an identity that
includes its link to the past.
The problem of maintaining the City's identity has been compound-
ed by its development pattern, in particular, growth has been
strongly polarized along the Route 2 and Route 7 axes. Estab-
lishing a centrally located, multi -purpose municipal center (see
57
\ at
Chapter XVI, City Center) will provide a needed focal point t`
displace the strong association with strip development along
these axes.
B. AESTHETICS
It is in the interest of the City to improve its appearance in
order to enhance the "quality of life" for the City's residents,
businesses and visitors. Improvements to the appearance and
aesthetics of the City can be accomplished by such actions as
placing overhead utilities underground and fully enforcing sign
regulations. New road construction and road improvments are
opportune times to consolidate overhead utilities or place them
underground, unless the costs are prohibitive. This concept of
replacing overhead utilities with underground utilities was
incorporated into the Dorset Street reconstruction program. All
new subdivisions should include underground utilities.
Several features in the Zoning Ordinance must be maintained in
order to improve the aesthetic quality of the City. These
include landscaping requirements, setbacks, buffers around
project perimeters, conservation of existing vegetation, and
buffers between conflicting land uses. The equitable application
of new landscaping requirements should include reasonable allow-
ances for existing or transplanted vegetation, consideration of
screening for outdoor materials storage and to reduce glare,
noise, and other nuisances, evaluation of the need for property
or building perimeter plantings, and avoidance of excessive
planting cost requirements when the desired objectives may be
achieved at a lower cost. Outdoor lighting should be properly
focused and oriented, preferably with concealed sources. The use
of additional alternatives to achieve improved aesthetics should
be explored, such as requiring variable setbacks, and locating
parking to the rear of commercial establishments. Also, the
utility corridor concept should be implemented as fully as possi-
ble to prevent the haphazard and piecemeal development of over-
head power lines, new roadways, and the like.
C. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The City should encourage through Site Plan and Subdivision
review, the preservation of important historical and cultural
resources.
�2i The City should encourage through Site Plan and Subdivision
review, aesthetically pleasing development and environments.
3. The City should also participate in appropriate reviews such
as Act 250 or highway corridor hearings to protect threatened
aesthetic, historical and cultural resources.
4. The City should continue to implement the City Center devel-
opment plan and refine the zoning standards for this area to
create a dynamic, exciting and attractive focal point for the
r 4policies
o
o
3
e City should consider the development of design guide-
r the City Center in order to promote the goals and
of the City Center Plan.
5. In reviewing and approving developments, especially along
Dorset -Street, Route 7 and Route 2, the City should require
landscaping and buffers between residential and commercial uses,
encourage preservation of existing landscaping, screen__.-utdoor
storage areas, and locate parking to the rear of buildings wher-
ever possible.
6. The Zoning Ordinance should continue to provide for landscap-
ing, outdoor lighting controls, variable building setbacks,
height restrictions, and buffer zones.
7. The City should reevaluate its existing sign ordinance to
improve the aesthetics along the City's arterial gateways, Route
7 and Route 2.
8. The City should explore alternatives for achieving improved
aesthetics.
9. The City should implement the utility corridor concept as
fully as possible.
59
CHAPTER X
TRANSPORTATION
The conveyance of people, goods, and services is of paramount
importance. Transportation systems should be designed to provide
every resident, regardless of economic status, age, or disabili-
ty, access to all services whenever possible. In addition,
transportation systems should provide for the orderly and contin-
ued economic growth of our community. The improvements and
expansion of transportation systems should also proceed in a way
that complements the pattern of existing and proposed land uses.
Planning of such systems should be geared to the limited supply
of energy and land.
In light of these needs, goals, and constraints, the City adopts
the following guidelines for transportation planning.
1. The City encourages greater use of mass transit of all forms.
Such use will increase mobility for all, enhance land values in
South Burlington and other commercial and institution areas by
making them more accessible, conserve energy, and reduce environ-
mental deterioration and unnecessary use of land.
2. Transportation systems should provide, in as economical a
manner as possible, convenience and service commensurate with
need. Expenditures for transportation systems should be propor-
tional to present and expected use trends of the automobile and
various other modes of transportation.
3. The concept of a transportation corridor should be adhered to
as fully as possible. Under this concept, multiple use of a
single right-of-way by different modes of transportation results
in fewer land use conflicts and greater efficiency in the use of
remaining land.
4. The expansion and improvement of transportation systems
should be confined to existing corridors, rights -of -way, or
property lines, unless alternative locations that conform with
the balance of the plan are necessary.
South Burlington's transportation system is only a part of a
larger regional transportation network. Proper transportation
planning requires a regional perspective. In an effort to work
with adjacent communities and properly plan and maintain a quali-
ty regional transportation network, the City became a member of
the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO).
The CCMPO was created in 1983 to achieve a "continuing, compre-
hensive and cooperative" transportation planning process for the
Burlington urbanized area. The primary functions of the CCMPO
include preparation of a long-range transportation plan, setting
of project priorities through the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), providing technical assistance to local communi-
ties and transportation advocacy at'the State and federal levels.
we
A. PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE
Walking and bicycling are healthful transportation modes that
have largely been overlooked in the City's spending and planning
priorities. Greater incentives to promote walking and bicycling
can and should be implemented to minimize complete dependence on
the automobile for local circulation. In addition pedestrians in
an automobile -oriented environment must receive appropriate
consideration.
Pedestrian links are needed between neighborhoods, schools,
parks, shopping and employment centers, other transportation
modes, and other community focal points. In order to promote
such links as transportation facilities, pedestrian ways general-
ly should follow direct travel routes whenever possible, rather
than paralleling roadways. In addition, pedestrian/bicycle ways
should be designed to reduce conflicts with motorized vehicles.
The City's proposed pedestrian trail and recreation path system
are one example of a safe, attractive pedestrian transportation
system. These facilities are discussed in more detail in the
recreation section.
Sidewalks and pedestrians ways which parallel roadways should be
constructed on both sides of arterial streets, on one or both
sides of collector streets, and on one side of local streets.
Sidewalks and pedestrian ways should be ramped at all street and
drive crossings and properly graded so as to accommodate the
elderly and handicapped.
Bicycling and jogging continue to become increasingly popular for
both recreation and transportation. Along arterial streets,
separate or shared facilities for bicycle/pedestrian use should
be provided. This need is particularly strong along the Willis-
ton Road and Shelburne Road corridors. On collector streets,
bike/pedestrian routes should be designated by signs in conjunc-
tion with pavement widening and painted lines. On local streets
where traffic volumes and speeds are low enough to pose few
hazards to cyclists, bike/jogging route designations by signing
alone suffice. In addition, the University of Vermont, as a
major focal point, must be closely involved with pedestrian and
bicycle planning, particularly along Spear Street where its major
holdings are located. Serious consideration must be given to
planning and implementing safe provision for cyclists when con-
structing, modifying and/or upgrading roadways.
Pedestrian travel can also be promoted through land use policies.
Mixed use developments consisting of residential and non-
residential uses or office, restaurant and retail enhance pedes-
trian movement by congregating services and facilities within
walking distance. In addition, compact mixed use city or village
centers create a more pedestrian friendly environment as opposed
to linear strip development patterns along arterial roadways.
61
B. RAIL
The Vermont Railway and the Central Vermont Railway both mai
tracks through South Burlington. These routes are presentll,
on a rather limited basis for freight service. The veto
Railway. which parallels Route 7 and the proposed South Burling,
ton Connector, holds the potential not only for north -south
intercity freight and passenger service, but also for direct
service to the commercially zoned properties fronting on its
eastside. Rail siding potential for these properties should be
maintained wherever feasible in the layout of proposed develop-
ment and the South Burlington Connector. As the intensity of
development increases on the lands west of the tracks, improve-
ments to the grade crossings (Bartlett Bay Road, Holmes Road, Inn
Road) will be necessary, possibly to the extent of providing
,grade -separated crossings.
C. BUS
The Chittenden County Transportation Authority (CCTA) was formed
in 1973 to serve the mass transit needs of the four original
member communities - Burlington, South Burlington, Winooski, and
Essex/Essex Junction. Shelburne became the fifth CCTA member in
1979. Since 1973, the number of passenger trips has remained
stable. Over the years, CCTA has invested in new buses to re-
place the aging fleet and increase the number of buses on the
road. This should allow for modest route expansion and improve-
ment in quality of service.
Bus service is best rendered to well -planned, intensively used
compact areas. Higher intensity development should be directed
towards existing bus routes or to areas where bus service can
conveniently expand. In addition, specific development proposals
should be carefully evaluated at site plan or subdivision review
with regard to the need for bus turn -out lanes, patron shelters,
and other factors affecting bus stop location. Highway planning
should specifically incorporate provisions for existing and
potential bus service, such as relocation of bus stops to mini-
mize obstructions or delays to "through" automotive traffic.
D. AIR
Burlington International Airport, which is managed by the City of
Burlington and the Federal government, dominates land use in the
northeastern area of the City. It is a vital element in economic
development and transportation for the County and surrounding
region. The Airport's Master Plan, updated in 1985, documents
the existing status as well as future proposals for the Airport
through 1991 (15, 16). The BIA Master Plan is currently being
updated and is expected to be completed by Summer 1991.
The continued success and expansion of the Airport will be char-
acterized by increased aircraft operations and associated runway
and terminal improvements. In the areas of economic development
62
d transportation, rF the interests of the City and the Airport are
.,,cry closely aligned. Improved roads and bus service in the City
generally enhance use of the airport, and the attraction of
further "light' industry to the City will be influenced by prox-
imity to an airfield with the broadest possible range of air
service.
There are some areas of conflict that the City and the Airport
shall strive to ameliorate. Principally, these are the pre-
existing residential neighborhoods in the immediate environs of
the Airport. These neighborhoods will continue to be subjected to
high levels and duration of noise as aircraft operations expand.
The effect of enlarged aircraft approach and departure areas
should be minimized over existing residential neighborhoods. In
addition, as the terminal area develops and Airport Drive is
extended, conflicts between commercial and residential uses will
grow.
In 1988, BIA completed an airport noise compatibility planning
study (17). This study mapped future noise contours in the
vicinity of the Airport and recommended strategies which could be
taken to minimize noise impacts on surrounding properties. Land
use recommendations included the establishment of Airport Overlay
Districts (zoning out sensitive uses). The City should explore
and implement such techniques to assure a continued compatible
relationship between the City and BIA.
E. HIGHWAY
1. Highway Classification
a) Functional Classification - Highways have two functions: to
provide mobility "through" and to provide land access "to". From
a design standpoint, these functions are incompatible, since
mobility is enhanced by higher traffic speed and fewer turning
movements, and land access is enhanced by lower traffic speeds
and unrestricted turns. Streets may be classified by function,
depending on whether they are intended to move through traffic,
provide unrestricted land accesses, or some combination of both.
Arterial Roads - These link the Interstate and/or other arterials
and carry inter and intra-city traffic. Geometric and/or traffic
control measures are used to expedite through -traffic. Access to
abutting properties is restricted. The potential for partial
barrier medians, frontage roads, and service access connecting
the rear of roadside properties should be maintained and encour-
aged. Consolidation and alignment of curb cuts is warranted to
minimize conflicting turning movements.
Significant traffic problems on Route 7 may be alleviated by
improving the geometry and traffic control measures at bottle-
necks and various intersections. Long term solutions include
the closure of all curb cuts and provision of land access by
service roads, and the Southern Connector. Such improvements may
63
be required of developers I
q p prior to the construction of any ne,M
expanded development.
Collector Roads - Their function is divided between "to', 1
"through", traffic. These link the arterial to the local streea
system,_ carry intra-city traffic, provide land access, and to
lesser extent, are used for inter -city travel. a
Local Roads - Their sole function is provision of access to
adjacent property for all land uses. Design and specifications
are largely governed by types and intensity of land use. Such
roads may either have a cul-de-sac or a continuous, low speed
configuration.
Design and performance standards are associated with each func-
tional classification and are essential for a variety of planning
applications. These include land for future roads, capital
budgeting, maintenance of a reasonable "level of service" (a
traffic engineering guideline for evaluating congestion), review
of curb -cut locations, land exactions for road widening, etc.
Map 3 and Table 10-1 show functional classifications for existing
and proposed City roads.
b) Administrative Classifications refer to the various jurisdic-
tion of private, local, State, and Federal authorities over
funding and access control. The City's general highway map and
the Urban Systems map display these various classifications.
Even where jurisdiction overlaps there have been no irreconcila-
ble differences in the area of access control since the City's
requirements have usually been more stringent and have been
accepted by other agencies. Consequently, the use of these
administrative classifications is primarily for budgetary appli-
cations.
2. Discussion
a) Arterial Roads - The City's existing arterial street network
is of vital importance to the residents of the City and the
region for both transportation and commerce. Accommodation of
"through" traffic carries a higher priority than access to front-
age properties. The general pattern of existing and approved
developments on Kennedy Drive and Kimball Avenue epitomizes a
reasonable configuration of an arterial highway (i.e., few curb
cuts and provision of service roads). Along Route 2 and most of
Route 7, where highly fragmented ownership patterns have evolved
over many decades there are extreme conflicts between "to" and
"through" traffic. Consequently, even greater congestion in
these areas can be reasonably anticipated for the foreseeable
future. To ameloriate these pre-existing problems, provide for
anticipated future growth and maintain the safety and land of
service on existing arterial's, the policy of the City shall be
to:
0
64
--- explore,
travel routes
Connector, the
support, and if necessary, construct alternate
such as the Southern Connector, Dorset -Hinesburg
Airport Drive Extension to Airport Parkway.
--- reduce conflicting midblock turning movements through
zoning, alignment, consolidation, and proper spacing of curb
at site plan and subdivision review;
--- improve local
access to the rear
frontage roads;
--- structure
of service or
sections.
down -
cuts
internal circulation by requiring service
of roadside properties and/or allowing for
development approvals to avoid exceeding D levels
better at peak roadway hours at signalized inter-
--- maximize capacity and safety through installation of proper
signing, striping, and control equipment;
--- provide stacking lanes at mid block and intersection loca-
tions to segregate "to" and "through" lanes (this may require
purchase or exaction of land for road widening of substandard
rights -of -way); and
--- establish traffic overlay zones to restrict new or expanded
uses that exceed a stated level of additional traffic in specific
areas of the City.
b) Collector Roads - Planning for existing and proposed collec-
tor streets shall be implemented in accord with their functional
characteristics. Because there is a considerable variety in the
function of the various collector streets, specific determina-
tions will be made on a case -by -case basis.
c) Local Roads - Local streets serving residential and nonresi-
dential uses shall be reviewed on a case -by -case basis in general
accord with their functional classification and the following
goals:
--- privately owned and maintained roadways shall be strongly
discouraged;
--- the speed and volume of "through" traffic are to be mini-
mized;
--- more than one access point onto collector or arterial streets
should be considered for larger or higher density projects (may
include limited, emergency access points);
--- the subdivision of lots without public road frontage should
be strongly discouraged;
65
--- adequate access for emergency vehicles is essential,
turnarounds for maintenance vehicles and school buses should
provided; and
--- design and construction standards shall be commensurate
density. .
d) All roads - When street improvements include widening
substandard rights -of -way, land should be secured at site plan
subdivision review. The ongoing maintenance of a data vol
base on traffic control equipment, signs, and striping; 24-hour
volume count; turning movements; and volume -to -capacity ratios is
essential to equitable review of new development. These factors
also affect the cost efficiency and proper timing of new roads or
improvments plus maintenance of reasonable levels of service.
F. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Pedestrians
a) The City should continue to plan, acquire land and construct
.the proposed pedestrian trail and recreation path network.
b) A sidewalk plan that includes the following elements should
be implemented:
--- identification of areas, usually along older substandard
roadways, where conflicts between pedestrian and vehicles are
most severe. The annual appropriation for curb and sidewalk
construction should be directed initially to those areas.
--- location of walkways, both within and outside street rights -
of -way, to link various neighborhood and community focal points.
c) Sidewalks and/or walkways shall be required where it is
appropriate during site plan and subdivision review.
d) Funding applications for new roads and roadway improvements
should include sidewalks, crosswalks, and crossing signals where
necessary and where appropriate should include bicycle paths.
e) The City should encourage mixed -use development and direct
growth to the mixed -use City Center area to promote pedestrian
movement and less reliance on the automobile for local circula-
tion.
2. Bicycles
Existing and proposed bikeways are shown on Map 4. The proposed
recreation path is shown on Map 2. Implementation should follow
these recommendations, listed in order of importance (from most
to least):
a)
Extend the
Spear
Street
Bike lane to Swift Street.
b)
Construct
Phase I
of the
South Burlington Recreation Path.
0'
c) Construct a connecting bikeway through the Prouty Parkway and
Mayfair Park neighborhoods.
«' d) Construct later Phases of the South Burlington Recreation
Path.
3. Buses
a) A new bus route should be studied to provide direct service
between the Williston Road and Shelburne Road sectors of the City
without having to connect via crowded Burlington routes. New
routes should be implemented to meet the needs of changing popu-
lations.
b) Development proposals should consider design aspects to
accommodate bus service.
c) CCTA and the City should explore more frequent bus service
during peak travel periods (e.g., 10 minute headways).
d) The City and CCTA should study and encourage the implementa-
tion of improvements to make Williston and Shelburne Roads more
"transit friendly". Such improvements may include more bus
shelters; the provision of transit information at most bus stops;
adequate lighting at bus stops; medians to provide protection for
pedestrian crossings; and transit information center.
4. Transportation Management Association
a) In an effort to encourage less reliance on the single -occu-
pant automobile and greater use of alternative modes of transpor-
tation, the City should continue efforts to establish a Shelburne
Road Corridor Transportation Management Association (TMA) (18).
b) The City should adopt an ordinance requiring businesses and
other developments to participate in the implementation of a
S'helburne Road Corridor TMA.
5. Air
The City should explore and implement such techniques as an
Airport Overlay District (Zoning out sensitive uses) to assure a
continued compatible relationship between the City and BIA.
6. Rail
The layout of proposed developments along the Vermont Railway and
Central Vermont Railway tracks should consider potential for
future rail stations.
7. Highways
a) Access Management - The City should continue to encourage
67
No
access management techniques (e.g. limit curb cuts, service
roads, etc.) along high volume arterial and collector roadways.
b) The City shall continue to pursue planning, funding an
construction of needed roadway and bridge improvements. The
number _one priority of the City is to properly maintain its
existing roadway and bridge network. Provided below is a list of
proposed street and bridge improvements which are grouped accord-
ing to priority. This listing shall act as a guide in the timing
of funding applications or capital budgeting for roadway and
bridge construction projects. The locations of proposed roadway
and bridge improvement projects are shown on Map 3.
Five Highest Priority
o Upgrade Williston Road from Interstate 89 to Hinesburg
Road as recommended by the Williston Road Study Committee
(19).
o Improve Airport Parkway/Shamrock Road/Ethan Allen
Drive intersection.
o Widen Shelburne Road from Imperial Drive to Shelburne Town
line and beyond.
o Modify the Dorset Street/Kennedy Drive/Interstate 89
Interchange to include a north bound on -ramp.
o Improve Kennedy Drive from Dorset Street to Williston
Road.
Next Five Highest Priority
o Improve Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Road Intersection.
o Upgrade Patchen Road from Williston Road to Interstate
89.
o Establish an interchange between Hinesburg Road -
Interstate 89.
o Upgrade Swift Street/Spear Street intersection.
o Develop a Dorset Street -Hinesburg Road connector.
Remaining Priority
o Extend Swift Street to Hinesburg Road.
o Construct a connector from Airport Parkway near Treatment
Plant to Patchen Road.
o Develop a new corridor (South Burlington southern
connector).
o Upgrade Hinesburg Road from Kennedy Drive to Williston
Road.
o Develop a new corridor from Williston Road to the Dorset
Street -Hinesburg Road connector.
o Extend Airport Drive from White Street to Airport Parkway.
o Upgrade Airport Drive from Williston Road to White Street.
o Upgrade Williston Road to four lanes as far as the Williston
Town line.
o Upgrade Hinesburg Road from Interstate 89 to Kennedy Drive.
o Upgrade Swift Street -Dorset Street intersection.
.:
o Upgrade the Williston Road/Kennedy Drive/Airport Drive
intersection.
o Extend Allen Road northeast from Spear Street to Dorset
Street.
o Evaluate the feasibility and impacts of constructing a
service road from Patchen Road to Econolodge entrance
to provide access for properties on north side of
Williston Road.
Other
All other proposed street and intersection improvments, as shown
on Map 3, shall be implemented by the City and/or private de-
velopers as warranted by the scope of new development.
Significant improvements to intersection geometry and signaliza-
tion may be required of developers during subdivision and site
plan approval.
" AlVe �s�J
Sc
J
Ls 0
r
, �O'- 4e�
tk
r4IDS 1 54 � �.,. � � 7 � 9 /
/, �
�p (oJA,
\4�
LAMOUREUX, STONE & O'LEARY
Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors
� 4 Morse Drive (802) 878-4450
Essex Junction, Vermont05452 Fax (802) 878-3135
Mr. Joe Weith, City Planner
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
September 30, 1996
PROPOSAL
RE: Saturn / Charlie's Tennis Den Appeal
Shelburne Road - South Burlington
Dear JUC.
As requested, we are pleased to submit this proposal to provide traffic engineering services
associated with assisting the City on the above -referenced appeal. The following presents our
proposed scope of work and fee estimate for this project.
Scope of Work
Our proposed scope of work for this project will include the following items:
* Accident Research - We have examined the South Burlington Police Department
accident log, and unfortunately, do not find it to be of much help in this case. For this
task, our objective is to develop a profile of mid -block curb cut vs. intersection accidents
along the portion of Shelburne Road from 1-189 south to Holmes Road. To obtain the
needed information, we propose to review accident reports which are on file at the
Vermont Agency of Transportation. Those reports are sorted by year, with the most
recent five -years being available, and by location (milepoint). This will enable us to
identify the cause, nature and severity of each accident, information which the Police
Department's logs do not provide.
* Literature Search - In order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the traffic
congestion and safety impacts of the proposed curb cut, we propose to undertake a
thorough literature search on this issue. We have an extensive in-house library of traffic
engineering literature, and are currently involved with an access managment study for
Civil, Environmental & Transportation Engineering • Hydrogeological Investigation 9 Planning • Land Surveying
Mr. Joe Weith
September 30, 1996
Page 2
the Northwest Vermont Regional Planning Commission. We will utilize the information
which has been gathered for that study, and will use the Internet and other means to
research other documents which might be available through the UVM library (e.g.
federal highway safety publications and research reports).
* Meetings - At the conclusion of the above tasks we will prepare a technical
memorandum and meet with you and the City Attorney to present the results of our
findings.
* Trial Preparation and Testimony - Due to the nature of this task, we are unable to
provide an estimated fee for it at this time. Rather, we propose to provide engineering
services for depositions, trial preparation and court hearings on an hourly basis using
our standard rate schedule.
Fee Estimate
We propose to perform the above fork on an houAv basis in accordance with our standard
rate schedule. For the above scope of work, excluding trial preparation and testimony, our
estimated fee equals $3,300.
We are available to begin work immediately upon receipt of notice to proceed, and anticipate
that this work will require approximately four weeks to complete. Enclosed please find two copies
of our Agreement for Professional Services for your review and execution. If this proposal is
acceptable to you, please sign and return one for our files. We thank you for this opportunity to be
of service. Should you have any questions or if we may be of additional assistance, please feel
free to contact us.
Sincerely,
'. 31"I'r4-071
Rog r Dickinson, P.E.
Enclosures
WAPROMEITH.RM
LAMOUREUX, STONE & O'LEARY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
14 Morse Drive, Essex Junction, VT 05452 Tel 802-878-4450 / Fax 802-878-3135
ORDERED BY: Mr. Chuck Hafter, City Manager
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
PHONE: 658-7953
FAX:
PROJECT NAME/LOCATION: Saturn/Charlie's Tennis Den Appeal, Shelburne Road, South Burlington, VT
DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Provide engineering services as described in the attached Proposal letter dated
September 30, 1996.
ESTIMATED LABOR FEE: $ 3,300
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: Four weeks
PROJECT PRINCIPAL: Roger Dickinson
PROJECT MANAGER: Jody Carriere
The Proposal dated September 30, 1996, together with this Agreement, form the Contract Documents. It this Agreement is not received by the
Engineer and the work is verbally authorized by the Owner and is started and/or accomplished by the Engineer, the Proposal, this Agreement as is,
and the paid monthly statements in conformance with the Proposal shall comprise the Contract Documents. Acceptance by the Owner of work
performed by the Engineer presupposes acceptance of this Agreement by the Owner. The Proposal is a cost estimate for typical work under normal
circumstances and not a not -to -be exceeded bid. The Proposal is valid for a period of sixty days from the date of the Proposal.
Statements are rendered monthly for the work done in the preceding month based on the actual time expended and the standard hourly rates and
reimbursables presented on the reverse side of this form. Statements are due and payable at that time. Interest may be charged for billing
outstanding over thirty days. If a statement is not paid within ninety days from the date of billing, work may cease and no plans will be issued until
the account is brought current. Cancellation of this order presupposes payment for work already completed. Rates may be reviewed and adjusted
yearly for cost of living and inflation changes.
If the Engineer is called upon to do work that is now unknown and other than that outlined in the scope of services in the Proposal or is put to
labor or expenses by delays or revisions to plans already completed as requested by the Owner or regulatory agencies for which He is not
responsible, the Engineer shall be equitably paid for his extra services based on the time actually expended and the standard hourly rates. This
Agreement and Proposal do not include permitting fees or fees for other consultants that may be required by regulatory agencies during the course of
this project. All documents prepared by the Engineer as instruments of service shall remain the property of the Engineer and will be made available
to the Owner at all reasonable times upon payment of service shall remain the property of the Engineer and will be made available to the Owner at
all reasonable times upon payment of all statements.
To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Owner agrees to limit the Engineer's liability for damages to the sum of $50,000 or the Engineer's
fee, whichever is greater. This limitation shall apply regardless of the cause of action or legal theory pled or asserted.
EN EER: DATE OWNER DATE
LEONARD LAMOUREUX, P.E., L.S., or AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
KENNETH STONE, P.E.,
PAUL O'LEARY, JR., P.E., or
ROGER DICKINSON, P.E.
Over For Rate Schedule
STATE OF VERMONT
ENVIRONMENTAL COURT
------------------------------
IN RE: APPEAL OF CHARLES AND
SUSANNE WILKINS AND MCLEAN
HOLDING CORPORATION
D E P 0 S I
-of -
JOSEPH J.
ENVIRONMENTAL COURT
E95-149
T I 0 N
WEITH
Taken on Wednesday, November 20, 1996,
at the offices of Stitzel & Page
171 Battery Street, Burlington, Vermont.
APPEARANCES:
ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
Thomas F. Heilmann, Esquire
Heilmann, Ekman & Associates,
P.O. Box 216
Burlington, VT 05402-0216
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON:
Joseph S. McLean, Esquire
Stitzel & Page, P.C.
171 Battery Street, 2nd Floor
Burlington, VT 05401
Inc.
NORMA J. MILLER
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
117 BANK STREET, BURLINGTON, VT 05401
(802) 862-4593
K,
I N D E X
EXAMINATION BY THOMAS F. HEILMANN, ESQUIRE 4
EXAMINATION BY JOSEPH S. McLEAN, ESQUIRE 67
EXHIBITS
4 Summary of Expected Testimony of Mr. Weith 45
5 City of South Burlington 1991 Comprehensive Plan 4
(Exhibits retained by Mr. Heilmann.)
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
3
1
2
STIPULATIONS
3
IT IS HEREBY
STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between
4
the attorneys of
record for the respective parties
5
hereto, as follows:
6
1. That the
testimony of JOSEPH J. WEITH
7
may be taken and
treated as if taken pursuant to notice
8
and order to take
deposition, and that all formalities
9
of notice and order
are waived by the parties, and
10
the signatures to
this stipulation are in like manner
11
waived;
12
2. That all
objections except as to matters of
13
form are reserved
until the deposition, or any part
14
thereof, is offered
in evidence;
15
3. That the
deposition may be signed by the
16
said JOSEPH J. WEITH
before any Notary Public.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
M
1
Wednesday, November 20, 1996, 3:04 p.m.:
2
JOSEPH J. WEITH, being duly sworn by
3
the Notary to tell the whole truth and nothing
4
but the truth, deposes and says as follows:
5
EXAMINATION BY THOMAS F. HEILMANN, ESQUIRE:
6
Q
Would you tell us your name and where you're
7
employed, please?
8
A
Joseph Weith, City of South Burlington.
9
Q
And you are employed as the City Planner?
10
A
Yes.
11
Q
And what does that involve?
12
A
Basically, I'm responsible for the daily activities
13
of the planning office, which includes all development
14
review that goes with the Planning Commission, as well as
15
other planning projects for the City.
16
Q
And you've been in that position since 1988?
17
A
Yes.
18
Q
And before that, were you involved with the City of
19
South Burlington at all?
20
A
No, I was not.
21
Q
But on a continuous basis since 1988, that's been
22
your
position?
23
A
Yes.
24
Q
With regard to what we talked about off the record
25 briefly as Deposition Exhibit 5, the 1991 Comprehensive
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
5
1 Plan, we're agreed, aren't we, that that is the plan that
2 was in effect as of the date this McLean -Wilkins
3 application was submitted?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And that plan, it's your position, contains
6 provisions that are relevant to certain of the issues
7 that are involved in the application?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Could you go through the plan and show us what
10 provisions, in your view, are pertinent to
11 McLean's/Wilkins' application?
12 A Sure. I think the primary chapter would be Chapter
13 10, which is the transportation chapter, and that
14 includes a number of goals and recommendations regarding
15 transportation. Specifically, the ones that relates to
16 the highway is most applicable. That would be Section
17 (e) .
18 Q 10(e)?
19 A Yes. Do you need me to go into more specific
20 detail?
21 Q Well, go through the sections first, if you would.
22 A Okay, it would be 10(e), Highway, and then section
23 (f)(7), which is the highway -related recommendations for
24 the City.
25 Q Any other sections of the South Burlington
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
0
1 II comprehensive town plan?
2 A Yeah, there's other sections in here that pertain to
3 certain issues of that application -- for example, we
4 talk about lighting issues for the City that pertains in
5 this application, we talk about landscaping
6 recommendations, things of that nature. That's another
7 typical site plan review item.
8 Q Lighting issues and landscaping issues as reflected
9 in the plan, or in the zoning reps?
10 A It would be both. I'm pretty confident that there
11 is discussion in here regarding lighting and landscaping
12 and green space and so forth.
13 Q You were involved in the particulars of this
14 application for the Planning Commission?
15 A I'm sorry; say that again?
16 Q You were involved in the particulars of this
17 application before the Planning Commission?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And you recommended to the Planning Commission, did
20 you not, that the application be denied?
21 A I do not recall using those words.
22 Q What expression did you use in making
23 recommendations to the Planning Commission?
24 A Well, one of my recommendations was that the curb
25 cut serving this property be eliminated, and that all
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
7
1 access be provided through the signalized intersection
2 serving the Chrysler -Plymouth and Saturn dealership
3 property. That was a recommendation that the Planning
4 Commission agreed with, and I think was one of the
5 reasons why they denied the application.
6 Q So in effect, you made the recommendation that the
7 application, as it was presented, be denied?
8 MR. McLEAN: Objection as to form. You
9 can answer the question.
10 MR. HEILMANN: You can answer.
11 A Okay, I guess indirectly I would support that.
12 BY MR. HEILMANN:
13 Q Because this application proposed ingress only
14 through a curb cut that was situated at 1085 Shelburne
15 Road, correct?
16 MR. McLEAN: Objection.
17 A Yes.
18 Q And you understood, did you not, that the curb cut
19 had been there historically?
20 A Yeah, mm-hmm.
21 Q Do you know from your investigation how long the
22 curb cut at 1085 Shelburne Road had been in that
23 location?
24 A I don't know that.
25 Q A number of years, however?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
0
1 A I believe so.
2 MR. McLEAN: Objection.
3 BY MR. HEILMANN:
4 Q Certainly before your employment with the City of
5 South Burlington?
6 A I believe so.
7 Q Now, you talked about lighting issues and
8 landscaping issues, and we were discussing those in the
9 context of the town plan?
10 A Mm-hmm.
11 Q Are there sections of the town plan that you can
12 reference that directly address the lighting issues and
13 the landscaping issues in this particular application?
14 A I can't pinpoint it right now. I believe that there
15 is discussion and some recommendations regarding
16 appropriate lighting or screening of lighting for all
17 properties in the city, particularly commercial. I
18 believe that there's language in here that pertains to
19 recommendations for landscaping, appropriate landscaping,
20 of properties. I would need some time to go through it
21 to see if I could find the specific --
22 Q As you recall the situation and as you sit here
23 today, was there anything in the McLean -Wilkins
24 application that in your view was inconsistent with the
25 town plan as regards lighting or landscaping?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
0
1 A In terms of landscaping, I believe I had recommended
2 that some additional landscaping be put along the
3 frontage of the property in the greenbelt between
4 Shelburne Road and the parking lot, which is consistent
5 policy in the City, and that had not been shown on the
6 plan. I believe they did state at the meeting that they
7 didn't have a problem with that, but I'm not sure, so I'd
8 have to check that.
9 In terms of lighting, I had requested that they
10 submit a point -by -point lighting plan to show that the
11 light levels that they were proposing met our standards
12 of an average of three foot candles for the property, and
13 that had not been submitted, so I wasn't convinced that
14 that was being complied with.
15 Q Did the applicant, as you recall, have any objection
16 to that recommendation, specifically as it regards
17 lighting?
18 A I don't recall.
19 Q I'm sorry, had you finished?
20 A I don't recall an objection to that.
21 Q As things go in the City of South Burlington and
22 based on your experience, items like the landscaping and
23 items like the lighting that you've just described here,
24 those are the typical kinds of suggestions that you or
25 the members of the Planning Commission make at a hearing,
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
10
1 II correct?
2 A Mm-hmm, yes.
3 Q And an applicant at hearings such as the one that
4 was conducted in this case would signify a willingness to
5 supplement the plan, correct?
6 A Sure.
7 Q And then the plan would be acted upon subject to the
8 conditions, i.e., the recommendations that the planning
9 commission members make in their motion, correct?
10 A Yes.
11 Q So to get to cases in this particular situation, the
12 landscaping and the lighting were not central to the
13 denial of the application, were they?
14 A Those were reasons that were listed in the findings
15 of fact and decision that was signed.
16 Q But in terms of the applicant's representations as
17 you recall them, the applicant was not indicating that
18 those problems were insurmountable, correct?
19 A They did not indicate that, correct.
20 Q And as far as you could tell, and based on your
21 experience, those details -- and I'm referring to
22 lighting and landscaping at this point -- could easily
23 have been supplemented by the applicant to the
24 satisfaction of the Planning Commission, correct?
25 A They could have been.
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
11
1 Q And you don't have any reason to believe that in
2 this particular case, they would not have been, right?
3 A Not really. I mean I don't recall them ever coming
4 out and saying that they would provide that to us, but I
5 don't recall them saying specifically that they would not
6 provide it to us, either, so it's hard to say.
7 Q And in terms of the landscaping, would you point to
8 the specific issue that you found deficient in the
9 proposal that dealt with landscaping? And if you need
10 the site plan, I've got it here, Joe.
11 A Yeah, sure.
12 MR. HEILMANN: So the record is clear, the
13 witness is looking at Deposition Exhibit 2, which we've
14 stipulated can be a continued deposition number from the
15 November 14th depo.
16 A I believe I had recommended in my memo to the
17 commission that the applicant plant some street trees
18 along the frontage of the property here, and that's been
19 a policy of the Planning Commission, to encourage
20 landowners along our high -volume roadways such as
21 Shelburne Road and Williston Road, to put in street trees
22 to help improve the appearance of the corridor and also
23 help screen some of the parking and things of that
24 nature.
25 Q Okay. Can you point me --
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
12
1 A These areas here.
2 Q And when you refer to Deposition Exhibit 2, you are
3 referring to the unshaded area between the westerly
4 boundary of Shelburne Road and the shaded area that marks
5 the easterly border of 1085 Shelburne Road, correct?
6 A Can you restate that question, please?
7 Q Sure. When you attempted to show us graphically the
8 areas in which you were recommending that there be
9 landscaping, that is in a corridor, is it not, between
10 the westerly boundary of Shelburne Road and the gray
11 shaded area marked 1085 Shelburne Road as depicted on
12 Exhibit 2?
13 A Correct.
14 Q What types of trees did you specifically recommend?
15 And if you need your bench memo to refresh your
16 recollection, feel free to use it.
17 A I believe I had just recommended some deciduous --
18 typical deciduous street trees. I have my original memo
19 in here somewhere. "Staff recommends three street trees,
20 minimum 2 1/2-inch caliper, to be planted along the
21 street frontage," so we didn't specify a certain species.
22 Typically what we mean by that is some kind of a
23 deciduous tree like a maple or a honey locust or
24 something.
25 Q With respect to the specific sections of the town
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
13
1 plan, can you show me a specific section of the town plan
2 that supports that recommendation?
3 A Without taking a half hour to comb through this
4 thing, I can't locate anything offhand at this moment.
5 Q Is there a section in the town plan that refers to
6 trees to be planted in the --
7 A Yeah, I would suspect if it was going to be in here,
8 that it would be somewhere in Chapter 9, Esthetic
9 Historical and Cultural Resources; Chapter 7, Natural
10 Resources; perhaps Chapter 3, Comprehensive Plan Goals.
11 I would say if it is in here, it would be in one of those
12 three chapters.
13 Q Is there anything specific in the zoning regulations
14 that would address the recommendation of three trees
15 along this corridor, if you will?
16 A May I refer to it?
17 Q Sure.
18 (A discussion was held off the record.)
19 BY MR. HEILMANN:
20 Q So the record is clear, you're referencing the
21 zoning regulations, which in this case are Deposition
22 Exhibit 1; is that right?
23 A Yes.
24 Q And those are the zoning regulations of the City of
25 South Burlington that were in part effective as of the
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
14
1 date of this application; is that so?
2 A Correct. In Section 26.105(b), it says the required
3 front yard shall be suitably landscaped and maintained in
4 good appearance. My recommendation was in line with that
5 requirement. Section 26.105(d) talks about additional
6 screening. It says that the Planning Commission may
7 require additional plantings whenever it determines a
8 particular site warrants such additional landscaping such
9 as to improve the appearance of a property which is
10 covered excessively with pavement or structures, or is
11 otherwise insufficiently landscaped. And I believe that
12 the recommendation is in line with that requirement.
13 Q The plan that was submitted did represent
14 landscaping between Route 7 and the paved section,
15 correct?
16 A I think there's some in there, yeah. It appears
17 there is one existing maple tree in that section.
18 Q As well as a 24-foot maple -- I'm sorry, 24-inch
19 maple, a 3-inch elm, and a 2-inch maple in the north
20 boundary?
21 A Yes.
22 Q So it wasn't a situation of the applicant showing a
23 plan with no landscaping; it was a recommendation for
24 more landscaping?
25 A Correct.
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
15
1 Q With respect to the lighting, you made a
2 recommendation for some changes in the lighting that had
3 been proposed?
4 A The recommendation that we had -- we had just asked
5 for a point -by -point lighting plan which showed the light
6 levels, the foot candles, to make sure that the amount of
7 light complied with our performance standards, which
8 would be Section -- which would be Appendix B, Section 9
9 and 10, or Subsections (9) and (10) of Appendix B.
10 Q And that's of the zoning regs?
11 A Yes.
12 Q In this case, it wasn't a situation, was it, where
13 the applicant had shown excessive lighting, correct?
14 A We weren't sure. We weren't able to determine that.
15 Q If the applicant had shown or was willing to provide
16 the type of lighting that was utilized in connection with
17 the Saturn approval and the South Burlington
18 Chrysler -Plymouth approval, that would have been
19 acceptable?
20 A Not necessarily. I'm not familiar with what the
21 lighting levels are from that property.
22 Q You understood that the same architect presented the
23 proposal as did the Saturn and South Burlington
24 Chrysler -Plymouth proposal, correct?
25 A Yes.
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
W
1
Q
That's Wiemann-Lamphere Architects?
2
A
Yes.
3
Q
Dealt with them frequently in the city?
4
A
Yes.
5
Q
And in terms of lighting and the way that they would
6
handle the details that you requested of the lighting,
7
did
you have any reason to believe that they would not be
8
able to satisfactorily comply with the appendices that
9
you've
referenced here today?
10
A
No, they should be able to comply with it quite
11
easily. We just wanted to be assured that the standard
12
was
being met.
13
Q
You'd agree with me, wouldn't you, that it's one of
14
the
details that frequently comes up at a site plan
15
approval hearing?
16
A
Yes.
17
Q
And the applicant comes back with a more detailed
18
plan, or in the motion, the Planning Commission requires
19
the
applicant to submit more detail to you as the
20
planner, correct?
21
A
Yes.
22
Q
Nothing highly extraordinary about that situation?
23
A
No.
24
Q
So the central issue was the -- and remains, does it
25
not
-- the curb cut access?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
17
1
A
Yeah, I guess. You know, it is hard to say whether
2
it is the central issue, without knowing whether or not
3
they
could meet those other two reasons why the Planning
4
Commission denied it.
5
Q
Okay, so if the applicant had been able to show that
6
they
would put the three trees in the corridor and if the
7
applicant had submitted a point -by -point lighting plan
8
that
was consistent with the appendices in the zoning
9
regs,
that would have satisfied that concern?
10
A
Correct.
it
Q
Aside from those two issues and the curb cut, were
12
there
any other issues of concern?
13
A
Not that I can recall, but I'd like to just check
14
the decision real quickly.
15
THE WITNESS: You gave that to me, didn't
16
you,
Joe?
17
MR. McLEAN: I think so.
18
THE WITNESS: Oh, here it is.
19
A
Okay. Oh, the only other issue is that the pole
20
heights
or the height of the poles for the lights was
21
four
feet above the maximum required, but I do recall
22
that
the representative at the meeting did say that they
23
would
comply with that.
24
Q
So that would have removed that as a concern?
25
A
Yeah.
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
Im
1
Q
And that then brings us to the curb -cut issue?
2
A
Yes.
3
Q
Would you agree that that's the central issue that
4
you
and the Planning Commission faced in this particular
5
application?
6
A
Yes.
7
Q
You understood that this application proposed an
8
ingress
only for this particular curb cut?
9
A
Yes.
10
Q
And no movement of the historical existing curb cut
11
that
had been there, correct?
12
A
Correct.
13
Q
Did you understand that the curb cut that was being
14
proposed
was narrower than the curb cut that existed at
15
the
so-called Charlie's Tennis Den?
16
A
I was not aware of that. I don't recall being aware
17
of that.
18
Q
Do you have the recollection that the curb cut that
19
historically
existed that was used by the Charlie's
20
Tennis
Den was excessively wide?
21
MR. McLEAN: Objection. You can answer.
22
THE WITNESS: I can?
23
MR. McLEAN: Yes.
24
A
Okay, I don't recall it being excessively wide.
25
Q
Do you agree that effectively, the position of the
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
19
1 Planning Commission and yourself was that this curb cut,
2 as it accessed Route 7, should be eliminated?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Could you point to the sections of the town plan
5 that support the position of eliminating the curb cut in
6 this particular situation?
7 A Okay, this would be in Chapter 10, transportation,
8 and on page --
9 Q Just so the record is clear, these are excerpts from
10 what we are using today as Depo 5; is that right?
11 A Yes. Actually, let me look specifically at that.
12 Okay, this would be on page 63 under Subsection (e)(1).
13 There's a lot of discussion on the functional
14 classifications of highways in the city. This particular
15 page talks about arterial roads, which Shelburne Road is
16 an arterial road, and it states here that -- basically it
17 says that the primary function of an arterial road is to
18 provide or accommodate through traffic, as opposed to
19 serve local traffic, that is, traffic that accesses
20 adjoining properties, and there are some specific
21 statements in here that consolidation of curb cuts is
22 warranted to minimize conflicting turning movements.
23 Q What page is that?
24 A This is page 63.
25 Q All right. Consolidation is warranted?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
20
1 A Yes.
2 Q All right.
3 A Is warranted to minimize conflicting turning
4 movements. On page 64, under Subsection (b)(2)(a),
5 there's more discussion on arterial roads, and again, it
6 says accommodation of through traffic carries a higher
7 priority than access to frontage properties. It
8 recommends that to correct preexisting problems along
9 these types of roads, maintain safety, the policy of the
10 city shall be to -- and you go on to page 65 -- one of
11 the bullets is to reduce mid -block turning movements
12 through consolidation of curb cuts at site plan review.
13 Q Okay.
14 A Then moving on to page 67, this is recommendation
15 No. 7 for highways, Subsection (a), talks about access
16 management, and it says specifically that the City should
17 continue to encourage access management techniques, such
18 as limiting curb cuts along high -volume arterial and
19 collector roadways. So the desire to eliminate that curb
20 cut, I feel, is in line with those recommendations and
21 statements I just pointed out.
22 Q The word "eliminate," as opposed to the words
23 "consolidate and limit" does not appear in the town plan,
24 would you agree with that?
25 A The actual word "eliminate"?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
21
1 Q Yes. If it does, just point me to the word.
2 A I will. The term "eliminate" is not used, but the
3 closest statement along those lines is on page 63, where
4 it states that the long-term solutions include the
5 closure of all curb cuts and provision of land access by
6 service roads, so the term closure is used in that
7 statement.
8 Q Is there any section of the town plan that you can
9 point to where the town plan states that the City can
10 require a lot's access to Shelburne Road to go through a
11 separately owned lot in order to obtain access to
12 Shelburne Road?
13 A I can't think of any specific language such as that.
14 Q Is there any language in the town zoning regulations
15 where the same situation exists, where the language
16 states that the town can require a lot's access to
17 Shelburne Road to go through a separately owned lot to
18 obtain access to Shelburne Road?
19 A Section 26.104 states that the Planning Commission
20 may require reservation of land on any lot for provision
21 of access to abutting properties whenever such access is
22 deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial
23 collector street. I guess it's not worded in exactly --
24 the exact way you had stated your question, but I mean
25 it's related to providing efficient access, and again,
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
22
1 there's a lot of language in the plan that talks about
2 providing safe and efficient access, which I think could
3 be interpreted to require access to a property over an
4 adjoining property if that access is available.
5 Q Two questions with respect to that, for starters:
6 No. 1, the site plan approval for the Saturn and South
7 Burlington Chrysler -Plymouth properties was not before
8 the Planning Commission in this site plan approval,
9 correct?
10 A No. Well, --
11 Q Well, yes or no?
12 A No.
13 Q The site plan approval for the Saturn/South
14 Burlington Chrysler -Plymouth projects had previously been
15 presented and approved by the Planning Commission,
16 correct?
17 A Correct.
18 Q And that was during your tenure?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Next question is, how long, if you know, have the
21 provisions that you read out of the town plan been in the
22 town plan?
23 A I can't tell you for sure.
24 Q Well, we know they were in the 191 plan, because
25 that's the one we were looking at?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
23
1 A Right, exactly.
2 Q Would you agree with the statement that they were in
3 the plan that immediately preceded that 191 plan?
4 A I believe that they were.
5 Q And so that would have taken us back five years from
6 1991?
7 A It was actually the 185 plan that was the one prior
8 to that.
9 Q Okay, and would you agree with the statement that
10 provisions similar to the ones you read out of the 191
11 plan were in the town plan that preceded the 185 plan?
12 A I don't know for sure, but they probably were.
13 Q So as we sit here today, you'd agree with the
14 statement that since perhaps as early as 1980, the City
15 of South Burlington has had the kind of provisions that
16 you read out of the 191 plan in its town plans?
17 MR. McLEAN: Objection.
18 A Yes.
19 Q All right. And the same would be true with respect
20 to the provisions of the zoning regs that we talked about
21 today?
22 MR. McLEAN: Objection.
23 A I would think so. I think they've been in there for
24 a while.
25 Q Now, when you say that one could interpret the town
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
24
1 plan to require a reservation of land on any lot, who
2 interprets the town plan? The Planning Commission?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Did the Planning Commission, as you understood it,
5 make any interpretations of the town plan in connection
6 with this particular application?
7 A I would say indirectly through the zoning ordinance.
8 I don't know if there was any specific discussion during
9 the hearing with reference to the comprehensive plan.
10 Q In the zoning regulations that were in effect in
11 195, could you look at 26.103? Do you have that in front
12 of you, Joe?
13 A 26.103?
14 Q Right.
15 A Mm-hmm.
16 Q That sets forth in general terms the standards for
17 driveways and intersections with public streets during
18 site plan review, does it not?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And the first section tells us that -- and I'm
21 quoting -- Quote, "Unless specifically approved by the
22 Planning Commission, there shall be a maximum of one
23 driveway per lot accessing a public street," correct?
24 A Yes.
25 Q The proposal that was before the Planning Commission
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
25
1 for 1085 Shelburne Road did just that, correct?
2 MR. McLEAN: Objection.
3 A It provided a maximum or was providing one driveway
4 access. A driveway, yeah.
5 Q Right. It goes on to state, "This provision shall
6 not exclude a shared driveway between two or more lots,"
7 and let's stop right there. How do you interpret that
8 language?
9 A Hm. I would just have to say that it would allow
10 shared access, shared driveways between two adjoining
11 properties, or even more.
12 Q Would it allow one driveway on a lot accessing a
13 public street as the first sentence of Subsection (a)
14 allows, and a shared driveway between two or more lots?
15 MR. McLEAN: Objection. I didn't
16 understand the last question.
17 A Can you restate that, please?
18 Q Sure. 26.103(a), which is in front of you, we've
19 read through what it says in the first sentence, maximum
20 of one driveway per lot?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And then it goes on to state, "This provision,"
23 apparently referring to the first sentence of Subsection
24 (a), "shall not exclude a shared driveway between two or
25 more lots"?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
26
1 A Correct.
2 Q How would you interpret that language, if you can?
3 A I guess the way that I would interpret it is that
4 this would allow the Planning Commission to approve, if
5 they felt it was -- if it was necessary, up to one
6 driveway for the lot, and could also approve, in addition
7 to that, a shared driveway --
8 Q Okay.
9 A -- with an adjoining property.
10 Q Okay, and so your statement is "and in addition to
it that"?
12 A Yeah, that's --
13 Q Okay. And then the sentence goes on to state, the
14 second sentence of Subsection (a), quote, "or dual
15 driveways where one lane is marked for entering traffic
16 and one lane for exiting traffic"?
17 A Correct.
18 Q And would that be on the same situation, namely a
19 driveway on the lot, and then in addition, a shared
20 driveway between two lots, or would it be something else?
21 A I think it's something else. I think what the
22 intent there is to allow -- it would allow two drives on
23 a property where one is designed to be an in only and the
24 other is designed to be an exit only.
25 Q Okay. So --
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
27
1
A
You know, the typical thing that I can think of is
2
like
the fast-food configuration, where they tend to have
3
two
separate curb cuts, but one is in and the other is
4
out.
5
Q
Okay, so in your interpretation, that would modify
6
the
first sentence of Subsection (a) so as to permit a
7
driveway
for entrance only, and then another driveway for
8
exit
only on the same lot, correct?
9
MR. McLEAN: Objection.
10
A
I think it's trying to clarify what's intended by
11
the
first part of that statement. When it says a maximum
12
of one driveway, I think it means a means to enter and
13
exit
a site.
14
Q
Okay.
15
A
And this would just be another way to provide that
16
movement, to enter and exit. It would be actually two
17
separate individual movement driveways, but doing the
18
same
thing.
19
Q
On one separate lot?
20
A
Right.
21
Q
Correct?
22
A
Right.
23
Q
So in essence, you could have a driveway that would
24
be,
let's say, 36 feet wide, as shown by 26.103(b),
25
36-foot-wide maximum width, and in that maximum width
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
m
1 you'd have an ingress and egress, correct?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Or under the very last clause of 26.103(a), one
4 could have, on a separate lot, two 20-foot-minimum-width
5 curb cuts, driveways, one for entering traffic and one
6 for exiting traffic, correct?
7 A I think the intent of Subsection (b) is that the
8 minimum width of a full -service drive, both in and out,
9 is 20 feet. However, if someone were to propose a dual
10 driveway system where one is entrance only and one is
11 exit only, the appropriate design would be to have
12 narrower than 20 feet for each one of those.
13 Q Did you write this plan?
14 A This one here?
15 MR. McLEAN: Objection. It's the zoning
16 bylaw.
17 MR. HEILMANN: Sorry, let me withdraw and
18 ask the question again.
19 BY MR. HEILMANN:
20 Q Did you draft the zoning regulations that you've
21 just been reading from?
22 A These provisions were drafted before I got there.
23 Q Okay.
24 A We might have fine-tuned some of these over the
25 years, but for the most part, they were written before I
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
29
1 II got there.
2
Q
Okay. But just so that we're clear, the way you
3
understand
26.103(a), one lot can have two driveways
4
under
certain circumstances?
5
A
Oh, sure.
6
Q
With respect to this particular proposal, did you
7
understand
that the ingress only to 1085 Shelburne Road
8
also
showed an egress from that lot in the northwest
9
section
of the lot?
10
A
Yes.
11
Q
What did you --
12
A
Well, I believe it's an egress and ingress.
13
Q
All right. And what did you understand, based on
14
the
applicant's presentation, that was to accomplish?
15
A
That was to provide a vehicular connection between
16
this
property and the adjoining property.
17
Q
All right, so that vehicles entering off Shelburne
18
Road
could, if they so elected, go to the Saturn sales
19
and
service facility?
20
A
Yes.
21
Q
And if they so elected, go to the South Burlington
22
Chrysler
-Plymouth sales and service facility?
23
A
Correct.
24
Q
Do you agree or disagree with the statement that the
25 total number of vehicles entering the two dealerships
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
30
1 would not increase as a result of the 1085 Shelburne Road
2 proposal?
3
A
Would not increase?
4
Q
Right.
5
A
I'm not sure.
6
Q
And why aren't you sure?
7
A
Well, I haven't seen any factual data that says
8
either
way.
9
Q
All right. You don't offer the opinion that the
10
total
number of vehicles entering the dealerships would
11
increase
as a result of this proposal, do you?
12
MR. McLEAN: Objection. He said he wasn't
13
sure.
14
A
I'm not sure.
15
Q
Okay. On Shelburne Road, can you identify any other
16
lot
having frontage on Shelburne Road where the City of
17
South
Burlington has effectively closed the curb cut to
18
Shelburne
Road during the time that you've been employed
19
by
the City?
20
A
One that pops into mind is the Burger King property.
21
Q
You were here Monday when Roger Dickinson explained
22
his
understanding of the Burger King closure?
23
A
Yes.
24
Q
And that's generally accurate, is it?
25
A
Yes.
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
31
1
Q
And as I recall his testimony -- and correct me if
2
I'm
wrong -- the indication was that the arrangement was
3
that the Burger King access which had been agreed to
4
going into the Burger King approval would be closed once
5
the
Hannaford/Southland access road was constructed,
6
correct?
7
A
Correct.
8
Q
And Burger King accepted that proposal?
9
A
Yes.
10
Q
Incidentally, is the Burger King facility on
11
Southland's property?
12
A
It is a separate parcel.
13
Q
And who owns that Burger King property, if you know?
14
A
I believe -- I'm not sure. I'm not sure.
15
Q
But in any event, when the approval of Burger King
16
was
sought, it was understood by the Planning Commission,
17
was
it not, that there was either on the table or about
18
to be submitted, the Hannaford's/Southland proposal,
19
correct?
20
A
When the Burger King first came through?
21
Q
Yes.
22
A
I'm not sure. I think that went in long before
23
Hannaford submitted their application.
24
Q
I understand it was before the submittal, but there
25
had
been discussion about the Hannaford's/Southland
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
32
1 proposal coming forward to the Planning Commission at the
2 Burger King application time, right?
3
A
I'm not sure.
4
Q
Okay, but in any event, so that there's no question
5
about it, it was understood by the Planning Commission,
6
and
by Burger King as the applicant, that at such time as
7
the
Hannaford road would be installed, the curb cut at
8
Shelburne
Road for Burger King would close?
9
A
That's my understanding, yes.
10
Q
Okay. Any others that you can recall?
11
A
The only one that I can think of at this time is the
12
Uno's
Pizzeria property that had two curb cuts on
13
Shelburne Road, and one of those was closed.
14
Q
My question was focused on applications where all of
15
the
curb cuts were closed to that lot.
16
A
Oh, all Shelburne Road --
17
Q
Yes.
18
A
I can't think of any others at this point on
19
Shelburne Road.
20
Q
Okay. And let's visit just a bit with the Uno's --
21
Is
that what you call it?
22
A
Yes.
23
Q
That's officially known as the Beldock application,
24
or
is it some other name?
25
A
No, it was officially known as I think the Wyland
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
33
1 application; they were the previous property owners.
2 Wyland-Grunvald, something like that.
3
Q
In terms of common usage, we can agree to just
4
discuss it as the Pizzeria Uno proposal, correct?
5
A
Yes.
6
Q
And initially that applicant suggested two curb cuts
7
on Shelburne Road?
8
A
Initially one, I believe.
9
Q
And the initial curb cut was for ingress and egress
10
onto
Shelburne Road?
11
A
I can't recall. I'm not sure if it was both ingress
12
and egress or if it was just ingress. I'm not sure.
13
Q
And this application, the Pizzeria Uno, was not at a
14
signalized intersection, was it?
15
A
Correct.
16
Q
As it has been approved, will it be at a signalized
17
intersection?
18
A
No.
19
Q
The Pizzeria Uno application has been approved?
20
A
Yes.
21
Q
And what is the format of ingress and egress for
22
that
facility?
23
A
There's an ingress -egress curb cut on Shelburne
24
Road,
and also an ingress -egress curb cut on Imperial
25
Drive. I believe it's Imperial Drive.
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
34
1 Q And in terms of the Pizzeria Uno lot or parcel, that
2 parcel has frontage on both Shelburne Road and Imperial
3 Drive, correct?
4 A Correct.
5 Q The ingress -egress on Shelburne Road that's been
6 approved for Pizzeria Uno permits motorists entering from
7 both the northbound and the southbound lanes of Shelburne
8 Road, correct?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And it permits motorists egressing the lot to move
11 in a northerly or a southerly direction on Shelburne
12 Road?
13 A Correct.
14 Q And that's also true, is it not, with respect to
15 motorists who would exit the parcel from the
16 ingress -egress on Imperial Drive and then move onto
17 Shelburne Road from Imperial Drive?
18 A Yes.
19 Q They can turn left and go southbound, or they can
20 turn right and go northbound from Imperial Drive?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And how long ago did the Planning Commission approve
23 that?
24 A It had to be this year sometime. I think in June,
25 maybe, as a guess.
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
35
1 Q You've told us that you can't recall any proposal
2 whereby the entire curb cut was closed as it accessed
3 Shelburne Road, correct?
4 A Shelburne Road, I can't think of any right now.
5 Q And can you recall other proposals that were
6 approved by the Planning Commission in which access to
7 Shelburne Road was limited to one curb cut where
8 previously there were more than one curb cut?
9 A The Pizzeria Uno's is one.
10 Q That's one. Basically my question to you is was
11 there anything else other than the Pizzeria Uno?
12 A Mm-hmm. At this point, I can't recall any. I'd
13 have to go back through our records.
14 Q Pizzeria Uno is a retail food establishment; is that
15 the way it would be categorized?
16 A A standard restaurant.
17 Q A standard restaurant?
18 A Yes.
19 Q What does that mean?
20 A It's defined in our zoning regulations. If you want
21 me to read it to you, I will.
22 Q Let me ask it this way: In common expression, it
23 would be no drive -through, but perhaps customer takeout?
24 A Limited amount. It's primarily sit-down. The stay
25 is, for the most part, you know, an hour or more.
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
36
1 Q But the Pizzeria Uno proposal does not specifically
2 exclude people who would take out the food, correct?
3 A No.
4 Q Okay. And the expression of standard restaurant is
5 a defined term in the zoning ordinance?
6 A Yes.
7 Q From your experience, did those standard restaurant
8 usages have higher or lower traffic volume than
9 new -and -used automobile display areas?
10 MR. McLEAN: Objection.
11 BY MR. HEILMANN:
12 Q If you know.
13 A I don't know, offhand.
14 Q In the hierarchy of things that you've experienced,
15 would you say that the standard restaurant -- the
16 operations like Pizzeria Uno -- have high traffic volume?
17 A High traffic volume. Hm. I don't know for sure.
18 It depends on the size of the facility. It depends on
19 whether you're talking about daily traffic, hourly
20 traffic, p.m., a.m.
21 Q Are you familiar with the Trip Generation treatise
22 that is published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Do you have a copy of that?
25 A I do in the office, yes.
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
37
1
Q
Fifth Edition?
2
A
Yes.
3
Q
The highest use that the Trip Generation text refers
4
to
is banks, is it not?
5
A
It could be. I don't know for sure.
6
Q
Okay. If that were shown to be the case, that
7
wouldn't
surprise you, would it?
8
A
No.
9
Q
And next following that would be food operations
10
like
Pizzeria Uno, Burger King, Pizza Hut, places like
11
that?
12
A
Like Burger King.
13
MR. McLEAN: Objection.
14
A
Like Burger King, I would say.
15
Q
Burger King?
16
A
Yeah.
17
Q
Those are all high traffic generators, are they not?
18
A
Yeah, drive -through tends to be high.
19
Q
Let's talk about banks for a minute, and
20
specifically Vermont National Bank, and I'm referring to
21
the
Vermont National Bank that lies just south of the
22
South
Burlington Chrysler -Plymouth dealership. When
23 during your tenure, if ever, did the Vermont National
24 Bank submit applications for site plan approval or other
25 approvals to the Planning Commission?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
38
1
A
The only time I can think of was a couple of years
2
ago,
when they submitted an application to put a small
3
addition on their building.
4
Q
That was for the third drive -through?
5
A
I'm not sure. It might have included adding another
6
drive -through.
7
Q
I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
8
A
It might have included adding another drive -through.
9
I don't recall if that was part of the application.
10
Q
And the Planning Commission approved that?
11
A
They did.
12
Q
That curb cut has an ingress and egress on Shelburne
13
Road?
14
A
No, they changed it to an ingress only.
15
Q
And the change to the ingress only was as a result
16
of the
most recent visit to the Planning Commission by
17
the
bank?
18
A
Yes.
19
Q
When the --
20
A
It was proposed as part of their recent application,
21
I believe.
22
Q
And the egress from the bank is onto property to the
23
west
of the bank, correct?
24
A
Yes.
25
Q
And that was proposed by Vermont National Bank?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
W�
1 A I believe so.
2 Q As opposed to being a condition imposed by the
3 Planning Commission at its own instance, right?
4 A I'm not sure. I'd have to review the records.
5 Q You're aware of the plans that exist and the
6 approvals that exist for the property that lies westerly
7 of the Vermont National Bank to which the bank now has
8 egress, correct?
9 A Yes.
10 Q The bank doesn't own that property, does it?
11 A No.
12 Q The property, for purposes of today's discussion,
13 that the bank egresses onto, is known as the L & M
14 property?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And that property has a roadway that's offered for
17 dedication by the city or to the city?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And that roadway travels from the bank property
20 southerly to the property adjacent to the McDonald's and
21 then onto Shelburne Road?
22 A No, no, the portion that's intended to be a public
23 road and will be dedicated to the city is only Fayette
24 Drive.
25 Q The property that L & M owns between the bank egress
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
40
1 and Fayette Drive will be a private right-of-way; is that
2 the idea?
3
A Yes.
4
Q But that's how motorists who come into
the bank to
5
do their business get out of the bank?
6
A Yes.
7
Q Were you employed by the City when the
Mobil station
8
that is currently in place at the corner of
the Juster
9
Associates property on Shelburne Road was before
the
10
Planning Commission?
it
A Not originally. They came in recently
for, I think,
12
a small addition.
13
Q That structure was approved and erected
after 1985,
14
was it not?
15
A I'm not sure.
16
Q And so we're clear on that, the Juster
Associates
17
properties are where the K-Mart is situated,
off
18
Shelburne Road, right?
19
A Yes.
20
Q In any event, it's your understanding,
is it not,
21
that the Mobil station that lies between the
Juster
22
property and the Burger King property was erected
23
sometime after 1980, correct?
24
A I don't know for sure.
25
Q That property has two curb cuts?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
41
1
A
Yes.
2
Q
Both are ingress and egress?
3
A
Yes.
4
Q
And both of those ingresses and egresses are within
5
100
feet of a signalized intersection, correct?
6
A
Yes.
7
Q
What was the applicant, the Mobil Company, Mobil gas
8
station
before the Planning Commission for the last time
9
they
came in?
10
A
They recently came in just to put on a very small
11
addition
to the front of the building there, so that the
12
doorway would be underneath the canopy.
13
Q
I see.
14
A
So people wouldn't get wet.
15
Q
And that required site plan review?
16
A
Yes.
17
Q
That enlarged the size of the structure?
18
A
Yes.
19
Q
And as part of that site plan review, no alterations
20
were
required by the City of Mobil's ingress and egress?
21
A
No.
22
Q
Southerly of the Lobster Pot restaurant, there's a
23
Champlain Farms Texaco station?
24
A
Yes.
25
Q
Is that S.B. Allen?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
42
1 A I'm not sure.
2 Q During your tenure, has that property been before
3 the Planning Commission?
4 A I don't recall that it has been.
5 Q Do you recall that that organization put a covered
6 canopy over the fuel pumps within the last three years?
7 A I don't recall that.
8 Q Would that be something, in general terms, that
9 would require an organization to come before the Planning
10 Commission for site plan approval?
11 A My interpretation is that it would. I don't know if
12 the zoning administrator shares that.
13 Q Okay. Do you think that he does not share that?
14 A I'm not sure. All I know is that in the past, I
15 think maybe in the early 180s, or mid-180s, that there
16 were some canopies that went up with only zoning board
17 approval, but I'm not sure if he still shares that
18 interpretation these days.
19 Q In other words, he may now or she may now agree with
20 you?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And in terms of the manner in which the City of
23 South Burlington administers the zoning regs, your
24 department has jurisdiction over site plan review,
25 correct?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
43
1 A Yeah.
2 Q So if an organization is required to have site plan
3 review, the Planning Department makes that determination,
4 correct?
5 A In practice, we try to do it that way, but
6 technically, I think the final decision falls on the
7 zoning administrator.
8 Q Were you the Town Planner when a proposal concerning
9 Perry's Fish House came before the Planning Commission?
10 A There was a recent amendment that came before the
11 Planning Commission while I was there, yes.
12 Q And would you describe when and what that proposal
13 was?
14 A Oh, gosh. I think it was within the last three
15 years, and I believe it involved adding some additional
16 seats inside.
17 Q That came before the Planning Commission for site
18 plan approval?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And at the time of that approval, Perry's Fish House
21 had how many curb cuts on Shelburne Road?
22 A I don't recall.
23 Q Okay. Did it also have access to Baldwin Avenue, it
24 being a corner lot that was on the corner of Baldwin
25 Avenue and Shelburne Road?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
44
1 A I believe it did.
2 Q As a result of the site plan application, were the
3 additional seats approved?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Was there any alteration to any curb cuts required
6 by the City as a condition of the approval?
7 A I believe one may have been closed, the Baldwin, and
8 there might have been some slight modifications to the
9 curb cut on Shelburne Road, but again, I'd have to review
10 the file.
11 Q But in general terms, the curb cut that exists to
12 this day on Shelburne Road still permits ingress and
13 egress to the restaurant from that curb cut, correct?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And there remains today an ingress -egress curb cut
16 on Baldwin Avenue for the purposes of serving that
17 restaurant, correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Incidentally, do you recall at some point that
20 Perry's Fish House had two curb cuts on Shelburne Road,
21 and two curb cuts on Baldwin Avenue?
22 A I don't recall that.
23 Q Were you in the planning department when Perry's
24 Fish House made a proposal to demolish a retail fish and
25 flower shop and to pave it over?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
45
1
A
Yes.
2
Q
And when was that?
3
A
That might have been part of this application to
4
increase the seating or --
5
Q
You're not sure?
6
A
It was within the last three years, I believe.
7
Q
There could have been two applications, there might
8
have been one application?
9
A
Yes.
10
Q
Do you know whether either of those applications,
11
assuming
there were two, involved closing any curb cuts
12
on
Shelburne Road?
13
A
I don't know.
14
(A brief recess was taken.)
15
BY
MR. HEILMANN:
16
Q
Deposition Exhibit 4, Mr. Weith, is that something
17
you've
seen before?
18
A
Yes.
19
Q
And in that, it's represented about things that
20
you're
prepared to testify about, correct?
21
A
Yes.
22
Q
Are there other things beyond what we can see in
23
Depo
4 that you expect you will testify about at the
24
hearing
in this case?
25
A
No. I think this pretty much covers it.
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
46
1 Q So Depo 4 covers, as you say, the testimony that you
2 anticipate providing at the hearing in this case?
3 A Yes.
4 Q We've talked, have we not, about the matters that
5 are set forth in the bottom paragraph on the first page
6 of your heading No. 1, the policy of the City of South
7 Burlington to eliminate curb cuts on arterial highways
8 whenever reasonably possible?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Is there anything beyond which you told us here
11 today that you would add to support the testimony under
12 paragraph No. 1?
13 A Perhaps just expand on the policy and its basis.
14 Q Okay.
15 A In general terms.
16 Q And how would you expand on the policy and its
17 basis?
18 A Basically just explain that the policy to eliminate
19 curb cuts whenever reasonably possible is based on
20 research that's been conducted over the years by
21 transportation engineering and planning organizations,
22 which shows that eliminating curb cuts along high -volume
23 roadways is appropriate, for reasons of traffic safety
24 and efficient traffic movement.
25 Q Okay. In terms of this particular proposal, are you
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
47
1 prepared to offer any testimony with regard to matters
2 relating to internal circulation as shown on the
3 proposal, and by internal circulation, I mean how
4 vehicles move about the lot after they cross the city
5 line, so to speak, after they get off Shelburne Road?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Is that what you expect to testify to?
8 A Yes, as it relates to curb cuts serving the property
9 and how one would access this portion of the development.
10 Q All right. And what is your testimony on that
11 subject?
12 A That basically serving this entire complex,
13 including this additional display lot, is adequate from
14 this main signalized access point, and also safer.
15 Q And why is that?
16 A Why is it adequate?
17 Q Yeah, what facts do you have that support that
18 statement?
19 A Just the facts upon which we base our policy about
20 reducing curb cuts on Shelburne Road and encouraging
21 consolidation and combined access. I mean it's based on
22 my experience that serving or eliminating mid -block curb
23 cuts is safer in terms of reducing conflicting turning
24 movements, and if you can provide access from a
25 signalized intersection, where there are appropriate
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
E3
1 controls that drivers are familiar with, that that's a
2 safer situation.
3 Q In Deposition Exhibit 5 at page 65, in addition to
4 certain segments that you earlier read to us, there is a
5 statement, about a third of the way down the page -- I'm
6 not good at reading upside down. Could you read that
7 into the record, please? I've highlighted it.
8 A "Provide stacking lanes at mid -block and
9 intersection locations to segregate to and through lanes.
10 This may require purchase or exaction of land for road
11 widening of substandard rights -of -way."
12 Q As used in the section that you just read from the
13 town plan, what's a "to," as opposed to a "through,"
14 lane?
15 A A to lane would be a lane that is designed to serve
16 a specific turning movement, whether it be to an
17 adjoining property or to a side street. An example is a
18 left -turn lane that has no arrows for left turn. It
19 could also include deceleration lanes. For example,
20 somebody slowing down to turn right into a property or
21 into a side street would get out of the typical through
22 lanes and make their turn. The through lanes are
23 intended to accommodate traffic that's continuing through
24 an intersection or past adjoining properties.
25 Q It also includes, does it not, the so-called center
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
1 II lane or fifth lane on a roadway?
2
A
Is a through lane?
3
Q
A to lane?
4
A
Yeah, that would be a to lane, the center lane.
5
Q
And in the area around where this application
6
property is situated, there is the so-called fifth lane,
7
correct, or turning lane?
8
A
Shared turning lane?
9
Q
No, a turning lane.
10
A
There is a turning lane, yes.
11
Q
And that turning lane runs from roughly the Mobil
12
station that we talked about earlier today down to Holmes
13
Avenue, some distance south of this area, correct?
14
A
Yes.
15
Q
It's a five -lane highway?
16
A
Yes.
17
Q
And in terms of the circumstances, that fifth lane
18
was
in place at the time this application was submitted,
19
correct?
20
A
Yes.
21
Q
How long, if you know, had the fifth lane been
22
situated in Shelburne Road in this general area?
23
A
I don't know.
24
Q
Before your association with the City?
25
A
Yes.
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
50
1 Q In the third numbered subparagraph of Deposition
2 Exhibit 4, going over to the second page, you indicate
3 that you're prepared to testify that the plan will
4 negatively impact traffic access and circulation in the
5 vicinity of the property. Specifically with respect to
6 traffic access in the vicinity of the property, could you
7 provide me with the facts upon which you are prepared to
8 make that statement?
9 A The facts would be that this would maintain an
10 uncontrolled mid -block access point where conflicts are
11 created between local traffic accessing that property and
12 through traffic continuing through.
13 Q Assuming a green light at Baldwin Avenue, are you
14 prepared to tell us that there's a difference in terms of
15 through traffic with regard to a motorist who would turn
16 into 1085 Shelburne Road to access Saturn and/or
17 Chrysler -Plymouth, as compared to a motorist who would
18 turn at Baldwin Avenue to access the dealerships?
19 A State that again, please?
20 MR. HEILMANN: Can we have that back?
21 (The question was read back by the court
22 reporter.)
23 A Yes.
24 Q And why is that?
25 A The reason for that is because drivers are familiar
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
51
1 with signalized intersections and anticipate cars slowing
2 down, turning, speeding up, the things that create
3 conflicts. They are not as able, or typically do not
4 anticipate those types of changes with mid -block
5 uncontrolled access.
6 Q And the basis for that opinion is your experience,
7 training, what?
8 A It's based on my experience and also from literature
9 I've read over the years from transportation
10 publications, and also from attending transportation
11 seminars and so forth.
12 Q Any particular literature come to mind?
13 A I can't pull out anything right now.
14 Q All right. So it's essentially your opinion that
15 given a green light, the motorist will do what? Slow
16 down anyhow?
17 A Given a green light the --
18 Q Yes.
19 A I'm not following your question.
20 Q Okay. Let me withdraw it and ask it a different
21 way. As I understand your testimony, you indicate that
22 as a motorist approaches a signalized intersection, the
23 motorist's level of observation and caution changes. Is
24 that your testimony?
25 A Yes.
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
52
1 Q As compared with when the motorist is driving along
2 a highway, even a congested highway like Shelburne Road?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Is that your testimony?
5 A Yes.
6 Q And my question to you is can you point to any
7 study, survey, or specific professional experience that
8 suggests that even when the light is green, the
9 motorist's behavior is like that?
10 A No, I can't at this point.
11 Q Were you familiar with what the use of the property
12 was prior to the proposal made by 1085 Shelburne Road?
13 A Somewhat, yes.
14 Q What was it?
15 A It was, to my understanding, about a
16 2,000-square-foot building that housed Charlie's Tennis
17 Den, which was a specialty retail business that sold
18 tennis equipment, and then I believe there was a hair
19 salon also in that building.
20 Q Anything else?
21 A Not that I'm aware of.
22 Q Did you make any recommendations as to whether the
23 volume of traffic using the proposed curb cut would
24 increase or decrease as a result of the application?
25 A I believe we had provided the Planning Commission
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
53
1 with the ITE trip generation estimates for those types of
2 uses, and explained to them that because ITE trip rates
3 are only applied to building square footage, that you
4 couldn't calculate any additional trips based on that,
5 but then by removing that retail building, there would be
6 some reduction in trip generation again based solely on
7 the ITE trip rates.
8 Q Is that in your memo that you used before?
9 A I think it is.
10 Q I'd like to take a look, actually, at the file that
11 you brought with you today.
12 (A discussion was held off the record.)
13 BY MR. HEILMANN:
14 Q You produced for me a file that is your -- or I'm
15 sorry, is the Planning Department's file?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And something was taken out and given to your
18 counsel. Could you just identify it?
19 A That was not actually taken out of the file. That
20 was --
21 Q Okay, I didn't see where it came from. What was it?
22 MR. McLEAN: It came from the table, and
23 it was attorney work product which the client reviewed
24 prior to this deposition.
25 BY MR. HEILMANN:
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
54
1 Q Something prepared by the city's lawyer?
2 A Yes.
3 Q I want to make some copies of this, but let me ask
4 you some questions about the material that's in the
5 packet that you gave me. About two-thirds of the way
6 through the packet of materials, there's handwriting on a
7 white legal pad. Is that yours?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And blocked around Wiemann-Lamphere, there's some
10 writing that starts off, "Marie, Gary Lavigne did not get
11 second page of memo." Can you describe for me what
12 information you're trying to communicate here?
13 A Well, these are just my notes from the meeting, and
14 I believe prior to the meeting, Gary Lavigne had
15 indicated to me that he didn't get a copy of the second
16 page of the memo, so I just made a note so I could tell
17 my secretary that.
18 Q That's the memo that you typically submit to the PC
19 before their deliberations?
20 A Yes.
21 Q And that's something that in many cases is made
22 available to the applicant before the hearing commences?
23 A Yes.
24 Q "No problem with sidewalk"? What is that intended
25 to represent?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
55
1 A I believe I wrote that probably in response to a
2 statement made by the applicant's representative at the
3 meeting that they didn't have a problem with putting a
4 sidewalk in along the frontage.
5 Q The document right under that is something that you
6 prepared under date of 10/10/95, a motion?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And that's something that you typically do?
9 A Yeah.
10 Q Does that set forth your recommendations concerning
11 the site plan application?
12 A No.
13 Q What is it intended to represent?
14 A This is intended to represent a motion which is
15 likely to be read by the Planning Commission.
16 Q Drafted by you before the meeting?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Based upon what information?
19 A Just based largely upon information that's contained
20 in our memo, and also, it can be based on statements made
21 by the applicant prior to the meeting, on whether or not
22 they agree to make certain changes.
23 Q And in paragraph 2(a) of the 10/10/95 draft, the way
24 it was initially presented, I take it, to the Planning
25 Commission was that, quote, "The site plan shall be
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
AN
1 revised to eliminate the curb cut and driveway on
2 Shelburne Road"?
3 A Yes.
4 Q That was your recommendation?
5 A Yes.
6 Q So the curb cut would be eliminated, and when you
7 say the curb cut and driveway, is that a distinction
8 between the curb cut and driveway, or is it just one
9 unitary concept?
10 A It's one unitary concept.
11 Q Okay. And it's marked up with pencil. Can you
12 explain to me what that's intended to represent?
13 A Prior to the reading of the motion, the Planning
14 Commission had made it clear that they did not want to
15 include that as a condition in their motion, so I crossed
16 it out.
17 Q The Planning Commission then wanted the motion to
18 state that the curb cut not be eliminated?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And describe for me how that came about at the
21 hearing.
22 A God, I don't remember the details of it, but I
23 believe the Planning Commission had made it very clear to
24 the applicant that they wanted to include a condition in
25 the motion requiring the removal of the curb cut, and the
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
57
1 applicant said that they were not willing to accept that,
2 so they took it out.
3 Q So in shorthand, if that proposal had been in, i.e.
4 the condition eliminating the curb cut, you would have
5 anticipated that the Planning Commission would have
6 approved the motion?
7 MR. McLEAN: Objection.
8 A My feeling is that they probably would have, but I
9 don't know for sure.
10 Q All right. Where is the memo that -- is it a
11 two -page memo?
12 A It's toward the beginning.
13 Q Okay.
14 A I think. Yeah.
15 Q It's the October 6th one, Joe?
16 A Yeah. Yeah, it's October 6th.
17 Q Okay. In the packet of materials you provided,
18 there's a handwritten memo, 10/2/95, "R-something-B"?
19 A Those are the initials of the Planning Zoning
20 Assistant, Ray Belair.
21 Q Oh, that's Mr. Belair? In which Mr. Belair
22 indicates, "Wiemann-Lamphere traffic -- oh, calcs?
23 Calculations? Traffic overlay" -- help me on this.
24 A "Traffic overlay district."
25 Q District 2?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
1 A Yes.
2 Q What is that intended to be?
3 A We have a traffic overlay district in our zoning
4 regulations which limits the amount of p.m. peak -hour
5 traffic that can be generated by abutting properties on
6 roads such as Shelburne Road, and this property falls
7 into that district, and that's the maximum that the
8 district would allow for this property.
9 Q 20 vehicle trip ends per 40,000 square feet?
10 A Yeah.
11 Q Is that what it's intended to indicate?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And the maximum vehicle trip ends per minute would
14 be 12.4 vehicle trip ends?
15 A Yes.
16 Q What is vehicle trip ends as represented in this
17 memo intended to represent?
18 A A vehicle trip end is a vehicle entering the
19 property and also a vehicle exiting. So someone pulling
20 in and then leaving would be two vehicle trip ends.
21 Q Over what period of time?
22 A This is for the p.m. peak hour of the adjacent
23 street traffic.
24 Q 4:30 to 6:30?
25 A Yeah, the peak hour somewhere between those two
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
59
1 II hours, yeah.
2
Q
Did you or Mr. Belair, to your knowledge, make any
3
assessment as to whether the anticipated vehicle trip
4
ends
for this proposal would have been over or under the
5
12.4
number?
6
A
For this property?
7
Q
Yes.
8
A
For the proposed use?
9
Q
Right.
10
A
We did, utilizing the ITE rates that were available
11
to us. We calculated what it would be.
12
Q
And what did you calculate?
13
A
It should be in the memo here. Basically, because
14
auto
dealership trip generation is tied to building
15
square footage, our calculation was that it would be
16
zero,
since there's no building square footage proposed
17
on this lot.
18
Q
All right.
19
(A discussion was held off the record.)
20
BY MR. HEILMANN:
21
Q
There was an earlier site plan app for the 1085
22
Shelburne Road that was withdrawn on August 23, 195?
23
A
I believe so.
24
Q
Do you recall the circumstances concerning the
25 withdrawal?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
.e
1
A
I don't.
2
Q
Oftentimes it's because people aren't available for
3
the
hearing? You just don't recall?
4
A
I don't remember at all.
5
Q
Did you participate at all in the Zoning Board of
6
Adjustment
hearing on this?
7
A
No.
8
Q
That's not within your area of responsibility with
9
the
City?
10
A
No.
11
Q
In this file there are some handwritten notes. I've
12
put
a green tab on them. Are the notes on this page
13
yours?
14
A
Yes.
15
Q
And under 113 p.m. deposition," which I take it
16
refers to today?
17
A
Yes.
18
Q
You say "check the Vermont National Bank" -- I can't
19
read
the word.
20
A
"Issue."
21
Q
Okay. And when you say "issue," what did you mean
22
when
you wrote that?
23
A
I wanted to look into the curb cut serving it.
24
Q
Why?
25
A
Just because I anticipated that you would bring it
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
M.
1 II up today.
2
Q
And why did you anticipate that?
3
A
Because it's a curb out off of Shelburne Road.
4
Q
Adjacent to this property?
5
A
Yes.
6
Q
"Distance of drive from Fayette signal"?
7
A
Yeah.
8
Q
And did you also take into consideration the
9
distance of the driveway from the Baldwin Avenue signal?
10
A
No.
it
Q
Do you know whether or not it's less than 100 feet?
12
A
No.
13
Q
100 feet has some significance under the site plan
14
review criteria in the zoning regs, does it not?
15
A
Yes.
16
Q
In general terms, what is the significance?
17
A
I believe the standard is that driveways should be
18
located at least 200 feet from a signalized intersection.
19
Q
If a person wants to ingress, looking at the
20
Deposition Exhibit 1, where the phrase "site plan" in the
21
lower left-hand corner of depo -- I hope it's the lower
22
left-hand
corner of the exhibit -- that is where the
23
Vermont National Bank property is located, correct?
24
A
Yes.
25
Q
It's directly south and abuts the property that the
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
M.
1 South Burlington Chrysler -Plymouth dealership is
2 situated?
3 A Correct.
4 Q And in that vicinity, there is an opportunity for a
5 motorist going northbound on Shelburne Road to turn into
6 the so-called turning lane?
7 A This turning lane?
8 Q Yes.
9 A I believe so.
10 Q And that motorist can then access the Vermont
11 National Bank property by turning out of the turning lane
12 and across the southbound lanes of traffic of Shelburne
13 Road, correct?
14 A Correct.
15 Q Do you know whether or not the turning lane in the
16 area as it adjoins or abuts Vermont National Bank
17 property and in the area where it adjoins and abuts the
18 property where the South Burlington Chrysler -Plymouth
19 dealership is located, is intended to be exclusively a
20 left -turn lane to access the dealerships from Baldwin
21 Avenue?
22 A I don't know.
23 Q Same question with respect to the north side, if you
24 will, of the Baldwin Avenue intersection. Is that
25 intended to access solely Baldwin Avenue?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
63
1
A
This lane here?
2
Q
Yes, sir.
3
A
No, not necessarily.
4
Q
All right. The next phrase you have is "completely
5
different" and I can't read your writing there.
6
Completely different something?
7
A
"Completely different business."
8
Q
Bank?
9
A
Yes.
10
Q
And one of the differences is it has a much higher
11
trip
end or VTE, correct, with a bank as opposed to an
12
auto
dealership?
13
A
I would assume that it does.
14
Q
"More circuitous route," question mark?
15
A
Yes.
16
Q
What is that intended to represent?
17
A
It's a more circuitous route to access the bank from
18
Shelburne Road, if that were to be closed.
19
Q
And then you say, "check other properties' access
20
issues, Red Lobster, Simmon's"?
21
A
Simon's; that's the Getty station. I think it's
22
Getty.
23
Q
That's the --
24
A
Across from the Mobil.
25
Q
That's the property adjacent to the Burlington --
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
64
1 Ij I'm sorry, to the Bagel Bakery, is it not?
2
A
Yes.
3
Q
That's across from the Texaco?
4
A
No, no, it's the Mobil. The Burlington Bagel Bakery
5
is
across from Burger King.
6
Q
Okay. And then you say Oldsmobile, Uno's,
7
Bruegger's,
Lakewood Commons, Texaco and Perry's. Those
8
are
all properties that have access issues, according to
9
your
notes, concerning Shelburne Road, right?
10
A
Yeah.
11
Q
Oldsmobile, Shearer?
12
A
Yes.
13
Q
When Shearer moved from a Kwik Photo to the
14
Enterprise Rental Car, did it come before the Planning
15
Commission?
16
A
Yes, it did.
17
Q
And when was that?
18
A
Oh, man. I'd say within the last year, year and a
19
half.
20
Q
The Shearer lot has three accesses, does it not, for
21
the
auto dealership?
22
A
I don't recall how many it has.
23
Q
When I say accesses, I mean three curb cuts?
24
A
I don't know.
25
Q
Okay. It at least has two, correct?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
65
1 A I believe so.
2 Q And there may be a third northerly of the dealership
3 adjacent to what used to be the Redwood?
4 A There may.
5 Q There may be. When the proposal came before the
6 Planning Commission, it was a proposal to put an
7 Enterprise Rent-A-Car in the location, as opposed to the
8 Kwik Photo?
9 A Yes.
10 Q As a result of the application, it was approved?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Any change in any of the curb cuts for the
13 Oldsmobile -Pontiac?
14 A I don't believe so.
15 Q Lakewood Commons has an ingress and egress on
16 Shelburne Road, correct?
17 A No. It's an ingress only.
18 Q I see. And how is it an ingress only?
19 A I believe through signing, and I have to check on
20 the geometry of the access, as to the angle and also to
21 the width.
22 Q And that's again in an area where there's the fifth
23 turning lane, or center lane, if you will?
24 A Yes, yes.
25 Q Is it your testimony that northbound motorists on
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
66
1 Shelburne Road are not permitted to turn left across the
2 southbound traffic to enter the Lakewood Commons?
3 A I believe they are permitted.
4 Q They are permitted?
5 A Yes.
6 Q And where are they permitted to do that? At the
7 ingress?
8 A Yes.
9 Q All right. So the ingress is for both northbound
10 and southbound traffic?
11 A I believe so.
12 Q No signalized intersection there?
13 A No.
14 Q And that project, if you will, also has an egress
15 through a right-of-way onto Holmes Avenue, and then onto
16 Shelburne Road?
17 A Yes.
18 Q The material that you've provided to us that appears
19 to be out of a text, I'm trying to find the title of the
20 text. Yeah, Synthesis of Safety Research Related to
21 Traffic Control and Roadway Elements, Volume 1. That's
22 from Mr. Dickinson, is it?
23 A This copy is, yeah.
24 Q Right, and that was provided to you as part of his
25 expert services here?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
67
1 A This particular copy, yes.
2 Q You got this, in other words, within the last month?
3 A Yes.
4 (A discussion was held off the record.)
5 MR. HEILMANN: Okay, that's all I have.
6 Thanks, Joe.
7 MR. McLEAN: Just give me a second. I
8 have a couple of questions.
9 EXAMINATION BY JOSEPH S. McLEAN, ESQUIRE:
10 Q Earlier in this deposition, Mr. Heilmann asked you
11 to identify where in the town plan there was reference to
12 eliminating -- and that was his word -- curb cuts, and
13 you identified a section that referred to closure of curb
14 cuts.
15 A Mm-hmm.
16 Q Is it correct or incorrect that the town plan also
17 consistently references consolidation of curb cuts?
18 A It does.
19 Q And do you have an opinion whether consolidation
20 could involve the elimination of some curb cuts?
21 A Oh, yes, definitely.
22 Q With respect to the zoning regulations, would you
23 turn to Section 26.103(a)? You and Mr. Heilmann engaged
24 in a discussion about the first sentence of Section
25 26 . 103 (a) ?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
C�',
1 A Mm-hmm.
2 Q Which provides that unless specifically approved by
3 the Planning Commission, there shall be a maximum of one
4 driveway per lot accessing a public street?
5 A Correct.
6 Q Would you interpret that provision to also mean that
7 there can be less than one driveway access per lot?
8 A Yes. Can I clarify that?
9 Q Certainly.
10 A What I mean by that is that it doesn't necessarily
11 mean that there has to be a direct driveway serving that
12 property that goes right from that property immediately
13 to Shelburne Road. Access could be provided some other
14 way. Over an adjoining property, for example.
15 Q Okay. Somewhere around here a copy of your resume
16 was floating around. Do we have that?
17 MR. HEILMANN: Yeah, I've got it.
18 MR. McLEAN: Can I take a look at that?
19 BY MR. MCLEAN:
20 Q I'm showing you what has not been marked as an
21 exhibit, but I think we all understand that it's a copy
22 of your resume. On that document, it indicates work
23 experience prior to your employment by the City of South
24 Burlington. What was your experience prior to coming to
25 South Burlington?
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
69
1 A I worked as a planner with a consulting engineering
2 firm in Chicago for three and a half years, I believe.
3 Q And what were your primary duties as indicated on
4 your resume?
5 A I was primarily involved with conducting
6 environmental impact studies relating to transportation
7 projects, and then I was also involved with solid waste
8 management.
9 Q Okay. So --
10 A The firm specialized in transportation engineering.
11 Q Mr. Heilmann has asked you today regarding a number
12 of other properties and their access to Shelburne Road.
13 Have you had an opportunity to review the facts and
14 circumstances regarding each of those other applications
15 at this time?
16 A No, not all of them.
17 Q Do you intend to do so prior to the merits hearing
18 in this matter?
19 A Yes. There were a couple that were hen -scratched on
20 that note pad that I hadn't had an opportunity to look at
21 in any detail.
22 MR. McLEAN: Okay. That's all I have.
23 Thank you.
24 MR. HEILMANN: Thanks.
25 (Deposition ended at 5:14 p.m.)
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
70
I have carefully read the foregoing deposition and
the answers made by me are true.
STATE OF VERMONT
COUNTY OF
JOSEPH J. WEITH
SS.
On this day of , 199,
at in said county of
personally appeared the above -named JOSEPH J. WEITH
and made oath that the foregoing answers, subscribed
to by him, are true.
Notary Public
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
0
71
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
2
3 I, Norma J. Miller, RPR, Court Reporter and Notary
4 Public, hereby certify that the foregoing pages,
5 numbered 4 through 69, inclusive, are a true and
6 accurate transcription of my stenographic notes of
7 the deposition of JOSEPH J. WEITH, taken before
8 me on the 20th day of November, 1996, at the offices of
9 Stitzel & Page, 171 Battery Street, Burlington,
10 Vermont, and transcribed by me for use in the matter
11 of IN RE: APPEAL OF CHARLES AND SUSANNE WILKINS and
12 McLEAN HOLDING CORPORATION, Docket No. E95-149, now
13 pending in the Environmental Court of Vermont.
14 Dated this 20th day of November, 1996.
15
16
17
Norma J. Mi ler
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES