Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 1270 Shelburne Road�o�� 7 `lam G � � j� C / 4 -- /14$,4 (-� a Y; � �r �� �- f( ;,�r � _�� PLC` P P />'s 06/13/2000 13:17 FAX 802 748 8502 DOWNS.RACHLIN.& MARTIN Dowers RACHLTN & MARTIN PLLC ATTORNEYs AT LAW 9 PRi.SPECT STREET • PO BOX 99 ST. Jo?3NSBtTtY a L ER?v10NT Oid 19 0099 802 748 8324 FAX -1 902 748 4394 FAX TRANSMITTAL. MEMO June 13, 2000 TO: Ray Belair Phone Number: Fax Number: 802-846-4101 From: Phil van Aelstyn Operator: Mary Northrop Client/Matter: 07593-00081 Pages: 4- The originals will not follow by mail. If the copy is illegible or incomplete, please call the operator at 802)748-8324. COMMENTS Per our telephone conversation; attached are relevant portions of the site plans prepared for R.CC Atlantic's proposed antennas. Reviewed and approved for facsimile transmission by: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may constitute privileged attorney -client communications or attorney work product, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. Unauthorized use, disclosure, or copying is strictly prohibited and maybe unlawful. if you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately. WEST ELEVA TION SCALE.. 1/4' = , -o' 06/13/2000 13:19 FAX 802 748 8502 JOWNS,RACHLIN.& TiRTIN Z 003 06/1� _!100 13:20 tAA 3.'2 748 8502 D Ln U Z_ 2 cc zgw R ec .5ui 9 B � O Y CL C 9111[H iACHL & MARTIN 1 1. .004 49W r JS f ka te h( �(.'u i ved I )'' 1 � �{ By Date Application Completed and Received By By CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVILIV 1) NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER OF: (a) Owner of Record ?3'-P:�';p (_, (b) Applicant `.yl'IVY1 e (c) Contact Person 11 2) PRQ7ECT STREET ADDRESS: - fie 3) PROPOSED USE (S): C- 4) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e., # of units, floor area, etc.) ~� 5) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (full & part time) 6) COST ESTIMATES: 7) 8) 9) 10) (a) Buildings ( 7s, c.. (b) Landscaping 71606 (c) All Other Site Improvements (i.e., curb work) 1 0 (�' ) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE S3 ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in & out) li -a PEAK HOUR (S) OF OPERATION PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION I� DATE SIGNAT 07APPLICANT LtT _ _. _ _ _ __ __. _ _--_-_ _ U V v�4--- 9 3. PLANNING COMMISSION L;EPTEMBE:R 25, 1984 Consider site Ulan application of Jeff' Davis for a two-story, 7800 sq ft addition to an office building located at 1100 Shelburne Road Ia7a Mr. Davis said he had reached a compromise with the neighborhood. He will abandon any retail use of this property and they will support a zoning variance and site plan application for a total of 10,280 sq. ft. of office space. That is the size of the existing building plus the area of the new footings. He gave the Commission letters between himself and Mr. Naramore regarding the compromise (dated August 22 and August 20, 1984 and on file with the Planner). Mr. Naramore confirmed that the neighborhood would support the plan and noted that the Zoning Board had approved the request last night. Mr. Davis requested that the approval from this board be good for 9 months instead of 6, because 6 months will be the middle of winter. Mr. Steve Moore said the building front would not be changed. Only 42-3 parking spaces will be needed. Mr. Davis will put in a new hedge between himself and his neighbor and will maintain it plus his side of the existing hedge. There will be 4 8-9' area lights pointing down. There will be one handicapped space plus two loading spaces. Mr. Dooley moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan application of Jeff Davis for a two story 7800 sq, ft. addition at 1270 Shelburne Road for office use as depicted on a flan entitled "Shelburne Road_Project" prepared by Steve Moore. Architect, dated 8I with_ the following stipulations: - 1. Bonding for landscaping (85250) and for the sidewalk and curb cut relocation and other work shall be posted prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. All site drainage shall be toward the proposed parking lot inlets. 3. Drainage pipe shall be plastic, concrete or asbestos cement, not metal or aluminum. 4. All work within the Shelburne _Road _rights _of way will require a State Hi hwa permit.- This includes the Imperial Drive entrance radius -and _tie ins to the Shelburne Road drainage. 5. New sidewalk on Imperial Drive shall be constructed on property line continuous across_ entrance drive. Drive shall include a depressed concrete curb. 6. The City Engineer will determine whether additional sewer capacity is necessary persuant to the South Burlin to— wer Policj . If additional sewer is required, permit shall not' ssueA until the caLaci�y is available. 7. ThisJroval expires in 9 months. Mr. Jacob seconded the motion—.-"'-------'-'- Mr. Poger told Mr. Davis that he had sewer capacity for the present building, but that if it were determined that he would need more for the addition, he would not be able to build it until capacity was available. The motion passed with all in favor. Consider site plan application of Northern Airways for a 750 sq ft addition and renovations to a 3000 sq ft terminal building located at 1150 Airport Dr. Mr. Gutting noted that this building was the original terminal for the airport, and that it contained neither the space nor the quality that Northern October 10, 1984 Jeff Davis P.O. Box 226 Williston, Vermont 05495 Dear Jeff: Enclosed are the Findings of Fact from your recent site plan approval. Best of luck to you and please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner JSBImcg 1 Enc 1 February 26, 1985 Jeff Davis P.O. Box 226 Williston, Vermont 05495 Dear Jeff: This is to confirm that on September 25, 1984 the Planning Commission granted Site Plan Approval for construction of a 2 story, 7800 square foot addition at 1270 Shelburne Road. The maximum building size was approved at 10,280 square feet. The City will allow occupancy of the existing 2480 square foot building, and continuation of the sewage flows for that portion. We have allocated 400 gallons per day for the office space expansion. The State will determine how much of this is needed when you file plans with the acttual use, and number of employees. Please remember this allocation has placed you on a waiting list. At the present time, there is no capacity available for the expansion. You should be sure to obtain State approvals as soon as possible to confirm your place in line, should capacity become available. Sincerely, Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner JSB/mcg cc: William Szymanski September 28, 1984 Jeff Davis P.Q. Box 226 Williston, Vermont 05495 Dear Jeff: Enclosed are the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of September 25. Your site plan was approved with the following stipulations: 1) Bonding for landscaping ($5250) and for the sidewalk and curb cut relocation and other work shall be posted prior to issuance of a building permit. 2) All site drainage shall be toward the proposed parking lot in- lets. 3) Drainage pipe shall be plastic, concrete or asbestos cement, not metal or aluminum. 4) All work within the Shelburne Road rights of way will require a State Highway permit. This includes the Imperial Drive entrance radius and tie ins to the Shelburne Road drainage. 5. New sidewalk on Imperial Drive shall be constructed on property line continuous across entrance drive. Drive shall include a depeessed concrete curb. 6) The City Engineer will det rmine whether additional newer caca- city is necessary persuant to the South Burlington Sewer Policy. if additional sewer is required, permit shall not a issued until the capacity is available. 7) This approval expires in 9 months. Mr. Jeff Davis September 28, 1984 Page 2 Please be sure to post the required bonds and apply for your permit within 9 months. Sincerely, Jane S . Bechtel, City Planner JSB/tncg I 9/24/84 JSB MOTION OF APPROVAL That the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan application of Jeff Davis for a 3900"square foot addition at 1270 Shelburne Road for office use as depicted on a plan entitled "Shelburne Road Project" prepared by Steve Moore, Architect, dated 8/30/84 with the following stipulations: 1. Bonding for landscaping ($5250) and for the sidewalk and curb cut relocation and other work shall be posted prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. All site drainage shall be toward the proposed parking lot in- lets. 3. Drainage pipe shall be plastic, concrete or asbestos cement. No metal or aluminium will be used. 4. All work within the Shelburne Road righ t of way will require a State Highway permit. This includes the Im erial Drive entrance radius and tie ins to the Shelburne Road drainage. 5. New sidewalk on Imperial Drive shall be constructed on property line continuous across entrance drive. Drive shall include a depressed concrete curb. a 6. This approval expires inmonths. Memorandum September 25, 1984 agenda items 9/21/84 Page 2 The sewer allocation to these 3 lots was 1400 g.p.d. Scottish Rite Temple (Green Mountain Masonic Center) received 400 g.p.d. from this amount for lot #2. One thousand gallons per day remain for the 2 other lots. This is number 3 on the waiting list. 5) DAVID M. FARRELL, PUBLIC HEARING OF FINAL PLAT 2 LOT RE SUB- DIVISION -- WITHDRAWN The two new lots will be 3.6 acres and 9.6 acres. The smaller lot is the site of the former Lakeside Tennis, I have stipulated that a revised Final Plat shall show both lots at the approved acreage and the ownership (David M. Farrell 3.6 acres and Thomas A Farrell 9.6 acres). There was a question at the last meeting whether the original sub- division was recorded at 3.6 acres or 4.8 acres. Our tax records show that Thomas Farrell sold David Farrell a 4.81 acre lot in 1973. (Volume 108, page 484). Lakeside Tennis was built on this lot. There is no indication that a 3.6 acre lot was ever created and therefore this request is appropriate in order to create the de- sired lots. 6) JEFF DAVIS, 1270 SHELBURNE ROAD Mr. Davis proposes to build a 3900 square foot (60'x651) addition to the existing 2480 square foot structure. It will be two stories and requires a variance from the Zoning Board to have a 27.5 foot set back. The building will be for office use. Assuming this is granted on September 24, my comments are as follows: Circulation: A 32 foot wide drive is proposed;twenty foot aisles are shown. Parking: All requirements have been met. 1 handicapped space and 2 loading and unloading spaces are shown and forty four parking spaces. Landscaping: Proposed landscaping has been verified at greater than the $5250 required. Traffic Overlay Zone: As you may remember, this lot is in traffic overlay zone 3. As an office use, the maximum permitted size is 10,343 square feet, using Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) estimates. The proposed 10,280 square feet is under this maximum. Jeff Davis has been working with the neighborhood residents to resolve any concerns regarding this use. It is my understanding that the residents have no objections to the use of this building as office space. M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: Next weeks agenda items Date: 9/21/84 4) R.D.R. ENTERPRISES SUBDIVISION, KIMBALL AVENUE 1. The 60' reserved R.O.W. should include 10 feet triangles at the Kimball Avenue intersection for future construction of adequate intersection radii and protect sight distance. 2. The 24" water main is not at location shown but southerly near or beyond the street rights of way. 6)�JEFF DAVIS,`1150 SHELBURNE ROAD 1. New sidewalk on Imperial Drive shall be constructed on property linecontinuousacross entrance drive. Drive shall include a depressed concrete curb. 2. All site drainage shall be toward the proposed parking lot in- lets. 3. Drainage pipe shall be plastic, concrete or asbestos cement. Ko metal or aluminium W A 19-- L-,a- 4 4. All work within the Shelburne Road rights of way will require a State Highway permit. This includes the Imperial Drive entrance radius and tie ins to the Shelburne Road drainage. 7) NORTHERN AIRWAYS (Landscaping Plan) Burlington Airport No Comments. -07 1 a ey-v" a �a ,Lc\ Li CL4 ✓ k� aL4q — o� ate: a.�D V t 'Ao x 4 0 , Sa-o how-`��C uo�a► a,sb U� " x,%5 = T 455 Lv City of South Burlington in 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 PLANNER 658-7955 September 21, 1984 Jeff Davis P.O. Box 226 Williston, Vermont 05495 Dear Mr. Davis: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is a copy of the Agenda for the September 25 Planning Commission meeting. Please be sure someone is present to re- present your application. Also enclosed is my memo to the Commission and any other pertinent materials. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, X%tt__'V-Ca j oj"r� Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner JSB/mcg Encls oQV\� ,t �t a a')� 11a.5n V7% t 99 - q \� C�, �s �-- I�qC�-,sb I City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 PLANNER 658-7955 September 19, 1984 Shallom & Henny Lewin 3 Worth Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lewin: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 As you- may be aware, the Planning Commission will be reviewing the site plan application of Jeff Davis for the construction of an addition to the building at 1270 Shelburne Road. It will be used as office space. Judging from your continuing interest in the plans for this site, I am enclosing the agenda for that meeting. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner JSB/mcg September 19, 1984 Vincent and Rosemary Nckmmoff 38 Imperial Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. & Mrs. As you may be aware, the Planning Commission will be reviewing the site plan application of Jeff Davis for the construction of an addition to the building at 1270 Shelburne Road. It will be used as office space. Judging from your continuing interest in the plans for this site, I am enclosing the agenda for that meeting. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner JSB/mcg 1 Encl June 20, 1984 Jeff Davis Box 226 Williston, Vermont 05495 Dear Jeff: Enclosed are the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of July 12, 1984 and the Findings of Fact. Please call me if you have any questions, or if you with'ko discuss your plans to resubmit a revised site plan. Sincerely, Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner JSB/mcg 2 Enc is PLANNING COMMISSION JUNF 12, 1984 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, June 12, 1984 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Sidney Poger, Chairman; Peter Jacob, Mary -Barbara Maher, Judy Hurd, John Belter, John Dooley Member Absent William Burgess Others Present Jane Bechtel, Planner; James Lamphere, Douglas Fitzpatrick, Roger Dickinson, Joe Gamache, Jeff Davis, Kathleen Davis, Steve Moore, Karen Critchlow, Nancy Cote, Robert Willis, Constance Snyder, Bill Meador, John Fitzpatrick, Vin Naramore, Don Lefebvre, S. Lewin, Marie & Rene Bonnette, Robert Blanchard, Mr.Celani, Leonard Duffy Minutes of May 29, 1984 The May 29, 1984 minutes were approved on a motion by Mr. Jacob and a second by Ms. Maher. All members voted aye, except for Mr. Dooley, who abstained because he was not present. Continue Site Plan application of Jeff Davis for the expansion and conversion to retail use Carter's Clothing) at 1270 Shelburne Road Mr. Poger ruled that this application was substantially different from the one submitted before because the building will now conform to dimensions on the lot. Mr. Belter came in at this point. Mr. Poger noted that the previous application had come in with a zoning variance. This application has no such variance. Mr. Poger asked for discussion on traffic. Mr. John Fitzpatrick, representing area landowners, said that the plan showed 48 parking spaces, based on 48,000 sq. ft. of retail area. He noted that the building also contained 1700 sq. ft. of storage area and he felt there should be spaces shown for that, as required in the ordinance. Ms. Bechtel noted that 3 loading and unloading spaces were shown. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he would like to comment on the Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn traffic report and he asked Mr. Via Naramore, one of the neighbors, to speak to this (see attached summary). deA hA61eaGAat for Mr. Davis to pass the formula, he had to attain a final figure of at least 6500, which is the proposed square footage of the building. He felt the figures averaged by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn should have been the peaks on all the stores studied, not the total number of the 1500-1600 time period, since not all the shops peaked at the same time. Adding the peaks and averaging them, Mr. Naramore said, would cause Mr. Davis to fail the formula. If the seasonal adjustment suggested by Mr. Spitz is used, again the application would fail, Mr. Naramore said. He said also that he had talked to the Vermont Highway Department, who had given him a,96`asonal adjustment figure of 1.09, which would again cause the application to fail. Mr. Roger Dickinson, of Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, said that they had taken the peaks they did because Section 17.302 of the Zoning Regulations required 2. PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 1984 that estimates be for hours when the traffic on adjacent highways exceeds 80% of the peak hourly volume, and in that area peak hour is 4-5 pm and the hours where volume exceeded Sc�g were 3-6 pm. He said that traffic generation rates for hours outside that period were not relevant to the formula. He noted also that the Regulations required that they base their estimates on average weekday trip generation. He said they had done counts on Thursday and Friday. Thursday is an average weekday, but Friday is 10% higher than average, so they felt this would somewhat compensate for not using a seasonal adjustment. Mrs. Maher asked when Carter's would hit its peak, and Mr. Davis felt it would be in August and September for back -to -school. Ms. Bechtel asked Mr. Naramore what the maximum square footage allowable would be using his figures and was told it was 5,924. Mr. Jacob moved to close the public hearing and Mrs. Hurd seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Poger noted that two Planners had said that this met the requirements. It has also been noted, though, that it is at the top of the range. Mr. Jacob moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan application of Jeff Davis for an addition at 1270 Shelburne Road and conversion to retail use as depicted on a plan entitled "Shelburne Road Project Site_" prepared by Steve Mooz the following stipulations: T 1. Bonding relocation and of permit. 2. The Cit shall be met (see wor hitect. dated (96200) and for a sidewalk and curb cut 11 be provided prior to issuance of a b 's concerns regarding the sidewalk and ve 3. In addition to new landscaping, the applicant shall insure that the hed--e on the east property line be maintained. i 4. The use of the property shall be limited to a retail clothing store. 5. "No Parking" signs shall be provided by the applicant on either side of Imperial Drive up to the end of the Handv's Motel property line_ 6. The four avelled and p spaces in the front of the building shall be grassed Aved over when need 7. This approval expires in 6 months. Mrs. Maher seconded the motion. She said she was not sure the 6500 sq. ft. size would be defensible in court, and that she would be more comfortable with a compromise of around 6,000 sq. ft. Mr. Poger noted that 6,000 was not what was before the Commission. Mrs. Hurd asked about the use of the land if the application were denied and was told that if the application were denied, it would be because of the size of the building, not the use. The Commission has to decide if this building meets the criteria of the traffic overlay district. Pis. Bechtel noted that the difference in the size allowed under Mr. Naramore's figures was 576 sq. ft. and the Commission had to decide what impact that would have on traffic and congestion. The motion failed with Messrs. Belter and Jacob voting aye, Mr. Jacob reluctantly. Mr. Dooley abstained because he had not been here for previous hearings. The vote was 3-2 against. ' \ Co u•tko k� P� cis cou-" u 4--",�� pck pv�k, A u,,Qoo & N&X,q-yA&t-t Nw",-t 1Iam role I 6�) &0 �V-) 4%� C,�Xkk�C �C6k� ra. A._46,i ,,. iw .U-) & _f v - No Text Lewl7J 64�v n 6t ►gym �`�o - `�' ' I (LC Lgo x, --� �atcltis Cl TO& an- sq6 -6�� r wo 10 �n c� Cp,o rve- ns �,,-6x4aeL dy"', k C) eoQc z ?rvice.&u,v-o �-�r�()v�n.��cv-� I�e(L V cx- calc,JS*.oy\� edL% �b(- C,�ea-a�x_ ffskL V-Owuo C-I)l CT4-L n C `s `C\� t-� w\\k -�t c. C CU cwd� Vuf fvc6` r 6cc a-pr _ �p G VAQ 9 1 Ls Page 1 Table I Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn Data for Weekday Trip Generation Rates Store 1400-1500 1500-1600 1600-1700 1700-1800 All Seasons 1.89 .00 2.33 1.56 Lady Shelburne 3.11 2.67 Ski Shop 4.0 .55 2.83 2.39 Totals 9.73 10.66 8.27 6.62 Average 3.24 3.55 2.76 2.21 1. In their application of the South Burlington MPS formula Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn use the figure 3.55 (circled in red), ostensibly because the trip -end totals attained a maximum in the 1500-1600 time slot. The proper object of the firm's investigation should have been the average of the peaks for each store. The figures relevant to this are circled in blue and their average is 3.72. We are supported in this claim by (1) Dr. Munson of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Office (2) Mr. Wilson Wheatley of the Vermont Highwav Department and (3) Mr. Thomas Brahms from the Washington office of the Institute of Tvakftr, Engineers. Tie RNSPD Rr� rs o,v 2. As indicated by the calculations below, two out of three of stores studied by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn fail the MPS test. It is interesting to note that both of these stores are on Shelburne Road. If the correct average (3.72) is used the MPS test is also failed. a) LADT SHELBURNE (1) MT/GL X 1000 - 25/4.11 X 1000 - 6083 (2) MPS - 6100 X 38225/40000 - 5829 b) SKI SHOP: (2) MPSGL-X62000X-38225/4000001- 59246158 c) USING THE CORRECT GL OF 3.72: (1) MT/GL X 1000 - 25/3.72 X 1000 - 6720 (2) MPS - 6700 X 38225/40000 - 6402. 3. Traffic counts for All Seasons were taken March 8,9 and 15 of this year. According to the store's manager this is their slowest time. Peak sales for them are in the December -January period. "If we depended solely upon our March figures",he said, "we would be bankrupt." Page 2 After reviewing the Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn report banning Consultant David Spitz said "..the F-L report...contains a flaw. All counts were taken in March, hardly the busiest retail season." He then recommended a factor of 1.06 for March which evidently is derived from the data for monthly traffic volumes on urban roads. Using this seasonal adjustment factor recommended by Spitz we have drawn up Table I A below. Table IA Modification of Table I Ussii_n_l Seasonal A ustment Factor of- 06 Store 1400-1500 1500-1600 1600-1700 1700-1800 All Seasons 2.00 8 2.47 1.65 Lady Shelburne 4.Ql 3.30 2.83 Ski Shop 4.3 3.76 3.00 2.53 Totals 1' 30- 7- 7.01- Average 3.43 3.76 2.93 2.34 1. For purposes of ready reference we state the South Burlington MPS formula,as applied to Davis lot. Step 1: Calculate MT/GL X 1000 then round of to nearest 100. Step 2: Multiply round -off result of Step 1 by 38225/40000. This result is the MPS. 2. In Table IA figures circled in blue should be the ones averaged in order to compute the formula GL. If these figures are used then GL - 3.95• Thus Maximum Permitted Size (MPS) - 75&3.8. ooao Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn would use GL - 3.76. This gives an V N MPS of 6307. Using either approach.however. the MPS test is failed. Table I B (Using -Seasonal A us ment actor o 1.09 Store 1400-1500 1500-1600 1600-1700 1700-1800 All Seasons 2.06 0-.2-7-3 2.54 1.70 Lady Shelburne 4.12 . 8 3.39 2.91 Ski Shop .42' 3. 3.08 2.61 Totals 10.60 11.62 9.01 7.22 Average 3.53 3.87) 3.01 2.41 3• Table IB which is a modification of Table I by multiplying each element of Table by the Seasonal ad 'ustment factor of 1.09,is based on the latest data (1983) taken from monthly traffic volume on urban roads. The Spitz 1.06 figure evidently came from the 1982 records. This latest figure was supplied by Mr. Wilson Wheatley of the Vermont Hignway Department. 4. In Table IB the figures circled in blue should be the ones used to compute the formula GL. Thus GL - 4.06 and MPS-,5924. Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn would use GL - 3.87. Their MPS would be 6212. Again, using either approach, the MPS test is failed. 1 Fade 3 Store B C Totals Average Table II Counter -Example Demonstrating Fallacy of Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn Approach 1400-1500 1 8 2.67 1500-1600 3 3 9 3.00 1600-1700 1 8 2.67 1700-1800 1 7 2.33 1. In the hypothetical,,yet eminently possible, situation exemplified in Table II each store would register an MPS of 4778 and thus fail the MPS test by 6500-4778 or 1722 square feet. Since. the average of the fissures circled in blue is 5 then the formula GL would be 5 and again the MPS would be 4778 or some 1722 square feet short of the number (6500) requested. 2. Using the Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn approach the GL would be 3 which would give an MPS of 7932 and thus the applicant would pass the NIPS test with 1432 square feet to spare. In other words we could have a mind -boggling situation (using the F-L approach) where three failures could average into a whopping success. Some indication of the volatility (and hence the reliability) of traffic count figures can be gleaned from Table III below. All figures ,whatever the source, are presumed to be accurate. The table merely illustrates how time -dependent the figures are. Incidentally, the results recorded are consistent with Dexter sales records. Table III(Time Slot 1500-1700) Dexter -Shoe Data Source Date Av GL/1000 Sq ft David Spitz July/83 -2 days in 1st week 2.96 Y.H. Naramore Aug 17,24,25,26/83 6.52 Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn Naar 8,9,15/84 1.53 Table IV Results in Terms of "Pass" or "Fail" of South Burlington NIPS test for Stores Used for Comparison Purposes Store Location Suggested By GL Result All seasons Lady Shelburne S. Burl !r-L 3,27 Passes Ski Shop S. Burl F-L S. Burl F-L 4.48 4.42 Fails Fails Carter's Carter's Yaine - Carter's Michigan 4.06 Fails Carter's 3.86 Fails ,w FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services The Kiln e 15 Brickyard Road • Essex Junction • Vermont • 05452 • (802) 878-3000 2 April 1984 Mr. Jeffrey L. Davis J.L. Davis, Incorporated P.O. Box 226 Williston, Vermont 05495 RE: Traffic Generation; Proposed Carter's Store, South Burlington File: 8408 Dear Mr. Davis: Recently you came to us for advice regarding the proposed use of your parcel of land on the corner of Shelburne Road and Imperial Drive, in South Burlington. The principal concern you asked us to address was the amount and rate of traffic generated by the proposed use, a CARTER'S "specialized" clothing store. We understand the City of South Burlington, through their research, confirmed your opinion that the proposed use would not create a "warrant" to justify the signali- zation of the Shelburne Road -Imperial Drive intersection. On the other hand, City Regulations and current Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation data were utilized to restrict the size of your proposed retail store beyond what you thought was reasonable. Upon investigation, we found that the ITE trip generation data used in establishing your building's size by the Regulations appeared to be limited in both "application" (category) and statistical "match". Specifically, the ITE Category applied to your proposed use was "814-Specialty Retail Center", which is described by ITE (Trip Generation, Third Edition, 1982) as: "Specialty retail centers are generally small shopping centers which contain shops specializing in quality apparel or hard goods. The centers studied ranged in size between 17,000 and 43,000 gross leasable square feet". This description is accom- panied by the notation "Only three centers were studied. Therefore, more data are required for this use". Since you are proposing a "free-standing" retail specialty store, we felt the "center" category (#814) was inapplicable, particuarly because ITE has another category (#870- Apparel), and a "center" has different trip generation characteristics when compared to a "free-standing" store. Design • Inspection • Studies 0 Permitting Mr. Jeffrey L. Davis 2 April 1984 File 8408 Page Two Further research showed that category #870-Apparel, even though delineated, has no data background and has been included by ITE only as part of their "ideal list" designation. A conversation with ITE personnel substantiated our position that your proposed use was not logically includable in category #814-Specialty Retail Center, since one if the three studied centers included a restaurant (traditionally a high volume generator), another center included a furniture store (traditionally a low volume generator), and all three centers studied were much larger than your pro- posed store. We followed -up our conversations with ITE by summarizing our understandings in a letter to them, and received a written reply from them (copies enclosed as Appendices A&B). Although South Burlington, in its review of your project appeared to use the "best available information" from ITE to determine trip generation rates (and subsequently the resulting maximum allowable floor area), we felt (and Mr. Buttke, Chairman of the ITE Trip Generation Committee concurred) that a much more defensible position would be to record actual trip generation data at stores comparable to the one you propose. As a result of the foregoing, and at your instruction, our firm proceeded to develop the data base needed to establish trip generation rates for your proposed retail use, a ",free-standing specialty clothing store with about 7,000 square feet of floor area", utilizing the "Update Procedure" recommended by ITE (Trip Generation, Third Edition, 1982). Through field investigations and telephone interviews, we identified six locations in the South Burlington and Shelburne area which met the criteria of being a free-standing specialty and/or apparel store. The locations selected for data gathering are: STORE LOCATION TYPE GROSS FLOOR AREA All Seasons Factory Outlet Alpine Shop Big and Tall Shop Dexter Factory Outlet Lady Shelburne 1636 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 1184 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 1333 Shelburne Road South Burlington, VT Shelburne Road Shelburne, VT Shelburne Road Shelburne, VT Clothing/Sportswear 3,000ft2 Sportswear/ski sales 8,100ft2 and rentals Specialty menswear 2,400ft2 Footwear 8, 800f t2 Womens Clothing 3,000ft2 Ski Shop 388 Shelburne Road Sportswear/ski sales 4,600ft2 South Burlington, VT FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Jeffrey L. Davis 2 April 1984 File 8408 Page Three Simultaneous traffic counts were performed at all six locations on Thursday, March8, 1984 (2:00 pm - 6:00 pm), Friday, March 9, 1984 (2:00 pm - 6:00 pm) and Thursday. March 15, 1984 (12:00 pm - 6:00 pm). The traffic count data from the six locations was analyzed to determine the average weekday trip generation rates per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area between the hours of 2:00 pm and 6:00 pm. The resulting rates, for each location, are tabulated in Table I below. TABLE I WEEKDAY HOURLY TRIP GENERATION RATES AVG. WEEKDAY VEHICLE TRIP ENDS/1,000 SQ. FT. GROSS FLOOR AREA HOUR STORE 2:00-3:00 pm 3:00-4:00 pm All Seasons 1.89 3.0 Alpine Shop 2.80 4.49 Big and Tall 2.36 1.11 Dexter 1.51 1.55 Lady Shelburne 3.78 4.11 Ski Shop 4.06 3.55 AVERAGE 2.73 2.97 4:00-5:00 pm 2.33 6.34 0.83 1.78 3.11 2.83 2.87 5:00-6:00 pm 1.56 6.17 1.25 1.44 2.67 2.39 2.58 Appendix C illustrates, graphically, the data of Table I. In the course of our analy- zing the traffic count data, three of the six locations, namely the Alipne Shop, Big & Tall, and Dexter Factory outlet exhibited dissimilar traffic rates and patterns as can be seen in Appendix C. The remaining three locations yielded very similar results. We concluded the dissimilitude of the three "samples" was attributed to the following reasons: the Alpine Shop not only sells apparel and specialty goods (ski equipment), but also rents ski equipment, generating greater than average traffic voulmes during the rental and return of this equipment; both Big & Tall and Dexter cater to very specialized markets, thereby generating lower than average traffic volumes. Eliminating the three dissimilar locations from the analyses resulted in the trip generation rates displayed in Table II on the following page. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Jeffrey L 2 April 1984 File 8408 Page Four Davis TART F TT AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION RATES HOUR AVERAGE WEEKDAY VEHICLE TRIP ENDS/1,000 SQ. FT. GFA* ENTER EXIT TOTAL 2:00-3:00 pm 1.6 1.64 3.24 3:00-4:00 pm 1.65 1.90 3.55 4:00-5:00 pm 1.36 1.40 2.76 5:00-6:00 pm 0.79 1.42 2.21 *Gross Floor Area In order to analyze adjacent -street characteristics, information concerning daily traffic volumes on Shelburne Road in the vicinity of this Project was secured from the Vermont Agency of Transportation. This data, particuarly a weeklong continuous coverage count at Station D105, on Shelburne Road, near McIntosh Avenue, dated Septem- ber 9-16, 1982, was analyzed to determine the weekday P.M. peak hour of traffic volumes and other weekday hours during which the volumes exceed 80% of the weekday peak traffic volumes (Section 17.302-South Burlington Zoning Regulations). Based on this data, the hour of weekday P.M. peak traffic volumes occurs between 4:00 pm and 5:00 pm. Hours with a traffic volume exceeding 80% of the P.M. peak traffic volume were found to in- clude 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm. As a conservative measure, we have elected to apply the P.M. peak hour trip generation rate of the traffic generator (3:00-4:00, 3.55 trip ends /1,000-f t) to the requirments of the Traffic Overlay District, with the following results: MAXIMUM TRAFFIC 25 trips/hour = 7,042 sq. ft. _ GENERATION LEVEL 3.55 trips/hour/1,000 ft TOTAL PERMITTED SIZE= 7,042 sq. ft. x 37,954 ft' (actual lot size) = 6,682 sq. ft. 40,000 ft (minimum lot size) If the adjacent -street peak -hour generation rate (2.76 trip ends per 1,000 square feet) is selected, the Regulations would allow a TOTAL PERMITTED SIZE equal to 8,595 square feet on your lot. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Jeffrey L. Davis 2 April File 8408 Page Five Either of the above total permitted sizes is, obviously, contingent upon the land use remaining as a specialty apparel store, or other use which will not exceed the average weekday trip generation rates indicated above. We trust the foregoing information will suffice in establishing how your proposed use is affected by the Traffic Overlay District restrictions. However, should you have any questions concerning our procedures or conclusions, please feel free to contact us at your convenience. We thank you for this opportunity to have assisted you. Sincerely Yours, FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Roge Dickinson, P.E. RJD/amo FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services j.. _ APnENDIX A I TITZI'ATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services the Kiln • 15 Brickyard Road • Essex Junction • Vermont • 05452 • (802) 878-3000 29 February 1984 Mr. Carl H. Buttke Chairman, ITE Trip Generation Committee Carl Buttke, Incorporated P.O. Box 636 Portland, Oregon 97207 RE: IT Generation Data - Specialty Retail Center File. 8408 Dear Mr. Buttke: We are writing to confirm and elaborate on our telephone conversation of Feb- ruary 8, 1981, concerning available trip generation data for the following categories; Specialty Stores (Code 811), Specialty Retail Centers (Code 814) and Apparel Stores (Code 870). Our interest in trip generation data for these categories stems from our involve- ment in our Client's project which consists of a small (5,000 - 8,000 sq. ft.) free-standing specialty clothing store. We are presently working to document the availability and applicability of published trip generation data for stores of this type, since our Client has been asked to use the trip generation data from the "Specialty Retail Center" category, and we are not convinced this is an appropriate application. We understand, from our conversation, that the ITE Trip Generation Committee has established the three categories listed above, but has received trip gene- ration data only for "Specialty Retail Centers" (Code 814). This data was pub- lished in the "ITE Informational Report, Trip Generation, Third Edition, 1982". Also, we understand'no additional trip generation daEa applicable to any of these categories has been received since publication of this report. Our conversation ascertained that the only data used to develop trip generation rates for the "Specialty Retail Centers" category was from a report entitled "San Diego Association of Governments, Traffic Generators, 1979 to 1981". We discussed the characterisitcs of the "retail centers" studied and you reported the quantity of data was very limited (only three retail centers were studied) and that the retail centers studied contained unique traffic generators, (i.e. a furniture store and a restaurant) which could adversely affect the applica- bility of the data. We agreed that because of these factors, the published data Design • Inspection • Sludies • Permilling Mr. Carl 11. Buttke File: 8408 29 February 1984 Page Two for "Specialty Retail Centers", which is defined in the ITE Report as a small shopping center containing shops specializing in apparel or hard goods, is not universally applicable to all small centers or stores which sell clothing. We understand ITE trip generation data for Specialty Stores (Code 811) and Apparel Stores (Code 870) is not available at the present. Our Client has authorized us to perform traffic counts at comparable specialty stores in the immediate geographic area, which we hope to undertake in the next few weeks. We plan to conduct these counts in conformance with ITE recommended procedures and have secured the Client's approval to submit this data to the ITE Trip Generation Committee upon completion of our work. In the meantime, we would appreciate a short letter from you confirming our conclusions, as outlined above, concerning the availability of published trip generation data for retail stores, specialty retail centers and apparel stores and its applicability to our Client's project. Should you have any questions on our request or wish to discuss this matter further please don't hesitate to contact us at your convenience. We thank you for the time you've taken to discuss this situation with us and look forward to your response. Sincerely, FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED U Roge Di E. cc Mr. Joseph Oppenlander Mr. Jeffrey L. Davis RJD/amo FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services IPPENDIX B INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS FORMERLY INSTITUTE OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERS TECHNICAL COUNCIL Address reply to: Carl H. Buttke, Inc. Consulting Trans. Engr. P. 0. Box 636 Portland, OR 97207 March 14, 1984 Mr. Roger J. Dickinson, P.E. Fitzpatrick Llewellyn Inc. The Kiln 15 Brickyard Road Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Re: ITE Trip Generation, An Informational Report Dear Mr. Dickinson: This letter is to confirm our discussion on February 8, 1984 and your subsequent letter dated February 29, 1984. Because land use category 814-Specialty,Retail Center only contains three data samples from the same source, it should.be used cautiously. The particular type store you are concerned with, a free-standing clothing store of 5,000 to 8,000 sq.ft., does not really fit the specialty Retail Center category. I would recommend, if possible, you measure similar type stores to determine a more applicable trip generation rate. The data in the ITE Trip Generation Report are to be used as a guideline and beginning point to the trip generation calculation. See the section titled "Use of the Report" in the Introduction. However, if no other information is available, then the ITE Trip Generation Report would be a good starting point for estimating your development trips. Sincerely, Carl H. Buttke, P.E. Chairman -Permanent Trip Generation Committee w Q LL a 6 0 0 C 5 4 0 w a 3 = 2 w x APPENDIX C 2: 00 - 3:00- 4:00- 5:00- 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5 :00 PM 6.00 PM HOUR KEY O DEXTER 0 BIG a TALL ❑ ALL SEASONS • ALPINE SHOP ♦ LADY SHELBURNE ■ SKI SHOP FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services 6/8/84 JSB MOTION OF APPROVAL That the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan application of Jeff Davis for an addition at 1270 Shelburne Road and conversion to retail use as depicted on a plan entitled " Shelburne Road Project Site" prepared by Steve Moore, Architect dated 4/26/84 and revised 5/16/84 with the following stipulations: 1) Bonding for landscaping ($6200) and for a sidewalk and curb cut relocation and other curb work shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. 2). The City Engineers concerns regarding the sidewalk and the driveway (memo 5/25/84) shall be met. 3) In addition to new landscaping, the applicant shall insure that the hedge on the east property line be maintained. 4). The use of the property shall be limited to a retail clothing store. 5). "No Parking" signs shall be provided by the applicant on either side of Imperial Drive, Ap-w d: s e.-t,& .� s �( �Lc4,-e 6). The four parking spaces in the front of the building shall be grassed or gravelled and paved over when needed. 7). This approval expires in 6 months. M E M 0 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jane S. Bechtel RE: Next Week's Agenda Item DATE: June 8, 1984 John A. Dooley, III has been appointed by the City Council to serve on the Planning Commission. Mr. Dooley is an attorney in Burlington and lives at 44 East Terrace in South Burlington and has been a resident since 1970. 2). Davis, Imperial Drive This is a continuation of the Site Plan application for the addition and conversion to retail use (Carter's Clothing) at 1270 Shelburne Road. (Please note that Site Plan applications do not require a public hearing and this application has not been warned as such). During the last meeting (May 29, 1984) the Commission reviewed circulation and parking, pedestrian and vehicular access, landscaping and screening, and lighting, fire protection and drainage. The Commission discussed allowing the 4 parking spaces in the front of the building to be gravelled or grassed over until needed. Under the Zoning Regulations, the Commission may reduce the number of off street parking requirements to as low as 50% of the normal requirements if it determines that overlapping use of parking spaces or other characteristics cause the requirement to be unnecessarily stringent. TRAFFIC GENERATION AND GROSS FLOOR AREA: Two residents or interested parties requested copies of the Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn traffic study, the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) response and the North Country Planning Analysis by David Spitz. As stated in my memo of 5/25/84, the Commission may approve estimates other than ITE counts, including local traffic counts, if the ITE estimates do not contain data for the specified use, or if a use contains unique characteristics that cause it to differ from the National traffic estimate (Zoning Regulations, Section 17.301). I still maintain that the ITE estimates do not contain equivalent data for the specified use (a free standing specialty clothing store), and that the Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn study presents reasonable alternative data. The response from the ITE committee members verify that the IT C estimates contain only 3 data samples from the same source and should be used cautiously; they are only a guideline for trip generation rates. I strongly recommend approval of this Site Plan Application and acceptance of the trip generation rates prepared by Fitzpatrick Llewellyn Inc. that allow for the proposed building size of 6500 sq. ft. 3). ANCIENT ACCEPTED SCOTTISH RITE TEMPLE, KIMBALL DRIVE This Site Plan application was informally reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 8, 1984. It is for the construction of a 9920 sq. ft. (approximate) structure with a temple having a seating capacity of 300. It includes a theatre area and dining facility. The Zoning Board will be reviewing it as a conditional use on Monday, June 11. Assuming it is granted, my comments are as follow: CIRCULATION AND PARKING: An access drive is located on the eastern parking line that services the adjoining lot as requested by the Commission. Parking spaces are adequate. PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: The applicant has met issues of con.".pri, 3. PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 29, 1984 7. An erosion:, control plan and drainage plans shall be presented to the Commission for its approval at Final Application. 8. A construction schedule shall be provided and approved by the Commission at Final Application. 9. The Fire Chief's concerns regarding gravel access roads, hydrant location and installation of hydrants along Hinesburg Road shall be included _n the Final Application. 10. Parking shall be provided in the amount of 2 spaces per unit plus "visitor" parking in the amount of 1 space per 6 units in reasonably close proximity to the units being served. 11. The sewer allocation shall be 33,450 gallons per day based on 67 single family units and 40 multi -family units. 12. This approval will expire 12 months from this date. Mrs. Maher seconded the motion. Ms. Bechtel felt it should be noted that the previous sewer allocation for this project was null and void. It expired recently and this is now considered a separate and new project. Before the motion was amended, there was a stipulation reading "House and yard lines shall be designated at Final Application." Mr. O'Brien objected to that, feeling it would give them less flexibility in the sizing of the homes. He said they would rather deal with that when they received their building permits. Mr. Poger felt the stipulation should be removed, but that at final plat the building envelopes should be shown and that specific plans should be submitted for each house, which will be approved by the Planner, at a later date. The motion carried unanimously. Chairman Poger ruled that the previous application of the O'Brien Brothers for the Cardinal Woods Extension and its sewer allocation have both run out and are therefore null and void. Site Plan Review for Jeff Davis for the ex ansion at 1270 Shelburne Road and conversion to retail use Carters Clothing) Mr. Poger noted that this was a new hearing and that whatever had come up at the previous hearing was immaterial. Mr. John Fitzpatrick, attorney representing some neighbors, requested that the Commission ask the City Attorney whether or not the Commission had the right to overrule the court with regard to its findings on the maximum peak hour traffic counts. Mr. Poger repeated that this was a new proposal, which the Commission had to hear. He ruled that unless the other members wished to do so, he would not direct the above question to the Attorney. None of the members wished to ask the question. Mr. Moore, representing Mr.Davis, noted that the proposal included moving the building back so the front yard setback would be 55'. The existing building plus new construction would total 6500 sq. f t. 48 9' x 18' parking spaces are shown, with 2 handicapped spaces, and 3 for loading. Landscaping is mainly in the corner and a new hedge will be added to the west of the existing hedge to fill in the spaces. One 32' wide curb cut is proposed, 150' from Shelburne Rd. Lighting will be on 8' poles and will be down lighting. The parcel is 9/10 of an acre and building coverage is 65%. [If PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 29, 1984 Mrs. Maher did not like the 4 parking spaces in front. Mr. Poger suggested that that area be graveled and grassed and the spaces paved later if it proved they were needed. Mr. Fitzpatrick wondered if this could be considered a multiple use, since there will be retail space plus space for ancillary uses such as storage, but was told it was not considered a multiple use. Ms. Bechtel said the Commission had to decide whether to use ITE traffic counts, or other estimates, such as local data. Mr. Poger said he would like to have traffic information presented tonight, but have another meeting so the public could study the traffic information the Commission has on the project. Ms. Bechtel said Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn had studied 6 retail stores in the area. They had felt that the ITE category of specialty retail centers was not applicable, so they took some counts of their own. They eliminated the high and low stores, and came up with an allowable square footage of 6682. The City requested consultant David Spitz to review the study and he responded that he felt there should be some seasonal adjustment, which would bring the maximum allowable space to 6309 sq. f t. ITB figures would allow a size of 4,587 sq. ft. She noted that these were estimates, and were not absolutes. Mr. Roger Dickinson of Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn said they did not argue with Mr. Spitz, but he noted that they had done the counts on higher than average traffic level days within the week, if not at the high traffic season. Mr. Jacob moved to continue the hearing on the site plan review for Jeff Davis for two weeks, until June 12, 1984 at 7:30 pm at City Hall. Mrs. Maher seconded the motion and all voted for it. Public hearing on Final Plat Application for Homer and Marie Dubois for Ledge Knoll, a 57 single-family unit planned development, and 53 acres reserved for future use, located off Hinesburg Road Mr. Trudell represented the Dubois family. He said there had been no change in layout, but they had been unable to reach an agreement on a sewer easement with Mr. Goodrich, so they will have to run the sewer to Hinesburg Road and then north and into the Mitel easement. The only other changes are those requested by the Commission at the last hearing. The homes will be clustered and some land left open for agricultural use. The water main will be extended south from its present location, and storm drainage will be on - site. Street trees will be planted. The roads will be 30' wide with curbs and sidewalks on one side. They will be city streets. A connection to Highland Terrace is shown, and additional screening from the Toutant land is shown. Mr. Trudell asked that the phasing schedule be changed to allow 40 units in the first phase. They want to build over 2 years instead of the 4 originally planned. Erosion control was discussed and Mr. Cobb noted that they would not strip all the land at one time. It was noted that the figure for intersection signallization contribution was in dispute and Ms. Bechtel said she would double check it. Mr. Jacob moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the revised Final Plat application by Homer & Marie Dubois for a Planned Unit evelo went as de icted on a 23 page plan entitled "Led a Knoll Planned Unit_ Development" dated 11 16 83 and revised 12 30 83 and 119 84 as prepared b Trudell Consulting Engineers with the following stipulations: 1. The project is approved based on the following phasingschedule: Phase I 1 8 -8 - 40 lots__ Phase II 1985-86 - 17 lots It Page 3 �' 3) Davis, Imperial Drive A site plan application has been submitted for the addition at 1270 Shelburne Road and conversion to retail use (Carters Clothing Store). The entire exist- ing building will be relocated to a new 55 foot setback, to minimum requirements. There are no major problems with the 4 basic site plan review criteira: ped- estrian and vehicular access, circulation, parking, landscaping and screening, and other items including drainage, fire protection, and outdoor lighting. The major issue will be whether the building size is allowable using local sources of traffic data. Circulation and Parking - No issues of concern. Proposal meets the minimum requirements with 48 spaces, (2 handicapped) and 3 loading/unloading spaces which also serve 1700 square feet of storage area. Pedestrial and Vehicular Access - Proposal adopts previous Planning Commission recommendations to widen curb radii at entrance, and to place a centrally located curb cut on Imperial Drive. The City Engineer's concerns about the sidewalk will be stipulated. (5/25/84) Landscaping and Screening - The landscaping proposal has been verified by UVM Plant and Soils Department at a value of $6200 (see letter 5/17/84). The hedge on the east property line is to be maintained by the applicant. Other - Outdoor lighting, fire protection and drainage are adequate. Traffic Generation and Gross Floor Area - The permitted size of a use on a lot in a traffic overlay zone is based on the size of the lot and the projected peak hour traffic volume for the overlay zone. The Commission may approve estimates other than ITE counts, including local traffic counts if the ITE estimates do not contain data for the specified use, or if a use contains unique characteristics that cause it to differ from the national traffic estimates (Sect. 17.301, Zoning Regulations). The court held that ITE counts were appropriate and local data was not. This application presents new data from local sources that is more comparable to the proposed use. The Commission may approve peak hour traffic volumes above the normal standard for a pre-existing lot in a traffic overlay zone if it determines that other site improvements will produce a net benefit for traffic flow in the vicinity. There are 3 criteria the Commission may use to approve an alternative standard. The Commission may also use any other criteria or factors it deems relevant to approve standards above normal. (Sect. 17.50 - Zoning Regulations). The court held that none of these conditions in Section 17.50 were met by the original proposal and did not find relevant factors that the Commission used to grant approvals. Using ITE estimates.,the closest comparable is a hardware/paint store. The estimates on maximum building size are shown below. Since this is not an accurate comparable, I believe local traffic counts are more appropriate for the use and for the area, than are national standards. Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn has prepared a study of comparable uses (All -Seasons, Lady Shelburne, Ski Shop) and estimates 3.55 trips/1000 GFA and 6682 Square feet in maximum building size. In my opinion, this is a reasonable study and is more defensible than ITE data. (see study 4/2/84) Page 4 David Spitz has responded to this study recommending a seasonal adjustment and a slightly smaller building size. He also calls attention to the imprecise characteristics of these figures and recommends the Commission not rely on them as absolutes. (see letter 4/9/84) The chart below summarizes the 4 sources of traffic data and corresponding maximum building size. It should be noted that each source, with the exception of the Court, used a size of 37,954 square feet, while the actual lot is 38,225 square feet. The court however, seems to have made mathematical errors in cal- culating size. The fourth column reflects the maximum building size if the accurate lot size is used. Source Tri s GFA ITE 25/4800 or 5.21/1000 Court 22/4800 or 4.58/1000 Fitzpatrick- 17/4800 Llewellyn or 3.55/1000 D. Spitz (seasonal adjustment) Maximum Recalculated Bldg. Size Using Actual Lot Size 4554 sq. ft. 4587 sq. ft. 5217 sq. f t. (court calculated 5160) 6682 sq. ft. 6730 sq. ft. 6309 sq. ft. 3 j 3 , Given the variation in these estimates, and their imprecise characteristics, I recommend not relying on anyone source as an absolute. I do not believe a red- uction in building size by 380 square feet or by 2000 square feet will produce a significant reduction in traffic flow. I do not believe there are grounds to deny this application, however, the Commission may wish to mediate between the residents and the applicant to best meet the residents concerns. I recommend the commission approve the Site Plan as a reasonable use of the property and as meeting all local requirements. I have discussed this application with the City Attorney and he believes this should Le viewed as a new application putting aside any issues raised by the courts. 4. Homer and Marie Dubois, Ledge Knoll PUD The applicant has proposed a revised construction phasing schedule for you approval as follows: Original Approval Revised Phase I (1984-85) 15 lots 40 lots Phase II (1985-86) 12 lots 17 lots Phase III (1986-87) 18 lots Phase IV (1987-88) 12 lots TOTAL 57 lots 57 lots FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services The Kiln • 15 Brickyard Road 0 Essex Junction • Vermont • 05452 • (802) 878-3000 2 April 1984 Mr. Jeffrey L. Davis J.L. Davis, Incorporated P.O. Box 226 Williston, Vermont 05495 RE: Traffic Generation; Proposed Carter's Store, South Burlington File: 8408 Dear Mr. Davis: Recently you came to us for advice regarding the proposed use of your parcel of land on the corner of Shelburne Road and Imperial Drive, in South Burlington. The principal concern you asked us to address was the amount and rate of traffic generated by the proposed use, a CARTER'S "specialized" clothing store. We understand the City of South Burlington, through their research, confirmed your opinion that the proposed use would not create a "warrant" to justify the signali- zation of the Shelburne Road -Imperial Drive intersection. On the other hand, City Regulations and current Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation data were utilized to restrict the size of your proposed retail store beyond what you thought was reasonable. Upon investigation, we found that the ITE trip generation data used in establishing your building's size by the Regulations appeared to be limited in both "application" (category) and statistical "match". Specifically, the ITE Category applied to your proposed use was "814-Specialty Retail Center", which is described by ITE (Trip Generation, Third Edition, 1982) as: "Specialty retail centers are generally small shopping centers which contain shops specializing in quality apparel or hard goods. The centers studied ranged in size between 17,000 and 43,000 gross leasable square feet". This description is accom- panied by the notation "Only three centers were studied. Therefore, more data are required for this use". Since you are proposing a "free-standing" retail specialty store, we felt the "center" category (#814) was inapplicable, particuarly because ITE has another category (#870- Apparel), and a "center" has different trip generation characteristics when compared to a "free-standing" store. Ur�iyn • Inslwcliorn 0 SIt) dirr; • Permitl�nq Mr. Jeffrey L. Davis 2 April 1984 File 8408 Page Two Further research showed that category #870-Apparel, even though delineated, has no data background and has been included by ITE only as part of their "ideal list" designation. A conversation with ITE personnel substantiated our position that your proposed use was not logically includable in category #814- Spec ialty Retail Center, since one if the three studied centers included a restaurant (traditionally a high volume generator), another center included a furniture store (traditionally a low volume generator), and all three centers studied were much larger than your pro- posed store. We followed -up our conversations with ITE by summarizing our understandings in a letter to them, and received a written reply from them (copies enclosed as Appendices A & B). Although South Burlington, in its review of your project appeared to use the "best available information" from ITE to determine trip generation rates (and subsequently the resulting maximum allowable floor area), we felt (and Mr. Buttke, Chairman of the ITE Trip Generation Committee concurred) that a much more defensible position would be to record actual trip generation data at stores comparable to the one you propose. As a result of the foregoing, and at your instruction, our firm proceeded to develop the data base needed to establish trip generation rates for your proposed retail use, a ",free-standing specialty clothing store with about 7,000 square feet of floor area", utilizing the "Update Procedure" recommended by ITE (Trip Generation, Third Edition, 1982). Through field investigations and telephone interviews, we identified six locations in the South Burlington and Shelburne area which met the criteria of being a free-standing specialty and/or apparel store. The locations selected for data gathering are: STORE LOCATION TYPE GROSS FLOOR AREA All Seasons Factory Outlet Alpine Shop Big and Tall Shop Dexter Factory Outlet Lady Shelburne Ski Shop 1636 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 1184 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 1333 Shelburne Road South Burlington, VT Shelburne Road Shelburne, VT Shelburne Road Shelburne, VT 388 Shelburne Road South Burlington, VT Clothing/Sportswear 3,000ft2 Sportswear/ski sales 8,100ft2 and rentals Specialty menswear 2,400ft2 Footwear 8,800ft2 Womens Clothing 3,OOOft2 Sportswear/ski sales 4,600ft2 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Fngrneering and Planning Services Mr. Jeffrey L. Davis 2 April 1984 File 8408 Page Three Simultaneous traffic counts were performed at all six locations on Thursday, March8, 1984 (2:00 pm - 6:00 pm), Friday, March 9, 1984 (2:00 pm - 6:00 pm) and Thursday. March 15, 1984 (12:00 pm - 6:00 pm). The traffic count data from the six locations was analyzed to determine the average weekday trip generation rates per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area between the hours of 2:00 pm and 6:00 pm. The resulting rates, for each location, are tabulated in Table I below. TADI r' T WEEKDAY HOURLY TRIP GENERATION RATES AVG. WEEKDAY VEHICLE TRIP ENDS/1,000 SQ. FT. GROSS FLOOR AREA HOUR STORE All Seasons Alpine Shop Big and Tall Dexter 2:00-3:00 pm 1.89 2.80 2.36 1.51 Lady Shelburne 3.78 Ski Shop 4.06 AVERAGE 2.73 3:00-4:00 3.0 4.49 1.11 1.55 4.11 3.55 2.97 4:00-5:00 2.33 6.34 0.83 1.78 3.11 2.83 2.87 5:00-6:00 1.56 6.17 1.25 1.44 2.67 2.39 2.58 Appendix C illustrates, graphically, the data of Table I. In the course of our analy- zing the traffic count data, three of the six locations, namely the Alipne Shop, Big & Tall, and Dexter Factory outlet exhibited dissimilar traffic rates and patterns as can be seen in Appendix C. The remaining three locations yielded very similar results. We concluded the dissimilitude of the three "samples" was attributed to the following reasons: the Alpine Shop not only sells apparel and specialty goods (ski equipment), but also rents ski equipment, generating greater than average traffic voulmes during the rental and return of this equipment; both Big & Tall and Dexter cater to very specialized markets, thereby generating lower than average traffic volumes. Eliminating the three dissimilar locations from the analyses resulted in the trip generation rates displayed in Table II on the following page. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Jeffrey L 2 April 1984 File 8408 Page Four Davis TABLE II AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION RATES HOUR AVERAGE WEEKDAY VEHICLE TRIP ENDS/1,000 SQ. FT. GFA* ENTER EXIT TOTAL 2:00-3:00 pm 1.6 1.64 3.24 3:00-4:00 pm 1.65 1.90 3.55 4:00-5:00 pm 1.36 1.40 2.76 5:00-6:00 pm 0.79 1.42 2.21 *Gross Floor Area In order to analyze adjacent -street characteristics, information concerning daily traffic volumes on Shelburne Road in the vicinity of this Project was secured from the Vermont Agency of Transportation. This data, particuarly a weeklong continuous coverage count at Station D105, on Shelburne Road, near McIntosh Avenue, dated Septem- ber 9-16, 1982, was analyzed to determine the weekday P.M. peak hour of traffic volumes and other weekday hours during which the volumes exceed 80% of the weekday peak traffic volumes (Section 17.302-South Burlington Zoning Regulations). Based on this data, the hour of weekday P.M. peak traffic volumes occurs between 4:00 pm and 5:00 pm. Hours with a traffic volume exceeding 80% of the P.M. peak traffic volume were found to in- clude 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm. As a conservative measure, we have elected to apply the P.M. peak hour trip generation rate of the traffic generator (3:00-4:00, 3.55 trip ends /1,OOOft ) to the requirments of the Traffic Overlay District, with the following results: MAXIMUM TRAFFIC 25 trips/hour = 7,042 sq. ft. _ GENERATION LEVEL 3.55 trips/hour/1,000 ft TOTAL PERMITTED SIZE = 7,042 sq. ft. x 37,954 ftz (actual lot size) = 6,682 sq. ft. 40,000 ft (minimum lot size) If the adjacent -street peak -hour generation rate (2.76 trip ends per 1,000 square feet) is selected, the Regulations would allow a TOTAL PERMITTED SIZE equal to 8,595 square feet on your lot. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Fngineenng and Planning Services Mr. Jeffrey L. Davis 2 April File 8408 Page Five Either of the above total permitted sizes is, obviously, contingent upon the land use remaining as a specialty apparel store, or other use which will not exceed the average weekday trip generation rates indicated above. We trust the foregoing information will suffice in establishing how your proposed use is affected by the Traffic Overlay District restrictions. However, should you have any questions concerning our procedures or conclusions, please feel free to contact us at your convenience. We thank you for this opportunity to have assisted you. Sincerely Yours, FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Roge J. Dickinson, P.E. RJD/amo FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services H.FZI'n"l"IUCK-LLEWEl_L I 1NC0IU"0M* EIJ / Fngineerinq find Planning Services Me Kiln • 15 ©rickyard noad • Essex Junction • Vermont • 05452 • (802) 878-3000 29 February 1984 Mr. Carl 11. Buttke Chairman, IT[ Trip Generation Committee Carl Buttke, Incorporated P.O. Box 636 Portland, Oregon 97207 RE: I1 Generation Data - Specialty Retail Center File. 8408 Dear Mr. Buttke: We are writing to confirm and elaborate on our telephone conversation of Feb- ruary 8, 1984, concerning available trip generation data for the following categories; Specialty Stores (Code 811), Specialty Retail Centers (Code 814) and Apparel Stores (Code 870). Our interest in trip generation data for these categories stems from our involve- ment in our Client's project which consists of a small (5,000 - 8,000 sq. ft.) free-standing specialty clothing store. We are presently working to document the availability and applicability of published trip generation data for stores of this type, since our Client has been asked to use the trip generation data from the "Specialty Retail Center" category, and we are not convinced this is an appropriate application. We understand, from our conversation, that the ITE Trip Generation Committee has established the three categories listed above, but has received trip gene- ration data only for "Specialty Retail Centers" (Code 814). This data was pub- lished in the "[IF Informational Report, Trip Generation, Third Edition, 1982". Also, we understand'no additional trip generation -dada applicable to any of these categories has been received since publication of this report. Our conversation ascertained that the only data used to develop trip generation rates for the "Specialty Retail Centers" category was from a report entitled "San Diego Association of Governments, Traffic Generators, 1979 to 1981". We discussed the characterisitcs of the "retail centers'studied and you reported the quantity of data was very limited (only three retail centers were studied) and that the retail centers studied contained unique traffic generators, (i.e. a furniture store and a restaurant) which could adversely affect the applica- hility of the data. We agreed that because of these factors, the published data Design 0 Inspection 0 Studies 0 Permilling Mr. Carl El. 8uttke File: 8408 29 February 1984 Page Two for "Specialty Retail Centers", which is defined in the ITE Report as a small shopping center containing shops specializing in apparel or hard goods, is not universally applicable to all small centers or stores which sell clothing. We understand ITE trip generation data for Specialty Stores (Code 811) and Apparel Stores (Code 870) is not available at the present. Our Client has authorized us to perform traffic counts at comparable specialty stores it) the immediate geographic area, which we hope to undertake in the next few weeks. We plan to conduct these counts in conformance with ITE recommended procedures and have secured the Client's approval to submit this data to the ITE Trip Generation Committee upon completion of our work. In the meantime, we would appreciate a short letter from you confirming our conclusions, as outlined above, concerning the availability of published trip generation data for retail stores, specialty retail centers and apparel stores and its applicability to our Client's project. Should you have any questions on our request or wish to discuss this matter further please don't hesitate to contact us at your convenience. We thank you for the time you've taken to discuss this situation with us and look forward to your response. Sincerely, FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED LLLIII��` Roge Die6o VE. cc Mr. Joseph Oppenlander Mr. Jeffrey L. Davis RJD/amo FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and ('tanning Services INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS FORMERLY INSTITUTE OF MAM C ENGINEERS TECHNICAL COUNCIL Address reply to: Carl 11 . Bu t t ke , Inc . Consulting Trans. E,,ngr. P. 0. Box 636 Portland, OR 97207 March 111, 19811 Mr. Roger J. Dickinson, P.E. Fitzpatrick Llewellyn Inc. The Kiln 15 Brickyard Road Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 fie: ITE Trip Generation, An Informational Report Dear Mr. Dickinson: This letter is to confirm our discussion on February 8, 1984 and your subsequent letter dated February 29, 19811. Because land use category 8111-Specialty,_Retail Center only contains three data samples from the same source, it should.be used cautiously. The particular type store you are concerned with, a free-standing clothing store of 5,000 to 8,000 sq.ft., does not really fit the specialty Retail Center category. I would recommend, if possible, YOU measure similar type stores to determine a more applicable trip generation rate. The data in the ITE Trip Generation Report are to be used as a guideline and beginning point to the trip generation calculation. See the section titled "Use of the Report" in the introduction. However, if no other information is available, then the ITE Trip Generation Report would be a good starting point for, estimating your, development trips. Sincerely, Cie p1' v ,/ Carl 11. Buttke, P.E. Chairman -Permanent Trip Generation Committee APPENDIX i C w Q Ct z O Q W Z W CD 4 Cr Ci 6 0 0 C 5 N, 0 4 Z w a 3 = 2 W 2: 00 - 3:00- 4:00- 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM KEY O DEXTER A BIG a TALL 0 ALL SEASONS • ALPINE SHOP ♦ LADY SHELBURNE ■ SKI SHOP HOUR 5:00- 6: 00 PM FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Fngineering and Planning Services NORTH COUNTRY PLANNING P.O. Box 333 Winooski, Vermont 05404 (802) 655-3661 April 9, 1984 Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Dick, The Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn (F-L) traffic report prepared by Roger Dickinson, dated April 2, 1984) for the proposed Carter's store on Shelburne Road is a very well thought-out and prepared study, given the state of available infor- mation. One of its main points, with which Ihave always concurred, is that the available ITE data is not truly comparable to the Carter's operation. Un- fortunately, the ITE data is the only source approved by the judge in the re- cent court decision. In my opinion, it may have been the weakest of the three comparative sources used. While the F-L report does a very thorough job of analyzing other free-standing retail stores, it also contains a flaw. All counts were taken in March, hardly the busiest retail season. In comparison, my July counts for the Dexter store were about twice as high. I certainly would not recommend that counts be taken through an entire year's cycle to give accurate data. Instead, an adjustment factor can be applied. Monthly retail sales in the county might give a more appropriate seasonal adjustment (if data is available), but a second-best choice is monthly traffic volumes on urban roads. Using a factor of 1.06 for March (source: TRANS OP work for Wilbur -Smith), the end results on page four of the F-L report would be adjusted downward to a permitted size of 6309 square feet (or 8096 square feet if the adjacent -street peak hour is used). CONCLUSION: The Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn report and my suggested seasonal adjustments provide 2 more comparable methods,in addition to the 3 previous methods, for evaluating the impact of the proposed Carter's store. In some manner all 5 methods are flawed (including the only one cited by the judge) and none of the numbers can be considered as exact. I couldn't predict whether a store size of 6309 square feet or 8096 square feet would be the magic number that would stay under the permitted ceiling of 25 trip ends. The key point is that all 5 methods indicate that the Carter's store is very close to accepted traffic ceilings. Most other uses cited in the Cl District - e.g. restaurants, service stations, drug stores - would be worse. Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer April 9, 1984 Page 2 I continue to recommend that the Carter's application complies with the philosophy of South Burlington's traffic regulations and that the specific traffic numbers, though subject to fluctuation, are within acceptable limits. Sincerely, T� David H. Spitz, Planning Consultant DS/mcg T(rt state is out Th..' Extension Service campus. University of Vermont Plant and Soil Science Department Hills Building Burlington, Verrnont 05405 Phone 802-656-2630 Addison County 388-4969 Bennington County May 17, 1984 447-7582 Caledonia County 748-8177 Chittenden County Ms. Jane Bechtel 656-4420 Essex County City Planner, City Hall 676-3900 South Burlington, VT 05401 Franklin County 524-6501 Grand Isle County Dear Ms. Bechtel: 372-6610 Lamoille County 888-4972 I have looked over the site plan you submitted to me with a landscape Orange County value of $6200. I have determined the actual retail cost of the 685-4540 landscape plants to be approximately $4200, and with landscape labor Orleans County 334-7325 this would be approximately the $6200 figure. Costs will likely be Rutland County higher if lawns, grading and other landscape structure such as benches 773-3349 or lamp posts are also included in the landscape figure. Washington County 223-2380 I hope this information is of help. Windham County 257-7967 Windsor County 457-2664 Sincerely, Director's Office 656-2990 Leonard P. Perry Ext. Ornamental Horticulturist The Extension Service, University of Vermont, and U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating, offer education for everyone, without regard to race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, and handicap. The Extension Service is an I_'ltialOppor tuuity Fmtrloycr_ City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 PLANNER ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 863-2882 658-2486 June 1, 1984 Jeff Davis Box 226 Williston, Vermont 05495 Dear Jeff: Enclosed are the minutes from the May 29, 1984 Planning Commission meeting pertaining to the Carters Clothing application. As you know, you are scheduled to be on the agenda Tuesday, June 12 at 7:30 p.m. Please call me if you have any questions or need any information. Sincerely, j � J-'4�z� Jane S. Bechtel City Planner JSB/df enc. cc: Douglas Fitzpatrick 5/25/84 JSB MOTION OF APPROVAL That the South Burlington Planning Commission grant approval for the site plan application by Jeff Davis for an addition at 1270 Shelburne Road and conversion to retail use as depicted on a plan entitled "Shelburne Road Project Site" pre- pared by Steve Moore, Architect dated 4/26/84 and revised 5/16/84 with the following stipulations: Stipulations: 1) Bonding for landscaping ($6200) and for a sidewalk and curb cut relocation and other curb work shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. 2) In addition to new landscaping, the applicant shall insure that the hedge on the east property line be maintained. 3) The use of the property shall be limited to an infant to age 14 clothing store. 4) "No Parking" signs shall be provided by the applicant on either side of Imperial Drive. 5) This approval expires in 6 months. NORTH COUNTRY PLANNING P.O. Box 333 Winooski, Vermont 05404 (802) 655-3661 April 9, 1984 Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Dick, The Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn (F-L) traffic report prepared by Roger Dickinson, dated April 2, 1984) for the proposed Canter's store on Shelburne Road is a very well thought-out and prepared study, given the state of available infor- mation. One of 'its main points, with which I have always concurred, is that the available ITE data is not truly comparable to the Carter's operation. Un- fortunately, the ITE data is the only source approved by the judge in the re- cent court decision. In my opinion, it may have been the weakest of the three comparative sources used. While the F-L report does a very thorough job of analyzing other free-standing retail stores, it also contains a flaw. All counts were taken in March, hardly the busiest retail season. In comparison, my July counts for the Dexter store were about twice as high. I certainly would not recommend that counts be taken through an entire year's cycle to give accurate data. Instead, an adjustment factor can be applied. Monthly retail sales in the county might give a more appropriate seasonal adjustment (if data is available), but a second-best choice is monthly traffic volumes on urban roads. Using a factor of 1.06 for March (source: TRANS OP work for Wilbur -Smith), the end results on page four of the F-L report would be adjusted downward to a permitted size of 6309 square feet (or 8096 square feet if the adjacent -street peak hour is used). CONCLUSION: The Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn report and my suggested seasonal adjustments provide 2 more comparable methods,in addition to the 3 previous methods, for evaluating the impact of the proposed Carter's store. In some manner all 5 methods are flawed (including the only one cited by the judge) and none of the numbers can be considered as exact. I couldn't predict whether a store size of 6309 square feet or 8096 square feet would be the magic number that would stay under the permitted ceiling of 25 trip ends. The key point is that all 5 methods indicate that the Carter's store is very close to accepted traffic ceilings. Most other uses cited in the Cl District - e.g. restaurants, service stations, drug stores - would be worse. Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer April 9, 1984 Page 2 I continue to recommend that the Carter's application complies with the philosophy of South Burlington's traffic regulations and that the specific traffic numbers, though subject to fluctuation, are within acceptable limits. Sincerely, c David H. Spitz, Planning Consultant DS/mcg The state is our campus. Addison County 388-4969 Bennington County 447-7582 Caledonia County 748-8177 Chittenden County 656-4420 Essex County 676-3900 Franklin County 524-6501 Grand Isle County 372-6610 Lamoille County; 888-4972i Orange County'i 685-4540 Orleans County 334-7325 Rutland County 773-3349 Washington County 223-2380 Windham County 257-7967 Windsor County 457-2664 Director's Office 656-2990 The Extension Service, University of Vermont, and U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating, offer education for everyone, without regard to race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, and handicap. The Extension Service is an Equal Oppor- tunity Employer. � The )Extension Service University of Vermont Plant and Soil Science Department Hills Building Burlington, Vermont 05405 Phone 802-656-2630 May 17, 1984 Ms. Jane Bechtel City Planner, City Hall South Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Ms. Bechtel: I have looked over the site plan you submitted to me with a landscape value of $6200. I have determined the actual retail cost of the landscape plants to be approximately $4200, and with landscape labor this would be approximately the $6200 figure. Costs will likely be higher if lawns, grading and other landscape structure such as benches or lamp posts are also included in the landscape figure. I hope this information is of help. Sincerely, �� J�'- q'e'vr Leonard P. Perry y Ext. Ornamental Horticulturist No Text / Date Receivedy, Date Application Completed and Received By By CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVILI4 1) NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER OF: (a) Owner of Record �e, �-L) cL Ck-; . < <15 - -o U4-- U S-4 ? 5- '✓-) " (b) Applicant ' J 2 CL 0 tS S C( fkq (c) Contact Person 2) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: A / c) 3 h e 1 D u y-n e. KOO , 3) PROPOSED USE (S) : fa 4) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e., # of units, floor area, etc.) 5) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (full & part time) 6) COST ESTIMATES: (a) Buildings /3 %O O C0 (b) Landscaping r%o r^ (-h (c) All Other Site Improvements (i.e., curb work) ,0 0 G 7) ESTIMATED PROJECT CC vIPLETION DATE 8) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in & out) S eA2, Q- & Q lQ 60 IC � 9) PEAK HOUR (S) OF OPERATION Cx ,C 10) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION 1 C, Dp, SIGNA ICANT Page 3 fr 3) Davis, Imperial Drive A site plan application has been submitted for the addition The at 12e00 Shelbuexist- rneRoad and conversion to retail use (Carters Clothing Store). minimum requirements. ing building will be relocated to a new 55 foot setback, There are no major problems with the 4 basic site plan review criteira: ped- estrian and vehicular access, circulation, parking, landscaping and screening, and other items including drainage, fire protection, and outdoor lighting. The major issue will be whether the building size is allowable using local sources of traffic data. Circulation and Parking - No issues of concern. Proposal meets the minimum requirements with 48 spaces, (2 handicapped) and 3 loading/unloading spaces which also serve 1700 square feet of storage area. Pedestrial and Vehicular Access - Proposal adopts previous Planning Commission recommendations to widen -curb radii aTheentrance, Engineend �s eoncernscentrally the located curb cut on Imperia j sidewalk will be stipulated. (5/25/84) p proposal has been ver if ied by Landscaping and Screening - The atandvalue ofp$6 00 (see letter 5/17/84). The UVM Plant and Soils Depa hedge on the east property line is to be maintained by the applicant. other - outdoor lighting, fire protection and drainage are adequate. Traffic Generation and Gross Floor Area - The permitted size of a use on a lot in a traffic overlay zone is based on the size of the lot and the projected peak hour traffic volume for the overlay zone. The Commission may approve estimates other than ITE counts, including local traffic counts if the ITE esch actees aistics thaticaaseaitoto differfromtheified e, or if a use contains unique The court held national traffic estimates (Sect. 17.301, Zoning Regulationsapplication that ITE counts were appropriate and local data was not othe proposed use. presents new data from local sources that is more con -parable i The Commission may approve peak hour traffic volumes above the normal standard at other sit for a pre-existing lot in a traffic fitrlay for traffic floif itdweinrtheevitemins cinity. Theree improvements will produce a net bene are 3 criteria the Commission may use to approve an alternative standard. Commission may also use any other criteria or factors itms relevant to approve standards above normal. (Sect. 17.50 - Zoning Regulations).e original proposal that none of these conditions in Section 17.50 were met by torovals. and did not find relevant factors that the Commission used to grant approvals. the closest comparable is a hardware/paint store. The Using ITE estimates size are shown below. Since not estimates on maximum building more appropriate fortheuse comparable, I believe local traffic counts are and for the area, than are national standards. Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn has prepared a study of comparable uses (All -Seasons, Lady Shelburne, Ski Shop) and estimates 3.55 trips/1000 GFA and 6682 square feet in maximum building size. In my opinion, this is a reasonable study and is more defensible than ITE data. (see study 4/2/84) Page 4 David Spitz has responded to this study recommending a seasonal adjustment and a slightly smaller building size. He also calls attention to the imprecise characteristics of these figures and recommends the Commission not rely on them as absolutes. (see letter 4/9/84) The chart below summarizes the 4 sources of traffic data and corresponding maximum building size. It should be noted that each source, with the exception of the Court, used a size of 37,954 square feet, while the actual lot is 38,225 square feet. The court however, seems to have made mathematical errors in cal- culating size. The fourth column reflects the maximum building size if the accurate lot size is used. Maximum Source Trips/GFA Bldg. Size ITE 25/4800 4554 sq. ft. or 5.21/1000 Court 22/4800 or 4.58/1000 Fitzpatrick- 17/4800 6682 sq. ft. Llewellyn or 3.55/1000 Recalculated KEG W 51 _Z_ Using Actual Lot Size 4587 sq. ft. 5217 sq. f t. (court calculated 5160) 6730 sq. ft. D. Spitz (seasonal` }addjustment) 6309 sq. ft. Q Q�'a✓�c� jr�J 5 V .� Given the variation in these estimates, and their imprecise characteristics, mpI recommend not relying on anyone source as an absolute. I do not believe a red- uction in building size by 380 square feet or by 2000 square feet will produce a significant reduction in traffic flow. I do not believe there are grounds to deny this application, however, the Commission may wish to mediate between the residents and the applicant to best meet the residents concerns. I recommend the commission approve the Site Plan as a reasonable use of the property and as meeting all local requirements. I have discussed this application with the City Attorney and he believes this should be viewed as a new application putting aside any issues raised by the courts. 4. Homer and Marie Dubois, Ledge Knoll PUD The applicant has proposed a revised construction phasing schedule for you approval as follows: Original Approval Rav i -PA Phase I (1984-85) 15 lots 40 lots Phase II (1985-86) 12 lots 17 lots Phase III (1986-87) 18 lots Phase IV (1987-88) 12 lots TOTAL 57 lots 57 lots �,L' 6 ross F6 jr Qrt e.a.. %' 51 at —6 $ , rd 14S _ 10 vAkm�- Q ra po Je_x� a .Ss S, IlaO MAX •� �Ver(tt�� ��N`�- q N� y�$? 'A'/7-TE 1 �,SP�'T;Z• (,30l mix ✓ �AfJtfiaf+Al- l�d.rl�cn9 u� J.70D � Stly ctg�. spa.c A coca %CO`f(yt� '?o%' - Nt'C..CQ l , nCc�9 Q "# GUwv"� A'A%r� J ur,i�ad, n� �an run - S�acA )50 iii r 3�AU F�.� OIL L413.5 L-AMc,scnP+nq - 435� NIA e.i'0a�1� '-Drr ✓ �UV1� Wecl��2c��� si a OK `fir 0. C_ - Lo u (A -�l nbs a�-t-r �� �.n hS ✓c`�ne r a� Ll 0 0 � � ujl o L l�.,c we r �c�rl,�an� 1 5tx�c.4 I too Soaca.4 ✓ 5�ioad.« un oad�c� I3000&zb F(.,MrcA.. , (,,Soo tior J�s�ic•.o 3 ecv s lam ���•-eo � �r e.ve.r � 11- So s��.ca.o -- a, �,�J�II ✓ p\C- �Q (naintaon may, e'-'Vg a� Mal, , Lo"n-kr c4 +Z� +dery "J" ra c` ►; L•� r IP- N\ �11 I �YTT 3D' (taA P&AA:u-4 t 9e rL� wt Zh r -ty MtUJ 'SiZa- -A, "ItMA 115k tkkvj � at 's �vf p ps LAI 00 817a6 Z� 4 ��l -� —&, � 5 -ty � ? e NJ-.Q kc-%�L u6T x -3"as 10-730- �PA �r lTieS wo 6� IN Cif �5 LA5 cmjoi. txt or '6's S ('s D, q-5 54 ►� �ptsc vss � c14, �-- u,4 v • CG4.Q. \�1 5Ia'�. cr a SSSC� -Lt TRANS/OP INC. SYSTEMS ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS P. O. BOX 2304 - SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 Plione (802) 878-5977 July 25, 1983 Mr. David H. Spitz City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Spitz: In accordance with your request, vehicular volume conditions for 1983 have been appraised for traffic control and performance at the intersection of Shelburne Road and Imperial Drive in South Burlington, Vermont. The impact of the proposed Carter retail store on the northeast corner of this inter- section was also included in the various evaluations. Traffic volumes by hour of the day were collected on Friday and Saturday, July 15 and 16, 1983. These demand measures are presented in the attached graphical summaries along with morning and afternoon peak -hour and average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. Traffic volumes were also adjusted to account for daily and seasonal variations and to provide average measures for 1983 weekday travel patterns. In addition, design hour volumes (DHV) were developed for the average weekday afternoon peak hour. Results of the evaluations for traffic signal warrants are summarized in Table 1 for a variety of situations. Except for the unadjusted traffic volumes on Friday, July 15, 1983, the warrants for a traffic signal are not satisfied without or with the proposed commercial development in 1983. In the general procedure for evaluating traffic signal warrants, traffic volumes are to represent an average day, which is defined as a weekday representing traffic volumes normally and repeatedly found at the location. In this situation, the proposed retail store does increase from two to six the number of hours that the eight -hour product warrant is satisfied during an average weekday in 1983. Copies of the various work sheets are also enclosed for your information. Finally, capacity computations for an unsignalized intersection were made for 1983 design hour volumes without and with the Carter store. In both cases, "E" levels of service were determined for the Imperial Drive approach during the afternoon peak hour. However, the relevant traffic operations on Shelburne Road are described as "A" levels of service. The capacity computational sheets are attached to this letter. Only traffic -demand levels were assessed in terms of signal warrants and intersectional capacities for this location in 1983. Other elements of traffic performance and safety were not included in the scope of this work. { / 2 TABLE 1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS EVALUATION Shelburne Road and Imperial Drive Intersection South Burlington, Vermont Traffic Condition Hours Satisfied By Type of Signal Warrant Eight -hour Regular Eight -hour Product Four-hour Without Development Unadjusted Volume, 0 8 0 Friday July 15, 1983 1983 Adjusted Volume 0 2 0 With Development 1983 Adjusted Volume 0 6 0 3 Please advise of any additional assistance that may be desired in this matter. Thank you. Very truly yours, Joseph C. Oppenlander, P.E. Vice -President JCO:njk Enclosures TRANS/^PJ INC: '73LUME SUMMARY Sta. No. Location � I Direction 5 o to h b e u Y, Time Date ��/ Date Day !' f Day , r 24-1 F i 1-2 p 2-3 r 3-4 4-5 t? 5-6 s 6-7 7-8 Jr� 8-9 n 9-10 C i � 10-11 ^ ;� 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 6 15-16 Q 16-17 17-18 �D 18-19 S" 19-20 20-21 21-22 J� / 22-23 R 23-24 � Total SA DA o.90 l,00 CA 0,%�O Adj. Total )Z 12(� ! /// 5 U 3 Date"/ Year J v 7// 1� Ave: '15' Peak Hour a.m. Actual /M Adj. 8 9 $- PHF P.m. (X./I Actual Adj PHF Ave. Clock Peak Hour Actual Adj. IR,9✓r- PHF P.M. (&06 -176O ) Actual / j 3 Adj. PHF Ave. Actual Total 9 I '1- TRANS /CAP INC. 1 'IJLUME SUMMARY Sta. No.` Location I Direction �. Time Date //s Date '711 Day L t i Day v, 24-1 1-2 2-3 7 3-4 4-5 5-6 ,? 3 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 ^, 10-11 ' S 11-12 �I7J 12-13 ca 13-14 3 14-15 15-16 16-17 5 y 17-18 n 18-19 5 19-20 r- `7 r-- 20-21 > S .� 21-22 p j 22-23 23-24 Total S� SA 0. DA CA 0 • �S g O . GP8 IAdj. Total Date Year ? y 2 Aue. '15' Peak Hour a.m. (��'!_• -:�iS ) Actual Adj.- PHF P.M. (/ iJJ Actual / Adj. 6.'� PHF ,AuE. Clock Peak Hour a.m. no Actual Adj. Z 3 PHF Actual Adj . PHF Avg. Actual Total ADT TRANS/OP INC. '73LUME SUMMARY Sta. No. nf-A i o- Location �Jr r . r irn � far ; �1Mr� f,o fir, Direction_ th Time Date i Date Day { Day 24-1 1-2 .�•� D 2-3 3-4 ;- 4-5 < /. 5-6 / 6-7 7-8 �j 8-9 9-10 h� 10-11 A) a z 11-12 /6 1 � a / 12-13 / oZ 13-14 /J j 14-15 % 7 15-16 16-17�p� 17-18 `� G 5,31 18-19 �I ;7 19-20 of 20-21 22-23 /{ 23-24 3 Total SA DA CA n � (� 0 .S9 Adj. Total Date Year 3 Ave. '15' Peak Hour a.m. !/oo - 12 e o Actual �� S Adj. 7- PHF Actual ( 9 j Adj. 'i'J gig PHF Ave. Clock Peak Hour a.m. (o 7b 0-6F,6) r Actual -,i P ( / Adj. 7% 3 PHF tf2^.. P•m. Actual / %173 Adj • ( 'J PHF Ave. Actual Total ADT TRANS /OP INC. '%JLUME SUMMARY Sta. No. Location Direction %i Time Date 171/ 5 Date Day r ; , Day 24-1 1-2 l 2-3 3-4 4-5 � 5-6 ' 6-7 3 7-8 8-9 9-10 �J i 10-11 D 11-12 5 12-13 J ;/ 13-14 L Z 14-15 / 15-16 16-17 17-18 J .� 18-19 19-20 20-21 3 21-22 3 22-23 33 23-24 Total O /3 7� SA DA CA Adj . Total j G -3 7 Date Year �/S Ave. '15' Peak Hour a.m. Actual /. a Adj. s3 PHF 7116 eOq�O -/GOp 0qz,� l'�30 P.M. Actual Adj . PHF Ave. Clock Peak Hour a.m. (D7D0-OPDd ) Actual 0 Adj . .J 3 PHF P.M. ('50o -Il L)b ) Actual l 3 Adj.- PHF Ave. Actual Total ADT �a9o0-/vn6) 77 TRANS /OP INC. i `IJLUME SUMMARY Sta. No._Q1�-h Location Direction Time Date / T, Date Day T t i . Day S 24-1 1-2 Ji 2-3 3-4 4-5 S 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9 3 9-10 10-11 11-12 �v p 12-13 3 i 13-14 �0 3 14-15 15-16 16-17 S 17-18 18-19 3 19-20 3 0 20-21 /f 3 21-22 22-23 3 23-24 Total SA 0$'S p- Q,�O DA CA p , �� C) Adj. Total Date L/S , Year / 9 193 f7/1 s Ave. '15' Peak Hour a.m. ( ) Actual Ad j . PHF P.M. Actual C' Ad j . 'S PHF Ave. Clock Peak Hour a.m. ( ) Actual Ad j . PHF p.m. (I'70o-leoj) Actual p.� Adj.- 3 PHF Ave. Actual Total Y- .� 9 / -e, TRANS/OP INC. INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT f/ 7- DATE 1 7 S :� DAY o f W E E K INTERSECTION i�-o-�J p /.� a-• � ., � L�� _,. •�Q JOB No. -sP-- � STREET ENTERING VOLUME PERCENT OF FLOW TIME of COUNT 6 1?00 VEHICLES COUNTED ALL VEHICLES XXX TRUCKS (XX TOTAL PERCENT TRUCKS f; TRANS/OP INC. INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT CITY �'�' ��'! DATE IQ DAY of WEEK �: T. INTERSECTION �hel�,1.4o _ I JOB No.S£ - STREET ENTERING -VOLUME PERCENT OF FLOW TIME of COUNT - VEHICLES COUNTED ALL VEHICLES XXX TRUCKS (XX TOTAL j PERCENT TRUCKS APT - - ao, i 13Z !3"L 26� zr 7.7 (c 7 15 -- - - - 113 -- -- - - - - -'L' --- --- . - - =.� TRANS/OP INC. INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT DATE /L7 3 DAY of WEEK y� ' INTERSECTION-�+-�->.� F!K • JOB No. STREET ENTERING .VOLUME PERCENT OF FLOW TIME of COUNT VEHICLES COUNTED ALL VEHICLES XXX TRUCKS (XX TOTAL PERCENT TRUCKS Sta.No. • -:+ �;.zc�o rah � �f/_ , $.-�,�,,�� � ��, r �' a -- U,-Ca Route 11 ✓� ' , r yea r.� I — D to. ��! LJ. �' 1�1J�$QT�L4_T_� Weekday llour Sub-' EeF-i.n � ;•;on� Tues. t'cd � 1 _ _ J_fhurJ Fri.totalJ oho, N 01 O 0 2_0 03 0 04 0 OS 0 o i-- os o os e i 11 lo_a - _� 3.200 Ti 14 _oo 15 G0 -6 0 �L2 JLL 17 00 -- ( L4 -�L- Is oo J�p��-�9 —1L, 19 20 00 ------ 21 00 2 o-0 _ -_ _- ----- - 13; TOTAL - Total for Sat. Sun. We ek �o /b E 7=5j-)_—� ail -- � II--- L - _— II Av. l-?ceL-cia_ Y Vol. .,v_Day Vol. d YJ I I-- --- i goo 7% AV. D -y of -- �— — - -- -- — _ x _ 1-'cr:th:-r� — --- ---- —100 X_ -X- - .;C = Cl.c3r, R = Rain, S - SDOW J Ice LI Sta .10. route 1 —Year /q$3 D e : GC.� e , �✓ i i uu r �- Q" -' '�--� Weekday Sub- • EeF.i.n ;;on. I Tues_ wed. _fhur� Fri. I total) 00 00_-_-_-_J-L4 L.J-LO 01 00---- 'Lu_ I q o ) ► o _) 4_�I _1 02 00-- 59 I c. 03 00- 04 00 - --J----II=---�. -- — -! - Zs 2 q I- 07-00 I (.0 5 7 /3J 13 X I _ _0 8 /0_0 — — I _ (� d K'1_ Obi CO I �6 � �Sr ] O Gp �J ---- - 41 'S- -1 _ I_ 9 e I_ z�s_1_ 1 _ 11 �j0 L5-?G 44 11 - 2 00 - - �eZ4' 1-74s I I d Ti -do _—�_gs4 14 GO ------- � 15 00 16 00 — IlU63 00 __ --i —q i-s o0 J�Zo 19 00_ 20 -�z-oo 23_-00------ I z'73 TOTAL 112,�6U: 73 I_f 44 PM Total 4r-r r- a 3-- _,�,5____II_--- ° 133-3-31410 gd�_✓_ 11 --- Axr. !•?eel day \yol. 'ix. Day 1701. — _ �— too ( % Av.n.:yc of — --- — �' x X 100 X ..0 = Clear, R = Rain, $ S=.�G�, Ice -1 � r�S r �L"--�-a.� 1� � �e..:1n...A�.. J'� %�11'\., --- � - 1 --,• ----/ 01 � � u >;n 0 Sta . No. F.oute 1' �,• �..� �..._� ,.� �..,_.-Q Bien — Year D.:te: ✓� .r 2�✓AnfL�..., _ D�-� ' c 7 Win. 1�Weekd liour ay Total Sub for BeFi.n , HSn J Tues_ lied_ J_fhurs Fri. [ otalj Sat. Sun. Week 00 00 01 00- oz 00�--- 03 00- 04 00 --- - -- -- ---�- -� - - - os oo—_I_�J0—____1_ IJ- - 2 00 --- --- ---1- -2-!- 4 P� i Ti oo-- _-_�- - J-_LQ��----- ----- - �a-- _-_6 00------� -!o_I- 17 40 —. - -- - — - s oo-- 19 00 20 21 00 TOTAL Av. vieel:da-y Vol. -- --- !w. Day Vol. — %,.r��YJ_ I I_J_ _i l00 i X .- ___ "(:`-,c of -- -- .I X 100 X-- -,C =Clear, R = Rain S-�S>>o�•�-_-._�-----=•_----- •- - X-- ----_L_----- -- . ._--_ Tce ^mil :ai:,r:s -- ----- ------ - -- r�,. i I i d by -------- -------- 0 Sta.No. F.oute Year aa' D ::e • iZ,-' ?�t/�-�•-�-� - ;�.-•_j Hour Sub-' _l j.?eekday Total for EeF.i_n T;on� Tues_ 1?ed_J_ 'urJ Frij totai j Sat. Sun. Week 00 7 70 i_4 0.) �a J -- �_�J 02 �o -- - us00 _------�_ _3_ II y 04 00 1 � fl -_3- 05 00-----I-L 4 '� I---- 1 �- 06_gJ- o_s _oo_ ---I ° 3 ! S� i _ s�- II �c�g, g s41 -- --- 09 00 _ --�� � 0 _ G i _3 1_ Z. 1 0 _ -39 T ? $� 14 -is _Oo----� 00 {{^^)) — G00 1 00 1s 00 J 7 19 00 2' c 00 �i oo - _- - --SIg- l7_ (0 23 00 3'OTAL _ 1�2, $43 i:i A� Veekda-y Vol . -- - ;v_ Day Vol. Av _-a�yJ_ 1 V. _ �.� of X 100 -'C - C1.ear, R = Rain, S --- SDOW _� -TCe . '_' X - ".- _ __X Cry i l i d--- Unsignalized "T" Intersection Capacity Calculation Form I-,'( -I' Imcr,%c Nion---- Lczation Plan: 9� • /� �� �-�,�r_ Counts: o Day M B C I - ,Ll.. Hourly Demand Traffieffre om /6 00 to �. /-- m Approach A 7 B C �~ Movement A, — A� B,.% Br '-- CL Cr, /` volume 940 /p / 3 Z peh r,t to t 1 - , ' y - - .S i Z- 3 S Step I Right Turn from C Conflicting Flows = Mx = (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, _ Capacity from Fig. 3 = Shared Lane - Sec Step 3 No Shared Lane - Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (-fable 3) Step 2 Left Turn from B Conflicting Flows = Mx = (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, _ Capacity from Fig. 2 = Demand = Capacity Used = Impedance Factor from Fig. 3 = Available Reserve = Delay & Lcvcl of Service (Table 3) Step 3 Left Tbrn from C Conflicting Flows = Mx = (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 T. _ Capacity from Fig. 2 _ Adjust for Impedance No Shared Lane Demand = Available Rcscrvc = Delay & Levcl of Service (Table 3) /Shared Lane Demand = v Shared Lane with Right Turn Capacity of Shared Lane = Availablc Rcscrvc = Delay & Level of Scrvicc (Table 3) C,r f— Ih A,t + AT (O scC C. = yrA MI -CA= „,A 0 BL S, scr M.%* = M, _ �• prA BL = 100 (B✓M2) _ —� % P,=_L M, BL = b4 &I r A iyi o, J -c I lk CL 1 %A„ + Ar + BL + By = /+, -�JA +/AV= o�A scx - _ Mw. CL = y A M, -CL= yrA C. + CL = C-L = -1_ , rA _ (C, + CL) M" + (C,/M,) ( M 17 — CAL TimcoPv ,( ' ) r a --T Control &Vt Prevailing Speed OverallEvaluation t' ,f e i s m e 1 P a vs D YI -e -Yn A 1-1 C U f b I A -)A e 0 Unsiynalized " f- Intersection Capacity Calculation Form U-calion Plan: -`�•� `��f '��^ Counts: a� 94, /V C Hourly Dcmand Traffic Volumcs from A000 to J2P—O—. —,44_ m Approach A B —r C —IY— Movement A, — AR , BL r Br CL i r Ca Volume IT 0 `� p-- 917 i 0 qQ Is--4 3 i..,r 7.r.k tr Spch Step 1 M Step 2 Step 3 t Right TLrn from C Conflicting Flows = MM = (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, _ Capacity from Fig . 3 = Sharcd Lane — Scc Step 3 No Shared Lane -- Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) Left TLrn from B Conflicting Flows = M, _ (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, _ Capacity from Fig. 2 = Dcmand -- Capacity Used = Impedance Factor from Fig. 3 = Available Rcscrvc = Delay & Level of Scrvicc (Table 3) Left Turn from C Conflicting Flows = M„ _ (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, _ Capacity from Fig. 2 = _ Adjust for Impedance No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = )DO,-y & Levcl of Service (Table 3) Sharcd Lane Demand = Sharcd Lane with R ight Turn Capacity of Sharcd Lanc = Available Rcscrvc = Delay & Le,.cl of Service (Table 3) C, r 'h A,r + AT A _ ,S + Kc M.. - M,= �oQKA CA M' — CR BL r A, + �Ar _ see 5, 5 M,. M, =� KA BL =// 0txA ]00( JM,)=�% P,= •`I3 M, - BL = s /A --149 CL 1 'hA, + Ar + BL + By = SIC MN._�� MJI. X P, = Ma CL = yrA Ma —CL= C, + CL = CAL yrA _ (CR + CL) M'a (C,/M J + (CL/M3) M'a=:Mt�A A home frotic �elatr��t Date M— Dad• 674,.2 . Time —P-ff U ' Control X! 2) Prevailing Speed f/ BL r A, + �Ar _ see 5, 5 M,. M, =� KA BL =// 0txA ]00( JM,)=�% P,= •`I3 M, - BL = s /A --149 CL 1 'hA, + Ar + BL + By = SIC MN._�� MJI. X P, = Ma CL = yrA Ma —CL= C, + CL = CAL yrA _ (CR + CL) M'a (C,/M J + (CL/M3) M'a=:Mt�A A home frotic �elatr��t Date M— Dad• 674,.2 . Time —P-ff U ' Control X! 2) Prevailing Speed f/ M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 5/25/84 2) Cardinal Woods Extension 1. The grassed island of the city street should include curbs; detail does not include them. 2. The minimum distribution water main is 8 inch. 3. Sidewalks ahould be included along Hinesburg Road. 4. Private streets should include a gravel base 30 feet in width and bituminous pavement of 24 feet. 5. I would recommend that the water main located in the grassed median be re- located between the curb and sidewalk so that trees could be planted in the median strip. R% 6. The 60 foot right-of-way for the public street is not wide enough to allow for a future sidewalk along south side. The right-of-way should be 70 feet. 3) Shelburne Read Pro- t (Carters) , N.E. Corner Imperial Drive 1. Sidewalk along Imperial Drive should be constructed on property line. It must be continuous across the entrance drive. 2. Driveway shall include a depressed concrete curb with flairs instead of radii. 4) Ledge Knoll 1. It is unfortunate that a sewer easement can not be negotiated to run the pressure main directly north instead of the Hinesburg Road route. This adds approximately 2,000 more feet to the length and increased cost of energy to pump that extra distance. 2. There should be a manhole and stub at the intersection of Highland Terrace and Dubois Drive with stub extended beyond Dubois Drive to prevent damage to this street when the sewer is extended south to service Highland Terrace. ►- 7 0 6 !o 0 5 I� 4 0 w a 3 a� 2 2 w r❑ APPENDIX C 2:00- 3:00- 4:00- 5:00- 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5.00 PM 6:00 PM KEY O DEXTER 0 BIG & TALL a ALL SEASONS • ALPINE SHOP A LADY SHELBURNE ■ SKI SHOP HOUR FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services I � ' May 16, 1984 Dr. Perry - Here is the site plan with a proposed landscaping value of $6200. Could you please verify this value? Thanks for your assistance. Please call me this week if possible. Sincerely, ja'1{'e- �N..Ct, Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner, South Burlington 658-7958 ................... ............. . Fzi ;D i�A�SIS CQLIS, rz- �'0N� A! ��/j/ - O2 ��gtiSPOR�P�� STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 133 State Street, Administration Building Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Mr. David H. Spitz, City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Spitz: August 11, 1983 REcE/ BCD MA I ICy 1gR3 C,T Y SO eq s 0,, As you requested in your July 27, 1983 letter, the Agency has reviewed Dr. Oppenlander's traffic analysis relative to signalization requirements at the intersection of US Route 7 and Imperial Drive in South Burlington. Although the additional traffic generated by a new retail store (Carter's Children's Wear) on Imperial Drive will advance the timetable for installation of a traffic control system, the warrants for a traffic signal are not satisfied, based on traffic -demand levels, with or without the proposed development in 1983. Therefore, the Agency cannot, at this time, approve signalization at the intersection of US Route 7 and Imperial Drive. With reference to your question concerning whether or not the Agency has sufficient funds to pay for a signal system, I must inform you that all funds have been committed, and the Agency therefore does not have funds to pay for such an improvement. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please contact me. Sin e ly, ft& Patrick J. Garahan Secretary PJG:WKW:tsl. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services The Kiln • 15 Brickyard Road • Essex Junction • Vermont • 05452 • (802) 878-3000 2 April 1984 Mr. Jeffrey L. Davis J.L. Davis, Incorporated P.O. Box 226 Williston, Vermont 05495 RE: Traffic Generation; Proposed Carter's Store, South Burlington File: 8408 Dear Mr. Davis: Recently you came to us for advice regarding the proposed use of your parcel of land on the corner of Shelburne Road and Imperial Drive, in South Burlington. The principal concern you asked us to address was the amount and rate of traffic generated by the proposed use, a CARTER'S "specialized" clothing store. We understand the City of South Burlington, through their research, confirmed your opinion that the proposed use would not create a "warrant" to justify the signali- zation of the Shelburne Road -Imperial Drive intersection. On the other hand, City Regulations and current Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation data were utilized to restrict the size of your proposed retail store beyond what you thought was reasonable. Upon investigation, we found that the ITE trip generation data used in establishing your building's size by the Regulations appeared to be limited in both "application" (category) and statistical "match". Specifically, the ITE Category applied to your proposed use was "814-Specialty Retail Center", which is described by ITE (Trip Generation, Third Edition, 1982) as: "Specialty retail centers are generally small shopping centers which contain shops specializing in quality apparel or hard goods. The centers studied ranged in size between 17,000 and 43,000 gross leasable square feet". This description is accom- panied by the notation "Only three centers were studied. Therefore, more data are required for this use". Since you are proposing a "free-standing" retail specialty store, we felt the "center" category (#814) was inapplicable, particuarly because ITE has another category (#870- Apparel), and a "center" has different trip generation characteristics when compared to a "free-standing" store. Design • Inspection • Studies • Permitting Mr. Jeffrey L. Davis 2 April 1984 File 8408 Page Two Further research showed that category #870-Apparel, even though delineated, has no data background and has been included by ITE only as part of their "ideal list" designation. A conversation with ITE personnel substantiated our position that your proposed use was not logically includable in category #814-Specialty Retail Center, since one if the three studied centers included a restaurant (traditionally a high volume generator), another center included a furniture store (traditionally a low volume generator), and all three centers studied were much larger than your pro- posed store. We followed -up our conversations with ITE by summarizing our understandings in a letter to them, and received a written reply from them (copies enclosed as Appendices A & B). Although South Burlington, in its review of your project appeared to use the "best available information" from ITE to determine trip generation rates (and subsequently the resulting maximum allowable floor area), we felt (and Mr. Buttke, Chairman of the ITE Trip Generation Committee_ concurred) that a much more defensible position would be to record actual trip generation data at stores comparable to the one you propose. As a result of the foregoing, and at your instruction, our firm proceeded to develop the data base needed to establish trip generation rates for your proposed retail use, a "free-standing specialty clothing store with about 7,000 square feet of floor area", utilizing the "Update Procedure" recommended by ITE (Trip Generation, Third Edition, 1982). Through field investigations and telephone interviews, we identified six locations in the South Burlington and Shelburne area which met the criteria of being a free-standing specialty and/or apparel store. The locations selected for data gathering are: STORE LOCATION TYPE GROSS FLOOR AREA All Seasons Factory Outlet Alpine Shop Big and Tall Shop Dexter Factory Outlet Lady Shelburne Ski Shop 1636 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 1184 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 1333 Shelburne Road South Burlington, VT Shelburne Road Shelburne, VT Shelburne Road Shelburne, VT 388 Shelburne Road South Burlington, VT Clothing/Sportswear 3,OOOft2 Sportswear/ski sales 8,100ft2 and rentals Specialty menswear 2,400ft2 Footwear 8, 800f t2 Womens Clothing 3,000ft2 Sportswear/ski sales 4,600ft2 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Jeffrey L. Davis 2 April 1984 File 8408 Page Three Simultaneous traffic counts were performed at all six locations on Thursday, March8, 1984 (2:00 pm - 6:00 pm), Friday, March 9, 1984 (2:00 pm - 6:00 pm) and Thursday. March 15, 1984 (12:00 pm - 6:00 pm). The traffic count data from the six locations was analyzed to determine the average weekday trip generation rates per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area between the hours of 2:00 pm and 6:00 pm. The resulting rates, for each location, are tabulated in Table I below. TRDI C T WEEKDAY HOURLY TRIP GENERATION RATES AVG. WEEKDAY VEHICLE TRIP ENDS/1,000 SQ. FT. GROSS FLOOR AREA HOUR STORE 2:00-3:00 pm 3:00-4:00 pm 4:00-5:00 pm 5:00-6:00 pm All Seasons 1.89 3.0 2.33 1.56 Alpine Shop 2.80 4.49 6.34 6.17 Big and Tall 2.36 1.11 0.83 1.25 Dexter 1.51 1.55 1.78 1.44 Lady Shelburne 3.78 4.11 3.11 2.67 Ski Shop 4.06 3.55 2.83 2.39 AVERAGE 2.73 2.97 2.87 2.58 Appendix C illustrates, graphically, the data of Table I. In the course of our analy- zing the traffic count data, three of the six locations, namely the Alipne Shop, Big & Tall, and Dexter Factory outlet exhibited dissimilar traffic rates and patterns as can be seen in Appendix C. The remaining three locations yielded very similar results. We concluded the dissimilitude of the three "samples" was attributed to the following reasons: the Alpine Shop not only sells apparel and specialty goods (ski equipment), but also rents ski equipment, generating greater than average traffic voulmes during the rental and return of this equipment; both Big & Tall and Dexter cater to very specialized markets, thereby generating lower than average traffic volumes. Eliminating the three dissimilar locations from the analyses resulted in the trip generation rates displayed in Table II on the following page. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Jeffrey L. Davis 2 April 1984 File 8408 Page Four TABLE II AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION RATES HOUR AVERAGE WEEKDAY VEHICLE TRIP ENDS/1,000 SQ. FT. GFA* ENTER EXIT TOTAL 2:00-3:00 pm 1.6 1.64 3.24 3:00-4:00 pm 1.65 1.90 3.55 4:00-5:00 pm 1.36 1.40 2.76 5:00-6:00 pm 0.79 1.42 2.21 *Gross Floor Area In order to analyze adjacent -street characteristics, information concerning daily traffic volumes on Shelburne Road in the vicinity of this Project was secured from the Vermont Agency of Transportation. This data, particuarly a weeklong continuous coverage count at Station D105, on Shelburne Road, near McIntosh Avenue, dated Septem- ber 9-16, 1982, was analyzed to determine the weekday P.M. peak hour of traffic volumes and other weekday hours during which the volumes exceed 80% of the weekday peak traffic volumes (Section 17.302-South Burlington Zoning Regulations). Based on this data, the hour of weekday P.M. peak traffic volumes occurs between 4:00 pm and 5:00 pm. Hours with a traffic volume exceeding 80% of the P.M. peak traffic volume were found to in- clude 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm. As a conservative measure, we have elected to apply the P.M. peak hour trip generation rate of the traffic generator (3:00-4:00, 3.55 trip ends /1,000ft,) to the requirments of the Traffic Overlay District, with the following results: MAXIMUM TRAFFIC _ 25 trips/hour = 7,042 sq. ft. GENERATION LEVEL 3.55 trips/hour/1,000 ft TOTAL PERMITTED SIZE = 7,042 sq. ft. x 37,954 ft' (actual lot size) = 6,682 sq. ft. 40,000 ft (minimum lot size) If the adjacent -street peak -hour generation rate (2.76 trip ends per 1,000 square feet) is selected, the Regulations would allow a TOTAL PERMITTED SIZE equal to 8,595 square feet on your lot. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Jeffrey L. Davis 2 April File 8408 Page Five Either of the above total permitted sizes is, obviously, contingent upon the land use remaining as a specialty apparel store, or other use which will not exceed the average weekday trip generation rates indicated above. We trust the foregoing information will suffice in establishing how your proposed use is affected by the Traffic Overlay District restrictions. However, should you have any questions concerning our procedures or conclusions, please feel free to contact us at your convenience. We thank you for this opportunity to have assisted you. Sincerely Yours, FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Roge_ J� Dickinson, P.E. RJD/amo FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services APPENDIX A f1T71'A1IZ1CK-LI,EWCk-,N INCORI'0I1/1'1ED 1 f_ngineering and f tanning Services the Kiln • 15 Brickyard noad • Essex Junclion • Vermont • 05452 • (802)878-3000 29 February 1984 Mr. Carl 11. Buttke Chairman, HE Trip Generation Committee Carl Buttke, Incorporated P.O. Box 636 Portland, Oregon 97207 RE: I1 Generation Data - Specialty Retail Center File. 8408 Dear Mr. Buttke: We are writing to confirm and elaborate on our telephone conversation of Feb- ruary 8, 1984, concerning available trip generation data for the following categories; Specialty Stores (Code 811), Specialty Retail Centers (Code 814) and Apparel Stores (Code 870). Olir interest in trip generation data for these categories stems from our involve- ment in our Client's project which consists of a small (5,000 - 8,000 sq. ft.) free -stranding specialty clothing store. We are presently working to document the availability and applicability of published trip generation data for stores of this type, since our Client has been asked to use the trip generation data from the "Specialty Retail Center" category, and we are not convinced this is an appropriate application. We u►Iderstand, from our conversation, that the ITE Trip Generation Committee has established the three categories listed above, but has received trip gene- ration data only for "Specialty Retail Centers" (Code 814). This data was pub- lished in the "HE Informational Report, Trip Generation, Third Edition, 1982". Also, we understand'no additional trip generaf of n-,aa a applicable to any of these categories has been received since publication of this report. Our conversation ascertained that the only data used to develop trip generation rates for the "Specialty Retail Centers" category was from a report entitled "San Diego Association of Governments, Traffic Generators, 1979 to 1981". We discussed the characterisItcs of the "retail centers" tudied and you reported the quaritity of data was very limited (only three retail centers were studied) and that the retail centers studied contained unique traffic generators, (i.e. a furniture store and a restaurant) which could adversely affect the applica- bility of the data. We agreed that because of these factors, the published data Design 0 Inspection 0 Studies 0 Permitting I Mr. Carl H. Quttke File: 8408 29 February 1981 Page Two for "Specialty Retail Centers", which is defined in the ITE Report as a small shopping center containing shops specializing in apparel or hard goods, is not universally appl.i.cable to all small centers or stores which sell clothing. We understand ITE trip generation data for Specialty Stores (Code 811) and Apparel Stores (Code 870) is not available at the present. Our Client has authorized us to perform traffic counts at comparable specialty stores in the immediate geographic area, which we hope to undertake in the next few weeks. We plan to conduct these counts in conformance with ITE recommended procedures and have secured the Client's approval to submit this data to the ITE Trip Generation Committee upon completion of our work. In the meantime, we would appreciate a short letter from you confirming our conclusions, as outlined above, concerning the availability of published trip generation data for retail stores, specialty retail centers and apparel stores and its applicability to our Client's project. Should you have any questions on our request or wish to discuss this matter further please don't hesitate to contact us at your convenience. We thank you for the time you've taken to discuss this situation with us and look forward to your response. Sincerely, FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED U Roge Di E. cc Mr. Joseph Oppenlander Mr. Jeffrey L. Davis RJD/amo TTTZPA"TRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services APPENDIX P INS-IITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS FORMERLY INSTITUTE OF TFIAMC ENGINEERS TECHNICAL COUNCIL Address Feely to: Carl II . Buttke, Inc . Consulting Trans. Engr. P. 0. Box 636 Portland, OR 97207 March 14, 1984 Mr. Roger J. Dickinson, P.E. Fitzpatrick Llewellyn Inc. The Kiln 15 Brickyard Road Essex Junction, Vermont 05h52 Re: ITE Trip Generation, An Informational Report Dear Mr. Dickinson: This letter is to confirm our discussion on February 8, 1984 and your subsequent letter dated February 29, 1984. Because land use category 814-Specialty Retail Center only contains three data samples from the same source, it should.be used cautiously. The particular type store you are concerned with, a free-standing clothing store of 5,000 to 8,000 sq.ft., does not really fit the specialty Retail Center category. I would recommend, if possible, you measure similar type stores to determine a more applicable trip generation rate. The data in the ITE Trip Generation Report are to be used as a guideline and beginning point to the trip generation calculation. See the section titled "Use of the Report" in the introduction. however, if no other information is available, then the ITE Trip Generation Report would be a good starting point for estimating your development trips. Sincerely, (�po,/ Carl Ii. Buttke, P.E. Chairman -Permanent Trip Generation Committee i A PPENDIX C w Q� �i z O Q W Z Lu CD a 7 a 6 0 �o 0 5 C) 4 0 Z w a 3 2 2 W U 2:00- 3:00- 4:00- 5:00- 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM KEY O DEXTER A BIG a TALL O ALL SEASONS • ALPINE SHOP ♦ LADY SHELBURNE ■ SKI SHOP HOUR FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services LAW OFFICES McNAMARA & FITZPATRICK, INC. 192 COLLEGE STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 TELEPHONE 802 863-3494 ADDRESS REPLY TO: P. O. BOX 65 7 November 22, 1983 Mr. Richard Ward City of South Burlington Zoning and Planning Offices Municipal Building Dorset Street South Burlington, Vt. RE: Site Plan Approval of Jeffrey L. Davis Dear Dick: I enclose copy of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order with reference to the site plan approval heretofore granted to the application of Jeffrey L. Davis by the City of South Burlington Planning Commission on July 26, 1983. On the basis of the enclosed, I would request that whatever permits have been granted be immediately rescinded. Very truly yours, OHN C. FTYZPATRICK JCF/TT ,r FIL�C COUNn, OOUR 7 Ef?KS Or_ F/CE STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. IN RE: APPEAL OF ) DONALD M. & KAREN LEFEBVRE ) 14 Imperial Drive, So. Burlington, VT) VINCENT H. & ROSEMARY NARAMORE ) 38 Imperial Drive, So. Burlington, VT) CONSTANCE D. SNYDER ) 59 Imperial Drive, So. Burlington, VT) SHALLOM & HENNY LEWIN ) 3 Worth Street, So. Burlington, VT ) RAYMOND & ELIZABETH DELANEY ) 34 Imperial Drive, So. Burlington, VT) C. HACKETT & ELLEN BUSHWELLER ) 9 Worth Street, So. Burlington, VT ) G fEE CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO. C51-83 CnM FINDINGS OF' FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER The above -entitled cause came on for a hearing on the merits before the Chittenden Superior Court. The Appellants were represented at the hearing by John C. Fitzpatrick, Esq. The Appellee was represented by If. Joseph Gamache, Esq. After consideration of the request for findings, proposed conclusions of law, the evidence and applicable law, the Court finds, concludes and orders as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This was a hearing de novo held on October 24, 1983, on an application for site plan review filed by Jeffrey L. Davis with the South Burlington Planning Commission pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4475 and 24 V.S.A. §4472. 2. Appellee, J. L. Davis, owns the premises and struc- tures commonly known and designated as 1270 Shelburne Road, located at the corner of Shelburne Road and Imperial Drive, South Burlington, Vermont. 3. The property has a frontage on Shelburne Road of 139 feet and a depth of 275 feet. 4. The property comprises an office building having a width of 64 feet and a depth of 42 feet. J. L. Davis applied for a building permit to erect a 60 foot by 62 foot addition behind and to the east of the existing structure on his property. The entire building including the addition will comprise 6,500 square feet. The retail store is to be 4,800 square feet with the balance of 1,700 square feet to be used for storage. 5. The City of South Burlington has regulations found in "South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Official Zoning P4ap." The regulations are known and are cited as "The South Burlington Zoning Regulations." 6. The property is located in a Commercial 1 Zone and a Traffic 3 Overlay District. 7. In June 1983, J. L. Davis entered into lease negotiations with the William Carter Company, a Massachusetts corporation, to locate a retail clothing store on the premises. The retail store would be selling infant-children's apparel and is found to be a specialty retail store. dim 8. The proposed Carter store would close at 6:00 p.m. each evening. 9. A Site Plan review is required because of the proposed change in use from an office building to a retail store. 10. The proposed use would include the construction of a parking lot which would contain 47 parking spaces, including a single space devoted to handicapped parking with a single curb cut. 11. The South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment gave unanimous approval to the project. 12. The project was submitted to the Planning Commission for Site Plan approval. On July 26, 1983, the South Burlington Planning Commission gave Site Plan approval to the project. 13. Traffic studies were conducted at the request of the South Burlington Planning Commission by its Traffic Consul- tant, Joseph C. Oppenlander, P.E.. Mr. Oppenlander's report indicates that in order to warrant the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Imperial Drive and Shelburne Road, there must be eight individual hours in any twenty-four hour period on a weekday when the combined traffic on Imperial Drive and Shelburne Road totals not less than 90,000 vehicles. - 3 - 14. The Court finds that without the addition of the Carter store, the intersection of Imperial Drive and Shelburne Road, on weekdays, meets the 90,000 vehicles per hour standard for two hours in each twenty-four hour period, and with the addition of the Carter store, it meets the 90,000 vehicles per hour standard for six hours of each twenty-four hour period. 15. The peak -hour figures supplied by the Carter company are not comparable. There was no credible evidence presented which showed that the properties are alike and the figures were not verified. 16. The Dexter Shoe Company building is located on another part of the Shelburne Road and is not comparable. David H. Spitz, City Planner, stated that the Dexter Shoe Store is not a true comparable, and the Court so finds. 17. It is found that traffic entering the parking lot must also exit and that the peak -hour traffic utilized by Mr. Oppenlander and bein 4.58 for each 1,000 feet of gross floor area is appropriate. 18. The Court finds that the proposed Carter store would generate 22 trip ends for a 4,800 square foot store or a peak - hour figure of 4.58 for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. 19. The "South Burlington zoning Regulations" require approval of the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a zoning - 4 - permit for any new use or change in use in any district. There may be imposed appropriate conditions and safeguards with respect to the adequacy of pedestrian and vehicular access, circulation, parking, landscaping and screening. The reviewing body for Site Plan approval shall consider the following criteria: a. Pedestrian and Vehicular Access; b. Circulation; C. Parking; d. Landscaping and Screening; e. Other. The applicable standards for pedestrian and vehicular access are found in "The South Burlington Zoning Regulations" Article XVII titled "Traffic Overlay District." The Overlay District was formed to control traffic congestion and prevent worsening of existing conditions in areas of high -volume traffic flow. 20. A calculation procedure is provided for determining permitted size for use. The calculation considers such things as size of the lot, size and projected peak -hour traffic volume of the use, and the permitted peak -hour traffic volume. The traffic volume estimates are based on Trip Generation, Second -Edition 1979, Institute of Traffic Engineers. It is found that it is appropriate to use that Edition and not estimates from � other sources, including local traffic counts. 21. Peak -hour traffic volumes above the normal standard may be approved if other site improvements will produce a net - 5 - benefit for traffic flow in the vicinity. After considering the ability of the lot to qualify on its own or in combination with others for a planned commercial development; change or reduction in number and location of curb cuts; traffic volumes and effect on levels of service at nearby intersections; and any other criteria, it is found that site improvements will not produce a net benefit for traffic flow in the vicinity. 22. The calculation procedures found in Table III and the provisions of Section 17.30 of the"South Burlington Zoning Regulations" have been applied. 23. The Court finds that the minimum size lot .i.n the C-1 Zone is 40,000 square feet; the size of the lot of the applicant is 38,225 square feet; the size of the use of the applicant is 6,500 square feet; the projected peak -hour traffic volume of the use is 4.58 for 1,000 square feet of gross floor space and the permitted peak -hour traffic volume in the traffic overlay zone in which the lot is situated is 25 trips. 24. It is found that the total permitted size of the store is 5,160 square feet. 25. It is found that the application of the Appellee does not meet the gross floor area requirements of Section 17 of the "South Burlington Zoning Regulations" of the City of South Burlington. - 6 26. The circulation and parking standard found in Section 19.10 and 19.25 provides that land or structures shall not be used, erected, altered or occupied unless the provisions for off-street parking and loading set forth in "South Burlington Zoning Regulations," Section 19.25 and Table I shall have been met. It is found that the applicant's plan meets the minimum requirements as to the size of parking spaces, including angled parking spaces. 27. The "South Burlington Zoning Regulations" -require one parking space for each 100 square feet of retail space and 4,800 square feet of building is to be utilized for retail space. The plan contains 47 parking spaces, but the Court finds that the parking area complies because it will accommodate not less than 48 parking spaces. 28. It is found that 1,700 square feet is provided for storage. Although additional parking is required, the Court finds that no additional parking spaces have been provided. 29. One space has been devoted to handicapped parking, but "South Burlington Zoning Regulations," Section 19.253 pro- vides that parking spaces for handicapped persons shall be provided in size, number and location to comply with State regulations. There was no credible evidence that the State regulations have been complied with, and the Court is unable to find that the section has been complied with. - 7 - 30. The "South Burlington Zoning Regulations," Section 19.255 and Table I, require that one space of at least 250 square feet for each 3,000 square feet of floor area or part thereof should be provided as loading and unloading areas. There was no evidence presented and the Court is unable to find that the section was complied with. 31. Modification of requirements allowed by "South Burlington Zoning Regulations," Section 19.256,and the require- ments of Table I with a number.of off-street parking spaces and loading spaces may be reduced to 50% of the normal require- ment if overlapping use of parking spaces or other unique characteristics cause the requirement to be unnecessarily stringent. It is found that there is no overlapping use of adjacent parking spaces in this proposal. It is also found that there are no other unique characteristics causing the parking requirements for this use to be unnecessarily stringent. 32. Standards for landscaping, screening and buffer yards are provided in "South Burlington Zoning Regulations," Section 19.104,and it provides a minimum landscaping cost. The appellee will spend $3,500 for landscaping improvements and it is found that the appellee does not comply with Section 19.104. 33. The Court finds the Site Plan prepared by J. L. Davis is not in compliance with the criteria and requirements of the "South Burlington Zoning Regulations" relating to Planning Commission approval. - 8 - y q CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This is an appeal from the South Burlington Planning Commission's approval of an application for a Site Plan. The "interested person" is entitled to a de novo trial. A "de novo" hearing is one where the case is heard as though no action whatever has been held prior thereto. All the evidence is heard anew, and the probative effect determined by the appellate tribunal (Superior Court) as though no decision had been pre- viously rendered. In Re Poole; 136 vt. 242, 243 (1981). In the instant case, all evidence was heard anew. The findings demonstrate that there are violations of the South Burlington regulations pertaining to the traffic standards, the parking standards, and the landscaping requirements. The Superior Court ". . . has the duty to enforce, and the power to condition or waive the zoning regulations in the same manner as the Zoning Board of Adjustment or the Planning Commission." In Re Poole, supra, page 247. After considering the evidence, this Court has not conditioned or waived the "South Burlington Zoning Regulations." It is concluded that the Site Plan submitted fails to comply with the "South Burlington Zoning Regulations" of the City of South Burlington. JUDGMENT ORDER In view of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. The application for Site Plan review filed by Jeffrey L. Davis does not comply with the "South Burlington Zoning Regulations" and the Site Plan application is DENIED. 2. All other claims of the parties are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Dated at Burlington, County of Chittenden, and State of Vermont, this i day of November, 1983. ALAN•W. CHEEVER, SUPERIOR JUDGE - 10 - M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 6/24/83 3) Pet Lodge, Williston Road 1. There should be a buffer strip of at least 5 feet along westerly line in area defined as existing paved area to serve for snow storage and to discourage snow plowing onto adjacent property. 2. Sewer contribution of this facility, estimated at 100-150 gal per day, will be substituted for existing residential and business uses which will be removed. 4) Comm=rciallo men\Shelburne Road 1. Method of handling storm water should be shown. I recommend the parking area be intercepted with inlets and piped into the Imperial Drive system. 2. A sidewalk along Imperial Drive should be considered. 5) Proposed Restaurant, Corporate Circle 1. A large drainage swale exists along the westerly boundary. This swale also drains property to the west. It will have to be piped with provisions to in- tercept runoff from the west as well as from proposed parking lot. 2. Sidewalks should be included along the main road and along the service road. 3. The service road should include curbs. 4. This proposed restaurant will use up a substantial amount of the sewage flow reserved for the first phase of the Corporate Circle project. 5. Entering parking spaces at an angle greater than 90 degrees may be difficult. 1 Cl uv 12d4n �' sj►� ai 5 `lo i'(I, 51�-145 F1 T PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 26, 1983 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, July 26, 1983, at 7:30 pm, at City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present George Mona, Assistant Chairman; Judith Hurd, John Belter, William Burgess, Mary -Barbara Maher, Peter Jacob Member Absent Sidney Poger, Chairman Others Present David Spitz, City Planner; John W. Wolf, Steve Moore, J.L. Davis, Joe Gamache, Malcolm vonder Hyde, Arik Marks, Matt Marks, Barbara Marks, Terry Boyle, Melissa McCarthy, Jeannine McCarthy, Sue Whitmore, Roy Whitmore, Ginnie Gude, Barbara Martin, Paul B. Kebabian, Justine Kebabian, Jean Case, Duncan Case, Dr. Charles McLean, Lee Ann Lee, Karen Critchlow, Kathy Davis, Nancy Cote, Margrit Bechade, Roland Bechade, George Commo, V. Naramore, Tom McCormick, Don Lefebvre, Karen Sylehose, Mark Pritchard, Beryl Pritchard, Joseph Salmon, Mary Salmon, R.B. Sharpe, M.F. Hopper, Sara Bates, Mary Anne Murray, Monica Smith, Florence Mannino, Jeannette Abrams, J. Abrams, Ron Prilik, S. Stretton, Carol Smith, Constance Snyder, R. Naramore, Jan Brunelle, Bob Brunelle, Monica Farrington, A. Farrington, Anna Ellemin, N. M. Ellemin, Nicole Chittenden, J. C. Kenny, Roberta Strauss, Edward Banach, Dolores Banach, Scott Wiggett, Juliette Lacharite, Lucien Lacharite, Raymond Delaney, Elizabeth Delaney, Paul Losh, Dan Crosby, Thelma Crosby, Charmion Duff, John Duff, Margo Diehl, Samuel Diehl, Gail Wyand, Cecile Handy, George Handy, Bruce Mozhdehi, Louise Mozhdehi, Stillman Copp, J. Peter Trono, John Boescher, N. Hoechner, Mar- guerite Armstrong, Frank Armstrong, Lowell Krassner, Beverly Barry, Doug Wyand, Hack Bushweller, Ellie Bushweller, Sue Snyder, Rod Snyder, James Washburn, Rene Bonnette, Marie Bonnette, Frank Murray Minutes of July 12, 1983 Mrs. Maher noted that on p. 4, second paragraph, third sentence, the words "but that a sidewalk should be provided" should be eliminated. Mrs. Maher then moved that the Minutes of Julv 12. 1983 be a as amended.. Mr. Jacob seconded with unanimous Continuation of site plan application by Jeff Davis for an addi o an existing building at 1270 Shelburne Road and conversion re a use Mr. Mona noted for the record that letters have been received from Dale Kleppinger (July 15), Shalom Lewin and Vincent Naramore (undated, received July 16), and the applicant (July 25). July 26, 1983 p. 2 Mr. Spitz noted that the Zoning Board variance has been appealed to the Superior Court. Advice was sought from the City Attorney as to how to proceed, and the recommendation was to proceed with the hearing. Mr. Spitz then explained the review procedure: This is a site plan review. Site plan criteria are not as involved as sub -division plans, and are limited in scope to landscaping, screening, access and parking considerations. They can also take into effect the traffic situation. In South Burlington, there is a traffic overlay zone which dictates what traffic can be allowed in various parts of the city. These rules have been in effect since January in' their present form. Under these rules, such businesses as banks, a grocery/convenience store, and a Wendy's franchise have had trouble finding a location, since it was felt that these types of businesses would have a major negative impact on traffic. Such requirements are based on location, proximity to high -volume intersection, and type of access. They are further based on lot size and trip generations that will result from commercial use. Since the last meeting, Professor Oppenlander was asked to evaluate the intersection of Shelburne Rd. and Imperial Drive. Prof. Oppenlander observed the intersection at midday Saturday and on Wednesday afternoon. He noted there were definite diffi- culties but nothing like the 20-40 minute delays spoken of at the last meeting. Because of 2 traffic lights, Bartlett Bay Rd. and Baldwin Avenue, there are gaps in the traffic. The maih conflict was with cars heading left from Imperial onto Shelburne Rd. Most cars made it out in the first cycle; a few had to wait until the second cycle. Prof. Oppenlander also put counters out Thursday evening and they remained through Saturday. He then evaluated traffic warrants (criteria for the need of a signal) and capacity of the intersection (A through E). Traffic was at its highest on Friday from 4-5 pm. On this particular weekend, it was not as high on Saturday. If a count is made in a particular year or time of year, adjustments must be made. Prof. Oppenlander calculated the figures both with and without adjustments. He applied both seasonal and daily adjustment factors to Shelburne Rd. Mr. Spitz explained that there are 8 traffic warrants. The 2 most often used are #1 - minimum vehicular volume at an inter- section, which requires 600 cars on the major street and 150 on the minor street, and #2 - interruption of continuous traffic, which requires at least 900 cars on the major street and 75 on the minor street. The intersection in question meets none of these warrants, since there are not 75 cars on the side street, although there are the required number of cars on Shelburne Rd. It was thus concluded that although there is a problem getting onto Shelburne Rd, there is not enough of a problem to warrant a signal. Prof. Oppenlander has developed another warrant which he calls the "product warrant." If the traffic is great enough on the major street, the minor street does not have to reach 75. With this warrant, the signal is still not warranted with the adjusted data, although it is warranted with the unadjusted data. With the adjusted data it is warranted only 2 hours a day, with unadjusted data only 6 hours out of the 8. July 26, 1983 P. 3 As far as capacity analysis, with no signal Shelburne Road can get by at Level A. The problem is with traffic coming out of Imperial Drive, which is Level E. This is still not enough to warrant a signal. Mr. Spitz noted that site pal an and traffic overlay criteria evaluate how much --some use will add to the existing conditions. This area allows trip ends per peak hour. He added that the data is pretty rough but is still a national standard. He said there had been a new entry in the categories, "specialty retail store." For a 4800 ft. retail building 22 trip.,ends are allowed. This area does not include storage space. He added that if the Planning Commission feels the figures are too close to the limit, they can allow the business to locate with certain improvements, such as a signal, or widening the radii for turning vehicles. The hearing was then open for comments from the public. Mrs. Marks asked if there was anything in the warrants that deals with pedestrians trying to cross the street. Mr. Spitz said there must be 150 per hour to require a light. Mr. Washburn suggested that instead of using Dexter Shoe,as a comparison a clothing store could have been used. Tom McCormick, a lawyer for the Laurel Hill homeowners asked whether adjustments are made for increased traffic in foliage season. Mr. Spitz replied that July is indicated as the worst month. Mr. McCormick what is the time of delay used to assign Imperial Drive an "E" service rating. Mr. Spitz said the designation is "excessive delays." Ron Prilik noted that in icy conditions it becomes even harder to pull out onto Shel- burne Rd. Mr. Armstrong asked whether Prof. Oppenlander had given thought to the impact on Shelburne Road of the Southern Connector. Traffic will be backed up even more during the estimated 3-year construction period. Mr. Spitz said there is no doubt that this will happen. He added that the intent has not been to shut down all development until the road is fixed; the intent has been to evaluate what does come in so as not to aggravate the situation significantly. Steve Moore, architect for the project, presented some additional information which they had gathered on traffic, all of which he said support their contention that the Carter's Store will not have an undue impact on traffic at the intersection. He said they have been dealing in good faith with the city and have amended all things as requested. He said they understand the neighbors' concerns but feel they have digressed into a shouting match. He stressed that this will not be a discount store but a specialty retail quality clothing store. He added that the owner is willing to participate in a reasonable fashion to in- stall a light. They will also limit the store to 4800 sq. ft. for retail and use the rest for storage. Mr. Mona indicated that was not relevant; what will draw the traffic is not the size of the store but the Carter's name out front. Mr. Moore concluded they felt the proposal was reasonable. The land is zoned C-1, and the owner has been very careful in choosing a first rate tenant. July 26, 1983 p. 4 Mr. Mona asked whether Carter's will sell any adult clothing. Mr. vonder Hyde indicated only children's and infants. Ms. Whitmore asked how many parking places were provided. Mr. Spitz said that originally 48 had been proposed but 12 were eliminated but reserved in case they were found to be needed. Ms. Whitmore noted that in August & September and also at Christmas, there would be a high amount of business. She asked what provision had been made about people parking on Imperial Drive if the lot were full. Mr. Spitz said that "NO PARKING" signs could be put up if deemed necessary and that now was the time to address that issue. Mr. Kenny asked if the proposed store would not be selling at lower than regular store prices. Mr. vonder Hyde said the price would probably be lower than leading department stores but only because they ship direct to their own stores. Mr. Kenny asked if that did not constitute a "discount" store. Mr. Washburn said he felt they should look seriously at wider curb cuts and the possibility of lights that work during peak hours. Mr. Mona replied that the wider turn radii would be subject to approval of the State. The population figures were questioned, since several persons felt the proposed store would draw much business from Canada. Mrs. Goody stressed that there is no other access except through Laurel Hill and people might go wandering up there looking for another way out. Mr. McCormict asked if they had taken into consideration future growth estimates. Mr. Mona replied that they can only go by conditions as they apply today. Mr. Naramore noted that he had called Wells, ME, to check on the applicant's comparison figures and had been told that store was part of a 6-store shopping center. He added that Wells has onlir 5,000 people in winter and that the population of Travers City, Mich., is only 18,000 not the figures indicated by the applicant. Neither of them is a growth area as is Burlington. Mrs. Marks asked what assurance there was the the Carter's store would never sell adult clothing. Mr. Spitz explained that when a use is approved, the actual use must be consistent with that approval. Mrs. Maher disagreed. She said that once retail space is allowed and Carter were to sell the building a year later, any other use could come in without returning to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Spitz said that because of traffic overlay criteria, the city looks at all new uses. He added that if this is a concern, it could be stip- ulated that only children's clothing be sold. A citizen asked whether traffic rules are tougher now than when the Pizza Hut and Bonanza projects were approved and asked that the Commission not forget those two abominations. Summing up the concerns of the residents, Mr. McCormict said Imperial Drive is rated "E". The applicant, they feel, is trying to squeeze in under Zone 3. The Commission, they feel, is not getting full demographic information. He said the Commission is only guessing that once the store is up there won't be a horrendous problem. He concluded that the quality of life is more important than one new business. The public hearing was then closed. July 26, 1983 P. 5 In the Commission's discussion which followed, Mr. Mona said he felt it imperative that the curb radii be widened. Mr. Burgess asked what was the likelihood that the State would allow a signal at the intersection. Mr. Spitz said it was unlikely. Mrs. Maher asked if Mr. Spitz had contacted the Agency of Transportation. Mr. Spitz said he talked with Joe Landry and was told they "would have to look at it." Mr. Mona said they might want to consider re -instating the 12 parking spaces. Mr. Spitz indicated that so far no one has had to put in extra parking spaces that had been reserved. The Commission was then polled as to whether they felt the added spaces should be reinstated. Only Mr. Burgess said yes. A motion was then made by Mr. Jacob and seconded by Mr. Belter. During the discussion which followed, stipulations regarding curb radii, "No Parking" signs, and limiting the use to the sale of children's/infants clothing were proposed. The motion as voted upon was as follows: That the South Burlington Planninx Commission grant approval for the site plan application by Jeff Davis for an -addition at 1270— e urne Road and conversion to retail use as depicted on a plan entitled "Shelburne Road Project, a prepared ev Moore, Architect, date 3, with e following stipulations: 1) Bonding for landscaping ($3,000) and for a sidewalk and curb cut relocation shall be provided prior to issuance of a buuildiin`x 2) In addition to new landscaping. the a licant shall insure e ma i n t aine . 3) The area designated as "overflow parking" shall not be con- structed at this time. The City administration will review th parking situation after one Vear and mav require the a ona 12 parking spaces to be required, and anadditionaYamount ToF heir construction shall be bonded for prior to issuance o a uilding permit. 4) An increase in the curb radii shall be funded by the applicant to the specifications of the City Manager, endin State approval an shall a bonded or prior to issuance o a u ng perms . 5) Use of the property shall be limited to the sale of infants and c ildren's wearing a are . AnV other rail use of the property must be submitted to the Planninx Commission for approva 6) "No Parking" signs shall be provided on both sides of the street along the frontage of this propery on _ Imperial 5—rYve . 7) This approval expires in 6 months. In the vote which followed the motion was passed 5-1 with Mrs. Maher voting no. Mrs. Maher then explained her reasons for the "no^'vote. She said there is a problem of safe ingress and 9 1. July 26, 1983 p. 6 egress and that would be compounded with the addition of 6000 sq. ft. of popular retail development. The "E" level of service on Imperial Drive is bad and will get worse. She said that what may be generally accepted standards may not be appropriate for Vermont. She said she based her vote on the lack of sig- nalization at the intersection and said the Commission should force the issue with the State and should meet with the head of the Agency of Transportation. Continuation of ublic hearing on revised final plat application 'F v Tnd i an nrppk for addition of a swimming v001 Mr. Spitz noted there had been a site visit by 2 members of the Commission. Some side issues were observed. The gravel path that had been put in has not been maintained, but it was felt that this was not the responsibility of Indian Creek or of Ridge- wood Estates. There are also no monuments, and he suggested this be a stipulation in any motion. He said it was the consensus of those viewing the site that this was the proper place for a pool and that landscaping and screening was the issue. Mrs. Hurd said she felt the landscaping had to be close to the pool and tennis court. Mrs. Maher agreed and would like to see as much extra evergreen landscaping as possible on the east and south sides, both of which face Ridgewood residents. A Ridgewood resident noted that there is an elevation, and Ridgewood residents would be looking down at the pool/tennis court area. Mr. Murray, attorney for the Ridgewood group, stressed that they are not opposed to the pool but to its location. They ask that before further degradation of the land occurs that monuments be required to be placed. Mr. Seidel indicated that he had spoken to Steve Page who is to contact the surveyor. He said that if need be they would give the City a check for $1,500 to insure that the monuments are placed. Mr. Mona stressed that any en- croachment onto Ridgewood property is the responsibility of the Indian Creek people and they would be held accountable. Mr. Mona noted that the plan still shows parking on the Southeast side of the road. Mr. Seidel said they had no problem with re- moving it and agreed to do so. Mr. Boyle then was introduced to address the landscaping con- cerns of the Ridgewood people. He noted that the original plan was for high density cituster development overlooking the meadow. The concept was for single family houses along the edge of the ridge, leaving common open sapce. He said that concept has not been maintained in the present sub -division and could have been better maintained with open sapce. He added that the pool and tennis court are Mot in keeping with the spirit of the original ap&oval,snd tbat orientation near the road is not imperative to, this type 'of�recreation. He felt there would be no problem in movUg,the_pool to the north since parking is not needed. Regardi%j pl*hUng, he felt it would be most effective along the sout17 side of.the roadway, which also would minimize the impact of the road itself. He said the developer could berm up an area above the existing grade, probably 4 feet high and 300 feet long. July 28, 1983 Jeff Davis 50 Commerce Street Williston, Vermont 05495 Dear Jeff., Enclosed is a copy of the South Burlington Planning Commission's final approval with stipulations and findings of fact for your addition.and conversion to retail use at 1270 Shelburne Road. Please note that all bonding requirements must be completed before a building permit may be issued. Length of the bonding period for the additional parking area must be sufficient for building construction, one year. of occupancy and then con- struction of parking if required. Please also note the limitations on the type of retail use. Any change must be approved by the Planning Commission. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, David H. Spitz, City Planner DHS/mcg 2 Encls M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 7/8/83 3) V.L. Properties Legal documents have been submitted and appear to cover all relevant concerns. The City Attorney's review should be complete by Tuesday's meeting. I see no other problems with this revised application. 4) Indian Creek Pool At the subdivision hearing several months ago, Indian Creek developers indicated they would return shortly to present plans for a swimming pool. This hearing is for the pool only and any other unresolved issues, such as road connections, are not appropriate for review now. The pool itself is a simple addition to the private recreation area and presents no problems. 5) Tilley, Hinesburg Road Russell Tilley has done a survey and has provided two rights -of -way to Hinesburg Road as requested. The only remaining issue is the location of the r-o-w closest to I-89. The applicant wishes the r-o-w to run right along the interstate fence. The zoning regulations state that "access drives may be permitted to cross the CO District". The Planning Commission must determine whether a 750 foot drive along the length of the CO District constitutes a "crossing" or whether the drive must be located outside of the 150 foot wide CO strip. After the final r-o-w is determined the applicant will have to submit appropriate legal documents. 6) Davis, Imperial Drive Many of the revisions requested at the last meeting have been provided: (a) Landscaping has been modified including a row of yews in front of the existing hedge. (b) One row of parking (12 spaces) has been removed and will be con- structed only if needed. (c) One new centrally -located curb cut has replaced the proposed two curb cuts. (d) The Fire Chief has reviewed and approved the plans. (e) The City Manager has reviewed storm drainage. The problem area identified at the last meeting will not be affected by this development. (f) Lighting information has been added. In addition to the above, I have asked the applicant to give more detail at the meeting on his client's traffic volumes. Memorandum Next week's agenda items 7/8/83 Page 2 A package of City traffic statistics and procedures (enclosed) has been provided to one of the neighbors as requested. 7) Airport The airport is making two requests: (a) an extension of the public automobile parking lot and access drive to replace the temporary parking area, and (b) a minor extension of a general aviation apron located behind Montair. The parking lot and access drive layout is identical to that shown at the sketch plan meeting. Contour and drainage information has now been added. The only information lacking is sufficient landscaping detail. Some trees have been shown, but more careful thought is needed for locations abutting Dawn Court and at the entrance to the temporary parking area. The second request simply will pave over a grassed area currently used for parking aircraft. The visual change from Airport Drive will be almost unnoticable. 8) Berard Proposed layout is identical to that shown at sketch plan. The one sign- ificant issue concerns road and intersection improvements. In both cases required improvements are extensive (see estimates on City Manager's memo) and would be difficult to implement now. Our proposal is as follows: a) Ethan Allen Drive. The City would bear the cost of upgrading the existing road as needed to the extent of its current width. The two applicants would be responsible for widening the road to 24 feet plus shoulders and also for drainage. Actual construction would be done by the City and would not take place until some time in the future when the current road starts to deteriorate. If the Planning Commission becomes unhappy with the City's schedule for improvements, its power would be to withhold further develop- ment approvals on Ethan Allen Drive until improvements are finished. The most equitable formula for sharing the $20,000 cost between the two developers would be according to frontage. Since Berard contains about of the approximately 2400 feet on Ethan Allen Drive he would pay $5,000 and Belter would pay the balance. Payment could be on an accelerated per lot basis. Exact details remain to be determined. b) Four-way intersection. The dangerous nature of this intersection will be increased as much by through traffic and by other development as by new traffic on Ethan Allen Drive. We feel this is a City problem, and attempts should be started to obtain or allocate funds as soon as possible. Again, the Planning Commission's power is to monitor the situation and to withhold future approvals if the intersection is perceived to be too danger- ous. 9) Belter The preliminary layout now shows 8 lots rather than the previous 7. All lots have sufficient buildable area but several concerns should be noted: LAW OFFICES MGNAMARA & FITZPATRICK, INC. 112 COLLEGE STREET BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402 TELEPHONE 802 86)-)19/ � ADDRESS REPLY TO: P. O. BOX 651 August 19, 1983 George Mona Chairman Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street Municipal Building South Burlington, V'F 05401 Re: Appeal of Lefebvre, et al Dear Mr. Mona: Find enclosed our Notice of Appeal in this matter, along with our check for a25.00 payable to the Chittenden Superior Court. Thank you. Very truly yours,, McNAMARA 4 FITZPATRICK .John C. Fitzpatrick cjd Enc. cc: Stillman Cupp J. Peter Trono N. Hoechner Mr. 4 Mrs. Drank Armstrong Mr. 4 Mrs. C. Hacket Bushweller Mr. $ Mrs. Rodney P. Snyder James Washburn Mr. & Mrs. Rene Bannette Mr. 4 Mrs. Norbert M. Ellerin Judith Hurd John If. Better, Jr. William Burgess Mary -Barbara Maher Sidney B. Poger Mr. & Mrs. Joseph D. Salmon Malcolm vonder Heyde David H. Spitz R.B. Sharpe M.F. Hopper Sara Bates Mr. & Mrs. F. Murray s Monica J. Smith F.B. Mannino Dr. & Mrs. J. Abrams Ron Prilik Sydney Streeton Carol J. Smith Constance Snyder Mr. & Mrs. R. Brunelle Mr. & Mrs. A. Farrington Nicole B. Chittenden James C. Kenny �c August 19, 1983 Page 2 Roberta .J. Strauss Scott Wiggett Mr. & Mrs. Gdward Banach Mr. F, Mrs. Lucien Lacharite Mr. F, Mrs. Raymond Delaney Rev. Paul T. Losh Mr. F, Mrs. Daniel Crosby Mr. F, Mrs. .John Duff Mr. t; Mrs. Samuel Diehl Mr. 1; Mrs. Douglas Wyand Mr. 1, Mrs. George Handy hlr. Mrs. Bruce Dlozhdehi Mr. Mrs. V. Naramore Donald M. Lefebvre Mark 4 Beryl Pritchard John W. Wolf, D.D.S. Jeffrey Davis Joseph Gamache, Esquire Barbara Marks Jeannine McCarthy Roy & Suzanne Whitmore Virginia Gude Paul & Justine Kababian Duncan F. Case Dr. Charles McLean Karen Critchlow Kathleen If. Davis Roland & Margaret Bechade George Commo STATE OF Vf;RNION'r SUPERIOR COURT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS DOCKET NO. IN RE: APPEAL OF DONALO M. & KAREN LEFEBVRE 14 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT VINCENT 11. & ROSEMARY NARAMORE 38 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT CONSTANCE D. SNYDER 59 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT SHALLOM & IIENNY LEWIN 3 Worth Street, South Burlington, VT RAYMOND & ELIZABETH DELANEY 34 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, V'r C. HACKETT & ELLEN BUSIMELLER 9 Worth Street, South Burlington, VT NOTICE OF APPEAL NOW COME the above named parties, by and through their attorneys, McNamara 4 Fitzpatrick, Inc., who hereby appeal the decision of the South Burlington Planning Commission made on .July 26, 1983. In support of this appeal, it is alleged as follows: I. The appellants are "interested persons" under 24 VSA 4464(b) and 4,171. 2. The appellants own or occupy property in the immediate neighborhood of the property which was the subject of the above - referenced decision. 3. 'File Planning Commission's decision, if confirmed, will not be in accord with the policies, purposes, or terms of the. South Burlington City Plan. Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this 19th day of August, 1983. McNAMARA & FITZPATRICK By v ri LAW OFFICES McNAMARA & FITZPATRICK, INC. 192 COLLEGE STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 TELEPHONE 802 863,3494 ADDRESS REPLY TO: P. O. BOX 65 7 August 19, 1983 George Mona Chairman Planning Commission 5.75 Dorset Street Municipal Building South Burlington, VT OS401 Re: Appeal of Lefebvre, et al Dear Mr. Mona: Find enclosed our Notice of Appeal in this matter, along with our check for �25.00 payable to the Chittenden Superior Court. Thank you. Very truly yours, McNAMARA 4 FITZPATRICK Jn C. t p rick c j d Enc. cc: Stillman Copp J. Peter Trono N. Hoechner Mr. & Mrs. Frank Armstrong Mr. $ Mrs. C. Hacket Bushweller Mr. $ Mrs. Rodney P. Snyder James Washburn Mr. $ Mrs. Rene Bannette Mr. & Mrs. Norbert M. Ellerin Judith Hurd John H. Better, Jr. William Burgess Mary -Barbara Maher Sidney B. Poger Mr. & Mrs. Joseph D. Salmon Malcolm vonder Heyde David H. Spitz R.B. Sharpe M.F. Hopper Sara Bates Mr. & Mrs. F. Murray Monica J. Smith F.B. Mannino Dr. & Mrs. J. Abrams Ron Prilik Sydney Streeton Carol J. Smith Constance Snyder Mr. $ Mrs. R. Brunelle Mr. $ Mrs. A. Farrington Nicole B. Chittenden James C. Kenny G August 19, 1983 Page 2 Roberta J. Strauss Scott Wiggett Mr. $ Mrs. Edward Banach Mr. $ Mrs. Lucien Lacharite Mr. & Mrs. Raymond Delaney Rev. Paul T. Losh Mr. $ Mrs. Daniel Crosby Mr. & Mrs. John Duff Mr. $ Mrs. Samuel Diehl Mr. $ Mrs. Douglas Wyand Mr. $ Mrs. George Handy Mr. $ Mrs. Bruce Mozhdehi Mr. & Mrs. V. Naramore Donald M. Lefebvre Mark $ Beryl Pritchard John W. Wolf, D.D.S. Jeffrey Davis Joseph Gamache, Esquire Barbara Marks Jeannine McCarthy Roy 4 Suzanne Whitmore Virginia Gude Paul & Justine Kababian Duncan F. Case Dr. Charles McLean Karen Critchlow Kathleen H. Davis Roland $ Margaret Bechade George Commo 1 STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS IN RE: APPEAL OF SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO. DONALD M. & KAREN LEFEBVRE 14 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT VINCkNT H. $ ROSEMARY NARAMORE 38 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT CONSTANCE D. SNYDER 59 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT SHALLOM $ HENNY LEWIN 3 Worth Street, South Burlington, VT RAYMOND $ ELIZABETH DELANEY 34 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT C. HACKETT & ELLEN BUSHWELLER 9 Worth Street; South Burlington, VT NOTICE OF APPEAL NOW COME the above named parties, by and through their attorneys, McNamara 4 Fitzpatrick, Inc., who hereby appeal the decision of the South Burlington Planning Commission made on July 26, 1983. In support of this appeal, it is alleged as follows: 1. The appellants are "interested persons" under 24 VSA 4464 (b) and 4471. 2. The appellants own or occupy property in the immediate neighborhood of the property which was the subject of the above - referenced decision. 3. The Planning Commission's decision, if confirmed, will not be in accord with the policies, purposes, or terms of the South Burlington City Plan. Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this 19th day of August, 1983. McNAMARA $ FITZPATRICK BY: J n C. i ick DT.w /83 MOTION OF APPROVAL That the South Burlington Planning Commission grant approval for the site plan application by Jeff Davis for an addition at 1270 Shelburne Road and conversion to retail use as depicted on a plan entitled "Shelburne Road Project, Site" pre- pared by Steve Moore, Architect, dated 5/25/83. Stipulations: cot 1) Bonding for landscaping ($3000) and for a sidewalk and curbArelocation shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. 2) In addi ion to new landscaping, this applicant shall be -re f � a� a} d�q on the e st property line �j � m we)'afre l �1���"4V .et ✓ 9- ze e�%�ot �a w• ricC It T4a.� ) The area designated as "overflow parking" shall n t ke constructed at this time Con truct4e�he y-- Planner --if to be :mT�ry-after - �f retail operations,. This approval expires in 6 months. ,11 VU eoA� �4 /O;yo -30,5 -441 Tc,( l ��� Q�Lr�llltlWtt"'u"`QI - ®© C Boalate ATTORNEYS AT LAW 184 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE P. O. BOX S86 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0986 RICHARD A. SPOKES JAMES D. FOLEY JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI STEVEN F. STITZEL July 25, 1983 Mr. David Spitz City Planner 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Jeff Davis Site Plan Application 1270 Shelburne Road Dear David: (SO2) 862-6451 (SO2) 863-2857 ISAAC N. P. STOKES COUNSEL You asked whether the Planning Commission should proceed with their site plan review in light of the appeal of the Zoning Board's decision to Chittenden Superior Court. The appeal does not act as an automatic stay of the Zoning Board's de- cision nor any proceedings relating to the proposed project. Site plan review addresses issues which were not considered by the Zoning Board, namely access, circulation and parking, and landscaping and screening. It is, therefore, my opinion that the Planning Commission should continue their review of the site plan. V-e ly yours, �4 r . Spokes RAS:mil Jeffrey L. Davis 50 Commerce Street Williston, VT 05495 July 25, 1983 South Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05401 Subject: Davis/Carter proposal for 1270 Shelburne Road To the Members of the Board: I am in receipt of a letter to you from the Committee for the Preservation of Laurel Hill South dated July 1983. Please allow me to address their letter on an item by item basis. Item 1. Per the request of your board on 7/12/83 we have submitted to David Spitz an explanation of locations selected for comparative analyss<.. Item 2. The traffic counts .v;e submitted were based on methods suggested by the city of South Burlington. We have supple- mented this data as, well as supplied any additional information requested by .your t)oard. Item 3. Carter's has determined that a free standing store would best serve their interests in South Burlington. Item 4. We have submitted the back-up information on demographics for the three (3) comparable sites. Item 5. The time of 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. was suggested by the South Burlington City Planner because this is the peak traffic period on Shelburne Road. We have additional time periods available. Item 6. The average of the three (3) examples submitted was 22 trips per peak hour. Item 7. Dexter Shoe Ous 'Iet was suggested to us by the City Planner as the best c. _, le available store in South Burlington to the proposed Carter's store. We agree with his assessment. Item 8. The City Planner has informed us that our proposal is a permitted use. Item 9. Messrs Lewin and Naramore have based their statement on assumptions and inaccurate information. South Burlington zoning regulations require a minimum of one (1) parking space for each 100 square feet of retail floor area. (Table 1, pg 65) July 25, 1983 Page 2 Since our proposal contains ±4800 square feet of retail floor area, 48 parking spaces is the minimum allowed. At the request of the Commission, we have made 12 of these spaces temporary to provide additional greenbelt space. Item 10. The City Planner has informed us that our proposal is a permitted use. Item 11. We have spent a considerable amount of time observing and documenting the traffic situation at Imperial Drive and Shelburne Road. I have not witnessed any of the "catastrophic" conditions expressed by some residents. True, Shelburne Road is a very busy street. Thus the need for zoning and planning regulations. Our proposal is in com- pliance with these regulations. Item 12. We have replied to Dr. Kleppinger's letter in more detail in the enclosed correspondence. Messrs. Lewin and Naramore comment about contradiction in peak traffic hours. I will repeat myself. The William Carter Company has found that their peak traffic hours around the country are from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. The City of South Burlington re- quested counts from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. because those are Shelburne Road peak hours. Item 13. Our intent in asking about other exits from Laurel Hill was misunderstood. We do not intend that any Carter's traffic be routed through the development. In fact we would suggest a "No Thru Traffic" designation be placed east of Carter's parking lot. Our intent was to show that some people in the opposition live closer to Laurel Hill Drive, Baldwin Street and Mcintosh than to Imperial Drive. Item 14. Preliminary results which we have heard from the City Planner's traffic survey apparently do not warrant a traffic light with or without the proposed Carter store. However, should the Board or the City deem a traffic light necessary, we would support it and be willing to make a reasonable contri- bution towards its cost. Item 15. Tables 1 through 3 as presented are totally inappropriate. 1270 Shelburne Road has been zoned commercial since the inception of zoning in South Burlington. it is our belief that the proposed Carter building would not effect the property value of the 131 homes which the Tables include. The possible exception would be the Donald Lefebvre residence at 14 Imperial Drive (immediately east of proposed project). The city assessor has informed us that this residence has received a tax abatement since 1971 because of its proximity to commercial property. July 25, 1983 Page 3 We would also like to make the following points. We do not take lightly the concerns expressed by the residents. These are honorable people concerned about their property. The City of South Burlington has stringent zoning and planning regulations designed to control projects such as this one. We have consistently met or exceeded these regulations and have shown good faith and flexibility with changes requested by the Commission and the residents of Laurel Hill South. 1270 Shelburne Road was, is, and will be zoned commercial. There are many uses permitted under C-1 zoning, a few of which we have had calls of interest for: 1. Coin operated laundromat 2. Restaurant with liquor license 3. Car wash 4. Beverage warehouse 5. Gas station/store We believe that Carter,:, Children's Wear is vastly preferable to other permitted uses. In conclusion, thi_; proposal has met the strict criteria out- lined in South Burlington regulations. We have selected a reputable business which is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. We urge your favorable consideration of this application. Thank you. ngc Very truly yours, L, r Jeffrey L. ` avis Jeffrey L. Davis 50 Commerce St. Williston, VT 05495 July 21, 1983 Planning Commission City of South Burlington South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Members of the Commission: Enclosed please find a letter to you from Malcolm vonder Heyde, representative of the William Carter Company. This letter establishes a solid rationale for the selection of locations used for compara- tive analysis. Supplemented by the enclosed store size and traffic flow tabulations, these statistics provide an accurate representation of anticipated traffic to be generated by Carter Company in this South Burlington location. Very truly yours, Jeffrey L. Davis ngc enclosures Caps July 19, 1983 Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Burlington South Burlington, VT 05401 Members of the Commission: The following represents a description of the rational used in compiling traffic counts, which were submitted to the board for comparative analysis. 1. Burlington - South Burlington, VT Trading area population base (SMSA): 114,070 2.99 persons per household 13.4% of population in 35-44 age bracket 2. Augusta, GA Trading area population base (SMSA): 108,791 2.87 persons per household 13.2% of population in 35-44 age bracket 3. Traverse City, MI Trading area population base (SMSA): 110,752 2.90 persons per household 13.5% of population in 35-44 age bracket 4. Wells, ME Trading area population base (SMSA): 84,000 (approx.) 2.45 persons per household 12.2% of population in 35-44 age bracket The four locations all have very similar trading area population bases, in addition to the family breakdowns being similar, as reflected by the above statistics. All four are free-standing type sites located on similar roadways. It is our consensus that out of the total number of stores in our chain, these three most closely resemble the So. Burlington location, therefore, traffic counts were furnished accordingly. Sin r ly G Mal 1 vonde Real Estate M tX(ger MRV/hc The William Carter Company 963 Highland Avenue Needham Heights, Massachusetts 02194 617/444-7500 1-70 uL - 1,L `iik"L iildb L'a_4is! -TT� I E, A I G - - FEE _ 26 2-.z ^ C`1 ; -an 2r; ? 2-2 y713 A MEMO TO: Chairperson of South Burlington City Planning Commission SUBJECT: Summary of Laurel Hill South residents' position on DAVIS-CARTER plan for 1270 Shelburne Road. (as modified 7112183) Dear Sir: We emphatically urge the SB Planning Commission to reject the DAVIS-CARTER proposal (as presented originally and as modified 7/12/83)for the utilization of 1270 Shelburne Road. Our reasons are as follows: 1. In terms of gross sales, population density, average or per capital income within shopping range, average exposure to traffic, relative competitive pressure, population demographics, store size and store age, Carter's has dismally failed to demonstrate any meaningful quantitative equality between the proposed store and any of their other stores. 2. Their traffic counts are irrelevant and misleading since they are not based on any of the criteria mentioned in Part 1 above. They are also questionable because of their unqualified use of that statistical measure of central tendency known as the average. It is a risky business to trust averages without reference to standard deviations. 3. Since 84 percent of Carter's 83 stores are located in malls, it is obvious that a mall would be an ideal location for the proposed Vermont store. 4. The firm states that only 6 of its 83 stores are in the class of the proposed store. It therefore strikes us as a remarkable coincidence that 3 of these 6 (50%) are in areas which match South Burlington and Chittenden County demographics. 5. On July 12, 1983, the Carter representative informed us that 12-2PM is peak store traffic time, yet the charts on traffic flow designate 3-5PM (on a day not named) as the peak period. 6. Two out of the three "typical" stores exceed traffic overlay requirements when normalized to equivalent square footage of area. 7. Traffic flow comparisons with the local Dexter shoe store are irrelevant and meaningless. Dexter's is one of 16 local stores selling only shoes while Carter's would be one of only three or four stores in the children's market. 8. The proposed Carter's site is a zone 3 area. Discount stores are forbidden in Zone 3. Small discount.stores up to 7100 GFA are permitted only in planned commercial developments. This store with a GFA of 6500 would generate 41.2 trips per hour, thus far# exceeding the 25 maximum allowed. 9. The figures quoted in part 8, above, explain to our satisfaction why Carter's planned a 48-car parking lot. Since the number of cars present on the average is one half of 41, or approximately 20, planning for 100% over average to accomodate growth and peak seasonal demand with the knowledge that Imperial Drive could be used to contain overflow represents planning good for business but not good for Laurel Hill. OVER 10. Table II of Section 17 of the zoning ordinance does not have a children's store for reference. The nearest we can find are (a) a discount store which we believe this will become despite assertion to the contrary by the petitioner and (b) a hardware paint store. The latter with a max GFA of 4800 represents a lower bound and since the proposed store would generate at least 2-3 times the hardware store traffic at peak times, the 25 car rule would be ripped asunder. Why? Because the paint hardware store criterion allows only 4800 GFA for 25 trips. 11. A 1980 survey has shown that Shelburne Road is far exceeding its design capacity. In 1983, the situation is a disaster, as evidenced by 1-mile traffic lines every morning and afternoon. The Planning Commission by honoring the petitioner's request will compound that disaster. 12. Dr. Dale Kleppinger of 8 Sebring Road has pointed out that school buses cannot turn right into Imperial Drive if cars are lined up waiting to exit into Shelburne Road. Even if it is true as the Carter's representative asserted that their peak traffic hours are from 12:00 - 2:OOPM (but remember that their traffic flow tables contradicts this) the noon Kindergarten bus and the High School and elementary school dismissal buses will be affected. 13. At the Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday last the architect made what appeared to be a Freudian slip when he asked, "Are there not other ways to get out of Laurel Hill?" If the petitioner's request is granted and Laurel Hill begins to teem with traffic, the repetition of that question may very likely pressure the city to connect Laurel Hill with Spear Street, and that would mean the beginning of the end of Laurel Hill South as a nice place to live. 14. A traffic light installed at the Imperial Drive - Shelburne Road intersection will not beguile us into supporting the proposed construction. With the store in place the installation of such a light would be tantamount to putting a band aid on a whirlwind. 15. We conservatively estimate that the city of South Burlington will lose in excess of 30,000 dollars in tax revenue per year due to decrease in value of homes in Laurel Hill South alone! (131 homes with aggregate value of $13 ipillion, vs. one commercial property at $ .3m.illion. (See attached table) We believe that it is the fun,-iai,ental and fiduciary role of the Planning Commission to plan and oversee an orderly and responsive development pattern for South Burlington within the bounds of health, safety and well being of our citizenry. All other interests are secondary to these. Over 100 tax -paying citizens from a small and beautiful development have expressed their displeasure with a proposal which would allow an out-of-state firm to choke off their, lifeline to the outside world, endanger the lives of our children and senior citizens, exacerbate an already serious traffic problem on Shelburne Road and violate the law and the spirit of the 1982 zoning ordinance, presumably promulgated to prevent this sort of thing from happening. - 3 - We ask the Planning Commission to go on record with a clear and resounding NO to� this proposal, thus setting a pattern for the future which will allow us to enjoy the present with some sense of security. Respectfully submitted, -�'-X� Shallom Lewin 3 Worth Street South Burlington, Vermont '�/'..v /V, n-Aaw'&v Vincent H. Naramore 38 Imperial Drive South Burlington Co -Chairmen of the Committee for the Preservation of Laurel Hill South. CC: Each Planning Commission Yember City Council Zoning Variance Board Chairman City Manager David Spitz Jeff Davis State Representative David Kaufman Highway Department Yedia TABLE I ESTIMATED FAIR t+'ARKET VALUE OF 131 HOMES IN LAUREL HILL SOUTH Fair Market Value 51,000- 66,000 67,000- 82,000 83,000- 98,000 99,000-114,000 115,000-130,000 131,000-146,000 Number of Homes 4 17_ 44 45 17 4 131 TABLE II Range Midpoint 58,500 74,500 90,500 106,500 122,500 138,500 ESTIMATED TOTAL FAIR MARKET VALUE OF 131 HOMES IN LAUREL HILL SOUTH BASED ON LOWEST, MIDDLE AND HIGHEST CATEGORIES FROM TABLE I Lowest Total Fair Market Value 11,929,000 Middle Total Fair Market Value 12,911,500 TABLE III Highest Total Fair Market Value 13,894,000 ESTIMATED TAX LOSS TO CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON IF APPLICANT'S PETITION FOR 1270 SHELBURNE ROAD IS GRANTED (Note: These figures based on assumption that property devaluation for homes in Laurel Hill South will range from 10 to 15 percent) If Total Fair Market Evaluation Is: 11,929,000 12,911,500 13,894,000 Tax Loss for 10% Devaluation 27,675 29,955 32,234 Tax Loss for 1 Devaluation 41,513 44,932 48,351 Comment: Since the Carter -Davis property value, depending on improvements, would range anywhere from 190,000 to 300,000, tax revenues from it will fall far short of balancing the loss expected from home devaluations in Laurel Hill South. 8 Sebring Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 15 July 1983 Planning Commission City of South Burlington, Vermont City Hall Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Application for Carter's store at Shelburne Road and Imperial Drive Dear Commissioners: I would like to expand on my comments made at the meeting of 12 July 1983 relative to the proposed discount children's clothing store at Shelburne Road and Imperial Drive. The traffic situation at that intersection is currently very bad, annoying, and very often unsafe. Making a left turn out of or into Imperial is subject to long delays, especially turning left out of Imperial because it requires a traffic -free interval in both lanes of Shelburne Road. At many times during the day, it is even necessary to wait an undue amount of time to make a right turn out of Imperial. I have been third or fourth in line on Imperial, waiting while the first car tried to make a left turn. I have actually backed up, turned around, and gone out through either Laurel Hill or the Orchards (at the light), depending on whether I wanted to go north or south. These are real problems that do not need the further additions that will come from the store. I expressed concern that entering the parking lot would require a left turn off of Imperial with the potential that a wait, east -bound on Imperial, would be necessary. The entrance is not far enough away from Shelburne Road to eliminate the backing up of east -bound cars on Imperial out onto Shelburne Road. Currently, cars turning left off of Shelburne Road have to "jack -rabbit" through small breaks in north -bound traffic. It will happen that such drivers will be "surprised" that cars are stopped on Imperial and there is no place to go. The result will be they are struck broadside. I further foresee that there will be difficulty in turning into the parking lot because cars maneuvering into and out of the first several parking places just inside the lot will effectively block the entrance. Still further, there is no traffic flow regulating features of the lot that will ease the entrance and exit as is now finally done at the Seaway (Grand Union/Factory Outlet) Shopping Center. Cars from both parking lanes will use their respective lanes to approach the exit and effectively block ^^ . it to incoming cars. I also expressed concern over school bus movement at the intersection. The specific case I cited was my observation on a number of occasions where a bus approaching from the south and trying to make a right turn onto Imperial had to wait on Shelburne Road until west -bound cars on Imperial cleared the street to allow swing room. This situation is particulaly dangerous when one of the cars on Imperial wants to make a left turn onto Shelburne Road, but cannot see on -coming trafic in the passing lane due to the bus in the curb lane. The other members of my carpool and I have witnessed several near disasters due to this situation. This problem will get worse with the additional cars trying to leave the store by way of Imperial. The attached information from the School District shows the movements of school busses at that intersection. It is clear that many movements are made in or close to the period the applicant proclaimed were their peak business hours. It is very likely that all the afternoon school bus trips will encounter addtional difficulties due to the discount store traffic and will cause difficulties for the store's traffic. I am very concerned that the Laurel Hill South and Laurel Hill streets will be used by store patrons trying to find an alternative way out of the store's lot. That kind of traffic is not what a residential neighborhood with children needs. In summary, I urge rejection of the application based on the existing terrible traffic situation, the added difficulties and safety problems that will exist with the store traffic compounded by the parking lot layout and entrance location, and the heightened safety problems related to moving large, slow -accelerating school busses into and out of Imperial Drive with the increased traffic. Thank you for your consideration of these points. Sincerely, D. Dale Kleppinger , . \ - \ / � ~ SOUTH BURL]NGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT SOUTH BUQL|NGTON, VERMONT 0540/ FnsosmoK p.rurrLs oFpmE. SOUTH aunuwarow *m* oc*ooL Superintendent mo o"rs°^ e*,=et !-^vvnswcs E. Lsuounn Assistant Superintendent July 15, 1983 D. Dale KleppiDg8r, Ph.D. 8 Sebring Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Dr. Kl2pping2r: Pursuant to your request regarding South Burlington 3ChOUl bus traffic on Shelburne Road 0DtO Imperial Drive, I offer the following. (Statistics are for the 1082-1983 8Cdd2miC year.) A. Two High School buses going South UD Shelburne Road enter Imperial Drive around 7:00 to 7:15 A.M. Two High School buses leave Imperial Drive and enter Shelburne Road and g0 North around 7:15 A.M. to 7:30 A.M. One High 5Ch0Ol bus going South 2Dt9r5 Imperial Drive Or0UDd 2:40 P.M. to 3:80 P.M. from Shelburne Road. One High School bus 'leaves Imperial Drive between 2:40 P.M. and 3:00 P.M. and goes North OD Shelburne R0Dd, B. One Middle School bus going North on Shelburne Road enters Imperial Drive between 8:20 A.M. and 8:40 A.M. One Middle 3Ch00l bus leaves Imperial Drive and goes North on Shelburne Road between 8:20 A.M. and 8:40 A.M. One Middle School bus going North OD Shelburne Road enters Imperial Drive between 3:20 P.M. and 3:30 P.M. One Middle School bus leaves Imperial Drive and goes North on Shelburne Road between 3:30 P.M. and 3:40 P.M. C. One Elementary 3ChOOl bus going South on Shelburne Road enters Imperial Drive between 7:50 A.M. and 8:05 A.M. One Elementary School bus leaves Imperial Drive and goes North between 8:00 A.M. and 8/05 A.M. One Elementary 3Ch0Ql bus going South enters Imperial Drive between 2:20 P.M. and 2:30 P.M. One Elementary School bus leaves Imperial Drive and goes North between 2:25 P.M. and 2:25 P.M. D. Dale Kleppinger, Ph.D. July 15, 1983 Page two D. One Activity bus doing South on Shelburne Road enters Imperial Drive between 5:30 P.M. and 5:45 P.M. One Activity bus going South on Shelburne Road enters Imperial Drive between 6:15 P.M. and 6:45 P.M. One Activity bus leaves imperial Drive and goes North on Shelburne Road between 5:40 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. One Activity bus leaves Imperial Drive and goes North on Shelburne Road between 6:30 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. E. One Kindergarten bus going North enters Imperial Drive between 11:15 A.M. and 11:45 A.M. One Kindergarten bus leaves Imperial Drive and goes North between 11:30 A.M. and 11:50 A.M. F. One bus for the handicapped going South enters Imperial Drive from Shelburne Road between 7:30 A.M. and 8:00 A.M. One bus for the handicapped leaves Imperial Drive and goes North on Shelburne Road between 7:40 A.M. and 8:10 A.M. One bus for the handicapped going South on Shelburne Road enters Imperial Drive between 2:20 P.M. and 2:30 P.M. One bus for the handicapped leaves Imperial Drive and goes North on Shelburne Road between 2:25 P.M. and 2:45 P.M. There are no stops on the corner of Shelburne Road and Imperial Drive to pick up students. A bus traveling North entering Imperial Drive from the right lane of Shelburne Road waits for traffic leaving Imperial Drive to clear as the turn is such that a bus must cross the middle section of Imperial Drive to complete the turn. I trust this information is that which you requested. erely, Lawrence E. LeCours Assistant Superintendent LEL : cl STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CHITT'ENDEN COUNTY, SS DOCKET NO. IIN RE: APPEAL OF DONALD id. & KAREN LEFEBVRE ) 14 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT ) VINCEN'T H. v ROSEMARY NARRAMORE ) 38 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT ) CONST'ANCE D. SNYDER ) 39 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT ) SHALLOM & HENNY LEWIN ) 3 Worth Street, South Burlington, VT ) RAYMOND & ELIZABETH DELANEY ) 34 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT ) C. IIACKE"TT U ELLEN BUSHWELLER ) 9 Worth Street, South Burlington, VT ) NOTICE OF APPEAL NOW COME the above named parties, by and through their attorneys, McNamara 4 Fitzpatrick, Inc., who hereby appeal the decision of the South Burlington Board of Adjustment granting a. variance for a nonconforming structure to J.L. Davis, Inc. on June 27, 1983. In support of this appeal, it is alleged as follows: I. The appellants are "interested persons" under 24 VSA 4464(b) and 4471. 2. The appellants own or occupy property in the immediate neighborhood of the property which was the subject of the above - referenced decision. 3. The Board's decision, if confirmed, will not be in accord with the policies, purposes or terms of the South Burlington City 4. The applicant, J.L. Davis, Inc., fails to meet the criteria for a variance. Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this _�20 day of July, 1983. McNANIARA $ FITZPATRICK John C. Fitzpatrick `r G" (STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS DOCKET NO. IIN RE: APPEAL OF DONALD tit. & KAREN LEFEBVRE 14 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT VINCENT I1. 4 ROSEMARY NARRAMORE 38 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT CONSTANCE 1). SNYDER 39 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT SHALLOM & IIENNY LEWIN 3 Worth Street, South Burlington, VT RAYMOND & ELIZABETH DELANEY 34 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT C. HACKETT t ELLEN BUSHWELLER 9 Worth Street, South Burlington, VT REQUEST FOR STAY OF ENFORCEMENT NOW COME the above named parties, by and through their attorneys of record, McNamara & Fitzpatrick, who move the South Burlington Board of Adjustment for a stay of its June 27, 1983 order granting a variance for a nonconforming structure, and any resulting building permit, to J.L. Davis, Inc. In support hereof, it is alleged as follows: 1. As persons owning or occupying property in the immediate neighborhood of the property which is the subject of the above - referenced order, they will incur unique damage, not shared by the general public, if the stay is denied and construction begins. 2. If this appeal is sustained, but work has begun, return o the status quo will be more difficult and more expensive. 3. Pursuant to 24 VSA 4466, the Appellants' Affidavit is attached hereto. Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this :2 o+1,day of July, 1983. McNAMARA & FITZPATRICK By: .John C. Fitzpatric 1 ESTATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS DOCKET NO. IIN RE: APPEAL OF DONALD M. & KAREN LEFEBVRE 14 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT VINCENT H. & ROSEMARY NARAt,IORE 38 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT CONSTANCE D. SNYDER 39 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT SHALLOM & HENNY LEWIN 3 Worth Street, South Burlington, VT RAYMOND & ELIZABETH DELANEY 34 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT C. HACKETT & ELLEN BUSHWELLER 9 Worth Street, South Burlington, VT A Cr: T IN V rT NOW COME: Donald M. $ Karen Lefebvre; Vincent If. F; Rosemary Naramore Constance D. Snyder; Shallom & Henny Lewin; Raymond & Elizabeth Delaney; and C. Hackett & Ellen Bushweller who first being duly sworn, on oath depose and say that if the Order of the South Burlington Board of Adjustment of June 27, 1983, granting a variance for a nonconforming structure to J.L. Davis, Inc., is not stayed, irreparable damage will result. They therefore request that this order be stayed pursuant to 24 VSA 4466. Dated at f3,Vermont, this .2o14 day of July, 1983. Dona;d M. Lefebvre_ Karen Lefebvre, k�, , c4�1't y1alllct-� Vincent Naramore E C. Ll'- lJ C. H ett I3ushweller Ellen Bushweller� ` }} Rosemary Naraoore Constance D. Sny r Shallom Lewinn lizaMeth Delaney Subscribed and sworn to before me this .20dday of July, 1983. Notary Public L- I�TAru �t 1 la.o� lWk.►�fL !7_ t� t 5t 15 off 11 -t-- �t?htg3 ` La�aatz tl lit) cap 1 _ I'Ca� I 1 I ►► �► lit Qf3fiZ lit— �1l - �s+z.5rzgt iU 6 .7 I/tlyt 1,5t2 � , = n� 5-3-7Ka x , n bh /1) L S T/ 9 ffr l. >ef L 011 I�L 'r144 M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 7/22/83 I Indian Creek Pool A site visit earlier this week confirms that it would not be easy to find a more suitable location for the pool. However, two improvements can be considered: (1) removal of the proposed parking spaces and (2) provision of evergreen screening immediately adjacent to the pool and tennis courts. In other matters,boundary monuments have not yet been installed. I will recommend that the applicant bond for and install the monuments within 30 days or that the City do it after 30 days are up. Also, the original Ridgewood developers did install a gravel "walkway" as required by an earlier Planning Commission. The walkway has not been maintained by the City. 3)� vis, Imperial Drive ``_�� An additional statement from Carter's Children's Wear is enclosed. The City's traffic consultant, Joe Oppenlander has prepard information on traffic conditions at the Imperial Drive/Shelburne Road intersection. The report will be available to all interested parties Monday afternoon. I will present a complete explanation of the City's position on this matter at Tuesday's meeting. Please be advised that several residents have appealed the Zoning Board's granting of a dimensional variance to this applicant. 4) Beliveau, Dorset Street The applicant owns a 10 acre lot on Dorset Street. He wishes to sub- divide 2 of those acres and add them to an adjacent pre-existing 2 acre lot. No new building lots will be created. 5) Subdivision Regulations The City Attorney's comments are enclosed. 6) Other Business I would like to discuss briefly several work items: a) Annual report (enclosed) b) Sewer updates (sent previously) c) Neighborhood statistics (enclosed) r page 15 July 13, 1983 Continuation of site plan application b ,,Jeff Davis,for an a ition to an existing building at 1270 Shelburne Road and conversion to retail use Mr. Poger explained the powers of the Planning Commission. He indicated they have the power to approve landscaping, lot layout, and traffic access. He added that the existence of a clothing store at this location is not one with which the Commission can deal as it has been dealt with over the years in Planning and Zoning documents. The applicant then described the proposed project as an addition to an existing building on the corner of Imperial Drive and Shelburne Road to accommodate an outlet for children's clothing. He indicated that at the Commission's suggestion, the following changes had been made: 1. One of the two curb cuts had been removed and there was now one 24' wide curb cut. 2. 12 spaces in the last row of parking have been eliminated and will be for overflow use, if needed. 3. Regarding ownership of the hedge, measurements indicated that the first 3 or 4 bushes are 3" to the east of the stake. The hedge is not perpendicular to the curb. He said that if the owners to the east want to own the hedge, they have no objection. 4. A sidewalk has been added on the north side of Imperial Drive. 5. The owner has laid out a drainage plan. 6. Landscaping has been revised to add more evergreens on Im- perial Drive. A second hedge has been added along the existing hedge to aid in screening. 7. Four outdoor downcast light standards have been added for the parking lot. The owner of the property to the east of the hedge indicated that he would maintain ownership and care of the hedge. Mr. Lewin then raised the question of traffic and questioned the figures presented by the applicant. Responding for the applicant Malcolm Vonderhyde indicated that their figures were Pased on stores in their chain which most closely resembled what they hoped to open in South Burlington. A traffic flow tabulation was then presented by the applicant (attached) indicating the traffic volume at Dexter Shoe Outlet which they felt was most closely related to the type of business they would be doing. Mrs. Tasman questioned the wisdom of conducting the survey on Monday and Thursday when the major shopping traffic is on Sat- urday, which is also the time most children are out riding bikes. Mr. Marks added that it is already impossible to make a left turn at the intersection and often hard to make a right turn. page July 13, 1983 Mr. Lewin then presented data which be had collected and offered opinions on the proposed project. He indicated that according to an updated study of 1980, the average volume of cars at the Impreial Drive intersection was 2,405. He added, however, that the peak load far exceeds this as there are only about 6 hours in which traffic is heavy. Citing figures from Appendix 3 of the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Lewin indicated that there were only two types of buildings listed that seemed to compare with the proposed use; the first would be a hardward store, the second a discount store. He noted that a hardware store of 4,800 sq. ft. would, according to the figures, generate 25 cars per peak hour, and that the applicant has asked for 6,400 sq. ft. The discount store would not, according rules be permitted in this area but only in a planned development such as the Grand Way project. He felt that the applicant's figures did not take into account the nature of the traffic problem at the intersection and that their estimate of increased volume was not in keeping with the figures in the Zoning document. Mr. Naramore, a resident of Laurel Heights, said the issue was one of "average" traffic flow, and that it is possible to drown in a pool whose average depth is 6 inches. Mr. Kleppinger noted that there are two important factors: first, traffic going into the planned lot will be required to make a left turn from Shelburne Road, which is already nearly impossible; secondly, school bus routes force buses to make a right turn, and there is not enough turning radius for buses as it is. With more traffic in the street, it would be impossible. Mrs. Burton expressed concern that people coming to the Carter's store would find turning onto Shelburne Road was impossible and would go up into Laurel Heights looking for another access. This would endanger children playing in the streets where there are no side- walks. Mr. Nowack of the Vermont Astonomical Society requested information on the type of lights to be used as certain lights have been found detrimental to astronomical research in the State. Mr. Marks expressed concern that if Carter's is as successful here as it is around the nation, buses from Canada may be going there and up through the neighborhood. Mrs. Goody objected to the comparison with Dexter's Shoe Outlet, saying it was one of many such outlets which Carter's would be one of only 2 children's outlets in Vermont. Mr. Marks requested that a count of traffic be taken on a Saturday which is the most dangerous time of the week. He said he did not object to the store, per se, but to the danger it might pose to children and adults. Mrs. Abrams noted that the added traffic will also affect the Orchards, as people may take roads in that area to escape the traffic problem. She also expressed concern about overflow parking on Imperial Drive, noting that there are times when you cannot even make a right turn out of that street. Mr. Lewin stressed the point that average traffic at Dexter's is still 27 and 30, not the accept- able 25 which would be allowed for a building of 4,000 sq. feet. He reiterated that the application is for over 6,000 sq. feet. Mrs. Maher said that in view of the acknowledged traffic problem at the Imperial Drive intersection pa ge 7 July 13, 1983 Mr. Mona asked whether the proposed store will change the level of service of the area from C to D. Mr. Spitz said that such designations apply only to signalized intersections, but that there was a question here of whether there should be a signal at the intersection... Mrs. Maher then moved as follows: Recognizing the limitations of the Planning Commission and at the same time recoo2izing that there is a traffic problem -at the intersection of Imperial and Route 7 which will increase with the inclusion of a retail 7-othing store I $link it is incumbent upon the P annin om- mission to make a strong request to those who control the access on Route 7 which is the State for raffic light. To this end, it is moved that the Planning Commission instruct the City Planner to contact the Vermont Agency of Transportation to evaluate the warrants of si nalization o Imperial Drive and Route 7 in light of the following: 1 existing conditions• Uta ing into account the affects of future development in the immediate area;3 the long term effects of development outside of the immediate area. It is further moved at a tra is count e conducted on a Saturday urinpeak Fours in order to assist e City Planner in is discussions with the Agency of Trans- porTa7ion and also to assist the Planning ommission. Mr. Jacob seconded the motion. Mr. Mona indicated that he did not feel that the State would act on predictions of future traffic in an area. Mr. Lewin suggested that if one were to survey the traffic pattern at the intersection with a light to furure development, one ought to do it over a longer time period and take into account seasonal patterns as well as one or two Saturdays. Mr. Poger-then asked for a vote on the first part of the motion, he request for a traffic light at the intersection of Imperia Drive and Route 7, and the motion passed unanimously. Following the vote, Mr. Poger instructed the City Planner to obtain traffic counts at peak hours on Saturday and during the week. Mrs. Maher then withdrew the second part of her motion. The applicants then explained that their store willopen at 10 AM and close at 6 PM. They will not be a discount store similar to those in Grand Way, in that they will not sell"seconds." They asked if there was not another way out of Laurel Hill. Mr. Poger replied that it was not the practice to direct traffic through residential areas. Mrs. Armstrong then made a plea on behalf of the residents that the applicants consider the human element. She added that they felt they were taking their lives in their hands whenever they made a turn from their street. Mr. Anthony added that he felt the added traffic would adversely affect property values. r page 8 July 13, 1983 Mr. Mona then moved that since there was not yet enough infor- mation, the application be continued until July 2b, at :30 pm at City Hall. Mr. Belter seconded and the motion passed unan- imously. A citizen asked whether with the delay in making a decision on the application the appeal time on the zoning decision would run out. Mr. Poger recommended that they not wait on the appeal. WARNED PUBLIC HEARING: Final plat application by Helen Tilley or a 2-lot subdivision on Hinesburg; Road Mr. Spitz advised that the Property has been surveyed as re- quested. He also said that the issue of access to Kimball Avenue is not closed. He indicated that the one remaining issue was the location of the right of way closest to I-89. Mr. Tilley explained that he had shown the right of way in that location for purposes of land management. If the road went straight back it would leave an island of land which is zoned residential,which would be unusable. Mr. Spitz said that a road through the middle is better from the land range but would interfere with what is there now. Mr. Poger said that if the right of way were to be activated, it could be recommended to the City Council that the back land be re -zoned industrial. Mr. Jacob then moved that the South Burlington Planning Com- mission grant approval for the iinai iat application Dy heien Tilley or a two lot subdivision on Hinesbura RoacLas clepic =e on a plan entitled "Plan ow n o ose u- ivision of Tilie Farm," prepared by arren A. Robenstein,dated une 1985, with e ollowing stipu ations: 1. Parcel 1 includes all land on either side of each of the two rights of way . Any further su division of parcelmust e sub- mitted to the Planning; Commission for approval. 2. Offers of dedication and warrantv deeds for the two ri�hts- oi-way snail be submittea to ana a rovect py the ulty Attorney prior to recording of tFie final plat. 3. The final plat shall be recorded within 90 days. If all sub- missions are not complete and accurate within that tinpperiod, en the application must be re-su mi to or fin-F77-T-at approval. 4. The proposed most southerly right of way be moved to parallel e northerly right of waX with a same access oin an z e recor ed on the ma rovi e o e that the land to-77e— south of the second right of way be proposed as n us rig —zoning, Mrs. Maher seconded the motion which Passed unan mous v. It1was noted for the minutes that it is understood that no more than one of the two rights -of -way will be used when the rear land is developed; furthermore, if arrangements can be worked out, access from Kimball Avenue will be preferable. A,td 7W 7V jo(O' �� T%1F G�i'�S 57�R� i✓�u. a/iT 06 /F DES u✓M' at OyTLCT A" " /OmAjoemp TWPrr ~ A"5I*&to+nr* jw�im 7Wv$4r ,tG" O` 00"*"T 410) T}M �&DGF GtNer 0A' Tlj+lF A&W W IAAIZOO Me 0400 1 Owr rw 040 Aar �5VZ w It A) PAC441 77" 6077Vw Pi7t1W Fide �1ih avwo/� OVJ PfV ueVj b a•�r �` /il r p� J5, Site Plan application by Jeff Davis for an addition to laA.Owr�"E isting building at 1270 Shelburne Road and conversion t retail use Mr. Spitz advised that the proposed expansion would double the present size of the building. The applicant has received ap- proval of the Zoning Board for expansion of a non -conforming building. The boundary line of the proposed development is the boundary line of the commercial zone and that the building can be no closer than 60 feet from the residential zone. The principal problem concerns traffic. For this size property, allowance is for 25 cars per hour in a peak hour.. The applicant has submitted information that they will be slightly under this limit. Pa t7 e ,4 Mr. Davi plained that they will operate a retail clothing business. The addition will be no higher than the existing / building and would use the existing curb cut to enter and an additional curb cut to exit. There will be 48 parking spaces, with three up front as handicapped spaces. The loading dock will be on the north side of the building. The building is about 140 feet from the property line on the east. Mr. Davis said he had been led to believe that the hedge on the east boundary is his property. The owner of the adjacent property then noted that he had been told that the hedge was his prop- erty and he had been maintaining it. Mr. Lewin, a resident on Imperial Drive, said they would not want to see a second curb cut. Mr. Mona said he would prefer to widen the present curb cut, since there would probably be both entering and exiting from both curb cuts if two were pro- vided. The applicant said there would be no problem with one curb cut. Mr. Vanyush noted that Modern Design had agreed to limit the number of parking spaces in their new facility and asked if this would be possible here. Mr. Spitz said he felt a number of spaces could be eliminated. The applicant advised that their business is selling children's clothes at lower than retail rates. Most times of the year, there would be no problem with the fewer parking spaces. At back to school time, there could be a problem. Mr. Jacob suggested an area could be left as grass or gravel and used for overflow or paved at a later date if the need were apparent. Mr. Poger noted that grass or gravel would also allow water to drain into the ground. Mr. Spitz said that if a row of parking were removed, the applicant should be allowed to keep the three front spaces. He also felt that the north/south aisles should be 20 feet. Mr. Jacob said that a strip should be provided so that the existing hedge is not killed with salt. Mr. Poger said he would want to know whose hedge it is before a revised site plan is submitted. Mrs. Maher noted that none of the proposed plantings were of the evergreen variety so there would be no green in winter. She asked if this could be correct&d. Several residents of the area noted that Imperial Drive is the access street for all of Laurel Hill. There are many children, no sidewalks, and a bus stop on the corner, posing very dangerous conditions. Mr. Spitz noted that a sidewalk is being requested. Mr. Lewin questioned where the 25-car data comes from. Mr. Spitz explained that there are detailed traffic standards which allow very limited use at major intersections. Variables in- clude zoning, location on Shelburne Road, size of property, etc. Uses such as fast food, banks, etc., are prohibited except in controlled areas, but a retail operation of this type is within acceptable limits, since their figures are within the standards. Mr. Lewin noted that traffic backs up to Bartlett Bay Road and residents of Imperial Drive have no egress or ingress to their street. He said he would like a complete package detailing procedures, standards, etc. Mr. Poger advised that Mr. Spitz would provide that for him. 'une 28, :�83 A petition was then presented on behalf of the residents of the area. Mrs. Maher expressed concern that people did not understand the limits of the Commission's power. Mr. Lewin asked if there were rigid rules. Mr. Spitz explained that the Commission concerns itself with landscaping and screening, parking and traffic and that traffic is a very inexact science. Mr. Lewin suggested that the current traffic situation on Shelburne Road is a piece of evidence that could be used to modify the rules. Mr. Cannizzari said he was concerned with runoff being piped into the Imperial Drive storm sewer, since he already has problems in average rainfalls. Mr. Davis advised that they had initially anticipated swales in the parking lot which would direct water to Imperial Drive and Shelburne Rd; however, they are willing to pipe water underground. The question of construction and lighting was then raised. The applicant advised that the building would be clapboard with brick relief. Mr. Poger advised that lighting must be directed downward and away from residential areas. Mr. Lewin said it would seem that in light of the success of the factory outlet center, that would be the proper location for a business of this sort. Mr. Poger explained that the applicant has presented an acceptable use within zoning standards. The fact that this is an outlet store does not make it of the same size as others in the Shelburne Road Plaza. Mrs. Hurd asked whether the fire chief had seen the plan. Mr. Spitz said he does not review most site plans. Mr. Poger said he would like this plan reviewed. A resident of the area asked whether the applicant could be re- quired to maintain the road and put in a sidewalk. Mr. Spitz replied that the road was the concern of the City but that a sidewalk was being requested as a condition of approval. Mr. Poger then outlined considerations for the applicant to con- sider in preparing a revised site plan: one curb cut on Imperial Drive, elimination of the back row of parking spaces, discover, of ownership of the hedge, the question of a second roa of hedges for better screening, sidewalk on the north side of Imperial Dr, storm drainage. Mrs. Maher then moved that the site plan application of Jeff Davis e continued to July , 1983, at 7•30 pm, at City Hall Ms Hurd seconded with unanimous approval. Sketch plan application by Sheun Poon and South Burlington Realty Zorporation for a Chinese restaurant in Corporate Circle The architect's representative expplained that the applicants own the China Light Restaurant in Lebanon, N.H., and have been working for a year to find a Burlington area site. The proposed building would be 10,000 sq. ft., seating 450 people, with a lounge. The site would be as close to 2 acrea as possible. The YO 0 C- , -Z ( n PMW5; 0� f ) SPECIAL MEETING A G E N D A South Burlington City Council meeting City Hall Conference Room 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 7:30 P.M. Monday, June 13, 1983 1. Interview Applicants for appointments & re -appointments to Boards and Commissions: 0 3. PLANNING COMMISSION: Interview George Mona up for 4 yr. re -appointment. It M Boright interested in appointment " *Bar y Carris It Wil iam Burgess to * (`WTTMVMMVM On TTMTV 9T; (_TnMAT. DT. TTTMT Barry Carris up for 2yr. re-appointmen- RECREATIO`N,,COMMITTEE: Interview Wiliam Shearer up for 3yr. re -appointment Robert Gaboriault interested in appointmen- COMMUNITY LIBPA'?Y T'_?USTEES: Int'Orview Sylvia Smith up for 3yr. re -appointment Interview Verna (Vee) Gordon up for 3yr. re -appointment nterview Mrs. Ann Emery interested in ap intment FINE ARTS COMMITTEE: Interview Mrs`. Roslnary Perkett interested in m appointment NATURAL RESOURCES: Interview Mrs. Joan Cook interested in appointment BURLINGTON AIRPORT Interviewing'Vin D'Acuti up for 1 yr. re -appointment. COMMISSION :Interviewing Mal Boright interested in appointment. Possible Executive Session: (a) Make appointments to Boards & Commissions (b) Discuss Labor Negotiations Resume Regular Session to make appointments to Boards & Commissions. Respwecctfu ly bmitted: William manski City Manager • -' N s 7 pp `_i'Sd'�.�•'A 1C z ,i.�„i•i rtiBiJ.Uflm1 LgvJ .. -14 t lJ I.Ji�.d.1.{ • . wI - b�.'•-< i�Cri PAI le-CA14. 1- An. IV IyCx"ITxf "idu xi,` 26 - _ , ;23 Leo.: - J.0 L _ r- _ 5€1 a j)�, ge 3 June 28, 1983 Mrs. Maher then moved that the South Burlington Planning Com- mission grant site plan approval for the application of Ira Tate and C. W. Gregory or a combined 9et shop and industrial building at 3060 Williston Road as depicted on a plan en i ed "Commercial Facilit Site Plan" re ared b Pau1 E. Wams anz, last revised 21 8 , with the following stipulations: 1) The building identified as "proposed phase two" shall be deleted. 2) The driveway shall be located on the western edge of the property line and shall be 30 feet in width. 3 A six foot wide strip for future wideninZ of Williston Road shall be provided. An offer of dedication for the strip shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit, ana tine strip shall be indicated on the site plan. 4) A revised site plan, containing required changes from stipulations 1, 2, and 3 shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of a building permit. 5) A landscaping bond of $6,000 shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit.-; 6 All snow storage shall be on this property or snow shall be trucked away. 7) This approval expires in 6 months. Mr. Jacob seconded the motion which received unanimous approval. Mrs Maher thenmoved that it be the policy of the Planning Com- mission that expansion of sewer usage be allowed by the Com- mission when the estimated gallon per day usage is no more than the use for a sin e family residence. Mr. Jacob seconded an the motion passed -0 with Mr. Poger abstaining. Mr� Spitz advised that he would ask the City')Attorney to clarify the Planning Commission's power on site plans. Site Plan application by Jeff Davis for an addition to an ex- isting building at 1270 Shelburne Road and conversion to retail use Mr. Spitz advised that the proposed expansion would double the present size of the building. The applicant has received ap- proval of the Zoning Board for expansion of a non -conforming building. The boundary line of the proposed development is the boundary line of the commercial zone and that the building can be no closer than 60 feet from the residential zone. The principal problem concerns traffic. For this size property, allowance is for 25 cars per hour in a peak hour.: The applicant has submitted information that they will be slightly under this limit. p�-3F:c 11 Ju,_� 28, , )�., Mr. Davis explained that they will operate a retail clothing business. The addition will be no higher than the existing building and would use the existing curb cut to enter and an additional curb cut to exit. There will be 48 parking spaces, with three up front as handicapped spaces. The loading dock will be on the north side of the building. The building is about 140 feet from the property line on the east. Mr. Davis said he had been led to believe that the hedge on the east boundary is his property. The owner of the adjacent property then noted that he had been told that the hedge was his prop- erty and he had been maintaining it. Mr. Lewin, a resident on Imperial Drive, said they would not want to see a second curb cut. Mr. Mona said he would prefer to widen the present curb cut, since there would probably be both entering and exiting from both curb cuts if two were pro- vided. The applicant said there would be no problem with one curb cut. Mr. Vanyzsh noted that Modern Design had agreed to limit the number of parking spaces in their new facility and asked if this would be possible here. Mr. Spitz said he felt a number of spaces could be eliminated. The applicant advised that their business is selling children's clothes at lower than retail rates. Most times of the year, there would be no problem with the fewer parking spaces. At back to school time, there could be a problem. Mr. Jacob suggested an area could be left as grass or gravel and used for overflow or paved at a later date if the need were apparent. Mr. Poger noted that grass or gravel would also allow water to drain into the ground. Mr. Spitz said that if a row of parking were removed, the applicant should be allowed to keep the three front spaces. He also felt that the north/south aisles should be 20 feet. Mr. Jacob said that a strip should be provided so that the existing hedge is not killed with salt. Mr. Poger said he would want to know whose hedge it is before a revised site plan is submitted. Mrs. Maher noted that none of the proposed plantings were of the evergreen variety so there would be no green in winter. She asked if this could be corrected. Several residents of the area noted that Imperial Drive is the access street for all of Laurel Hill. There are many children, no sidewalks, and a bus stop on the corner, posing very dangerous conditions. Mr. Spitz noted that a sidewalk is being requested. Mr. Lewin questioned where the 25-car data comes from. Mr. Spitz explained that there are detailed traffic standards which allow very limited use at major intersections. Variables in- clude zoning, location on Shelburne Road, size of property, etc. Uses such as fast food, banks, etc., are prohibited except in controlled areas, but a retail operation of this type is within acceptable limits, since their figures are within the standards. Mr. Lewin noted that traffic backs up to Bartlett Bay Road and residents of Imperial Drive have no egress or ingress to their street. He said he would like a complete package detailing procedures, standards, etc. Mr. Poger advised that Mr. Spitz would provide that for him. Page ? June 28, 1.983 A petition was then presented on behalf of the resirl.ents of the area. Mrs. Maher expressed concern that people did not understand the limits of the Commission's power. Mr. Lewin asked if there were rigid rules. Mr. Spitz explained that the Commission concerns itself with landscaping and screening, parking and traffic and that traffic is a very inexact science. Mr. Lewin suggested that the current traffic situation on Shelburne Road is a piece of evidence that could be used to modify the rules. Mr. Cannizzari said he was concerned with runoff being piped into the Imperial Drive storm sewer, since he already has problems in average rainfalls. Mr. Davis advised that they had initially anticipated swales in the parking lot which would direct water to Imperial Drive and Shelburne Rd; however, they are willing to pipe water underground. The question of construction and lighting was then raised. The applicant advised that the building would be clapboard with brick relief. Mr. Poger advised that lighting must be directed downward and away from residential areas. Mr. Lewin said it would seem that in light of the success of the factory outlet center, that would be the proper location for a business of this sort. Ms. Poger explained that the applicant has presented an acceptable use within zoning standards. The fact that this is an outlet store does not make it of the same size as others in the Shelburne Road Plaza. Mrs. Hurd asked whether the fire chief had seen the plan. Mr. Spitz said he does not review most site plans. Mr. Poger said he would like this plan reviewed. A resident of the area asked whether the applicant could be re- quired to maintain the road and put in a sidewalk. Mr. Spitz replied that the road was the concern of the City but that a sidewalk was being requested as a condition of approval. Mr. Poger then outlined considerations for the applicant to con- sider in preparing a revised site plan: one curb cut on Imperial Drive, elimination of the back row of parking spaces, discover, of ownership of the hedge, the question of a second row of hedges for better screening, sidewalk on the north side of Imperial Dr, storm drainage. Mrs. Maher then moved that the site plan application of Jeff Davis e continued to July 12, 19 3, at :30 pm, at City Hall. Ms. Hurd seconded with unanimous approval. Sketch plan application by Sheun Poon and South Burlington Realt Corporation for a Chinese restaurant in Corporate Circle The architect's representative expplained that the applicants own the China Light Restaurant in Lebanon, N.H., and have been working for a year to find a Burlington area site. The proposed building would be 10,000 sq. ft., seating 450 people, with a lounge. The site would be as -close to 2 acres as possible. The PLANNER 863-2882 Sol Lewin 3 Worth Street South Burlington, Dear Mr. Lewin, City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 Vermont 05401 July 5, 1-983 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-2486 The City adopted interim zoning on April 17, 1978 with the intention of freezing new traffic growth on Williston and Shelburne Roads until a stronger zoning ordinance could be developed. The City Council replaced the Planning Commission as the approval body during the interim period but was not a part- icularly strict regulator of new developments. On May 19, 1980 a new tough "Cl/C2" zoning ordinance went into effect. The essential thrust of this ordinance, which still continues today, was to allow high -traffic generators only in special planned developments and to limit traffic levels on all in- dividual, small commercial properties. Two additional sets of revisions (March 16, 1981 and December 23, 1982) added further refinements and actually eased some overly -strict regulations. The current traffic provisions- a traffic overlay section,.,#4 appendix, and a map - are enclosed. When a use is proposed on an individual property we first checkits cat- egory to see if it is permitted. For some uses, such as office buildings, we have clear and reliable standards with which to work. We can immediately tell an applicant how large a building he would be permitted to have. Other uses, such as retail stores, are more variable and require case by case in- formation. We ask the applicant for input (enclosed) and we supplement with our own experience. For example the enclosed list of random 1980 counts was used to help establish our initial traffic guidelines. Note that offices usually fare the best (i.e. lowest traffic) but individual retail uses do better than shopping centers, banks, restaurants, and variety/grocery stores. The calculations for permitted peak hour traffic volumes on the lot in question are given below. The final result of 24 trip ends per peak hour is a guideline, not an absolute level. The Planning Commission has the power to allow a slightly higher level as long as it feels the objectives of the traffic regulations are met. Applicant's lot size x zone 3 traffic level = permitted trips ends per peak hour 40,000 sq. ft. 139 x 275 sq. ft 40,000 sq. ft. x 25 trip ends = 24 trip ends Mr. Sol Levin July 5, 1983 Page 2 Also enclosed are 1978 traffic counts for a portion of Shelburne Road. In 1978 numbers, this applicant would add about 12 exiting peak hour cars to 90 hourly cars approaching Shelburne Road from Imperial Drive and 2,540 hourly through cars on Shelburne Road. I hope this information is approximately what you were looking for. Sincerely, David H. Spitz, City Planner DHS/mcg cc. South Burlington Planning Commission 5 Encls TRAFFIC FLO`:; TABULA TIc0PT 1270 SHELLURNE ROAD 5-5 PI;" 1 HOU, 1 HOUR SQUARE TOTAL TOTAL ARRIVING/ LOCATION AWIVING ARRIVING LEAVING FEET Maine 26 131 2.3 6400 Georgia 1- 0.5 10 7500 Michigan 22 '_'_ 22 5710 _very-:e 22 u DHS 6/28/83 MOTION OF APPROVAL That the South Burlington Planning Commission grant site plan approval for the application by Jeff Davis for a retail addition to an existing build- ing at 1270 Shelburne Road as depicted on a plan entitled "Shelburne Road Project, Site", prepared by Steve Moore, Architect, last revised 6/23/83. Stipulations: 1) Storm drainage information shall be indicated on the site plan and shall be approved by the City Engineer. 2) A sidewalk shall be provided along the entire Imperial Drive frontage of the property. 3) All circulation aisles shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width. 4) Plantings within the Imperial Drive right-of-way shall be relocated onto the applicant's property. 5) A landscaping bond of $3000 shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. 6) A revised site plan, containing required changes from stipulations 1,2,3, and 4, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of a building permit. 7) This approval expires in 6 months. 4 Green Dolphin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05401 June 27, 1983 Planning Commission South Burlington, VT 05401 To Whom It May Concern: Being unable to attend the Planning Commission Meeting of June 28, 1983, we wish to voice our opposition by way of this letter to the Commission in regards to the establishment of a retail clothing store at the corner of Shelburne Road and Imperial Drive. , Having to use Imperial Drive as a necessary roadway to our home on Green Dolphin Drive, we experience daily some of the worst traffic conditions in this city. Shelburne road traffic is fast moving and extremely dangerous when it is flowing, and lined up for as much as a mile during; rush hours. The addition of a retail store at the entrance of Laurel Hill South will bring even more traffic to the intersection and cause it to become even more dangerous than it presently is. We urge the Commission to seriously consider the traffic consequences to our neighborhood in the event permission is granted to a high traffic enterprise such as this proposed factory outlet. In summary, we oppose the establishment of a retail outlet on the basis of the traffic it will add to an already intolerable traffic situation. Thank you. Sincerely, Albert P. Farrington Monica S. Farrington / �lL Driveway has been Yned to 24 feet and second ent has been deleted. Landscaping information s now complete and appears to be fairly substantial. I see no remaining problems with this application. 3) Tate, Williston Road The Zoning Board has approved this proposal for combined use of a new building as a pet shop and industrial building. One stipulation was that the existing front building (Imported Car Parts) be removed within 5 years. A storage building will be removed immediately. The existing entrance will have to be defined at a width of no greater than 36 feet. Also, a 6 foot wide offer of dedication for future road widening must be provided. Concerning a sidewalk, the administration does not feel that a single unconnected stretch, 140 feet in length, is useful at this time. In one other application we required an amount to be placed in escrow for a future sidewalk; however, because of the small amount involved and the bookkeeping requirements we don't recommend that approach either. Landscaping, parking, drainageand other required information appears to be complete and satisfactory. 4)( Davis, Shelburne Road Application will go before the Zoning Board Monday evening for a front yard dimensional variance. Proposal is to add a 3900 square foot addition to a building previously occupied by John Hancock Insurance. New use will be a retail clothing store. Projected traffic volumes meet the standard for that location. A sidewalk exists on the property's Shelburne Road frontage. However, the City's sidewalk plan also calls for a future sidewalk on Imperial Drive and this applicant should be responsible for constructing it now. Front and rear circulation aisles should be widened to 20 feet. If necessary, several parking spaces should be removed to accomplish this. Also, a large amount of paving has been included so as to provide three spaces near Shelburne Road - not an aesthetically desirable arrangement. Proposed plantings shown within the City right-of-way will have to be relocated onto the applicant's property since there is an existing water line in that location. 5) Chinese Restaurant, Corporate Circle This is the first proposed development in Corporate Circle. The review procedure will be a sketch presentation followed by a revised final plat (public hearing). Re- levant stipulations from the original approval must be reviewed along with normal sub- division and site plan items. Traffic and Access. The benefit of this application is that the greatest traffic volume will be later than the normal peak traffic in the area. Based on previous stipulations, the through road need not be completed now; however, the next building almost definitely will trigger the requirement for completion. June 27, 1983 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed 60'x62' addition to the existing structure at 1270 Shelburne Road, So. Burlington, for the purpose of establishing a retail clothing store. 64LA I C' S Date Received Date Application Completed and Received By By CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIE6d 1) NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER OF: (a) Owner of Record % /q�' / l� } �f`} f����j D GD�//��/�C,E �`�j' . c17— (b) Applicant (c) Contact Person `�T�f'/fF11 /'1ot��� 2) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: l 2`7o.7E[�13r��'�l 3) PROPOSED USE (S) : I�C- 7-4 le- 4) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e., # of units,floor area, etc.) r v AA/ 5) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (full & part time) 6) COST ESTIMATES: 9 r (a) Buildings ),- v '{gi3Zo (b) Landscaping (c) All Other Site Improvements (i.e., curb work) --QK lDj noo 7) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE /Q (JG v5 / y 8 3 Im 10) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in & out) (/'V 4 J6 07-) PEAK HOUR(S) OF OPERATION PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION AV z) PA77TRN