HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 1775 Shelburne Road (2)( l
5.
i'
PLANNING COMMIS:ION FEBRUARY 9. 1982
Mr. Lawrence did not want a common curb cut with Mr. Preeourt's lot. Ax.
Poger felt the divider was dangerous and that its removal would ease traffic
flow on both lots. Ile urged Mr. Lawrence to consider it. 'Mr. Spitz said
Mr. Precourt could be asked to give an easement on his property so that if
the adjacent property ever came in with an application, the combination could
be made at that time.
Mr. Woolery moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission a,: -,rove
the site plan application of Rinald Precourt for additional retail s;>ace
within an existing building as depicted on a lan entitled 'Pro e '.;it
Plan", 1174 Williston Road, drawn by Brian Precourt dated 1 0 82 subject
to the following stipulations:
1. A landscaping bond of $660 shall be provided.
2. The following legal documents shall be provided:
a) A 6 foot wide offer of dedication to the City along Williston
Road for future street widening.
b) A 15 foot wide, 70 foot long easement to the City at the south-
we2t corner of the property. This easement shall be reassignable to the_
adjacent property owner for consolidation of curb cuts in the event of further
development on the adjacent property.
3. Proposed landsca ing_at the end of parking spaces s_h_all be_Lrotected
by railroad ties or some equivalent barrier. ~
4. This approval expires in 6 months.
5. Snow must be removed so all parking spaces remain available.
Mr. Mona seconded the motion, which carried with Mr. Woolery voting no. He
stated that he felt this was too much development on too tight a lot, and
that this would just add to a bad situation. Mr. Poger said he voted aye
with reluctance but noted that the businesses were pre-existing. He felt
the Commission was doing the best it could with a bad situation.
Continuation of site plan application v Duran Moore` Architects for an office
building: at 1775 :Shelburne Road
Air. Dugan said the proposal was the same as it had been a year aCo. The
lot is 2.34 acres and the building is 31,000 sq. ft. 119 arking spaces are
required. There is a retention pond to treat the first 1/2" of rainwater.
Air. Spitz passed out copies of the previous stipulations on the approval
granted almost a year ago. :lumbers 1-4 have been shown on the plan. #5 is
not a problem, Mr. Dugan said, and the plan will have to go to the Water
Resources Board. He said that after the pond filled up, the water would
sheet over onto the land behind the property and into a brook back there.
Mr. Woolery wanted the City Engineer and Water Resources Board to be aware
of that.
Mr. Mona asked if the access he had not liked the last time around had
been changed and was told it had not.
Mr. Woolery moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve
the site plan application of Dugan Moore Architects as depicted on a plan
entitled "Proposed Office Building, 1775 Shelburne Road," prepared for
J 6.
PLANKING CO."1',:I6SION
FFERliARY 9. 1982
Coburn and Feelev Real Estate, last revised March 3, 1981 subject to the
following stil)ulations:
1. ;;t ulations from the approval dated March 10, 1981 shall remain
2. This site plan approval exr)ir-es in 6 months.
Mr. Mona seconded the motion. He stated that he was no happier about the
access than he was the last time.
The motion carried with Mr. Poger voting yes and Messrs. aoolery, Walsh
and Mona abstaining.
Other business
Review of annual and capital budgets - Mr. Spitz said he planned to
use the funding in the professional assistance category to update the
aerial slides. IMr. Poger felt the slides were an enormous help.
City Council meeting - Mr. Spitz said he had attended last night's
Council meeting and had spoken in regard to the Capital Budget and the
proposed :street Department budget. He also noted that on the 22nd, the
Council would discuss the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance, but that
it would not be a formal hearing. Mr. Spitz has prepared a summary of the
major point.;.
Af,ricultural study - Mr. Spitz said he was working on this.
N;ayo's :ubaru - Er. Spitz passed out copies of the findings of fact.
Fire protection - Mr. Spitz and the fire chief have agreed on guidelines
for fire protection, which will be given to developers.
Zoning Board agenda - It was noted that the first appeal on the 22nd was for a
commercial building on the Victory land. Mr. Poger asked that a copy of the
Commission's discussions on this issue be transmitted to the Zoning Board.
Mr. Poger also hoped that item ##2 on that agenda would be looked at carefully.
It is an application with regard to the building which housed Games People Play.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 pm.
Clerk
Date Received By
Date Applicati( )Complete and Received
By
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
1) NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NU14BER OF:
(a) Owner of Record Robert Cooper & Coburn & Feeley
By
115 College Street, Burlington, Vermont 05401
(b) Applicant Farrell Construction Co., Inc.
309 College Street, Burlington, Vermont 05401 (802) 658-1225
(c) Contact Person Michael Dugan
2) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS 1775 Shelburne Road, Burlington, VT 05401
3) PROPOSED USE (S)
Business & Professional Offices
4) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e., -Im of units, floor area, etc.)
29,760 Sq. Ft., Gross 25,680 Usable - 148 Parking Spaces
5) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (full & part time) 75/100 Full & Part Time
6) COST ESTIMATES:
(a) Buildings
1,200,000
(b) Landscaping 18,000
(c) All Other Site Improvements (i.e., curb work)
45,000
7) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE Fall, 1981 - spring, 1982
6) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in & out) 250/day - 32/hr. average
9) P AK HOUR (S) OF OP ERAT ION
8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
10) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday
}
LF,
DATE S IGNAT= OF APPLI
Alen:ZIU
.3proeu. W
Oat we. RQbert .>• , ..CQOper s . IVA
pi�rtn,�x:���-p .�0�.�9 . �!•�.s�n�a,s . a�, ,�� " .,fly ... , ... , .. .
.Burla.ngtan ..... in the County of .. > t Sx c «f zerr ,•� ,t. s, : otnsiJera-
tion of ....... . ........... $� �:
y , .......... DOLLARS,
f,ARS,
paid to ................ satisfaction by THE MERCHANT$ B.ANN, a battkmz Qorporation or-
ganized and existing under the laws of the State Ot Ver�p DI AW having its Office and principal place
of business in Burlington, County of Chittenden, end SlOk ®f Vamont, do hereby give;, grant,
bargain, sell, alien and convey unto the said 'M MF. C . i� suc(:es ., and air gns
forever, the following described piece or parcel of laW fit w4 .. , P its .,. firatxth , :�rli>a�gtor4
County of , ..Chi ttens�er) ....... and S of Vrrnoot, V&
Being all and the same land and promises conveyedl to Robert F.
Cooper, and to Thomas R. Coburn and Richa.r4 T. Feeley, a partnership
doing business as Coburn and Feeley by Warranty Deed of Vorelco, Inc.
dated November 30, 1978 and recorded in Bo6it 146 at page 3 °1,of the
South Burlington Land Records. Said parcelbeingmore part.,i.cularly
described as follows:
Beginning at an existing concrete monument set in the west line of
U.S. Route No. 7, and being located approximately 1,600 feet south of
Bartlett Bay Road, said monument being the southeast corner of queen
City Motors, Inc. property; thence N70" 16'.,15"W a distance: of 300.10
feet to an existing concrete monument in the easterly line of lands
owned by Lakelands Corp. as recorded in Voluette 88, page 327 of the
Land Records of the Town of South BurlingtoAt thence N01m 2.t' 45"W
along said Lakelands Corp.'s easterly line a distance of 2ti8.83 feet
to an existing concrete monument set in an old fence line and being
in the south line of lands owned by Reyes as recorded in Volume 61,
Page 21 of the Land Records of the Town of South Burlington; thence
S83° 08' 15" E along said Reyes southerly line a distance of 104.80
feet to an existing concrete monument set in the aforementioned old
fence line; -thence S75° 16' 25"E along the Ojuth line of larlds of aai
Reyes a distance of 296.41 feet to a painted cross -cut on a large
boulder, said boulder being in an old stone wall on the westerly side
of U.S. Route No. 7; thence S19' 49' 55"W along the westerly line of
the aforementioned highway and also the line of an old stone wall -a
distance of 300.00 feet to the point and place of beginning,
Containing 2.28 acees of land, more or less.
The premises are subject to easements and restrictions of record,
if any, which may affect this. property. The premises are Subj*ctt ;to
the specific covenant set forth in said de as foil sx
"The within conveyed premises are subject to a covenant container
in the above -mentioned deed, requiring a solid, closed, evergreen
hedge be maintained along the entire westerly boundary of -t,ho. 0*1
and also along the southerly boundary of it costmencing at a point in
the southerly line of 100 feet westerly from the westerly sideline of
U.S. Route No. 7."
�---_Incorporated herein by reference is the above -mentioned deed,
n further aid of this
the aeeas ODU LC%,:V'Luo
description.
1M QCP 177
-Ai y�
*Aa1Q>.;.YY'.IRL.FA.4Rc z a +J.
` e(� j Date Applicat T Complete and Received
'W'PJI / By By
CITY OF SOUTH. BURLrNGTON
APPLI('_�TION FOR SITE PLAIT REV=-,
1) NAI ME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NLII4B�-R OF:
(a) O-,ener of Record 9DBEU C� Fi k
(b) Annlicant D0t!:,M MOME ArMffV ► 1AIC• —
IL
(c) Contact Person _ l"Jt��2t�!_—
--- -- - --- ---------- r --AA- -, __-
2) PRO:i r,CT STRi'IET ADDRESS
3) P ROPOS-M USE (S) CN"l��Ct'n1\1J1'��►v �� _
4) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e., :a of units, floor area, etc.)
,Iw jw __-�� �. -ter, - M VA t ��
5) IM-IBFR OF 04PLOYEES (full & part time) 151,06 U/ !%it
6) COST ESTE-IATES: VolQ�
(a) Buildings t (� t
(b) Landscaping If, 61d
(c) All Other Site LmFrovements (i.e., curb work) _
* . on
7) ESTMATED ;TED PROJr-,)CT CO:•ML2-rION DATE fAdjZ
A ,
8) ESTI1MATZD AVER-'1GE DAILY TRAE- IC (in & out) `� �'� AW,-
5) ? :zC HOUR (S) OF OP --,2 ',T ION �
10) DAYS OF OP%RATION In!!N, *tyf:-5. �'�/�/n • rn�
f
Ta
' 9. v
DATE S IG_..'ITURE OF %PPLICINT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JANUARY 12, 1982
Mr. Poger asked Mr. Spitz to check on the date the application was filed.
Mr. Levesque seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Site plar. applicati
1775 Shelburne Road.
ice buildine at
Chairman Poger said when the commission approved this plan it was not sure of
the status of the proposed South Burlington Connecter Road. Mr. Woolery said
the approval has expired. We now have a vacant lot and are looking at a new
application. When we looked at this last year we had a site review. No
consideration was given to the South Burlington Connecter. Mr. Mona thought
the commission should have a legal opinion on this application. Mr. Ewing asked
if the developer had any written request for the property from the state. Mr.
Feeley said the owner was not interested in selling and he had not been contacted
by the state. Mr. Feeley said the owner was never notified that the connecter is
an issue, he wondered why this wasn't brought up before. Mr. Ewing mentioned
that consideration of the item has been before the Council and appears in the
council minutes.
Chairman Poger instructed Mr. Spitz to confer with the City Attorney on this,
also to find out what the state is planning and if the state plans to purchase
the applicant should be notified.
Mr. Woolery made a motion to continue the site ,plan application by Dugan Moore;
Architects for an office building at 1775 Shelburne Road in two weeks, Janua�y 26
1982 at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Levesque seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Other Business - Board of Appeal
Because Mr. Ward did not approve an application for a sign the Planning Commission
received a written notice that it is to act as a Board of Appeal in the matter.
Chairman Poger read the notice in full.
Chairman Poger instructed Mr. Spitz to be sure to have Mr. Ward present when this
item is on the agenda, to have him present a colored rendering of the sign in
question, to present the relevant parts of the ordinance, the application, and
his reason for denying the application. He also felt that advice from the City
Attorney would be appreciated.
Other Business - Tree Top emergency Access
Chairman roger remarked that the Tree Top Homeowners Association has been very
cooperative in taking care of the access up to where a chain has been placed
across the road. Mr. Spitz said Mr. Szymanski has done nothing on this as yet,
he feels it is a private road and not the city's concern. He will take the matter
up with him again.
Mr. Woolery made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 P.M. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Mona and passed unanimously.
Approved
Clerk
Jp
7.
PLA:i.',ING CO,:,:I.;:iION
JA'MP0'.Y 26. 1982
rite pinrara;�-)I.ication and review under traffic criteria for an lication by
i;i-inld and :iontrice Precourt for conversion to retail c,»r+a of o .e
a buildings at 1174 ',.illi�;ton :.oad
';r. Spitz showed the area on a slide. He noted that the building in
question had been used for storage for Garden Way but was no longer being
used for that. The front portion of the building is used by Accent Travel
and College Formals. College Formals will expand back into the garage
area and use 2/3 of it for more floor area and storage. The Precourts had
proposed a small retail use for the remaining 600 sq. ft. in the garage,
but the Zoning hoard denied that and they will be allowed to use it for
storage.
P;r. ;Spitz hod received a letter from the adjoining landowner, who
feels there 113 a problem here, since parking will be on his land. The
plan chows lid spaces on this lot, but 34 are needed according to the
standard, and ',:r. Spitz had questions about the adequacy of some of the
spaces Shown.
Nr. Precourt said the additional space would be used by College Formals
as storage, floor area, and they also wart areas for alterations and a small
laundry. Mr. Precourt said they had 3 tenants now, but with Garden Way
leaving, there will be only two, so he felt the Narking situation would be
improved. He added that College Formals does a lot of wholesale business,
so they would not need parking for that. The Commission read a letter from
the owner of College Formals detailing his business.
There was some discussion of how much of the building should be considered
retail space, since that figure determines the number of parking spaces needed.
t'r. Poger felt the parking space size should be measured, the retail space
question settled, and the circulation on this lot laid out on paper, to look
at at the next meeting.
;t:r. Precourt said the parking area would be )aved. Mr. Ewing noted
t};zt t:,ore wa:� no area shown for a trash container.
."Jr. Wool(,ry moved to continue the site elan a,,)?roval of Einald Precourt
for retr:il space at 1174 Williston :,oad until two weeks from tonight at City
Hall at 7:30 nm. f,:r. ::ona seconded the motion.
::r. i'oger noted that there was a 45-day period during which the Commission
had to act, or an application was automatically ap,)roved. Since this
application could not have been heard until after the Zoning Board acted
on it, he felt the filing date should be as of today and that the 45-day
period should begin now.
The motion passed unanimously.
Continuation of site plan application by Dugan Moore` Architects for
office building, at 1775 Shelburne Road -
i:r. Poger noted that at a meeting at which he was not crest.nt, the
Commission had passed a motion that they would end meetings at 10:30 pm.
It was now 10:35 pm. The Commission decided to work on this item for 10
minutes.
r?r. Spitz said two letters had been submitted to the Commis -;ion on
this item. One is from the City Attorney and the other is from the State
Agency of Transportation. With that letter is a copy of a letter sent to
Messrs. Coburn and Feeley informing them of the State's plan to appraise
and acquire their land. Mr. loger noted that at the last meeting the
applicants had told them that they had not been approached concerning the
S
I
i•LA:4-I�ING COMMISSION
l
8.
JANUARY 26, 1982
State's plans, and yet the letter to them was dated September 23, 1981.
Mr. Cooper said ,that they were not negotiating with the State in any way.
This refers to the fact that the State had not contacted Coburn -Feeley
with regard to making an offer on the property. :ie said that at the last
meeting he had said that the State had not contacted them relative to them
making an offer, and he added that they were not interested in selling. Mr.
Poger said that was not the impression given at the last meeting. He noted
that they had been aPdroached by the State and told of the State's desire
to ap)raise and make an offer on the land. Mr. Coburn said that was no
different from anyone else approaching them, but Mr. Foger noted that the
State was making the approach in the interests of the city. Mr. Coburn
said they did not want to sell the land.
Mr. roger said he would like the offer to be made and discussion to
take place before the Commission committed the city to what seems to be a
ntupid action. Ile noted that, if the land obtained site -plan approval, its
fair market value would increase 4-5 times, and tie said that, as a planner,
it seemed stupid to him to api;rove something which might be built within
the next year and taken down in 3 years. That would cost the city and
;itate much more than it will now if the property is acquired.
I:r. Fiona asked whether the applicants knew of the planned Southern
Connector and was told they did. He asked about the long-range plans for
the property and was told they wanted to build an office building as an
investment. Mr. Ewing did not feel it would be good planning on the
city's part to approve the plan, because it would mean that two projects
were approved for the same piece of land.
Mr. Levesque left at this time.
Mr. Poger noted that if the Commission were to deny approval, it would
be going against the advice of the City Attorney and he felt it would be
good to have a comment from the Attorney as to what might happen if the
Commission did this. Mr. Ewing also asked that the Planner inform the
Commission of the effect approval of the building would have on the
arpraiced value of the property. The Commission also wanted to know how
much time it had before it had to act on the application. Mr. J pitz felt
they should act at the meeting in two weeks. The Commission asked for
copies of minutes of the meetings held on this property previously.
Mr. Kona said he had voted no the last time based on access from
Shelburne Road, and since that had not changed, he felt he would probably
vote no again for that reason.
Mr. Woolery moved to continue the site -plan application by Dugan Moore
Architects for an office building at 1775 Shelburne Road until two weeks
from tonight at City Hall at 7:30 pm. Mr. Mona seconded the motion and
all voted for it.
Other business
Mr. Spitz said the Commission had been sent a memo from the City
Manager regarding plowing the emergency access at Treetops, and he noted
that Street Department head Albert Audette was present. Mr. Poger
explained that the people at Treetops had been asked to chain off the
emergency access, which they have done. Now it is not being plowed on
the city's side. Mr. Audette felt it was a private drive and no different
than anyone's driveway. He felt it would create a precedent the city could not
afford if the Department cleared it and he mentioned liability if the city did
not clear it out fast enough and there was an emergency. Mr. Poger was not
happy with the present situation.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 pm.
Clerk
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
34 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE
P. 0. BOX 986
JRLINGTON, VERMONT 05402
January 19, 1982
Mr. David Spitz
City Planner
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05401
Dear David:
(SO2) 862-6451
(802) 863-28S7
ISAAC N. P. STOKES
COUNSEL
The Planning Commission has asked what options are
available to it in reviewing a proposed office building at
the intersection of Shelburne Road and the proposed South
Burlington Southern Connector. The Commission is reviewing
the proposal under its site plan review authority. As I
previously advised the Commission, site plan review is
limited to consideration of the adequacy of traffic access,
circulation and parking, and landscaping and screening. It
is my opinion that the Planning Commission cannot deny the
site plan on the basis that the Vermont Agency of Trans-
portation has commenced acquisition procedures. This factor
in no way changes the options available to the Commission.
I believe the contends of my previous opinion to the Com-
mission on this subject are still apropos.
Ver ul ours,
Richa p es
RAS/gmt
DHS
1/12/82
MOTION OF APPROVAL
For the Site Plan Application of Dugan Moore Architects as depicted on
a plan entitled "Proposed Office Building, 1775 Shelburne Read, prepared for
Colburn and Feeley Real Estate, last revised March 3, 1981.
Stipulations:
1) Stipulations from the approval dated March 10, 1981 shall remain in
effect.
2) This site plan approval expires in 6 months.
condominium areas can be improved. Also, several comments by the Fire Chief
should be worked into the plans. Lastly, details for future disconnection of the
two portions of the public road system should be set forth.
I believe it would be more beneficial to all parties involved to work out
these issues of layout prior to the meeting than to take up the Planning Commission
time at the meeting.
6) Precourt, Williston Road
Front portion of the building is currently occupied by Accent Travel and
College Formals. The rear portion was previously used as a warehouse for Garden
Way. Applicant now wishes to change the rear space to retail use. A small
portion will be added onto College Formals and should generate little if any
more traffic. However, the rest of the proposed retail space would be a higher
traffic generator than the previous use. Parking may also be tight as the lot
is very small.
I have asked the applicant to look into the possiblity of combining his
curb -cut with the adjacent Solomon's curb cut. If this were done it would
definitely improve the existing access situation. However, I have received no
favorable response from the applicant on this matter.
7) ( Cooper, Coburn & Feeeley
Letters were sent concerning inquiries raised at last meeting to the City
Attorney and to the State Agency of Transportation. Copies of their responses
are enclosed.
8) Capital and Annual Budgets
The current Planning Commission budget is shown below. I recommend that
the exact same amounts be continued for the upcoming year. I anticipated that
much of the "Professional Assistance" category will be devoted to setting up
traffic count program and to updating the City's arerial slides.
Salaries $2,875
Travel $ 780
Publications, etc. $ 650
Special Printing, etc. $1,500
Professional Assistance $5,000
Advertising $ 700
Concerning the capital_ budget, the Commission forwarded several re-
commendations on streets and sidewalks to the City Council in December. I
would suggest that the Commission request again that the Council respond to
those recommendations.
9) Other Business
I have prepared some"Review Guidelines for Fire Protection" to accompany
development applications. The Fire Chief has reviewed the guidelines, and
several revisions were made according to his recommendations. I have enclosed
copies of the revised guidelines for your information, and I plan to make them
available to developers following any further revisions that the Commission may
wish to make.
��ol ACFtic�
O
STATE OF VERMONT
AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION
= 133 State Street, Administration Building
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
SPOR�P
Re: South Burlington M 5200 (6) January 20, 1982
Coburn & Feeley Real Estate, Inc.
and Robert F. Cooper
David H. Spitz, City Planner
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05401
Dear David:
In reply to your letter of January 13, 1982, addressed to Larry Bliss, I
will attempt to answer the questions you presented.
1. On September 23, 1981, this Agency wrote to Messrs. Coburn, Feeley and
Cooper, at the suggestion of Attorney Spokes, outlining our plans to
appraise and acquire their property. A copy of this letter is attached.
2. We currently anticipate appraisal completion on or about April 1, 1982,
and intend to tender the fair market value offer to these owners shortly
thereafter. I might mention that the appraisers are also obligated to
contact the property owners. This was accomplished by David J. Bettinger
by letter addressed to Coburn and Feeley Real Estate, Inc., dated October
1, 1981, to which there was no response. Also, on October 30, 1981, Dale
Robertson spoke to Mr. Coburn to offer him the opportunity to accompany
Mr. Robertson on his inspection of the property. This offer was declined
by Mr. Coburn.
3. I enclose, for your information, a copy of the Right -of -Flay Agreement
between the City of South Burlington and the State of Vermont setting
forth the obligations of the parties relative to the acquisition of land
and rights for this project. This will save you and the Planning Commis-
sion the effort of securing a copy from the City Clerk.
I trust the above information will be helpful to you and the Commission. If
we can be of further assistance, please advise.
Very truly yours,
Wayne R. Lewis, Chief
Prope y Administration
osephF. O'Leary cc/
Property Management Officer
Enclosures
.t r
RIGHT-OF-WAY
AGREEMENT FOR SOUTH BURLINGTON M 5200 (6)
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 24th day of November , 19 81 ,
)etween the State of Vermont, acting through its Agency of Transportation,
iereinafter called the STATE and the Town of South Burlington in the County of
;hittenden, State of Vermont, hereinafter called the MUNICIPALITY.
JITNESSETH:
WHEREAS the STATE proposes to submit to the Federal Highway Administration,
Jnited States Department of Transportation, an Urban, Federal -Aid Project known
is South Burlington M 5200 (6), which will provide certain improvements to a
iighway of said MUNICIPALITY as shown on the plans for this project, as provided
;o said MUNICIPALITY, and described as follows:
Beginning at a point on U.S. Route 7, 0.10 mile north of
the Shelburne Town/South Burlington City Line and continues
northerly approximately 2.0 miles to terminate at an inter-
change with Burlington Project M 5000 (1).
WHEREAS the MUNICIPALITY desires the improvement of this highway as describ,
above and further desires that the STATE shall act, insofar as necessary, for th,
NNICIPALITY in the acquisition of land and/or rights required for this project.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises herein set forth, it is
agreed by the Parties hereto, as follows:
'HE STATE AGREES:
That in the event that construction of this project requires the acquisition
of land and/or rights outside of the existing right-of-way, such land and/or
rights will be acquired by the STATE in compliance with the "Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970"
(42 U.S.C. 46ol-4655), providing that said land and/or rights can be
acquired by option, at Fair Market Value, and with the understanding that
if condemnation is necessary the MUNICIPALITY must be the condemning
authority, as hereinafter provided.
2. Upon completion of this project the STATE will convey all land and/or
permanent rights acquired by it for this project to the MUNICIPALITY, with
the provision that the MUNICIPALITY will not permit any encroachments on
the rights -of -way to be controlled and/or acquired in connection with said
Highway Project without written permission of the STATE.
3. If during the Right -of -Way Acquisition phase of the project, the MUNICIPALI
must condemn lease rights of the Vermont Railway, Inc., the STATE shall not
oppose the necessity of the acquisition by the MUNICIPALITY.
THE MUNICIPALITY AGREES:
1. To grant the STATE temporary right -of -entry into the right-of-way of said
municipal highway for the period of construction.
2. That the STATE may use the municipal highways for trucking and hauling as
required during the construction of this project.
3. Upon completion of this project, to accept from the STATE the conveyance of
any and all land and/or permanent rights and improvements acquired by the
STATE for this project, with the provision that the MUNICIPALITY will not
permit any encroachments on the rights -of -way to be controlled and/or
acquired in connection with said Highway Project without written permission
of the STATE.
u. To allow the STATE to enter upon any other land owned by the MUNICIPALITY
during the period of construction to complete work on said project, if such
entry is necessary.
5. To save harmless and indemnify the STATE, its officers, agents and employee
from all suits, actions or claims for damages sustained by abutting or
adjacent property owners or occupants due to the improvement, widening, or
relocation of right-of-way.
6. The MUNICIPALITY shall enter into an agreement with the City of Burlington
for the acquisition of any rights -of -way necessary for this project. Said
agreement shall require that any project acquisition in the City of Burlin
be accomplished in accordance with the applicable terms of this agreement.
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED BY THE STATE AND THE MUNICIPALITY:
1. That if condemnation of all or a portion of said land and/or rights becomes
necessary the MUNICIPALITY must be the condemning authority. The MUNICI-
PALITY will make every effort to condemn at the Fair Market Value price as
-2-
f
determined by the STATE'S reviewing appraiser, but may condemn at a price
which exceeds said approved Fair Market Value price, if facts set forth at
a hearing warrant a higher award. The STATE has the right to approve or
disapprove such action, and failure by the MUNICIPALITY to obtain such
written approval may result in the MUNICIPALITY bearing the entire cost of
the excess amount over said STATE'S approved Fair Market Value price. If
condemnation becomes necessary, the MUNICIPALITY will commence condemnation
proceedings upon receipt of notice from the STATE that condemnation is
required. Prior to commencing any legal work relative to condemnation for
which the MUNICIPALITY intends to seek reimbursement the MUNICIPALITY shall
enter into a contract with an attorney or legal firm for legal services,
which contract must be approved by the STATE and the Federal Highway Admin-
istration and shall include the following:
A. Qualifications and experience of the attorney or attorneys in areas of
property law.
B. All legal work shall be performed in accordance with Vermont Statutes
and Federal -Aid Highway Program Manual, Volume 7, Chapter 2, Section 4,
in order to assure proper maximum Federal participation in the amounts
paid.
C. Estimated cost of legal services on a lump sum or hourly rate which
shall contain a breakdown for performing the work to include salaries,
material costs, and any other direct or indirect costs. No legal work
shall be commenced which will exceed the lump sum estimate without fir
obtaining approval of the STATE and the Federal Highway Administration
and failure to obtain such approval may result in the MUNICIPALITY
bearing the entire cost of such excess.
D. The MUNICIPALITY and/or attorney or legal firm shall maintain, retain,
and make available for audit by the STATE and Federal Highway Adminis-
tration all accounting records and any other documentation pertaining
to costs incurred for legal services for a period of three (3) years
from the date of payment of the final voucher by the Federal Government
to the STATE in accordance with FHPM, Volume 1, Chapter 6, Section 2.
All legal costs incurred shall be included in the right-of-way costs and
reimbursement to the MUNICIPALITY of its share of these costs by the STATE,
upon receipt of properly itemized invoices, shall be in accordance with the
cost distribution as hereinafter set forth. Payment for these legal costs
shall be in accordance with the cost principles established by Part 1-15 of
the Federal Procurement Regulations and/or Federal Highway Administration
policies and compliance therewith by the MUNICIPALITY shall assure proper
maximum Federal participation in these costs.
-3-
At the expiration of the period during which an affected party can enter an
appeal from a condemnation award of the MUNICIPALITY, the MUNICIPALITY shall
send written notification to the STATE either setting forth the names of the
appellants or attesting to the fact that no appeals were made,
Upon request the STATE will furnish the MUNICIPALITY a copy of more detailed
information regarding the MUNICIPALITY'S responsibilities.
2. All right-of-way costs incurred by the STATE in connection with this project
under this agreement are to be included in the overall participating project
costs and are therefore subject to final distribution of approximately 75%
Federal, 15% State, and 10% Municipality to be made after project completion,
3. In the event this project is not constructed as a direct or indirect result
of any decision, action, or omission of the MUNICIPALITY, all the right-of-
way costs are to be reimbursed in full to the STATE by the MUNICIPALITY.
If, however, the project is not constructed for any other reason, the
MUNICIPALITY is only responsible for the cost of any land or premises
acquired.
4. Any right-of-way costs which are approved by the STATE but are determined
to be non -participating by the Federal Highway Administration shall be split,
at a mutually acceptable ratio, between the STATE and the MUNICIPALITY.
5• No statements, expressions of opinion, representations or agreements of any
nature whatsoever, not herein expressly stated, made by any representative
or agent of the STATE shall be binding on, or of any effect against, the
STATE.
This Agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the
STATE and the MUNICIPALITY.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the State of Vermont has caused its name to be
?'A d r,
subscribed this p( day of 19 d / , by
fi� lit L for the Agency of Transportation.
Tom hvslln
IN PRESENCE OF:
Diane ,lakeslee
/s/ Frances Bouf` fird
STATE OF VERMONT
AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION
(STATE)
By: �1 \
/s/ Tom Evslin
-4-
STATE OF VERMONT At Montpelier, this day of
Washington County, ss. / .. , A.D., 19 = ,
,-�-
personally appeared ��.'r� �`v r�-r. and acknowledged
om Evsiin
the foregoing instrument by him executed to be his free act and deed and the
free act and deed of the State of Vermont.
Before me,
Diane t Iakeslee Notary Public
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of South Burlington
November
has caused its name to be subscribed this 24th day of Novem,
A.D. , 19 81 , by its XXXX Manager duly authorized to do so.
City
CITY
IN PRESENCE OF: ' ,% OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
(MUNICIPALITY)
By:
/s/ Laura Kim 1
I A NLU -3 (24.d,,,4 V/ger
/s/ William Szymanski
/s/ Marie Gallant South J.
Burlington this 74thday of
STATE OF VERMONT At ,
Chittenden County, ss.
November , A.D., 19 g l ,
personally appeared William J. Szymariski
CITY
as XXXX Manager of the City of South Burlington and acknowledged
this instrument by him subscribed to be his free act and deed, and the free act
and deed of the City of South Burlington
APPROVED AS TO FORM
O C T 0 7 1981
-5-
Before me,
Betty Hq Bailey Notary tublic
to 2/10/83
State qf VermQT
I MI8etneen
-it-and
City of South Burlington
,Vh x MY4 LX " VYA
Mted
—aQutb—B-ur-1j ii-2t on --7m
Clerk'sOtfice
Z
RECEIVED F(XR REC=
J, �4'
X�Qc ernbeX A. D., 1911
at O'Cior-k 5 minutoo
M., and Recorder! in Book --C-kQ—
Page o(Land RemrdS.
Attest
coy Im Clerk
re e
oN� AGF
SPATE Or VERI00N1'
0 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION
133 St,ite Street, Alontpelier, Vermont 05602 r iy
�
R1outh Burlington M 5200 (6) September 23, X
Coburn & Feeley Real Estate, Inc.
and Robert F. Cooper
Messrs. Thomas Coburn, Richard Feeley
and Robert Cooper
c/o Coburn & Feeley Real Estate, Inc.
115 College Street
Burlington, VT 05401
Dear Sira:
In connection with the proposed construction of the above captioned
highway project, please be advised that this Agency, in cooperation with the
City of South Burlington, anticipates appraising your property located at
1775 Shelburne Road in the near future. This appraisal is required to estab-
lish the fair market value of the property and a subsequent tender to you of
an offer to purchase this land.
This proposed purchase has been approved by the Federal highway Adminis-
tration in accordance with procedures which allow for protective buying in
extraordinary cases to prevent imminent development and increased costs of a
parcel of land which costs would tend to limit the choice of highway alternatives.
A corridor public hearing for this project was field on January 28, 1981, and
D the City of South Burlington endorsed the preferred highway alignment, which
affects your property, on April 28, 1981. Although this project is still in
the early stages of development, we sincerely believe that this proposed
acquisition is in the best interests of all parties concerned, and particularly
in the interest of the general public.
In order to assure fair market value determination, separate appraisals
of your property will be accomplished by the firms of David J. Bettinger and
Dale R. Robertson, respectively. These firms will contact you in the near
future, prior to commencing their appraisals.
In anticipation of your cooperation, we extend our appreciation for your
assistance. If you have any further questions, please let us know.
CF_RTIFIED
MAIL
UTURh RECEIPT
TE:JFO:mgk
Sincerely,
Jt� �
Tom Evslin
Secretary
cc: William J. Szymanski, Manager, City of South Burlington
Richard A. Spokes, Esq.
Central Files - Rr—t.urrr to_ Proprlrt' Adi'lini'trar.tiorr
Pile - Eov i ew Fo (,t- —
'Y
Y t
•�" t ^_yi ram',
So.
4 K
}
..
0
Burlington M 5200 (6)
n
® SF.7C)LR: C. mt+lete iwms 1. 2. and ?.
u Add row .&lien in the -kEI' RH TO- K'a oar
e, I. The following service is requested (check one.)
DC Show to whom and date delivered............
❑ Show to whom, date and addieu of delivery...._, C
❑ RESTRICTED DEUVERY
Show to whom tin-] dste dcllveted............ _4
❑ RESTRICTED DI'uv[RY.
Show to whom, date, and addieu of drlivery,s_
t
(CONSULT POSTNIA:i FFR FOR I:hiS)
2-ARTICLE ADURESS10 TO' i1
m Messrs. Thomas Coburn, Richard j
i Feeley and Robert Cooper ;
C/o Coburn & Feeley Real Est.,Inc'
115 College St., Burlington,
� TV't .
ARTICLE DES(;RIPTION: V5µ01
2RiGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED WO, 1l13u05 NO
m
(Always obtain Ngnaturq of ✓fdroy.oa or apcntl
I have feceived tho article decctibed above.
x SIGNATunE ❑A eame ❑Aethorlted awl
4. //,/C
DATE OF DELIVERY `GTMAAK-�
e. ADDRESS ICotnO(eb orgy N
C.
& Uk"LE TO DELIVER BECAu4Et CLERK'S
INITIAL$
T
W �
031
v �
~ r~ ' 'PT
Cti
W ,
a
1
dt
0 r-.t
P.
J} x
ct �
w. • r .t _,•_ �,��,
0
0 1
;tr
0?I
:.r
rn
(f
•r5,*..• .. ,• jl'4P0: IG )pJpa�ef "
�� `E •. _ 4 • . ... .� f_1vK�•,�S•d.... •. LA;r
••�,y,7- . - . gip,. � . �,• +.. .. ;. _, _ ,,,,. _ r � � _..., • �. �'i . '� :' � � y
. ,; .. , y �i`" a`+' •.► ..�A.at•>....►.••�*�ll.... '� t 1R-K f. .. •r•.. �.� ,...� • �"._ • �,'t• A1►'•1:'
- .. ...rf+.,r .. ^•.� �i,Yt�ORfA�t.e;J6'•P
1,� r rt RR
'Z.i,r. •v f",��"R:• •3,}C`�•7 r!, ... 1 ,.... ,� '. at int•a.F�� .. .Jr��►t".r•�„i:. ;'`a�!ti.!'f.hQ�{:S' �.a,t, r '� .' k. ' i v ti � -.. ,�y��y •t_ •., r .f r :: Y' = j • � ,.
.. t'M F `' Y � ".F+�~rr•'. , '.'w�••r•e+• •-+.'^�M's`�lt�..eK!,t•Y�n- � r .•�rl+s'M►'-
p�. w�•4 .t i '�..�P i• ..J/.Y 'Y . Ski. .,. "', .• .. . r�.�'.1 �- .
T
W �
031
v �
~ r~ ' 'PT
Cti
W ,
a
1
dt
0 r-.t
P.
J} x
ct �
w. • r .t _,•_ �,��,
0
0 1
;tr
0?I
:.r
rn
(f
•r5,*..• .. ,• jl'4P0: IG )pJpa�ef "
�� `E •. _ 4 • . ... .� f_1vK�•,�S•d.... •. LA;r
••�,y,7- . - . gip,. � . �,• +.. .. ;. _, _ ,,,,. _ r � � _..., • �. �'i . '� :' � � y
. ,; .. , y �i`" a`+' •.► ..�A.at•>....►.••�*�ll.... '� t 1R-K f. .. •r•.. �.� ,...� • �"._ • �,'t• A1►'•1:'
- .. ...rf+.,r .. ^•.� �i,Yt�ORfA�t.e;J6'•P
1,� r rt RR
'Z.i,r. •v f",��"R:• •3,}C`�•7 r!, ... 1 ,.... ,� '. at int•a.F�� .. .Jr��►t".r•�„i:. ;'`a�!ti.!'f.hQ�{:S' �.a,t, r '� .' k. ' i v ti � -.. ,�y��y •t_ •., r .f r :: Y' = j • � ,.
.. t'M F `' Y � ".F+�~rr•'. , '.'w�••r•e+• •-+.'^�M's`�lt�..eK!,t•Y�n- � r .•�rl+s'M►'-
p�. w�•4 .t i '�..�P i• ..J/.Y 'Y . Ski. .,. "', .• .. . r�.�'.1 �- .
;tr
0?I
:.r
rn
(f
•r5,*..• .. ,• jl'4P0: IG )pJpa�ef "
�� `E •. _ 4 • . ... .� f_1vK�•,�S•d.... •. LA;r
••�,y,7- . - . gip,. � . �,• +.. .. ;. _, _ ,,,,. _ r � � _..., • �. �'i . '� :' � � y
. ,; .. , y �i`" a`+' •.► ..�A.at•>....►.••�*�ll.... '� t 1R-K f. .. •r•.. �.� ,...� • �"._ • �,'t• A1►'•1:'
- .. ...rf+.,r .. ^•.� �i,Yt�ORfA�t.e;J6'•P
1,� r rt RR
'Z.i,r. •v f",��"R:• •3,}C`�•7 r!, ... 1 ,.... ,� '. at int•a.F�� .. .Jr��►t".r•�„i:. ;'`a�!ti.!'f.hQ�{:S' �.a,t, r '� .' k. ' i v ti � -.. ,�y��y •t_ •., r .f r :: Y' = j • � ,.
.. t'M F `' Y � ".F+�~rr•'. , '.'w�••r•e+• •-+.'^�M's`�lt�..eK!,t•Y�n- � r .•�rl+s'M►'-
p�. w�•4 .t i '�..�P i• ..J/.Y 'Y . Ski. .,. "', .• .. . r�.�'.1 �- .
January 13, 1982
Attorney Richard Spokes
Spokes, Foley & Obuchowski
P.O. Box 986
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Dear Dick,
The Planning Commission has asked for a written opinion from you concerning
their options in reviewing a site plan for an office building at the intersection
of Shelburne Road and the proposed South Burlington Connector. Previously our
understanding was that the Planning Commission could nqt delay or deny a site
plan application just because there were future road plans through the site.
However, the Vermont Agency of Transportation has had numerous correspondence
and meetings with the City Council during the past year concerning acquisition of
the property in question. We would like to know whether this changes the Plan-
ning Commission's options in any way.
The next meeting on this application will be Tuesday, January 26. A re-
sponse prior to that date would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
David H. Spitz,
City Planner
DS/rig
January 13, 1982
Larry Bliss
Property Administration Division
Agency of Transportation
133 State Street
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
Dear Larry,
Several questions arose at the Planning Comission's last hearing on the
Cooper, Coburn & Feeley proposed office building on Shelburne Road. We under-
stand that the Agency of Transportation has been looking into acquisition of
this parcel, however, the applicant claims not to have been contacted. Could
you tell us if you have corresponded with the property owner and/or plan to do
so in the future. Also, what are your current plans and possible time lines
for acquisition of this parcel? Finally, do you have any additional Anput that
you wish the Planning Comission to consider at this time?
Our next meeting on this application will be on Tuesday, January 26, and a
written response prior to that time would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
David H. Spitz,
City Planner
DS/mcg
c,&-, r-&� �
A-tM� !/ba/8o�
s
� A� �
MEMORANDUM
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: David H. Spitz, City Planner
Re: Next week's agenda items
Date: 1/8/82
2) ICV, Shunpike Road
I have been notifed by telephone that I.C.V. is withdrawing its application
for this property. I hope to have written verification of that withdrawal before
next Tuesday's meeting, otherwise it will be necessary to deny the application.
3) Basiliere, Meadow Road
Existing lot contains 20,400 square feet. Zoning Board has approved
area and frontage variances that will allow a 9,000 square foot lot with 60
feet frontage and an 11,400 square foot lot with 76 feet frontage. No setback
variances have been granted.
This subdivision will be compatible with the neighborhood as many existing
lots are as small or smaller than the proposed lots. I see no problems with this
application.
4) Unsworth, Airport Parkway
Proposed building is on an 8.7 acre parcel located on Airport Parkway just south
of the Lime Kiln bridge. Property is large enough to accommodate several build-
ings. No subdivision is being proposed now, however, access is being laid out
with considerations of potential future development in mind.
Proposed driveway lies between the bridge and a wide curve along much of
the property, and site distance is sufficient in both directions.
Proposed use(s) are listed as automotive repair or light industrial service.
Parking for 12 cars is provided in connection with this type of use. Any change
in type of use or expansion of use that would require more parking would need
revised site plan approval.
No outside storage is proposed. Several cars to be worked on may be
parked for short time periods inthe designated parking spaces.
Landscaping value appears to be less than the required amount. Size of proposed
trees must be indicated.
5 and 6) Bartlett Property and Precourt
Because of unexpected delays (day in court), my memo on these items will
not be available until Monday.
7) C.,Dugan-Moore
This proposal is identical to the site plan approved by the Planning Commission
approximately one year ago. The approval expired last September.
The Vermont Agency of Transportation right-of-way division is currently working
on acquisition of this parcel which is located at a key intersection for the proposed
South Burlington connector.
STATE OF VERMONT
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
133 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602
SPOR�
Re: South Burlington M 5200 (6)
R.F. Cooper and Coburn & Feeley Real Estate, Inc.
Dr. Paul A. Farrar, Chairman
City Council of South Burlington
1175 Williston Road
South Burlington, VT 05401
Dear Dr. Farrar:
i
April 17, 1981
RECFi
I am writing in regard to the City of South Burlington's apparent dilemma in
the matter of a proposed structure to be erected on land at 1775 Shelburne Road
by Messrs. Cooper, Coburn and Feeley. Since the City and State have a mutual
interest in the land due to the proposed subject highway project, I believe it
would be in the best interest of all parties to attempt resolution of this
problem at an early date, preferably prior to construction of the building.
Federal highway Administration procedures allow for "protective buying" in
extraordinary cases or emergency situations to prevent imminent development
and increased costs of a parcel of land which would tend to limit the choice
of highway alternatives. Such action must be in the public interest and may
occur only after official notice has been given to the public that a particular
location has been selected to be the preferred or recommended alignment for a
proposed highway or only after a public hearing has been field.
JI understand a meeting has been scheduled for May 4, 1981, to discuss this
matter and the proferrcd highway alignment. Assuming agreement on the
alignment that would require the acquisition of the property in question, we
would like to request, as soon as possible, Federal Highway Administration
'authorization to acquire this property under the provisions of protective
buying. Prior to'sumbittal of this request, however, we must receive a firm
commitment from the City indicating that, in the absence of successful negoti-
ations with the property owners, the City of South Burlington will initiate
condemnation procedures for this land upon notification from this Agency and
will complete said procedures in a timely manner.
In order to comply with the above requirement, please determine the City's
intentions and forward a reply to me at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Tom Evslin
Secretary
TE:JFO:mgk /
cc: William J. Szymanski, Manager, City of South Burlington V
e
AD-w .
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
April 28, 1961
tato of VormonL
nf f ice of the Focr. etary
133 State Street
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
Attns Tors Ivslin, Secretary
Re: :south Burlington M 5200
R.F. Cooper and Coburn a
Dear Mr. Evslin:
575 Dorset Street
(6)
Feeley Real Estate, Inc.
Due to the urucncy of the above referenced matter and in
tr:e absence of Dr. Paul A. Farrar, Chairman, who is out of town
until ► ay 7, 1931, T w:l taking the liberty of answering your
letter to Dr. rarrar dnto,l April 17, 1981, a copy of which I
received on April 24, 1901.
An you are mware the City has a sttily ccnmittee working
with the State t+.i►lt�wny Drpartrient on several alternatives for
tl'C_ location of this t-ro jF�ct, Dr. Farrar and Councilman rt�3rtin
:'aulscr. are 1;�eb'.ur, c�` this com-nittec. :'his committee, thce City
Cotii:cil and the T'lanninq CO'rnmis:�ion nll endorsed the prorosc�j
rua : at the: location that will require the acquisition of the
Cooper, Coburn & reelcy property. Therefdre, I request tilat you
procc -�d cxnetliti.ously as r,ossit le anti obtain Federal arproval
for acquiring this property under the provision of protective
buying, referred to in your letter.
The City Council meeting that was schetluleci for May 4, 1981,
.,as been reschedulct: for may 11, 1981. I o:ill schedule this matter
first on the agenda, if you feel it is necessary to further discuss
it.
WJS/b
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
iz
Very -truly yours,
:lilliam J. Szymanski
city Manager
v
=CXXXXXXXXXXXXX 575 Dorsot Streat
May 5, 1981
State of Verriont
Office of T'ie e.r ocrtary C
13 3 f.t"itc% .^.tram
Ptontpelier, Vormont O:C,02
httn: Torn Fvslin, £ccretary
Re: South 2urlington �t 5200 (6)
R.F. Cooper, and Coburn & Feeley Real Estate, Inc.
Doar ?Ir. L:vs lin :
This lcttcr i.. a f&llow-up of my letter dated April
28, 1931.
Tha city of r'o•rtr: nurlington will initiate condemnation "
pr-oce,.luren, in a tincly r►a nor if negotiatiot:n for acquisition
or the R.F. Cooper, and Cot -urn & Feeley Re"11 1SEtate, Inc.
pro!-,erty at 1775 f:hell-urne Road, :south Burlington is
unnacceasful.
Very truly yours,
"illiari J. Szyxnanski
Cmty :imager
WJS/b
PLANNING COMIMISSION
MARCH 10, 1981
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday,
March 10, 1981 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 1175 Williston Rd.
Members Present
Sidney Poger, Chairman; George Mona, Kirk Woolery, Ernest Levesque, James
Ewing
Members Absent
Robert Walsh, Peter Jacob
Others Present
David Spitz, Planner; JohnO'Sullivan, Jerry Chase, William Wessel, Mark Hill,
A. J. Siner, Michael Dugan, Eric & Mary Farrell, Richard Feeley, Roberta
Coffin, Ann Emery, Jodie Peck, Free Press
Minutes of March 3. 1981
Mr. Mona moved to approve the March 3. 1981 minutes as written, Mr.
Levesque seconded and all voted in favor.
Continuation of application by South Burlington Realty Corporation for
site plan approval of a 26,000 sq. ft. warehouse and distribution facility
at 2069 Williston Road
Mr. Spitz said the applicant was still not ready and that he would
seek a formal withdrawl of the application.
Mr. Mona moved to continue the site plan application of South Burlington
Realty until March 24 at 7:30 Pm at City Hall. Mr. Levesque seconded the
motion and all voted aye except Mr. Woolery, who abstained because he had
just come in.
Continuation of application by Farrell Construction for site plan approval
of a 29,70U sq. ft. office building at 1775 Shelburne Road
Mr. Dugan noted that this was a speculative building but that they had
made some guesses as to occupancy. He had sent a letter describing these
calculations (dated March 5 and on file with the Planner). They assumed
that 7U",t of the workers in the building would live to the north and that,
based on traffic figures for office buildings, the a.m. peak would show
69 trips to the site and the p.m. peak would show 65 trips away from the site.
For the left -turning cars in the a.m., they propose a 4' widening of the
shoulder on the east to let cars pass. For cars coming from the north,
they propose widening the road 40' before the turn. The traffic light at
Bartlett Bay Road provides gaps in the traffic at this location. Mr. Spitz
said the delay in getting out of the site will not be bad enough to justify
another traffic signal here.
Regarding upgrading of the shoulder, the state will have to approve it,
but Mr. Spitz felt they would.
The question of a bus stop was discussed. Mr. Levesque felt a larger
stacking lane for the bus going south should be put in.
Mr. Poger felt the right lane should be identified as a passing lane
and Mr. Mona mentioned signing.
2.
1-1.,ANNTNC; Ca:,_ IT�;SION
MARCH 10, 1981
Regarding the parking lot, it will contain 119 parking spaces (some
have been removed at the fire chief's request) and will be asphalt. The
Commission felt the lot should be striped. .Moving the handicapped spaces
was discussed - they will be on the other side for ease in getting out of
the car.
Mr. Woolery asked about the Southern Connector but was told that to deny
the application on that basis would be to deny use of the land. It was
noted that to buy or option the land would result in a loss of federal
funding.
Mr. Mona did not feel the passing lanes were large enough and he liked
the suggestion about the bus.
A sidewalk will be required.
A larger lane and bus stop on the north side of the west part of the
road was mentioned. Having the developers return after they recieve state
approval for the upgrading was discussed. Mr. Mona felt the passing lanes
needed to be as long as the length of the property on both sides of the road.
Mr. Poger felt provision should be made for a bus stop on the interior of
the site. Mr. Mona felt the deceleration lane for cars coming from the north
should be lengthened too. Mr. Spitz disagreed.
Mr. Woolery moved that the South Burlington_Planning Commission approve
the site plan application of Farrell Construction Company for a 30,000 sq.
ft. office building as depicted on a plan entitled "Pro posedOffice Building,
-- . -
1775_5helburne_Road,° prepared by Farrell Construction__Company, last revised
March 3, 1981,_s4bject to the following stipulations:
1. A sidewalk shall be constructed along the entire frontage of the
property.
2. Entrance radii shall have concrete curbs.
3. Two hydrants shall be installed at locations approved by the Fire
Chief and entered on the plan of record.
4. The width and length of road shoulder improvements shall be as
approved by the Vermont Agency of Transportation. The widening of the
shoulder on the southeast side of the road should be at least the entire
length of the frontage south from the entrance.
5. A_bond_--for_landscaping, sidewalk and road -widening improvements
shall be_provided prior to issuance of a building permit.
6. A complete drainage plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit.
7. A revised site plan, containing information required from
stipulations 1, 3, 4, and 6 shall be submitted prior to issuance of a
building_permit.
8. This site plan approval expires in 6 months.
Mr. Ewing seconded the motion.
Mr. Farrell stated that if the CCTA bus wanted to pull onto this site,
they would be happy to provide the bus with a place to stop.
Mr. Mona mentioned a sidewalk to the north of the entrance road. Mr.
Ewing encouraged the developers to put this in, but he felt it should not be
a stipulation.
3.
PLANNING COKMISSION
MARCH 10, 1981
A letter will go to the State Agency of Transportation expressing
Commission concerns about striping and signing to properly channel traffic.
Mr. Mona moved to add a stipulation to the motion that "the length
of the deceleration Inne on the northwest side of the property be extended
he full extent of the property frontnpe." ,Mr. Levesque seconded the
motion. He then moved to amend the previous motion to add "if the extended
length is deemed necessary by the Agency of Transportation." This motion
died for lack of a second. Mr. Mona's original motion failed with Mr. Mona
voting aye and Mr. Levesque abstaining.
The motion carried with Messrs. Woolery and Mona voting no. Mr. Woolery
stated that he liked the plan, but he was worried this building might kill
the Southern Connector. He said that if funding did not come through and
it looked like the road would not be built for an unreasonable time, he would
vote for the project. He was afraid the additional funds necessary to take
the building down might mean the Connector would not be built. Mr. Mona
was not fully satisfied that traffic in front of and turning into the site
was adequately handled by the plan and he was not assured that the Agency
of Transportation would take care of the city in this matter. Mr. Levesque
agreed with Mr. Woolery, but noted that the state could use the rail bed
they own to build the Connector on.
Application by SBC Burlington Corporation for site plan approval of a 90
seat the»ter addition in the Burlington Plaza Shopping Center on ::helburne Rd.
Mr. Spitz noted that Welby Drug had submitted a traffic report on the
area when it was in for review a while ago. The report shows that some
intersection approaches are not in very good shape.
Mr. John O'Sullivan said they proposed a third cinema using the present
mall area. 94 seats will be removed from the present seating capacity
and the third cinema will contain 94 seats. This will leave the capacity
at its present 708. They will come out on the same line as Welby and the
sidewalk will be the same depth as it is in front of Welby. They will be
building in the present walkway and the entrance to the 3 theatres will be
from what is left of the enclosed mall. Another exit will be added. From
Cinema Two people will be able to exit to the rear.
Regarding traffic, it was noted that several intersection approaches
were level of service D, but the criteria for a PCD state that the changes
cannot worsen the traffic at peak hours. Looking at this proposal and how
it would affect the pea:: hcur, Mr. Mona did not see an impact.
Mr. Spitz said that as part of its application Welby was going to put
some trees in the front of the building. This applicant would like to put
his landscaping in the front entrance, near the sign.
Mr. Woolery moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve
the site plan application of SBC Burlington Corporation for a 90-seat theatre_
addition in Burlington Plaza Shopping Center as depicted on a plan entitled
"Alterations and Additions, Cinema 1, 2 and 3", �___. d by R.I. Lamphere
_ ---
Corporation, dated March 2, 1981,_sub.ect to the following stipulations:
1. Landscaping in front of the_ build ingj_as_proposed in the recent
Welby application, shall be relocated so as not to be directly in front of
the new cinema entrance.
2. A landscaping bond of $1000 shall be provided.
DHS
3/10/81
STIPULATIONS
For the Site Plan Application of Farrell Construction Company
for a 30,000 square foot office building as depicted on a plan en-
titled "Proposed Office Building, 1775 Shelburne Road," prepared
by Farrell Construction Company, last revised March 3, 1981:
Stipulations:
1) A sidewalk shall be constructed along the entire frontage of
the property.
2) Entrance radii shall have concrete curbs.
3) If the building will be sprinklered, two hydrants shall be in-
stalled at locations approved by the Fire Chief.
4) The width and length of road shoulder improvements shall be as
approved by the Vermont Agency of Transportation.
5) A bond for landscaping, sidewalk and road -widening improvements
shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit.
6) A complete drainage plan, including a possible easement across
the rear property to the existing drainageway, shall be submitted
to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building
permit.
7) A revised site plan, containing information required from
stipulations 1,3,4, and 6 shall be submitted prior to issuance of a
building permit.
8) This site plan approval expires in 6 months.
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: David H. Spitz, City Planner
Re: Next week's agenda
Date: 3/6/81
3) Farrell, Shelburne Road
Applicant has submitted requested traffic information (enclosed).
It is apparent from the indicated traffic volumes that there will be
some delays for left -turning movements - both into and out of the new
building. However, the Bartlett Bay signal will provide gaps to
enable vehicles to turn north onto Shelburne Road; and the existing
shoulders on Shelburne Road are wide enough to allow vehicles to
easily pass any car turning into the office building. In addition,
the applicant is proposing to widen the shoulders 4 feet to become
full 12 foot lanes to make passing movement even easier.
4) SBC Cinema, Shelburne Road
Applicant is proposing a third cinema to replace the enclosed
mall area - similar to the Welby Drug proposal. Total seating capacity
of the three cinemas will be same as the current two cinemas.
Landscaping requirements will be met along the Shelburne Road
frontage of the property rather than in the direct vicinity of the
building.
This site is being reviewed under PCD traffic criteria. In
accordance with the stipulation for the Welby Drug application, a
traffic study for the site was submitted. Conclusions from the
study (enclosed) indicate that several intersection approaches operate
at worse than level of service C.
A letter from the current applicant (enclosed) indicates the
expected amount and timing of any increase in traffic. Since the
total increase will be minimal, the volume of cars at any one time will
be staggered, and all traffic will be.after peak road hours - there
should be no adverse effect from this application onthe existing level
of service.
5) Meineke Muffler
There are no major issues for this 40x40 foot addition to the
Meineke Muffler building. Additional parking and landscaping will
be provided.
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
F, ..IRELL CONSTRUCTION COMPAV INC.
309COLLEGE STREET
BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401
AREA CODE 802-658-1225
March 5, 1981
Mr. David Spitz, Planner
South Burlington City Hall
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, Vermont 05401
RE: Proposed Office Building - 1775 Shelburne Road
Dear David:
In response to the South Burlington Planning Commission's concern over
the nature of turning movements at the proposed site during peak hours,
we have made a survey of the area and based the project building usage :on
the geographical distribution of the population of the seven surrounding
municipalities. We hereby submit a revised site plan responding to in-
formation garnered by the above investigation.
The total 1980 census population of the Burlington, South Burlington,
Essex, Colchester, Shelburne, Williston and Charlotte communities is
86,811. The percentage of each commuter to the whole is as follows:
Burlington 44% South Burlington 12%
Essex 16.3% Colchester 14.5%
Williston 4.4% Shelburne 5.8%
Charlotte 3%
The proposed site is situated in a location where the population's of
Burlington, Essex, Colchester, Williston and approximately 50% of South
Burlington is located to the North of the site. The population of Shelburne,
Charlotte and 50% of South Burlington is located to the South of the site.
By comparing the 1970 census count of the concerned areas with that of the
1980 census, it is apparent that there is a movement away from the urban
core. Mathematical deduction indicates that 85% of the potential occupants
of the building will reside North of the site while the remaining will re-
side to the South. As a projected model for 1990, we have assumed that South
bound traffic will be reduced to 70% and North bound traffic will increase to
30%.
Using information generated by an independent traffic survey (1979) for general
office buildings, the number of trips per 1000 sq. ft. during peak hours.
A.M. between 7:00 and 9:00 is 2.32. This peak hour A.M. traffic is
29.7 X 2.32 = 69 trips to the site. The P.M. peak hour traffic is 29.7 X 2.2
(survey above) = 65 trips away from the site.
If 69 trips arrived at the site during A.M. peak hours and 70% of them poten-
tially are South bound, then we would expect 48 trips to turn right into the
site. The remaining 19 trips would turn left into the site.
Mr. David Spitz, Planner
Page 2
March 5, 1981
If 65 trips left the site during P.M. peak hour, potentially 46 turn
left out of the site and travel North. The remaining 19 trips would
turn right out of the site to the South.
According to a traffic survey compiled by the State of Vermont during
the summer of 1978, the maximum number of trips North bound peak hour
(A.M./P.M.) was 810. The maximum number of trips North bound during
peak hour (A.M./P.M.) was 1,130.
It is apparent that peak hour traffic either A.M. or P.M., South bound,
passing the proposed site, is of the most concern. The crossing of
Shelburne Road to the site against South bound traffic may cause the
continuing North bound traffic to pass on the right. Presently, there
is enough room to pass by using the right hand shoulder. We propose up-
grading the shoulder as shown on the revised site plan. To facilitate
right turning South bound vehicles we propose upgrading the shoulder
prior to entering the site.
We believe this is an acceptable solution to a potential problem.
Sincere ,
Michael L. Du n
MLD/pb
ENC.
0
TRAFFIC SURVEY
MARCH 3, 1.981
South bound traffic signal at Bartlett's Bay Road and Route 7
intersection:
Green Signal
Red Signal
60 Seconds
30 Seconds
30 cars can pass through intersection South bound on Green Signal.
SHELBURNE ROAD WITH PROPOSED BUILDING AT 1775
Cars Passing
Right. -Turning Vehicles - Delay/Veh. 0 Sec. ( 0)
Left -Turning Vehicles - Del.ay/Veh. 61 Sec. Max. (15)
PROPOSED BUILDING AT 1775 SHELBURNE ROAD
Right -Turning Vehicles - Delay/Veh. 61 Sec. Max. (40)
Left -Turning Vehicles - Delay/Veh. 66.5 Sec. (41)
` 3
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 24, 1981
Application by Farrell Construction Company for site plan approval of a
29,700 square foot office building at 1775 Shelburne Road
Mr. Eric Farrell represented Coburn and Feeley in this matter. He said
they had a 2.34 acre parcel with 300' frontage on the west side of Shelburne
Road north of Fassetts. 148 parking spaces are shown, as are required by
the ordinance. On the south and west sides of the property there will be a
row of cedars, which is required by a covenant on the land.
Mr. Spitz said the proposal met the Cl/C2 formula - the gross floor area
is within the standard for a medium traffic generator. He noted that a
similar proposal had come before the City Council under interim zoning and
hnd been denied because the building is located at the site of the terminus
for the proposed .south Burlington Southern Connector. The City Attorney
feels that even though good planning dictates leaving that area open, doing
so in this case would constitute a taking of land without compensation.
Mr. Spitz felt the entrance to the lot should be across from the entrance
to the restaurant on the other side of Shelburne Road, to avoid left turn
conflicts. He also felt the parking requirement was excessive and proposed
1 space per 250 sq. ft. instead. He suggested that 2 spaces be removed from
near the front and rear entrances and that other spaces be removed to increase
the green area. He said the drainage issue would have to be resolved and
that the fire chief might want a hydrant if the building were sprinklered.
Mr. Mona agreed that the Commission would have to review the project on the
possibility, though small, that the Connector, as it is now planned, will
not be built. Mr. Ewing felt it was sort of bad to have gone through a lot
of time and effort to plan the Connector and then have a building proposed
right in the middle of it.
Mr. Spitz said 119 parking spaces would be required at 1 per 250 sq. f t.
Mr. Dugan, also representing Coburn and Feeley, said there would be a
retention pond on the lot. Mr. Ewing said they would need a drainage
easement for the pond overflow, but Mr. Dugan said only if they could not
control it.
Traffic was discussed. Mr. Spitz said that Cl/C2 allowed a specific
number of trips per hour and the city had figures on how much office buildings,
for example, generated per square foot. If the use proposed was over the
numbers, it had to meet PCD requirements, but if it was under, as this one
is, it was a permitted use. Using national figures, this use should generate
about 50 trips per peak hour, which is under the 90 which will be allowed
under the new ordinance soon to become effective. Mr. Mona was concerned
not about the number, but about the nature of turning movements here at
peak hours, particularly about northbound cars being held up by people turning
left into this lot. Mr. Walsh felt the Commission had established traffic
standards which this applicant met and he was not comfortaole discussing the
addition of a deceleration lane, for example. rir. Mona, however, wanted to
see a proposal to solve what looked like a problem to some members, and he
suggested the applicants talk to the State.
Mr. Walsh asked about landscaping. It was requested that the dumpster
be screened and Mr. Dugan said they could screen an area for it. Junipers
will be planted on the west and east lines and there will be flowering crabs
around the building.
Parking spaces are 9' x 20'. The building is 3 stories but under 35' high.
It is oriented for passive solar heating.
Messrs. Jacob, Levesque, Ewing and Woolery expressed a desire to look at
traffic further. Mr. Ewing felt they needed some counts and to look into some
sort of additional lane there. Mr. Woolery wanted to know the level of service
4.
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 24, 1981
at the nearest traffic light and how many cars would be turning left into the
lot from the south. He mentioned a sidewalk and some sort of wide area to
pull out in on the side.
Mr. Mona said the concern was not counts, but what happened in terms of
left and right turns. He warned the applicants that the Commission might
want them to rearrange the road in front of the property, and suggested again
that they talk to the State Highway Department.
Mr. Ewing moved to continue the public hearing on this application until
two weeks from tonight at City Hall at 7:30 pm. Mr. Walsh seconded the motion
and all voted for it.
Application of GBIC for preliminary plat approval of a 55,700 sq ft building
for a light manufacturing operation on Hinesburg Road south of Interstate 89
Mr. Ronald Schmucker said he represented 23 property owners and understood
that there was presently no zoning ordinance under which this proposal could
be considered. fie stated that he felt this was an illegal and unwarranted
meeting. Mr. Mona replied that there was a warned public hearing set for
March 9 before the City Council at which time the zoning change to industrial
in this area will be reviewed and acted upon. He said the Commission was
proceeding simultaneously with the review of the application. Mr. Schmucker
felt it was almost as though the Commission was sponsoring this project and
he felt this was the first time anything like this had occurred. Mr. Spitz
slid that when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in November it identified
this area as industrial, which it is felt gives the Commission the basis to
start the process simultaneous with the zoning change. Final approval cannot
be given until the zoning change is in effect, but preliminary work can be
done. He added that he had discussed the situation with the City Attorney,
but would now ask for a written opinion from him, but he did not feel that
should interfere with tonight's hearing. Mr. Mona said the Commission would
proceed to review the application, Mr. Schmucker said he and his clients would
participate under prejudice, and Mr. Walsh noted his exception to the Chairman's
ruling. He felt Mr. Schmucker had raised a problem based on the law and that
it would be proper to have a written opinion from the City Attorney before
the Commission proceeded. Mr. Woolery felt the board should take no action
but that it could proceed and take testimony. Messrs. Ewing and Levesque
favored proceeding and Yr. Jacob felt it did not matter one way or the other
to him. Mr. Mona said the Commission would proceed.
Mr. Trudell represented GBIC in this matter. He showed the area in question.
The size of the airport approach cone on the drawing was questioned and Mr.
Mona asked that it be accurately drawn for the next meeting.
The building size is now being finalized, but it will be 57,000 to 60,000
sq. ft. in size and will be located on top of a rocky knoll. The entrance
will be located on the east side of the Hinesburg Road frontage, where the
sight -distance is best - 1210' north and over 3000' south. Water will be
brought across the full frontage of the property and fire hydrants will be
added on the property. A pump station will be constructed and an easement
given to serve the areas south of the project with sewers. The entrance road
will be burmed and landscaped and the parking area screened. Mr. Trudell
said that the building would not block the visibility of either the top or
bottom of Mount Mansfield from Hinesburg Road.
Traffic was discussed. Census data from 1970 and 1980 was taken and
projected forward to 1986 and based on population studies, 88� of the cars
would come from or go to the north on Hinesburg Road, while the other 12%
.wu+a..t
City of South Burlington
1175 WILLISTON ROAD
. SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401
...°''` TEL. 863-2891
February 24, 1981
Mr. Sidney Poger, Chairman
South Burlington City Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, Vermont 05401
Dear Mr. Poger,
On Monday, February 23, 1981 I talked to Mr. Feeley and
reviewed plans on a new office building. He would like to build
on Shelburne Road. If the fire service is to give proper fire
protection the following must be done.
(1) Install two fire hydrants on the property. One by the front
of the complex and one in the back.
(2) Remove two parking spaces by front walkway and two parking
spaces by the back walkway heading into the building.
If you have any questions please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Ixi
James W. Goddette,
t/ Fire Chief
JG/mcg
No Text
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: 2/20/81
2):, South Burlington Reatf4, Williston Road
Applicant has requested a delay until the next regular meeting
(March 10) to allow for possible redesign based on topography limit-
ations in the rear of property and new tenant's requirements.
3) South Burlington Realty, San Remo Drive
Applicant is appearing before the zoning board Monday for
dimensional and parking variance requests. Pending favorable action
the applicant will then proceed with site plan review.
This lot and proposed building is a mirror image of the adjacent
lot to the north which received site plan approval in November 1979.
Previous stipulations which should also apply to this lot are (a)
planting of cedars at 3 foot intervals along the rear property line,
and (b) prohibition of roof drainage onto adjacent lot to the south.
This is a speculative building. 14 proposed parking spaces are
sufficient only for certain types of uses - e.g. wholesale, warehouse
and distribution, etc. - and approval should be limited to specified
uses.
4) Farrell, Shelburne Road
Proposed office building is on the Coburn and Feeley lot on
which a similar proposal was rejected by the City Council under in-
terim zoning because the site is within a proposed intersection for
the South Burlington Connector. The City Attorney has advised that
the Planning Commission's site plan authority does not provide for re-
jecting a proposal even though it conflicts with transportation pro-
visions in the City's comprehensive plan.
Curb cut is proposed at the northern edge of the property. A
pref(,rahle location would be directly across from the Benes Inn drive-
way. Sight distance is adequate at both locations.
Applicant has proposed 148 parking spaces (1 per 200 square feet),
as per the ordinance. I feel this is excessive. Removal of up to
28 spaces would increase green space and would still leave l space per
250 square feet.
A sidewalk should be provided along the frontage of the property.
5) GBIC
See attached information.
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: 2/20/81
3) Proposed Building, 80 San Remo Drive
1. Site plan should include contours and building slab elevation.
Site must drain toward San Remo Drive.
2. Curb opening shall be a depressed concrete curb paved in
place. A City Curb opening permit is required.
4) Office Building, 1775 Shelburne Road
1. Sidewalk along Shelburne Road should be included.
2. Deceleration lane along Shelburne Road should be included.
Also, a State road opening premit will be required.
3. Entrance radii should have concrete curbs.
4. A storm drain system with settling basin should be included.
Parking lot will generate a high storm water runoff which drains to
the north west. A drainage easement across this property should be
obtained.