Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BATCH - Supplemental - 0350 Dorset Street
MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington City Council FROM: Joe Weith, City Planner RE: Proposed Dorset Street Median Break - Net Result DATE: May 25, 1994 The Planning Commission at their meeting of 5/24/94 reviewed the proposal by Eric Fleggenheimer to construct an additional break in the Dorset Street median in front of the Net Result building. The Commission felt that such a break may be beneficial if it were to serve a future public road extending east/west from Dorset Street through to San Remo Drive. In order to properly evaluate the impact of such a median break and public road, the commission recommended that a plan be prepared showing a future public road and how it would relate to the median break, land requirements, access to adjoining properties, utility relocations, etc. The Commission approved the following motion: "To ask the City Council to implement a study of all aspects of a possible median break and a possible city street on the San Remo block with a specific look at the location between the Net Result building and the Champlain Oil building." The Commission did not feel a median break would be justified if it were to serve only a private r.o.w. cc: Chuck Hafter Sonny Audette (cc5-25) City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 TEL. (802) 658-7953 FAX (802) 658-4748 OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER CHARLES E. HAFTER April 29, 1994 Chairman and City Council City of South Burlington South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Continued discussion of alternate median crossing on Dorset Street To All Members: In previous discussions with business owners/operators in the 300 block of Dorset Street Council indicated that it was willing to continue discussions over an additional median break if such action would not present any traffic safety issues and there was public benefit occurring. I have continued to work with Eric Fleggenheimer of the Net Result. In the past month, the_VAOT has turned down his request for a state directional sign on Dorset Street for statutory reasons and owners of the property at Dorset and Sherry Street have decided that they cannot donate land to a visible jughandle due to wetlands constraints on the remainder of the property. Mr. Fleggenheimer has now developed a new conceptual plan which he wants to share with you. It is my understanding that Mr. Fleggenheimer is willing to invest in formal traffic and engineering studies to justify the plan but prior to investing he feels he wants your opinion. A copy of the conceptual plan is attached. The plan is based on the City's eventual desire to have a public street connecting San Remo Drive and Dorset Street mid -block in this area. The mid -block crossing is a part of the City Center traffic plan. Eric is proposing to establish a private street with permanent free public access between Dorset and San Remo. South bound Dorset Street traffic would access the private street through one median ;ouncil ,nate median �1 29, 1994 ge 2 break. He will explain the concept to you. I think the concept has some merit but that additional public benefits should be built in. 1) The street should eventually become public property when additional width can be acquired from the adjoining property owners. Mr. Fleggenheimer should be asked to approve an irrevocable offer of dedication for the 30' north of his southern property line. This will, in the future, enable the City to acquire the r.o.w. without having to compensate the property owner for lost parking or for a taking. 2) The concept shows a right -turn only exit on to Dorset Street, so exiting traffic will not be permitted to recross Dorset Street. Based on the proposed design, it would be safer to make the private street one-way only and force exiting traffic to use San Remo Drive. This way conflicts to the perpendicular parking and backing traffic would be reduced. 3) The right of adjacent property owners for future thru connections should be protected by easements. This will make this street a benefit to more than one property owner. 4) All proper planning permits should be required including revision of parking requirements, snow removal and landscaping. Please discuss this matter. Sincerely, Chuck Hafter City Manager CH/mcp Encls Rol llb 0 =-- ME OEM 4 Z, 4mil -5 v �!,�81 jr- I t ,- � 1 ---- flC'�' i t?rl'iya}S" ;4zm APO- 9i�♦ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 MARCH 2O10 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 2 March 2010, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Dinklage, Chair; E. Knudsen, G. Quimby, R. Farley, B. Stuono Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; C. LaRose, Associate Planner; R. Provost, M. Young, A. Dreher, C Myers, P. Gordon, M. Goldfield, T. Forcier, T. Scott, R. Berrnan, S. Bennett I. Other Business & Announcements: No issues were raised. 2. Minutes of 2 February 2010: Ms. Quimby moved to approve the Minutes of 2 February 2010 as written. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Consent Agenda: A. Design Review Application #DR-10-01 of Tyler Dawson for design review approval for exterior modifications to a property within Design District 2 of the City Center Design Review Overlay District. Pursuant to Section 11 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, these changes shall be subject to design review by the Design Review Committee (DRC) and the Development Review Board (DRB), 344 Dorset Street. B. Design Review Application #DR-10-03 of TD Bank seeking to obtain a new master signage permit for a property in the Dorset Street/City Center District. The master signage permit would establish the design scheme for the freestanding and wall signs on the property, 205 Dorset Street. Mr. Belair noted that Condition #3 on the draft decision for #A should be deleted. Mr. DinkIage noted that item #B is an "after -the -fact" approval. He asked that the applicant be made aware that this is not acceptable. Mr. Bennett, speaking for the applicant, said they "got ahead of themselves." Ms. Quimby moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented with the amendment to Application #DR-10-01 as stated above. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Site Plan Application #SP-10-10 of Impact Radio, Inc., to install a three- southburlinotF M 0 N T MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Cathyann LaRose, AICP, Associate Planner ''�' RE: Agenda #3a of Tyler Dawson, 350 Dorset Street DATE: February 24, 2010 Design Review application #DR-09-03 of Tyler Dawson for design review approval for exterior modifications to a property within Design District 2 of the City Center Design Review Overlay District. Pursuant to Section 11 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, these changes shall be subject to design review by the Design Review Committee (DRC) and the Development Review Board (DRB), 344 Dorset Street. The Design Review Committee met to discuss the application on February 22, 2010 and voted to recommend approval of the application as submitted by the applicant. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing standard -size door with small overhead garage door, approximately 7 feet high and 4'6" wide. This door will be identical to existing doors elsewhere on the building. The attached photo shows both the existing door and a door similar to the proposed door side by side. Staff believes that the changes are fairly insignificant. Furthermore, the side of the building on which the change is proposed is not visible from the public right of way (see attached site plan). A mature cedar hedge prevents any visibility from Dorset Street. The main entrances to the buildings are on the opposite side of the building. Staff has no concerns regarding this minor proposal and recommends that the Development Review Board approve Design Review Application #DR-10-01. southburii ligton VERMONT MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Cathyann LaRose, AICP, Associate PlanneL DATE: February 24, 2010 RE: Agenda #3b, Design Review Application #DR-10-03 COPY TO: Daniel S. Clarey, Bohler Engineering Design Review Application Master Signage Permit DR-10-03 205 Dorset Street TD Bank, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking to obtain a new master signage permit for a property in the Dorset Street/City Center Design District. The master signage permit would establish the design scheme for the freestanding and wall signs on the property, 205 Dorset Street. Pursuant to Section 6 of the City of South Burlington Sign Ordinance, the erection, alteration, or relocation of any sign within this district shall require design review by the South Burlington Design Review Committee (DRC) and Development Review Board (DRB). Section 8 of the Sign Ordinance requires all property owners within the DS/CC Sign District to obtain a Master Signage Permit. This is an after -the -fact application. The proposed design changes have already been instituted on signs that have already been erected, without master sign approval or issuance of a sign permit. Design Review Application DR-10-03 Page 2 of 4 The Design Review Committee met on February 22, 2010 and voted to approve the application with the conditions outlined in this memo. 1. A Master Signage Permit shall be issued to the applicant by the DRB, prior to the issuance of any individual sign permit for the property. DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA In reviewing an application for signage, the DRC and DRB shall consider the following. - (a) Consistent Design The design of a sign must be compatible and harmonious with the design of buildings on the subject property and nearby. The design of all signs on a property shall promote consistency in terms of color, graphic style, lighting, location, material and proportions. Staff finds that the design of the proposed signs are harmonious with the design of the buildings on the subject property and nearby. The proposed sign package achieves consistency in color, graphic style, lighting, material and proportions. The sign posts are to remain the same, with only a change in the colors permitted. (b) Promotion of City Center Goals Signs within the DS/CC Sign District should be of high aesthetic quality and pedestrian oriented. Staff finds that this criterion is being met. The colors, lettering, and design come together to present an aesthetically pleasing sign. The signposts are pressure -treated wood with gray color and texture to match the exterior of the building. The sign is pedestrian scaled. (c) Color & Texture A maximum of 3 colors is encouraged. The applicant is proposing that signs be limited to blue, green and red, with white or off-white shades permitted for lettering only. 2. The background colors of the freestanding and wall signs shall be limited to green, red, or blue. Lettering shall be limited to white or off-white shades. 3. No more than two different shades of any one color shall be used in any combination of signs on the property at the same time. The applicant has submitted a color photo showing existing sign posts which they plan to re -use. 4. Sign posts shall be limited to grey or white. 5. Fonts shall be limited to block lettering; script lettering shall not be permitted. (d) Materials Used Design Review Application DR-10-03 Page 3 of 4 Pursuant to Section 20 of the Sign Ordinance, all signs shall be of substantial and sturdy construction, kept in good repair, and painted or cleaned as necessary to maintain a clean, safe, and orderly appearance. As the applicant is proposing to continue the use of pressure -treated wood. All signs shall be kept in a clean, safe and orderly appearance. The applicant should acknowledge this. 6. All signs shall be kept in good repair; landscaping surrounding the freestanding signs shall be kept trimmed and neat and shall not obscure the text of the signs. (e) Wall Mounted Signs Section 10 of the Sign Ordinance governs the size and location of wall -mounted signs. Pursuant to Table 10-1 of the Sign Ordinance, a wall -mounted sign for a multi -tenant building or a multi -building lot with a master signage permit in any district with freestanding or landscape sign shall not exceed 15% of the area of the facade to which it is attached or 100 sq. ft., whichever is smaller. Pursuant to Table 10-1 of the Sign Ordinance, the total area of all wall -mounted signs on the subject property shall not exceed 10% of the area of principal public facade of each building. The code officer shall ensure that these criteria are met when issuing individual sign permits for the property. Section 10(c) states that a wall -mounted sign shall not project above the roof or parapet of the building nor below the top of any first floor doorway unless permitted through the design review approval process. The proposed sign locations will not project above the roof or parapet of the subject building. In addition, the proposed signs will not extend below the top of any first floor doorways or windows. Thus, the proposed signage is in compliance with this requirement. Pursuant to Section 10(d), a wall -mounted sign shall not cover any opening or project beyond the top or end of any wall to which it is attached. The proposed signs are in compliance with this requirement. Section 10(g) stipulates that a wall -mounted sign shall not project from the wall in excess of 9". The proposed signs are in compliance with this requirement. (t) Freestanding Signs Section 9(h) states that free-standing signs along Dorset Street are to be located in a sign corridor that begins adjacent to the road Right -of -Way and runs sixteen (16) feet from the edge of the Right of Way toward the building face. In those instances where dimensions do Design Review Application DR-10-03 Page 4 of 4 not provide for a two (2) foot setback from the Right -of -Way before a sign support post can be located, it is permitted to erect a centered single pole mounted sign of which the road side edge of the sign is directly outside the R.O.W. line. The code officer shall ensure compliance with this criterion such that the subject sign shall be within this designated sign corridor. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Development Review Board approve Design Review Application #DR-10-03 subject to the numbered items included above. March 4, 2010 Tyler Dawson Dawson Dorset Street Properties, LLC 399 Barber Road St. George, VT 05495 Re: Design Review for 350 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Dawson: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decisions of the above referenced projects approved by the South Burlington Development Review Board on March 2, 2010 If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, 8_eAa Jana Beagley Planning and Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com � 7� Permit Number DR - CITY OF SOUTH BURL�TGTON APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVTFW All information requested on this application must be completed in lull. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on required design plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Design Review Committee and Development Review Board. 1) Approval is being sought for (check all that apply): V/ Design Plan Approval 0 Sign Design Approval 2) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fw-. # Dawson Qo-rze-A S4 c ee'i Pr-op'V41'e-3 'LLC Pd I V4 0� It I s- q?) -L/,-12 b F— (1k)-- q 22L APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) C-0K. P6ne. 355'- V2. 4) CONTACT PERSON (1',Tame, mailing address, phone and t'W,- Savile � 0JD0V 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: —3Sn QOlcv-q 9� 3o 6) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) - 0 5 36 - 0 0 3!S6 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Provide a brief description of the uinprovement. I or modification for which design review approval is being sought. If sign design approval is being sought, provide a description of the sign(s' ) type, size and height. -Re-el6cp yKan dAdy— The information listed on Exhibit A attached shall be submitted along with this applications form.. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (I I" x 17") of all required plans and drawings (e.g., site plan, building elevations, sign details) must be submitted. I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. _ I'jTA GF APPLICA N T SIG ATORE OF LAND/BUILDING OWNER Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBI'JiISSI®N: I have reviewed this design review application and find it to be: "ectorof ❑ Inc€ mplete & Zoning or Designee ate sou.. I I thurlin ton V E R M 0 N T MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Design Review Committee FROM: Cathyann LaRose, Associate Planner RE: Tyler Dawson, 350 Dorset Street DATE: February 18, 2010 Design Review application #DR-09-03 of Tyler Dawson for design review approval for exterior modifications to a property within Design District 2 of the City Center Design Review Overlay District. Pursuant to Section 11 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, these changes shall be subject to design review by the Design Review Committee (DRC) and the Development Review Board (DRB), 344 Dorset Street. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing standard -size door with small overhead garage door, approximately 7 feet high and 4'6" wide. This door will be identical to existing doors elsewhere on the building. The attached photo shows both the existing door and a door similar to the proposed door side by side. Staff believes that the changes are fairly insignificant. Furthermore, the side of the building on which the change is proposed is not visible from the public right of way (see attached site plan). A mature cedar hedge prevents any visibility from Dorset Street. The main entrances to the buildings are on the opposite side of the building. Staff has no concerns regarding this minor proposal and recommends that the Design Review Committee support approval of Design Review Application #DR- 10-01 by the Development Review Board. f No Text �,Aqa; DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 JULY 2009 PAGE 4 pedestrians to walk to Staples which is the closest bus stop. Mr. Dinklage said that is private property. Mr. Deslauriers, Sr. said there is a 60-foot right-of-way that connects to Staples, and people walk from this property to Staples all the time. Mr. Knudsen rejoined the Board following this sketch plan hearing. 6. Continued Design Review Application #DR-09-03 of Tyler Dawson to relocate the property's access drive to San Remo Drive, 350 Dorset St; and 7. Continued site plan application #SP-09-48 of Tyler Dawson to amend a previously approved plan for a 7,680 sq. ft. retail building. The amendment consists of relocating the access drive to San Remo Drive, 350 Dorset St (Pet Advantage): Mr. Dawson said the existing access from the parking lot to San Remo Dr. is kind of angled and is not the right width. This causes issues with truck deliveries. He added he would like to combine this work with the proposed work on San Remo Dr, which is scheduled to happen soon. Mr. Dinklage noted the applicant has more parking than needed. He asked if some of this can become more green space. Mr. Dawson said there are times when the lot is full, not all of which is from his traffic. He said their lot is impacted a lot by AT&T. Their customers park on this lot and they also park so as to block access to the loading area. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Design Review Application #DR-09-03 and Site Plan Application #SP-09-48 of Tyler Dawson subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. 8. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-09-49 of Jeff Cooper to convert a single family dwelling to 1132 sq. ft. of general office use and 500 sq. ft. of retail use, 50 Hickory Lane: Mr. Padgett noted the property is currently owned by Fred Parker, and Mr. Cooper is hoping to buy it and convert it into general office/retail use. The question was raised about possibly pulling parking back and creating more green space. Mr. Belair said there might be an issue with forcing cars to back out onto the street, which is illegal. Mr. Dinklage asked the applicant to come back with a revised plan showing a minimum of parking in front and with the ability for a car to turn around so as not to back onto the street. Ms. Teeson, owner of the adjacent property, asked how much retail there would be. Mr. Cooper said very little; a customer might come to pick up something. Ms. Quimby moved to continue Site Plan Application #SP-09-49 until 21 July 2009. Mr. June 8, 2009 Dorset Street Holdings c/o Charles Deslauriers 1 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 RE: 350 Dorset Street Dear Properly Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the June 16, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com r �► Wi southburlington PLANNING & ZONING July 9, 2009 Tyler Dawson Dawson Dorset Street Properties, LLC 399 Barber Road St. George, VT 05495 Re: 350 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Dawson: Enclosed, please find copies of the Findings of Fact and Decisions rendered by the Development Review Board on July 7, 2009 (effective 7/7/09). Please note the conditions of approval including that a zoning permit must be obtained withir (6) months. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, �" ke* Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 5Y CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT: 7008 0150 0003 6150 6746 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com 35U�� CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Interested Persons Record and Service List Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). .PIM, HEARING -DATE: __dt4 G __ NA/0t �a MAILING ADDRESS PROJECT OF INTEREST J 1L45�c C®off -7 -7 �r .V_t5 "�00`11 PAgr- bt4Vr V' LC� CITY OF SOUTH 13URLINGTON Interested Persons Record and Service List Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to eve been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)() eUpon rson orecce receipt of r body notice of a earing d having the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the peal to appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). 3 /1 A �� NAME Ik MAILING ADDRES figkT-jC 1 1� A vwry t44qA T-e-y,'� n .o `to 5_� Ga-h�_ TP-A Tyr PROJECT OF INTEREST Ir1S 09-owl Lz_e� c, t�S_09.0q I- , Ac Sh--®c - 2 D-0�7_ � -1 -So a-- ca sb - 0q-2r] CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Interested Persons Record and Service List Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: N11�'T "olk, MAILING ADDRESS PROJECT OF INTEREST J �A-vc-?05 M - 6L.-I °^-0 r"'- t fi—) 2 E)IXe rY-1-N-1 3-q9 b 0 Yvj- eA �s o Oda( .So UZ Z e-0v--Y (,Aj4C C.9-,-tv-1 0� 6 J, M,G— ®q-05- �.J v • ,�'�-,d,� ��_ Jam` •��� �� 1�G%C__d. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Interested Persons Record and Service List Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative_ obligations with respect to interested persons: At any hearing, there must be an opportunity -for each -person wishing to achieve-interested'person status:to-de m onstrate.compIiance-with the-applicable-.cdteria: 24 V.S.A. F 4481(b). The = DRB must -keep- -a.w-ritten_r-ecord of-the.na-me;-add-ress-and-participaticn of -each person -° who -has s_- ught.i.nterested person-status:=.:24-V.S;A, 44-1 -b ._ A co § O py of any decision rendered by the DRB trust be. mailed -to every y a person -or body ppearing and having - been heard by the•lDRB. 24 V-.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of --notice of an appeal to the environmental: court; the° DRB.must,supply a list of interested -persons to the appellant in five.working.days-24-V.S.N §-4471(c): MAILING ADDRESS _ PROJECT OF INTEREST DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 JUNE 2009 PAGE 5 space. They will relocate the parking spaces to the back of the plaza. Building coverage goes up by 955 sq. ft., but overall coverage does not increase. Mr. Belair said the new lights are OK. He noted there is a proposed condition to enclose the dumpsters. Ms. LaRose said staff could support exempting the compactor from enclosure. Mr. Lyon noted a continuing issue with outside storage with a tenant. He also noted they met the snow storage condition previously approved. Mr. Knudsen asked how the addition will blend with the existing building. Mr. Lyon said it will be the same color. Mr. Young asked where the drain discharge pipe comes out of the back of the building. The applicant indicated this is inspected twice a year. He showed its location on the plan. He noted that one city pipe goes through the property as well. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Site Plan Application #SP-09-50 of Antonio B. Pomerleau, LLC, subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-27 of Bullrock Corp. to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of five multi -family dwellings for a total of 160 units and a 40-unit congregate housing facility. The amendment consists of constructing a 100-unit congregate housing facility, 250 Quarry Hill Road: Ms. Quimby moved to continue Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-27 of Bullrock Corp. to 7 July 2009. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 13. Design Review Application #DR-09-03 of Tyler Dawson to relocate the property's access drive to San Remo Drive, 350 Dorset Street; and 14. Site Plan Application #SP-09-48 of Tyler Dawson to amend a previously approved plan for a 7,680 sq. ft. retail building. The amendment consists of relocating the access drive to San Remo Drive, 350 Dorset Street: Ms. Quimby moved to continue Design Review Application #DR-09-03 and Site Plan Application #SP-09-48 of Tyler Dawson until 7 July 2009. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 15. Design Review Application #DR-09-04 of Jeff Cooper to convert a single family dwelling to general office and retail use and construct a five space parking area, 50 Hickory Lane; and CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: June 30, 2009 \drb\sit\dawson\dawson_sp.doc Plans received: June 26, 2009 350 DORSET STREET SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-09-48 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION #DR-09-03 Agendas #6&7 Meeting date: July 7, 2009 Owner Applicant Dawson Dorset Street Properties LLC Tyler Dawson 399 Barber Road 399 Barber Road Saint George, VT 05495 Saint George, VT 05495 PropertV Information Tax Parcel 0845-00050 Central District 3 Zoning District Location Map y.yb 4 N M u ,pg i v y� } ' R .v e5 a y, X iR y0 •. Subject Property +,e, f . { w ,t 41,-= �R �a ht CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PROJECT DESCRIPTION DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Tyler Dawson, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking site plan review to amend a previously approved plan for a 7,680 sq. ft. retail building. The amendment consists of relocating the access drive to San Remo Drive, 350 Dorset Street (Pet Advantage). The applicant is also seeking Design Review approval to relocate the property's access drive to San Remo Drive, 350 Dorset Street. As the subject property lies within the Design Review Overlay District, the Design Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the proposed application. The DRC had no concerns or comments with respect to their level of review. Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on June 26, 2009 and have the following comments. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: (a) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The applicant is proposing to relocate the San Remo Drive curb cut from the southern property line to the northerly line. The applicant has stated that they believe this will facilitate better traffic flow and truck access. The applicant would relocate the displaced shrubs to the newly grassed area (see attached plan). Staff has spoken with the Director of Public Works who has stated that he has no problems with the proposal. Based on 7680 square feet of retail and personal service use, 31 parking spaces are required, including two which must be handicapped accessible. The site plan includes parking for 63 vehicles, including three shown as handicapped accessible. This is more than sufficient. Staff has visited the site and notes that the three parking spaces shown to the north side of the building are inappropriate as they block emergency exit and service doors. These should be removed from the plans. Furthermore, the two parking spaces along the northerly property line and fence are not of adequate dimension. They should be redrawn to be at least 22 feet in length. 1. The three parking spaces immediately adjacent to the north side of the building shall be removed. The plans shall be revised accordingly. 2. The two parking spaces shown adjacent to the northerly property line and fence shall be redrawn to meet the dimensions specified in the SBLDR, of at least 22 feet in length. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING (b) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. This criterion is being met. Parking is existing and is located entirely to side or rear of the building as viewed from Dorset Street. (c) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. The height of the existing building is below the maximum height of 40 feet for a peaked roof. No height waivers are requested or needed. (d) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. 3. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. The South Burlington Water Department has reviewed the plans and stated that no changes or additional allocation will be necessary. (e) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (f) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. No new structures are proposed. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: (a) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. At this time, there are no additional opportunities for connecting access to surrounding properties. A shared access exists to the property to the north and is frequently used. (b) Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING (c) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). The plan shows existing dumpsters. (d) Landscaping and Screening Requirements As there is no new construction, no additional landscaping shall be required. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations, the plans shall depict snow storage areas that will minimize the potential for run-off. 4. The plans shall be revised to show adequate snow storage areas. 5. The plans shall be revised to show a bicycle rack. Lighting Pursuant to Section 13.07(A) of the Land Development Regulations, all exterior lighting shall be shielded and downcasting to prevent light from spilling onto adjacent properties and rights -of -way. No new lighting is proposed. Traffic There are no changes in traffic generation. Central District Reauirements 8.04 Dimensional Requirements in All Districts A. Purpose. The general intent of the building setbacks in the Central District is to require all buildings to front on to public streets and to require that parking facilities are located in the center of the blocks to the greatest extent practicable, occupy only minimal frontage on public streets, and are thoroughly screened from view from public streets and rights -of -way. The parking proposed for this development is in conformance with this criterion B. Location of buildings and structures. (1) All buildings and structures, with the exception of parking facilities, are required to be constructed within an allowable building envelope. The maximum depth of allowable building envelopes shall be eighty (80) feet and, in general, shall be measured from the nearest planned public street right-of-way as shown on the South Burlington Official Map. (2) The Development Review Board may approve a building, a portion of which extends beyond the building envelope provided the building contains a minimum of two (2) stories and the overall site design of the property is found to be in conformance with the intent and purpose of the Central District. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING The proposed building is existing and predominantly within this envelope. C. Special Standards for Setbacks (1) Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of five (5) feet, or between zero (0) and five (5) feet if a fire wall is provided. (2) The front yard setback area along Dorset Street, Brookwood Drive and Sherry Road shall be restricted to the following uses or improvements: (a) landscaping and green space (b) access drives (c) pedestrian oriented improvements including but not limited to sidewalks, plazas, benches, and bicycle racks. (d) utility services provided they are placed underground. Appurtenant facilities such as transformers and amplifiers may be installed at ground level where such is in accordance with Section 13.18 of these Regulations (utility cabinets and structures). D. Location of Parking Areas and Structures (1) Multi -level parking garages and decks may be constructed within an allowable building envelope, and/or outside of an allowable building envelope if located in the center of a block. (2) Surface parking may be provided within the allowable building envelope if it is located behind a building and is hidden from view from the public street. (3) The Development Review Board may approve surface parking which is within the allowable building envelope and which is not hidden from view from the public street by a building, provided: (a) the subject parking represents the smallest practicable portion of the total parking required for the property, (b) the area encompassed by the subject surface parking represents a significantly minor portion of the total allowable building envelope area existing on the property, (c) the applicant has sought parking waivers from the DRB to reduce the amount of surface parking required, and (d) the overall site design of the property is found to be in conformance with the intent and purpose of the Central District. Staff has already addressed this criterion. E. Parking Requirements (1) The parking requirements of Table 13 are required in the Central District. These standards may be met on -site or off -site if the parking facility is located within seven hundred (700) feet of the main entrance of the establishment and is approved by the Development Review Board. (2) The Development Review Board may accept a contribution to the parking trust fund to establish a municipal parking lot in lieu of parking spaces. The amount of the contribution shall be based on a per space fee set by the City Council. (3) The Development Review Board may further reduce the amount of parking required, up to a maximum of eighty percent (80916) of the number of spaces required, in conjunction with an approved master plan upon a showing by the applicant that the master plan includes viable provisions for off -site employee parking and transportation and construction of mass transit stops within the master planned area sufficient to further reduce parking demand. (4) Parking lots located in the centers of blocks shall be connected with openings between lots to allow traffic flow between lots. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Staff has already addressed this criterion. Recommendation DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Staff recommends that the Development Review Board approve Design Review application #DR- 09-03 and Site Plan application #SP-09-48 subject to the conditions included herein. Respectfully submitted, ¢r hyanri La Rose, Associate Planner Copy to: Tyler Dawson, applicant MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Design Review Committee FROM: Cathyann LaRose, Associate Planne 0 RE: Tyler Dawson, 350 Dorset Street DATE: June 19, 2009 Design Review application #DR-09-03 of Tyler Dawson to relocate the property's access drive to San Remo Drive, 350 Dorset Street. This request will be heard by the Development Review Board in conjunction with a site plan application. The applicant is proposing to relocate the San Remo Drive curb cut from the southern property line to the northerly line. The applicant has stated that they believe this will facilitate better traffic flow and truck access. The applicant would relocate the displaced shrubs to the newly grassed area (see attached plan). Staff has spoken with the Director of Public Works who has stated that he has no problems with the proposal. Staff has no concerns regarding this minor proposal and recommends that the Design Review Committee support approval by the Development Review Board. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802,846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com trek ,, .._. MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Cathyann LaRose, Associate Planner RE: Agenda #13&14, Tyler Dawson, 350 Dorset Street DATE: June 9, 2009 Design Review application #DR-09-03 of Tyler Dawson to relocate the property's access drive to San Remo Drive, 350 Dorset Street. Site plan application #SP-09-48 of Tyler Dawson to amend a previously approved plan for a 7,680 sq. ft. retail building. The amendment consists of relocating the access drive to San Remo Drive, 350 Dorset Street. Staff inadvertently scheduled the Development Review Board hearing date for this application for a date prior to the next available Design Review Committee (DRC) meeting. The DRC is scheduled to meet on Monday June 22, 2009 and as such the next available date for DRB review shall be July 7, 2009. Staff defers comments until the DRC has had the opportunity to review the application and recommends that the Development Review Board continue this application until July 7, 2009. As always, thank you for your continued patience. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www,sburl.com Permit Number CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON APPI,ICA'IT N FOR DESIGN REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on required design plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the resign Review Committee and Development: review Board, 1) Approval is being sought for (check all that apply): 15� Design Plan Approval 0 Sign Design Approval l o@ Vie rtn001 Pre . c&,n 2) DOWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and &-, #) VAW c+nt �02CT S'T12C-E? iZG+PErem �s L-LC 591 6Ar—&V-{?. Rl,l Scr V-t 0sYcdS7 L1'r2.(-414Z& F-49.2--224, 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) r S/\mu- AS AS o jV- 4) CONTACT PERSON (Marne, mailing address, phone and fw.- #) - FVL�)Q �� � , rJ 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: V 051,1413 6) TAX PARCEL lI3 # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) 0S-40 " b 0 3`9"� 0 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Provide a brief description of the improvement. or modification for which design review approval is being sought. If sign design approval is being sought, provide a description of the sign(s) type, size and height. T w6vc.A LIKC- ?"o MCU't T4ar SAN aEMD GVga C Lkl- f=t2, n_ THK PP©-P,-R-'Ty LriVE -ro' -t-Hc rv0rz—TM4r-rLLY LiavF.._.T6 t`A&iLiTArt- Wr`Tr'Ef-- T9-4t 1z-1C I=Low Ary i`)eVcr_A1(<,61S to The information listed on Exhibit A attached shall be submitted along with this application form. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (I I" x 17") of all required plans and drawings (e.g., site plan, building elevations, sign details) must be submitted. I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has b6en submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. SriNA-1URE OF, APPLICANT SIGNAVOF LAND/BUT-LDING 6W-NER Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBN11SSION, I have reviewed this design review application and find it to be: mplete ❑ Incomplete Planriing & Zoning or Designee Site Plan Application Permit Number SP- APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. 1. OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #): _ 3 9-1 I3a>21•;E� K - -------------------- 2. LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #): 3. APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #): -------------------- -- Y L ----► w- v.J f� ---- ---------------- ---------------------------- 4. CONTACT PERSON (person who will receive all correspondence from Staff. Include name, address, phone & fax #):_ --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ <NmF A5 A6d Vt- -------- a. Contact e-mail address: _ 1;` Z) � V ci, r e-A >lv� c r —_ y✓',— 5. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: --�" b o V se_4 S� �d K �✓ 6. TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office): OS'-0 - 60 3S 6 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION �. General project description (explain what you want approval for): i, `=�c'tT 1',A0Vi2F, i viG— JXC r+[ t-CO71A ------------- ---- �N�_ 'T 0 r tl M JV U K _- H C 1_ r! L 3 & E 1 Site Plan Application b. Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use): '7 C 'jR'Q 5 U 1 D , N C, --"f =? — S E 1�131?lk-0 P— E TA 1 t_----- <--PAe6 7- c. Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): — -------------------------------------------------------------- d. Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain): -------------------------------------------------------------- e. Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine): --------- _--------- _----------- r 5 F-T i 1�* f,0 0 9- f. Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain): g. Number of employees company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non - office employees): -r.Jr--------------------------------------------------- h. Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): _________________________ 8. LOT COVERAGE Total Parcel Size:z,� a. Building: Existing_ 4__ % Proposed__% / / 70 Sq. Ft. ----sq. ft. sq. ft. b. Overall impervious coverage (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing nc=_-_% / _ �-f O '_T7- _sq. ft. Proposed --------- % / ----- ----- sq. ft. c. Front yard (along each street) Existing -------- % / ------ Proposed -- ------- % __sq.ft. 2 sq. ft. Site Plan Application d. Total area to be disturbed during construction (sq. ft.) * Projects disturbing more than one-half acre of land must follow the City's specifications for erosion control in Article 16 of the Land Development Regulations. Projects disturbing more than one acre require a permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. 9. COST ESTIMATES a. Building (including interior renovations): $ b. Landscaping: $_________ C. Other site improvements (please list with cost): N______ ------ _ -GU— Ci__ L - —_ 1--; L YJ +C A Tt b r�_ +__LA, T/ SGA W N b__$—_�-- 10. ESTIMATED TRAFFIC "/ ' a. Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out):__1- b. A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out):_____' c. P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): 11. PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 12. PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: 13. ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 0`11 f Lev,: 14. ABUTTERS (please list all abutting landowner. Include mailing address. Also include those across a street or right-of-way. You may use a separate sheet if necessary) 0s-1o l� c,+,�,, {► o v 34W VT' 0 !�,1 ,0 5 s# Be 1. V� O S44 0Z jA"r, 7 + NV10 14�SAYZago-FAVS-T � - .ACeo`O A" 12tpA'�+wti � � �SS4G1� tf LL 10 uvoi,` �_ �i�4 C FYI +u +r IJt S DQ.S L1nt✓i Ctf /4 GI20 $S s � 01Z.S�'t' s? i2��' `. � w+ � 5 e., r31 cQ 4 ��-�o- � l Ch vrc,� Site Plan Application 15. SITE PLAN AND FEE A site plan shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (11" x 17") of the site plan must be submitted. A site plan application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the site plan application (see Exhibit A). 4 Site Plan Application I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. ATUR F APPLICANT fl SIGNAgLAE OF ERTY OWNER Do not write below this line PRINT NAME DATE OF SUBMISSION:____ U REVIEW AUTHORITY: 2/Development Review Board ❑ Administrative Officer have reviewed this site plan application and find it to be: Complete ❑ Incomplete ----—=---------------------" of PI ping & Zoning or Designee south ri PLANNING & ZONING June 8, 2009 Dorset Street Holdings c/o Charles Deslauriers 1 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 RE: 350 Dorset Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the June 16, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www,sburi.com CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 May 4, 2005 Tyler Dawson 399 Barber Road St. George, VT 05495 Re: Design Review Application #DR-05-03 Dear Mr. Dawson: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision of the above referenced project approved by the South Burlington Development Review Board on 5/3/05 (effective 5/3/05) If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Betsy -MeWonough Administrative Assistant Encl. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 April 29, 2005 Tyler Dawson 399 Barber Road St. George, VT 05495 Re: Dorset Street Dear Mr. Dawson: Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Board meeting and staff comments to the Board. Please be sure that someone is at the meeting on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. If you have any questions, please give us a call. Sincerely,: Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH U LINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH E[JIE LINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 March 16, 2005 Tyler Dawson 399 Barber Road St. George, VT 05495 Re: Design Review Application #DR-05-02 Dear Mr. Dawson: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision of the above referenced project approved by the South Burlington Development Review Board on 3/15/05 (effective 2/3/053/15/05 If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. Permit Number DR- c-) j CITY OF SOUTH BURLE14GTON APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on required design plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Design Review Committee and Development Review Board. 1) Approval is being sought for (check all that apply): IDesign Plan Approval ❑ Sign. Design Approval 2)OV� NER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fw-A #) T !�AWSori bocScz STf.�ei PC0PC2-r1CS l.t_('... 33(1 6An5-'CyZ Rb, ST, 6L0nGcy-r �-(216 3) APPLICANT (lame, mailing address, phone and fax #) IT -DoP-56r Sfi So J�,vWLN(S-ro,) Vt 09403 W--6U- 1-415 F" 4) CONTACT PERSON (Marne, mailing address, phone and fax #) qW,4 ((Z-,6 `{.JL yZ26 fK% 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: -31.0 '�D25E-*T Yt S o t>y,.Q-(, 10 6 -tit J V'T O S y O J 6) TAX PARCEL, ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) d S :7 0 - 00 3 S�0 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Provide a brief description of the improvement or modification for which design review approval is being sought. If sign design approval is being sought, provide a description of the sign(s) type, size and height. r�': A-;� l b C - 1R Erv. 0 V �c (� f� �i Cc SS 5 +O �YD y.'� a Yl VMCJ4%!(04- N d(t'-tv �i-bc ► &ov C gx �te�,�' no,—d)% r- �rA �,c �;(.tAr4 -t-ct�Mc► fitM & I &4 u � l t+ -P w " J'C- 0 y e�+ u cx G�.4 0 r C:�^�`1� 3 £� w , d �y The information listed on Exhibit A attached shall be submitted along with this application form. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (I I" x 17") of all required plans and drawings (e.g., site plan, building elevations, sign details) must be submitted. I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT Do not write below this line I have reviewed this design review application and find it to be: ❑ Complete ❑ Incomplete Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date I? DESIGNEVrEW The information listed below must be submitted along with an application for design review. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (I V x 17") of all required plans and drawings (e.g., site plan, building elevations, sign details) must be submitted. Failure to provide the following information will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Design Review Committee and Development Review Board. Design Plan Approval o One or more current photographs of the property showing the present condition. o A site plan of the property in accordance with Section 26.10 of the Zoning Regulations. o Building elevations, drawn to scale, showing all sides of the building 'including: architectural details exterior equipment located on the roof, walls, and ground building height existing and proposed grading color, type and texture of building material doors siding cornices entablatures roofing material moldings and trim window details including panes of glass, dimensions, shutters, lintels and awnings details (cut sheets) of all proposed exterior lights Si Design Approval o Plans (drawn to scale) and specifications showing the size, dimensions and color of the sign and its various parts, the style of letter, material of which the sip is to be constructed, and method of attachment to the building or in the ground. o Color sketch of the sign and building as they would appear in relation to each other. o Statement as to method of illumination and intensity of the sign. o Master signage plan containing the following: * an accurate site plan of the property showing the location of buildings, parking lots, driveways and landscaped areas. * computations of the maximum area, number, and height of signs, by sign type (i.e., freestanding, wall, etc.), allowed on the property under the sign ordinance. computations of the area and height of each sign on the property, both existing signs to remain and proposed new signs. an accurate indication on the site plan of the proposed location of all signs on the property, both existing signs to remain and proposed new signs. standards for consistency among all signs on the property (existing and proposed). :I AGENDA City of South Burlington Design Review Committee Meeting City Hall Conference Room 575 Dorset Street Monday, February 28, 2005 Regular Meeting Time 7:30 PM 1. Call to order, Introductions, Attendance, Additions to/deletions from the Agenda. 2. Design Review Application #DR-05-02, The Pet Advantage, Applicant. This application is for design review approval for the following exterior modifications 1) removal of 14 feet of glass store front to be replaced with block matching existing storefront, 2) removal of an existing exterior door and exhaust fan, and 3) installation of a 4-foot wide overhead door and a 3-foot wide man door, 350 Dorset Street. 3. Other Business. 4. Adjournment_ Respectfully submitted, Brian Robertson, Associate Planner CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Design Review Committee FROM: Brian Robertson, Associate Planner DATE: February 25, 2005 COPY TO: Tyler Dawson, Applicant Design Review Application DR-05-02 350 Dorset Street This application is for design review approval for the following exterior modifications: 1) removal of 14 feet of glass store front to be replaced with block matching existing storefront, 2) removal of an existing exterior door and exhaust fan, and 3) installation of a 4-foot wide overhead door and a three-foot wide man door. The subject property falls within Design District 2 of the City Center Design Review (CCDR) Overlay District. Pursuant to Section 11.01(C)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, buildings in this district should uphold the highest quality of design. The buildings should consist only of natural, indigenous materials (brick or stone) and should relate directly to the public street. Pursuant to Section 11.01(D)(1)(b) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the addition or alteration of an exterior wall of a building or structure shall be subject to design review by the Design Review Committee (DRC) and the Development Review Board (DRB). Design plans for properties within Design District 2 shall comply with the following design criteria: (a) Consistent design. Building design shall promote a consistent organization of major elements; and decorative parts must relate to the character of the design. All sides of a building shall be designed so that they are compatible in terms of material, window treatments, architectural accents, cornice/parapet design, etc. The design of a building should consider the design features of other structures in the area so as not to be harshly discordant with other nearby buildings. The proposed building material is compatible with the existing materials used on the subject building. However, the DRC should discuss with the applicant whether or not they would like to see storefront windows removed from the building. (b) Materials used. High quality, attractive materials shall be used on all buildings. 350 Dorset Street Design Review Application DR-05-02 Page 2 of 3 Natural, indigenous materials of stone and masonry are highly encouraged, if not required. Other materials may be used as an architectural accent provided they are harmonious with the building and site. The types of building materials used on the existing building are not changing through this proposal. (c) Colors and textures used. The color and texture of the building shall be harmonious with the building itself and with other buildings on the site and nearby. Colors naturally occurring from building materials and other traditional, subdued colors are encouraged. More than three (3) predominant colors are discouraged. The colors will not change through this proposal, and the applicant has stated that all finishes will match the existing building. (d) Windows and doors. Window and door treatment shall be a careful response to the buildings interior organization as well as the features of the building site_ The treatment of windows and doors shall be in a manner that creates a rhythm that gives necessary order and unity to the facade, yet avoids monotony_ For sides of buildings that face or front public streets, the majority of the first floor's fagade area shall consist of see -through glass in order to promote pedestrian activity, however, the windows and doors should be of human scale, so as to welcome pedestrians. The applicant is proposing to replace 14' of storefront window with concrete. The applicant has stated that this is important for the business he is moving into this building. It may be that this is the case, but the DRC should have this discussion with the applicant at the meeting. (e) Roofs as a design element. Roofs shall be part of, or define, the style of a building. They shall be used creatively to break up long facades and potentially long roof lines. For one-story structures, the minimum and maximum slope of a pitched roof shall be 8 on 12 and 12 on 12, respectively. For structures of two (2) or more stories, the minimum and maximum slope of a pitched roof shall be 5 on 12 and 12 on 12, respectively. Only a small portion of roof area may be flat provided it is not visible from the public street, existing or planned, or does not detract from the overall design and harmony of the building. Where portions of a roof are flat, architectural elements such as cornices and parapets shall be included to improve the appearance and provide interest. Large, low -slope (i.e., less than 5 on 12) gable forms are discouraged. No changes to the existing roof are proposed. (� Orient buildings to the public street. Buildings shall be designed in a manner that relates the building to the public street in order to protect the integrity of city blocks, present an inviting street front and promote traditional street patterns. New buildings shall be built to the street property line. For existing buildings undergoing renovation, improvements shall be done to relate the building better to the public street. Such improvements could include installation of doors and windows facing the public street. 350 Dorset Street Design Review Application DR-05-02 Page 3 of 3 The building is already somewhat oriented to the public street. (g) Conceal rooftop devices. Rooftop mechanical equipment and appurtenances to be used in the operation or maintenance of a structure shall be arranged so as to minimize visibility from any point at or below the roof level of the subject structure. This criterion is not affected by the proposal. (h) Promote energy efficiency. Where feasible, the design of a building should consider solar energy and the use of natural daylight by capturing the sun's energy during the winter and providing shade during the summer. This criterion is not affected by the proposal. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of design review application #DR-05-02, only after a discussion regarding the removal of the existing window area takes place. Respectfully Submitted, Brian Robertson, Associate Planner ET Res Retail: 802-862-5227 4't1F MARKFT FOR TRuIY FKF_SH FISH Wholesaic: 802-860-7478 •: 800-6'39-3078 Fax: 802-863-0431 350 Dorset Street • 13nrlirigton, VT 05403 August 28, 2002 Ray Belair Administrative Office Department of Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403, Dear Mr. Ray Belair, This letter is a follow-up to our meeting of approximately one month ago, when we discussed self-service seating at The Net Result, on 350 Dorset Street. As we discussed, you had given us permission to use the seating capacity that was originally assigned to the Burlington Bagel Bakery, since the business is no longer operating at this address. We have decided to go ahead with self service seating and have decided at this time to use sixteen of the twenty available seats originally assigned for use at the Bagel Bakery. It will take us a few weeks to get the seating in place and in the meantime if you have any questions, please call me at 862-5227. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, � e Linda Siegel J1Y jhit State of Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation Department of Environmental Conervation State Geologist RELAY SERVICES FOR HEARING IMPAIRED 1-800-253-0191 TDD>VOICE 1-800-253-0195 VOICE>TDD Joseph Fallon, Esquire P.O. Box 257 Hinesburg, Vermont 05461 Dear Joe: AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Department of Environmental Conservation Wastewater Management Division Essex Regional Office 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Telephone (802) 879-5656 November 16, 2004 Subject: Case Number WW-4-0542 & WW-4-0542-1; Change in Use to a Pet Store and Mountain Air Dry Cleaners located off Dorset Street in the City of South Burlington, Vermont. I reviewed your letter to me dated September 14, 2004 regarding the change in use of building approved by the above subject permits. Permit #WW-4-0542-1 approved the use of the building with commercial space, a three chair hair salon, and a 20 seat bagel bakery. The City of South Burlington allocated 1,305 gallons of wastewater disposal and water supply for the building. I understand that the building will eliminate the existing uses and be converted to a pet store, and, dry cleaners with two employees and no on -premise washing machines or dry cleaning equipment. The design flow for the building is anticipated to be less than 1,305 gallons per day. It is my opinion that a Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit amendment will not be required for the change in use of the building provided the occupancy and use is as stated above and: 1. This determination does not relieve the landowner from obtaining all applicable permits and approvals administered by the City of South Burlington, the Department of Labor & Industry and any other appropriate State or local agency prior to construction; and 2. This letter shall be recorded and indexed by the landowner in the South Burlington land records. Please contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, p Ernest Christianson Regional Engineer C City of South Burlington Department of Labor & Industry Regional Offices Sarre/Essex Jct./Rutland/Springfield/ St. Johnsbury DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 28 J NUARY 2002 PAGE 4 Ms. Leban moved to approve application #-DR-02-01 of Anne Wilston to: 1) replace damaged freestanding sign with a 6.3'x4' back to back wood sign, and 2) install two wall signs one on the northern elevation — 2.66'xl' and on the southern elevation — 2.33' x 3' ,as depicted on a set of plans, page one entitled "Master Signage Plan 4 San Remo rive," prepared by Design Signs, Inc.: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. The applicant shall obtain a sign permit pursuant to section five of the Sign Ordinance or this approval is null and void. 3. Any Change to the Master Signage Plan shall require review by the South Burlington Design Review Committee. 4. This recommendation for approval of the proposed sign design is based solely on the application's compliance with the design review criteria contained in Section 4 of the South Burlington Sign Ordinance. The determination of whether or not this application complies with all other requirements contained in the sign ordinance shall be made by the Code Officer. Vir. Duff seconded. The vote on the motion was 2-2 with Mr. Boehm and MT. Clary opposing. The motion was therefore not approved. 5. Design Review Application #CDR-02-02 of Tom Edwards to amend master signage plan with 1) an additional back to back sign panel (16" x 48") to an existing freestanding sign (26 sq. ft.,11' tall), and 2) the addition of a 10" x 91iT7 120'9 "DRY CLE RS" .mall sign (in 10" white plastic letters): Mr. Edwards noted the new business in going in where Vivaldi's used to be. The originally wanted the colors to be yellow and blue, but Ms. Smith felt it would be better to use the colors in the existing free-standing sign. 1\&. Edwards said they agree with this. They are also trying to match the style of the lettering on the other signs. Since there are 3 different styles, they will match as best they can. Mr. Boehm felt this was one of the most successful building renovations in the area. He felt the sign was OK as long as the color is compatible. Ms. Leban liked the border on the Orbit sign and said it was OK to match that. Mr. Edwards agreed to do this. DESIGN REVIEW COINIMITTEE 28 jANNARY 2002 Mr. Duff moved to approve application #DR-02-02 of Tom Edwards to amend a master signage plan with 1.) an additional back to bads sign panel (16" a 48") to an existing freestanding sign (26 sq. ft.,1P tall), and 2) the addition of a 10" x 120" "DRY CLEANERS" wall sign (in M" white plastic letters), as depicted on a three page set of plans, page on entitled "Mt Air Dorset ST" prepared by Twin Mate Signs: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. The plans submitted for Development Review board approval shall he revised to show the changes listed below: a. The signage colors shall consist of any of the already existing colors represented on the freestanding signs. b. A border shall be added to the tenants freestanding sign that is consistent with the "Orbit Hair Salon" sign. 3. The applicant shall obtain a sign permit pursuant to section five of the Sign Ordinance or this approval is null and void. . Any change to the Master Signage ?Ran shall require review by the South Burlington Design Review Committee. 5. This recommendation for approval of the proposed sign design is based solely on the applicant's compliance with the design review criteria contained in Section 4 of the South Burlington Sign Ordinance. The determination of whether or not this application complies with all other requirements contained in the sign ordinance shall be made by the Code Officer. Mr. Clark seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Design Review Application MDR-02-03 of Nigel Mucklow to amend a previously approved design review application. This application is for approval of VAC installation on the roof and elevation design changes consisting of- l) removal of one door and two windows from the southern elevation, 2) removal of two windows and the addition of a door off the parking lot on the eastern elevation, and 3) replacement of six garage doors with three larger doors and installation of vinyl siding on the northern elevation of the warehouse. The project was last reviewed on Dunne 25, 2001. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMO_NT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 February zo, zooz Tom Edwards Mountain Air Cleaners, Inc. 2383 Shelburne Road Shelburne, Vermont 05482 Re: Sign Design, 350 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Edwards: Enclosed please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision on the above referenced project. Please note condition #za on Page z of the decision. This condition specifically allows you to choose "any of the already existing colors represented on the free standing sign." Sign Permit #SN-o2-07 authorizes you to install a free standing sign which complies with this decision. Therefore you may choose any of the existing colors to use on your sign. Please note that you must choose the same shade (or as close as possible) to the existing colors. I hope this clears up any confusion you may have had regarding this approval and the sign permit. Please call if you have any questions Sincerely,,.' Raymond. Belair Administrative Officer Encl./td Permit Number DR- C)?— - 0 2- CITY OF SOUTH BURLD-4GTON APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on required design plans will result in your application being -rejected and a delay in the review before the Design Review Committee and Development Review Board. 1) Approval is being sought for (check all that apply): ID Design Plan Approval E$ Sign Design Approval 2) OWNER OF RECORD ((Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax- e�E M 14 1 i(oq 3) APPLICA-INT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax A t e �Ak ke�. I IBC— A -39 3 "S ke-t)06 r'n,, - 6u' F n f— L) C 0 5-4- � 2- 0,10MM100 4) CON -TACT PERSON (Nance, mailing address, phone and fax, 4) <Fbky� 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 6) TAX PARCEL ED # (can be obtained at Assessors Office) 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Provide a brief description of the improvement. or modification for which design review approval is being sought. If sign design approval is being sought, provide a description of the sign(s) type, size and height. , 1. A(- o-y��'k The information listed on Exhibit A attached shall be submitted along with this application form. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (I I " x 17") of all required plans and drawings (e.g., site plan, building elevations, sign details) must be submitted. 1 hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. I GNATURE OF7-PPLICANT Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMSSION: I have reviewed this design review application and find it to be: El Complete 11 Incomplete Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date 9 Jan-17-02 09.41A eric -Fleg Jan i i Ue U0,:b8a l )dwards P_02 tiU2 VLU$ P.2 Tilt information listed on Exhibit A attached shall �e submitted alone with this application form rive (,) regui li Size copies anu out: Y�,UUL:�.;u wpy k r 7 •� , r � v. ua, cy..:• . r: .:" '" "' plan, owmutg elevations, sign acians) niuza UG JUULWLLc;a. i herehv certify that all the information requested as part of lfus application Las bccZ 3uhiritted and —I acrtarate to the best of my knowledge. r T VV7F T,i:ti rRt,P nF APpi,icAw •r , .. rr^r r ! r r m /� i rNT : «iT .a �.. __ HA 6E1�t ' iJQ IIOL Wlllt: f CiUW "talc. DATF OF SUBMISSION: i b-mvp rr-v:ev i-d thk d"- inn review anntication and find it to be: Xi^r1fl1Tf1Ia f— ^fP 1 I LicoQ1Qleti: Pate Specifications MERLE nORMAn ffi . SIZE: 16" X 48" 4.5"/6" COPY Date 1-1E-02 The design above, file name MT AIR DORSET ST ------tio-ns. Please ----------------------------------------------------------- TWIN STATE - is subject to the following condiread the conditions carefully and in their entirety. This drawing contains original design elements created by Twin State Signs and is subject to all copyright laws. This drawing is the property of w Twin State Signs and is intended for your review and approval purposes only. It is not to be reproduced, copied or exhibited in any fashion or IF SIGNS shown to anyone outside your organization without the expressed written consent of Twin State Signs. In the event that exhibition occurs without consent, 14 Gauthier Drive Twin State Signs expects to be reimbursed $500 in compensation for time and labor entailed in creating these plans. Copyright 2ou: two PROOF READING Essex Junction, VT 05452 ONCE YOU HAVE SIGNED AND DATED THIS FORM, THE COPY YOU HAVE PROOF READ IS CONSIDERED FINISHED AND READY 802-872-8949 FOR PRODUCTION. ONCE THIS FORM IS RETURNED TO US SIGNED, WE ARE RELIEVED OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY ERRORS THAT MAY BE DISCOVERED AT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE. fax 802-878-0200 Acceptance of Conditions ------------------- ------ Date ------ ------------- -- - e-mail twinsign@together.net 4 `A�s The design above, file name MT AIR D0_RSET ST _ ______ is subject to the following conditions_Please read the conditions carefully and in their entirety. This drawing contains original design elements created by Twin State Signs and is subject to all copyright laws. This drawing is the property of f Twin State Signs and is intended for your review and approval purposes only. It is not to be reproduced, copied or exhibited in any fashion or shown to anyone outside your organization without the expressed written consent of Twin State Signs. In the event that exhibition occurs without consent, r Twin State Signs expects to be reimbursed $500 in compensation for time and labor entailed in creating these plans, Copyright 2002 PROOF READING ONCE YOU HAVE SIGNED AND DATED THIS FORM, THE COPY YOU HAVE PROOF READ IS CONSIDERED FINISHED AND READY FOR PRODUCTION. ONCE THIS FORM IS RETURNED TO US SIGNED, WE ARE RELIEVED OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY ERRORS THAT MAY BE DISCOVERED AT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE. It Acceptance of Conditions---------------------------------------- Date--------------------- Specifications SIZE: 16" X 48" 4.5"/6" COPY Date 1-9-02 013 TWIN STATE SIGNS 14 Gauthier Drive Essex Junction, VT 05452 802-872-8949 fax 802-878-0200 e-mail twinsignCotogether.net Specifications Srtrn �' SIZE: - 10" X 120" a 20' DRY CLEANEMS r Date 20 9 1-15-02 The design above, file name MT AIR DORSET WALL =; — is subject to the following conditions. Please read the conditions carefully and in their entirety. ; � �� �.�� TWIN STATE This drawing contains original design elements created by Twin State Signs and is subject to all copyright laws. This drawing is the property of ST��\ IT� Twin State Signs and is intended for your review and approval purposes only. It is not to be reproduced, copied or exhibited in any fashion or 1 1 �I shown to anyone outside your organization without the expressed written consent of Twin State Signs. In the event that exhibition occurs without consent, — _- - - - --- Twin State Signs expects to be reimbursed $500 in compensation for time and labor entailed in creating these plans. Copyright a>> , 14 Gauthier Drive PROOF READING Essex Junction, VT 05452 ONCE YOU HAVE SIGNED AND DATED THIS FORM, THE COPY YOU HAVE PROOF READ IS CONSIDERED FINISHED AND READY 802-872-8949 FOR PRODUCTION. ONCE THIS FORM IS RETURNED TO US SIGNED, WE ARE RELIEVED OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY ERRORS THAT MAY BE DISCOVERED AT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE. fax 802-878-0200 Acceptance of Conditions------------------------------------------------------------ e-mail twinsign@together.net ----- Date --------------------- f-V!�_ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEMO February 5, 2002 MEETING 3. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy/Compliance from the Administrative Officer prior to use of the alteration. 4. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board. B) Design Review Application #DR-02-02 of Tom Edwards —Sign design approval, 350 Dorset Street This project consists of altering a master sign plan. The alterations consist of: 1) the addition of 5.32 square foot, back to back sign boards to the existing freestanding sign (replacing the defunct Vivaldi Flowers), and 2) the addition of an indirectly illuminated, white 10"x 120" plastic cut out letter "Dry Cleaners" wall sign. This property is located within the Central District 2. It is bounded by a commercial property on the north, Dorset Street to the west, Burlington Billards on the south, and parking and San Remo Drive on the east. Design Review Criteria Freestanding Sign Computation of maximum allowable size: "Freestanding signs may not exceed 32 square feet in overall dimensions and may be no higher than 12 feet..." [Section 8 (e) (4) South Burlington Sign Ordinance]. The proposed sign including the addition of new sign panel (16" x 48") is a 26 square feet and 11 feet tall. Wall Sign The maximum allowed wall sign area is 20 square feet. The application is for a single 10 square foot wall sign installed on the southern elevation. Additional Sign Ordinance Criteria: Location of Features: The photos submitted with the application indicate the locations of the proposed signs. Color Scheme: The proposed sign uses dark blue lettering and white background, which is consistent with the existing signs. White cut out letters are acceptable for the wall sign. Lettering or Graphic St ly e: The font on the new freestanding sign incorporates yet another style, but also employs and existing block letter style. Staff feels this is acceptable. The wall sign is acceptable. Lighting: The plan indicates exterior illumination. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEMO February 5, 2002 MEETING Location of Signs on Buildings: The location of the wall sign is in the signable area above the door, and is similar placement as the other signs. Material: The signs are made of suitable material. Sign Proportions: The proportions are allowable. Consent: The owner of the property signed the design review application. Existing Signs Not Conforming: None RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS: 1) All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in effect. which are not superseded by this approval 2) The plans submitted for Development Review Board approval shall be revised to show the changes listed below. a) The signage colors shall consist of any of the already existing colors represented on the freestanding sign. b) A border be added to the tenants freestanding sign that is consistent with the "Orbit Hair Salon" sign 3) The applicant shall obtain a sign permit pursuant to section Five of the Sign Ordinance of this approval is null and void. 4) Any change to the Master Signage Plan shall require review by the South Burlington Design Review Committee and approved by the Development Review Board. 5) This for approval of the proposed sign design is based solely on the application's compliance with the design review criteria contained in Section 4 of the South Burlington Sign Ordinance. The determination of whether or not this application complies with all other requirements contained in the sign ordinance shall be made by the Code Officer. 4) RAGS AND RICHES —SITE PLAN APPLICATION,1700 WILLISTON ROAD This project was continued from the January 22, 2002 meeting to provide the applicant time to address concerns of the Board regarding coverage. This project consists of an amendment to previously approved site plan for an 11,110 square foot retail building. The amendment consists of. 1) allowing the use of 10 parking spaces for an off -premise business, and 2) approval to allow two (2) storage trailers. This project located at 1700 Williston Road lies within C1 District. It is bounded on the west by a Chinese restaurant, on the north by Williston Road on the south by Potash Brook and on the east by an auto parts business. 0 1/28/02 MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL Tom Edwards, 350 Dorset Street I move the City Center Design Review Committee recommend approval of application #DR-02-02 of Tom Edwards to amend a master signage plan with: 1) an additional back to back sign panel (16"x 48") to an existing freestanding sign (26 sq ft, I I' tall), and 2) the addition of a 10" x 120" "DRY CLEANERS" wall sign ( in 10" white plastic letters), as depicted on a three (3) page set of plans, page one (1) entitled "Mt Air Dorset ST" prepared by Twin State Signs. 1) All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2) The plans submitted for Development Review Board approval shall be revised to show the changes listed below. a) The signage colors shall consist of any of the already existing colors represented on, the freestanding sign. 3) The applicant shall obtain a sign permit pursuant to section Five of the Sign Ordinance c-- this approval is null and void. 4) Any change to the Master Signage Plan shall require review by the South Burlington Design Review Committee, 5) This recommendation for approval of the proposed sign design is based solely on the application's compliance with the design review criteria contained in Section 4 of the South Burlington Sign Ordinance. The determination of whether or not this application complies with all other requirements contained in the sign ordinance shall be made by the Code Officer. Design Review Committee Memo January 28, 2002 Location of Signs on Buildings: The wall signs are located in the areas adjacent to doorways on the north and south elevations. Section 9 (d)of the Sign Ordinance states that within the Dorset Street/ City Center Overlay District wall signs may not project above the roof or parapet of a building nor below the top of any first floor doorway unless permitted under the design review approval process. Staff has no problem with the placement of the wall signs, as there are no alternatives. Material: The wall signs and freestanding signs are of wood construction and they are painted. Sign. Proportions: The proportions are allowable. Consent: The owner of the property signed the design review application. Existing Sians Not Conforming: None 5) Design Review Application #DR-02-01 of Tom Edwards —Sian design approval, 350 Dorset Street This project consists of altering a master sign plan. The alterations consist of 1) the addition of 5.32 square foot, back to back sign boards to the existing freestanding sign (replacing the defunct Vivaldi Flowers), and 2) the addition of an indirectly illuminated, white 10"x 120" plastic cut out letter "Dry Cleaners" wall sign. This property is located within the Central District 2. It is bounded by a commercial property on the north, Dorset Street to the west, Donnie's Pizza on the south, and parking and San Remo Drive on the east. Design Review Criteria Free standing Sign Computation of maximum allowable size: "Freestanding signs may not exceed 32 square feet in overall dimensions and may be no higher than 12 feet... " (Section 8 (e) (4) South Burlington Sign Ordinance]. The proposed sign including the addition of new sign panel (16" x 48") is a 26 square feet and 11 feet tall. Wall Sign The maximum allowed wall sign area is 20 square feet. The application is for a single 10 square foot wall sign installed on the southern elevation. Additional Sign Ordinance Criteria: Location of Features: The photos submitted with the application indicate the locations of the proposed signs. Color Scheme: The plan calls for bright yellow background with turquoise lettering. Section 4 (a) and (c) of the South Burlington Sign Ordinance states: Design Review Committee Memo January 28, 2002 "The design of all sign on a property shall promote a consistency in terms of color, graphic style, lighting, location, material and proportions." "More then three (3) predominate colors is discouraged" The proposed addition to the freestanding sign incorporates another color — yellow —on a sign that has five (5) predominate colors —red, turquoise, light turquoise, black, and white. Staff suggests the applicant choose from the colors already present on the sign. White cut out letters are acceptable for the wall sign. Lettering or Gra hp is Stvle: The font on the new freestanding sign incorporates yet another style, but also employs and existing block letter style. Staff feels this is acceptable. The wall sign is acceptable. Lighting: The plan indicates exterior illumination. Location of Signs on Buildings: The location of the wall sign is in the signable area above the door, and is similar placement as the other signs_ Material: The signs are made of suitable material. Sign Proportions: The proportions are allowable. Consent: The owner of the property signed the design review application. Existing Signs Not Conforming: None 5) Design Review Application #DR-02-03 of Nigel Mucklow —372 Dorset Street This project consists of. 1) locating a HVAC unit on the roof, 2) removing a door and two (2) windows on the southern elevation, 3) adding a door and eliminating two windows from the eastern elevation, and 4) on the north side of the warehouse portion of the building —replace six (6) existing garage doors with three (3) new ones, 372 Dorset Street. This project was reviewed last on June 25, 2001 (minutes enclosed). This property located at 372 Dorset Street lies within the CD2 and Design 2 Districts. It is bounded on the west by Dorset Street, on the south by the South Burlington High School, on the east by Pizzagali property, and on the North by Canoe Imports. 6 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 June 15, 2001 Margo Breen 350 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Design Review Application, 350 Dorset Street Dear Ms. Breen: Enclosed please find a copy of the Finding of Facts of the Development Review Board meeting on June 5, 2001 (effective date June 12, 2001). Please note the conditions of approval, including that a Sign Permit be obtained or this approval will be null and void. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Sarah MacCallum Associate Planner Enclosure Traffic: The applicant has submitted a response to comments contained in a memo from Juli Beth Hoover, Director of Planning & Zoning (see enclosed). Sewer: The applicant has requested a sewer allocation of 4,800 g.p.d. The applicant should expect to pay the per gallon fee prior to permit issuance. Landscaping: The applicant submitted a revised landscape plan. A slight relocation of the proposed road allows the retention of additional specimen trees, but still indicates removal of deciduous and evergreen tree species. Proposed is a great deal more planting around the perimeter of the existing wooded area to mitigate the impact of the development from the surrounding area and the removal of other specimen trees from the interior of the site. The additional proposed plantings primarily consist of eastern white pine and red pine. Staff s concern is the proposed tree species distribution does not accurately represent the existing large tree species distribution and may look un-natural even when the landscape has matured. Staff understands the purpose of the evergreen plantings as a screen but feels the species distribution n tural and resemble more closely the site's existing species makeup. wCU 0 [ ..fo Many of the proposed house footprints are in close proximity voi some of the trees indicated to remain. The applicant should be more realistic about trees expected to survive construction and submit a plan, which shows undisturbed areas around the base of trees, and indicate the installation of tree fence for the duration of the construction project. This helps insure the safety of the existing trees. Staff also requests the employment of additional mitigation measures if existing trees do not survive construction. Lighting: The applicant has proposed one (1) metal halide, 7 watt street light not to exceed 20 feet in height. The Director of Planning and Zoning has reviewed the proposal light and found it to be acceptable. Any changes to the proposed street light should be approved by the Director. Impact Fees: The applicant should expect to pay road, recreation, school, fire and all other applicable impact fees. Other: The applicant has submitted the following additional information (see enclosed): a. Municipal Impact Study b. Wildlife Habitat Assessment c. Letters from the applicant's attorney AMENDMENT CRITERIA This amendment consists of an impact due to the construction of roads, homes and the resulting loss of vegetation. The Board must therefore review the three (3) kinds of 2 Conformance with the Planned Residential Development General Criteria In addition to reviewing this application for its conformance to the area and density standards for development of the property, the Development Review Board must find that the proposed action is consistent with the supplemental standards for Planned Residential Developments contained in Section 26.15 of the Zoning Regulations. It is staffs judgement, upon careful review of the submitted plans, that the proposed application does not comply with supplemental standards (g) and (1) for Planned Residential Developments, and therefore does not merit approval by the DRB. A specific evaluation of the plans with respect to these two criteria is included below. (g) [The project] will protect important natural resources including streams, wetlands, scenic views, wildlife habitats, and special features such as mature maple groves or unique geological features. The questions that should be asked under this criterion are: • Does the project affect any "important natural resources"? • What is the nature and function of those important natural resources, if any? and • Does the project protect--i.e. retain all or most of the value of --the important natural resource? Does the project affect an important natural resource? The Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Regulations identify streams, wetlands, wildlife habitats, unique features, and woodland cover that serves as wildlife habitat as "important natural resources," in various places (including the SEQ Official Zoning Map). What is the nature and function of the important natural resource? It is well understood and established that there are very few areas of wooded cover with mature trees in South Burlington, and fewer still in this particular area of the Southeast Quadrant. This particular property is also on a "knob" and is thus especially visible from the surrounding areas. A map of the woodland cover in the SEQ is attached. The specific area in which these ten units are proposed is one of those few areas of mature hardwoods. It is also clear from the Comprehensive Plan and Winooski Valley Park District's reportiWhere the Wild Things Are: Large Mammal Habitats and Corridors in South Burlington, Vermont that it is an area with notable value for providing wooded cover for wildlife, and in its uniqueness in this area of the SEQ it clearly performs a wildlife habitat function not performed by other areas of this property. Thus it is, in the opinion of staff, fair to consider it an "important natural resource." Does the project protect--i.e. retain all or most of the value of --the important natural resource? The 1996 and 2001 Comprehensive Plans clearly identify these mature wooded areas as warranting special consideration and protection in development plans. The owners of this property have had ample opportunity to plan for development and/or additional units in areas that are not the only substantial areas of mature hardwoods on their property. The applicants have proposed substantial landscaping and tree plantings, which would do a great deal to mitigate the effect of this proposal on the area's high degree of visibility from surrounding properties --part of what distinguishes this stand of trees as an "important natural resource." But while substantial additional landscaping is proposed in the plans, an undeveloped area of mature hardwood trees has a far more substantial value to wildlife for cover and habitat than would ten thoroughly wooded and landscaped house lots with buildings, residents, a road, and a driveway. Some mature trees will be lost, much of the tree replacement will be with evergreens, and the overall outcome will be a set of ten wooded house sites rather than a natural area. It is staff's opinion that the proposed project would substantially affect the ability of this land to continue its value as wooded cover supporting wildlife habitat, and would thus not protect the value and function of this piece of land as an "important natural resource" as defined in South Burlington's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations. (1) [The project] will conform with the City's Comprehensive Plan. This amendment to the previously approved PRD was first proposed after the adoption of the City's 2001 Comprehensive Plan, and thus this is the document used for an evaluation of compliance with criterion (1). The Goal Statement for the Southeast Quadrant on page 47 states "The City will strive to encourage well planned residential development at densities andlayouts that-vrotectand preservelarge contiguous areas of open space, important natural areas, and scenic views" (Chapter VIII, p. 47, empahsis added). The Plan goes on in this chapter to recite some of the goals for the SEQ that came out of the planning studies for the Quadrant in the 1980s. It is worth noting that there are two goals that could, in this case, be interpreted as conflicting: Areas designated as appropriate for development were based on the following general objectives:... • Allow development to encroach into wooded areas to hide units from view • Protect enough wooded area to maintain viable wildlife habitat and maintain connections between habitats for movement. (Chapter VIII, p. 49) Clearly, the Comprehensive Plan means for the DRB, City and landowners to deal with tradeoffs between the visibility of units and the need for wooded areas to serve as cover for wildlife. The natural resources chapter has more specific language on adopted implementation strategies that are to be applied with respect to wooded cover: Chapter IX, Recommended Actions, #17: The City should make every effort at preserving open space to help with the maintenance of wildlife habitat. The City should make full use of available planning and legal tools to preserve suitable habitat, and encourage through its zoning and subdivision regulations development patterns that preserve open space areas of sufficient size in order to maintain important wildlife populations. Individual lot design should fit in with adjacent and nearby lots, to provide clusters and corridors of wooded or field vegetation, leftin a natural state sufficientin size to naturally maintain present wildlife populations. (p. 68, empahsis added). The major issue with this particular application is the uniqueness and isolation of this particular stand of woods in the context of the golf course and adjacent developed properties. Wildlife relies in part on a diversity of field, edge and wooded areas for appropriate habitat, as documented in the Where the Wild Things Are report. The proposal for ten residential lots in this wooded area essentially consumes all of the area for housing and related lawns and roads, additional plantings notwithstanding. It is not reasonable to assume that the area would continue providing the same or nearly the same value as wildlife habitat, as a cluster of wooded vegetation, as described in the Comprehensive Plan. It is staff's opinion that this particular application for development of this parcel of woods is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Amendment Criteria In keeping with its recently adopted practice for amended applications, the Development Review Board has requested an analysis of this application's consistency with any of the three Stowe Club Highlands criteria as a justification for seeking an amendment that increases the density of units and impervious coverage on the property. The criteria are: a. Changes in the factual or regulatory circumstances beyond the control of the permittee; b. Changes in the construction or operation of the permittee's project, not reasonably foreseeable at the time the permit was issued; or C. Changes in technology. The Board has heard the applicant's arguments that they do not need to satisfy one or more of these criteria for the application to be heard. J w MERLE MERLE n 0 R M-R n ,, c o s x a T I c 54 �I SPORTS PRO SHOP' # AO*l /` NE7""-' 1 RES U LT LFISN MARKETI H-4) DESIGN Ev-�'L.OW 'l-R51 nC05AWarics 5 p;,Ts PROS}/Op r- .3 o Z,f-/ ,qkj-1 -- 5,90ave �onday May l4, 2O0l Proposal fcr sign permit� Margo H. Breen 350 Dorset Street Unit 2 South Burlington, Vermont Un11t l Net P --sult street signage 48" x30" Wall sign 13' 5^ x 18" Net Result 13`5~x 10" Fish Market Over door 14' x 10" The Net Result PrapoEed Signs Unit 2 Merle Norman Street signsge 48" x 16" Sports Pro S;hop Over dmor 12'x 10" Merle'No rman Unit B Vivaldi FIowers: Unit 4 Orbit Nair Desi�n Street sign 48"x 16" O:er door 13'5"'x 1O" Vivaldi Street Sign 48"x 16" Over door 13' 5" x 10" Orbit (being repaired) Base of Sign 8 1/2' x 24" with upward spot lights that light sign with out glare. There is 30" of post showing under the proposed sign for my business. The letter type is not only wha.t Merle Norman Cosmetic Company u5es but is meant for customers traveling down the road to be able to easily see. J_IJ- JNAM 77, 3'„ '=r ^ -:! �g'1.... "i1�.._;r.w/.wil0.y'«.�"ti+/�ri.•ib...u.u+,i::wJ: J. y°Kfl' ' ...- n.�.! - _- - •-�w --.cry. .. `' 'y c J :-,,+ J C If Q 0 Z No Text No Text No Text Design Advisory Committee Memo May 14, 2001 7. Design Review Application — Master Signage Flan - Margo Breen, 350 Dorset Street This project consists of a master signage plan application. The master signage plan consists of 1) an indirectly illuminated, blue 13' 5" by 28" cut out letter "Net Result Fish Market" wall sign, 2) an indirectly illuminated, white 14' by 10" cut out letter "The Net Result" wall sign, 3) an indirectly illuminated, white 13' S" by 10" cut out letter "Vivaldi Flowers" wall sign, 4) an indirectly illuminated, white 12' by 10" cut out letter "Merle Norman Sports Pro Shop" wall sign, and 5) an indirectly illuminated, 26 square foot free standing sign, 350 Dorset Street. This property is located within the Central District Two and Design District Two. It is bounded on the north by a commercial property, on the west by Dorset Street, on the south by a commercial property, and on the east by San Remo Drive. Design Review Criteria: Consistent Design: The proposed wall sign will utilize white foam letters similar to the majority of the signs on the building. Two out of the three existing wall signs utilize white foam lettering. The proposed freestanding sign panel will utilize a dark red lettering on a white background. Two of the three existing sign panels utilize a white background with dark lettering. All of the signs are indirectly lit. Compatibility with Cily Center Goals: The proposed wall sign will utilize cut out lettering revealing the wall material behind. This is a design that is echoed throughout the south fagade of the building. The wall sign will be indirectly illuminated with lights casting light upward onto the sign with the roof canopy blocking lighting from continuing beyond the fagade. This form of lighting is used throughout the south fagade of the building and creates puddles of light that complement the design of the fagade. The proposed wall sign will fit with the existing signs in promoting an overall high aesthetic quality on the building. The proposed freestanding sign panel will be mounted on the existing freestanding sign which is framed by a planter. This planter hides the indirect lighting and creates a landscaping features. The proposed panel will draw from the existing signs in its use of a white background and dark lettering. Color, Texture, & Materials: The proposed wall sign will utilize white foam blocks similar to the existing wall signs. The free standing sign panel will be wood and utilize a white background with dark red lettering similar to two other existing sign panels. :additional Sign Ordinance Criteria: Location of Features: The locations of the proposed signs are noted on photos submitted. Computation of Maximums: The applicant has submitted information on the maximum allowable size for each of the signs, the size and number of the signs Design Advisory Committee Memo May 14, 2001 proposed. Color Scheme: The majority of the wall signs are white. The free standing sign utilizes a variety of colors including gray, blue, black, and white. The majority of the sign panel utilize a white background with dark lettering. The proposed sign panel will utilize a white background with dark red lettering. Lettering or Graphic Style: The majority of the wall signs utilize cut out block lettering. The Orbit window sign utilizes a script design. The freestanding sign utilizes both script and block lettering. Lighting:-_ The signs on this property utilize indirect illumination with lights place on the ground shining up but blocked from creating glare by the roof canopy. The freestanding sign is also indirectly illuminated. Location of Signs on Buildings: The majority of the wall signs are located over the storefronts below the roof line. The exception to this rule is the Net Result sign on the southwest corner of the building. Material: The majority of the wall signs are plastic foam. The majority of the free standing sign employs wood construction. Sign Proportions: All signs meet the dimensional requirements. Consent: The owner of the property signed the design review application submitted. Existing Sims Not Conforming: None. i 5/14/01 MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL BREEN, 350 DORSET STREET I move the City Center Design Review Committee recommend approval of the design review application #DR-01-06 of Margo Breen for a master signage plan. The master signage plan consists of 1) an indirectly illuminated, blue 13' 5" by 28" cut out letter "Net Result Fish Market" wall sign, 2) an indirectly illuminated, white 14' by 10" cut out letter "The Net Result" wall sign, 3) an indirectly illuminated, white 13' 5" by 10" cut out letter "Vivaldi Flowers" wall sign, 4) an indirectly illuminated, white 12' by 10" cut out letter "Merle Norman SpefV,44e Shep:' wall sign, and 5,5 an indirectly illuminated, 26 square foot free standing sign, 350 Dorset Street, as depicted on a seven (7) page set of plans, page one entitled "Merle Norman", dated 5/8/01 with the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. This recommendation for approval of the proposed sign design is based solely on the application's compliance with the design review criteria contained in Section 4 of the South Burlington Sign Ordinance. The determination of whether or not this application complies with all other requirements contained in the sign ordinance shall be made by the Administrative Officer. 3. The applicant shall obtain a sign permit pursuant to Section Five of the Sign Ordinance or this approval is null and void. 4. Any change to the master signage plan shall require review by the South Burlington Design Review Committee. CCI` Y OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEFAIhTNENT OF PLAIM;II�TD`TG ter, Z0,N "TG 575 EORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTOT T, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 Permit Number_ 0 - C 6- PLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. l) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax # •' 4) CONTACT PERS N (Name, mailing a dress, phone and fax # O r Q) 350 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 6) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION a) Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use) u S �ro used Uses on prope clude description and size of each new use and exis sting uts tecinain} v P CS x e) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) d) Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine) e) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain) f) Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees) g) Other (list any other information pertiment to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): 8) LOT COVERAGE a) jBuilding: Existing -% Proposed % b) Overall (building, parldng, outside storage, etc) Existing % Proposed % c) Front yard (along each street) Existing_. �/,D Proposed % 9) COST ESTEZAATES a) Building (including interior renovations): $ b) Landscaping: $ c) Other site improvements (please list with cost): 10) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC a) Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out): b) A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): c) RIM. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): 11) PEA-K HOURS OF OPERATION: 12) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLET101\1 DATE: 14) S1771E. PLAN AND FEE A site plan shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached- Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (I I" x 17") of the site plan must be submitted. A site plan application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the site plan application (see Exhibit A). a I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: REVIEW AUTHORITY: ❑ Development Review Board ❑ Director, Planning & Zoning I have reviewed this site plan application and find it to be: ❑ Complete ❑ Incomplete Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date WHIM SITE PLAN The following information must be shown on the site plan. Please submit five (5) copies and one reduced copy (I I" x 17") of the site plan. Failure to provide the following information will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. • Lot drawn to scale (20 feet scale if possible) • Survey data (distance and acreage) • Contours (existing and finished) • Proposed landscaping schedule (number, variety and size) as required in Section 26.105 of the zoning regulations • Location of streets, abutting properties, fire hydrants, existing buildings, existing landscaping • Existing and proposed curb cuts, pavement, walkways • Zoning boundaries • Number and location of parking spaces (as required under Section 26.25 of the zoning regulations) • Number and location of handicapped spaces (as required under Section 26.253(a) of the zoning regulations) • Location of septic tanks (if applicable) • Location of any easements • Lot coverage information: Building footprint, total lot, and front yard o North arrow • Name of person or firm preparing site plan and date • Exterior lighting details (cut sheets). All lights should be down casting and shielded- • Dumpster locations. (dumpsters must be screened) • Bicycle rack as required under Section 26.253(b) of the zoning regulations • If Restaurant is proposed, provide number seats and square footage of floor area provided for patron use but not containing fixed seats APPLICATION FEE 11 New Application $ 60.00* ' [I Amendment $ 35.00* * Includes $ 10. 00 recording fee CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLE11e NE4G & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 June 1, 2001 Margo Breen 350 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Design Review Application Dear Ms. Breen: Enc-losed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Committee meeting and my comments. Please be sure that someone is at the meeting on Tuesday, June 5, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. Sincerely, Sarah MacCallum Associate Planner SM/ld Encls. CAMajie\My Documents\@DRB Reminder For-._ . . - Aoc Id DIEVE LOPIVIENT REV EMI BOARD I/I EMO JLTN E 5, 2001 NI EE+ TING 4. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy/Compliance from the Administrative Officer prior to use of the second satellite dish. 5. Any change to the plans shall require review by the South Burlington Design Review Committee. C) DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION — MASTER SIGNAOE PLANT — MAROO BREEN, 350 DORSET STREET This project consists of a master signage plan application. The master signage plan consists of 1) an indirectly illuminated, blue 13' 5" by 28" cut out letter "Net Result Fish Market" wall sign, 2) an indirectly illuminated, white 14' by 10" cut out letter "The Net Result" wall sign, 3) an indirectly illuminated, white 13' S" by 10" cut out letter "Vivaldi Flowers" wall sign, 4) an indirectly illuminated, white 12' by 10" cut out letter "Merle Norman" wall sign, 5) an indirectly illuminated white 10" cut out letter "Orbit" wall. sign, 6) an indirectly illuminated, 26 square foot free standing sign on Dorset Street, and 7) an indirectly illuminated, 26 square foot free standing sign on San Remo Drive, 350 Dorset Street. 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. This recommendation for approval of the proposed sign design is based solely on the application's compliance with the design review criteria contained in Section 4 of the South Burlington Sign Ordinance. The determination of whether or not this application complies with all other requirements contained in the sign ordinance shall be made by the Administrative Officer. 3. The applicant shall obtain a sign permit pursuant to Section Five of the Sign Ordinance or this approval is null and void. 4. Any change to the master signage plan shall require review by the South Burlington Design Review Committee. D) SITE PLANT APPLICATION — SITE AMENDMENTS — 110-120 KIll BALL AVE LLC, 120 KIMBAL L AVE This project consists of a site plan application to amend a previously approved site plan for a 27,616 square foot general office building. The amendment consists of site amendments, 120 Kimball Avenue. The site plan for this property was last approved by the Planning Commission on October 13, 1995 (minutes enclosed). CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 May 9, 2001 Margo Breen 350 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Design Review Application, 340 Dorset Street Dear Ms. Breen : Enclosed is the agenda for the next Tuesday's Design Review Committee meeting and my comments. Please be sure someone is at the meeting on Tuesday, May 14, 2001 at 7:30 P.M. at the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. Sincerely, ��.�a✓j1 �/ ,C�r 1. a,� �"=�+°�% Sarah MacCallum, Associate Planner SM/mcp Encls CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 2, 2000 Donna O'Connell Orbit Hair Design, Inc. 387 Metcalf Drive Williston, VT 05495 Re: Design Review Application — Orbit Hair Design, 3 50 Dorset Street Dear Ms. O'Connell: Enclosed please find a copy of the July 11, 2000 Development Review Board meeting minutes. Please note the conditions of approval. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Sarah MacCallum Planning & Zoning Assistant Enclosure CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 17, 2000 Donna O'Connell Orbit Hair Design, Inc. 387 Metcalf Drive Williston, VT 05495 Re: Design Review Applications, 350 Dorset Street Dear Ms. Donna O'Connell: Enclosed, please find a copy of Finding of Facts of the Development Review Board meeting on July 11, 2000 (effective date August 15, 2000). Please note the conditions of approval. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Sarah MacCallum Planning & Zoning Assistant Enclosure DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 11 JULY 2000 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 11 July 2000, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Dinklage, Chair; G. Quimby, G. Roth, G. Chamberland, R. Farley Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; Carl Lisman, Bayard Bigelow III, Donna O'Connell, Ralph & Cheryl Guillette, Paul Morwood, Michael Gravelin, Barbara Rippa, John Piper, Andy Rowe 1. Other Business: Mr. Belair noted that last night the City Council reappointed Eric Schmia to the Board and also appointed new members Jim Cameron and Mark Boucher. 2. Review Minutes of 27 June 2000: Ms. Quimby moved to approve the Minutes of 27 June as written. Mr. Roth seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Consent Agenda: a. Design Review application #DR-00-11— Moon Meadow Market sign, 150 Dorset Street: This project consists of relocating an existing "Natural Foods" internally illuminated sign from the west fagade of the building to the south fagade. b. Design Review application #DR-00-09 — Orbit Hair Design — Window and Door Alterations, 350 Dorset Street: This project consists of replacing a door and adding two windows. No issues were raised on either application. Mr. Farley moved to approve the consent agenda subject to the stipulations in the Director of Planning & Zoning's memorandum of 7 July 2000. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Continued Public Hearing from 6/6/00: Preliminary plat application #SD-00- 25 of Jeffrey & Elizabeth Goldberg to subdivide a 12.92 acre parcel into five lots of 2.34 acres (lot #1), 2.34 acres (lot #2) 1.73 acres (lot #3), 1.92 acres (lot #4), and 4.55 acres (lot #5), 1760 Dorset Street: To: South Burlington Design Advisory Committee From: Sarah IVIacCallum, Planning and Zoning Assistant Re: June 26, 2000 agenda items Date: June 22, 2000 3. Moon Meadow Market- Sign Relocation, 150 Dorset Street This project consists of moving an existing 30 square foot yellow "Natural Foods" internally lit sign from the west fagade of the building to the south fagade of the building located at 150 Dorset Street. The resign Review Committee previously approved this sign on July 20, 1999 (Findings of Fact included), Consistent Desip-n: The sign will be visually compatible with other internally lit signs in the shopping center. Most of the other businesses utilize wall signs that are internally lit cutout letters or cabinet signs. The color, graphic style, and proportions are similar to those used in adjacent signs. The sign will not change in dimensions and will be within the allowable signable wall area limit. City Center Goals: The will be located in the soffit area of the building fagade facing the parking area along Dorset Street. All of the adjacent signs located in this shopping center are in the same general soffit area. None project above the roof or parapet of the building or below the top of any first floor doorway. Color Texture and Materials:, The sign will remain internally lit yellow cutout letters that employ a plastic or luxan material. 4. Orbit Hair Design — endow and Door Alterations, 350 Dorset Street This project consists of altering the south and east facades, the eastern most storefront, of the 7,680 square foot mixed retail and personal uses building at 350 Dorset Street. These alterations consists of: 1) replacing a window with a door on the south fagade, 2) replacing a double door with a single door on the west facade, and 3) introducing two windows to the east fagade. The Planning Commission previously approved a site plan on February 9, 1993 (minutes enclosed). Consistent Design: The building currently employs both double and single doors in various patterns along the south faVade of the building. The applicant wishes to remove the existing double dour on the rear storefront and introduce two single doors. This will keep the same number of openings along the south fagade, but allow for increased points of access. The proposed doors will employ full-length single panes such as those currently existing on the building. The window, which will Design Advisory Committee Menlo Jule 26, 2000 replace one side of the existing double door, will be a one over single pane over a paneled inset such as those currently on the building. The windows proposed for the east, or rear, facade will break up a currently blank facade that faces San Demo Drive. These two pane casement windows will serve to make the rear facade more consistent with the existing facades as well as those of the neighboring structures. Materials: The applicant will replace the windows and doors in -kind. The doors will be metal with full-Iength panes. The window on the south facade will be a single pane over a panel inset that replicates those already represent along the south facade. The two new windows on the east facade will be double pane metal casement windows and will utilize materials similar to those on the south facade. Colors and Textures: The applicant will keep the same colors already present on the building. The windows and the doors will employ a bare metal gray color. The metal panel inset will be brown to match the existing panels. Human Scale Design: The door alterations will create an additional point of access along the south facade and thereby improve pedestrian access to the building. The addition of two windows to the east facade will penetrate a currently blank facade. The east, or San Remo Drive, facade currently is characterized by utilities and HVAC equipment. The addition of two windows will serve to introduce human scale elements to the east facade where there are currently no design elements that speak to a human scale. Roof as a Design Element: No changes are proposed to the existing roof. Orientation of Building to the Street: No changes are proposed to the building's orientation to Dorset Street. The addition of two windows to the east facade will improve the building's communication with San Remo Drive by introducing design elements, points of visual penetration, to the building's frontage along San Demo Drive. Landscape and Plantings: No additional landscaping is proposed. 5 Four Boys, LLC — Conversion of 1200 sg. ft. from retail use to medical office use. 23 San Remo Drive This project consists of amending a previously approved site plan for a 9800 square foot building with retail, medical and general office uses and two residential units. The amendment converting 1200 square feet of retail use to medical office use for a total of 3600 square feet of medical office use. The Design Review Committee previously approved a site plan for this property on October 25, 1999 (minutes enclosed). The Development Review Board approved the site plan at their December 21, 1999 meeting (findings of fact enclosed). j�2 �A 6/25l00 MOTION TO 1ECONdM ND APPROVAL Design — Window and Door Alterations, 350 Dorset Street i move the City Center DesiR Review Committee recommend approval of the design review application of Donna O'Conne44.o alter the south and east facades, the eastern most storefront, of the 7,650 square foot mixed retail d personal uses building at 350 Dorset Street. 'These alterations consists of 1) replacing a I�ndow with a door on the south facade, 2) replacing a double door with a single door on the t faVade, and 3) introducing two windows to the east facade, as depicted on a two page set of plans, entitled ' 1✓ast Elevation", with a stamped received date of 6/12/00, with the following stipulations: All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. This recommendation for approval of the proposed addition is based on the application's compliance with the design review criteria contained in Section 24 of the South Burlington Zoning Ordinance. The Code Officer shall mare the determination of whether or not this application complies with all other requirements contained in the zoning ordinance. 3. The applicant shall maintain the current color scheme of the building as depicted in four photographs dated 619/00. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 July 7, 2000 Donna O'Connell Orbit Hair Design, Inc. 387 Metcalf Drive Williston, VT 05495 Re: Orbit Hair Design, Design review Application, 350 Dorset Street Dear Ms. O'Connell: Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Board meeting. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, July 11, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer RJB/mcp 1 Encl `sr `;�:::�1t 1I To: South Burlington Development Review Board From: Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Re: July 11, 2000 agenda items Date: July 7, 2000 3) CONSENT AGENDA a) DESIGN REVIEW API'LICA'ITI1O�1 - SIGN RELOCATION - MOON - MEADOW MARKET, 150 DO➢2SET STREET This project consists of relocating an existing 'Natural Foods" non -illuminated sign from the west facade of the building to the south facade as depicted on a one page set of plans, entitled "DR-00-11", with a stamped received date of 6/15/00, 150 Dorset Street. The City Center Design Review Committee reviewed this proposal at their 6/26/00 meeting. The Design Review Committee recommends that the Board approve the application with the following stipulation: 1. This recommendation for approval of the proposed sign design is based on the application's compliance with the design review criteria contained in Section 4 of the South Burlington Sign Ordinance. The determination of whether or not this application complies with all other requirements contained in the sign ordinance shall be made by the Code Officer. b) DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION — WINDOW & DOOR ALTERA'T'IONS_- OR -BIT HAIR 350 IDORSE I' STREET This This project consists of altering the south and east facades, the eastern most storefront, of the 7,680 square foot mixed retail and personal uses building at 350 Dorset Street. These alterations consists of 1) replacing a window with a door on the south facade, 2) replacing a double door with a single door on the south facade, and 3) introducing two windows to the east facade, as depicted on a two page set of plans, entitled "Bast Elevation", with a stamped received date of 6/12/00, 350 Dorset Street. The City Center Design Review Committee reviewed this proposal at their 6/26/00 meeting. The Design Review Committee recommends that the Board approve the application with the following stipulations: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEMO a➢iTLY 11, 2000 MEETING 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. This recommendation for approval of the proposed addition is based on the application's compliance with the design review criteria contained in Section 24 of the South Burlington Zoning Ordinance. The Code Officer shall make the determination of whether or not this application complies with all other requirements contained in the zoning ordinance. 3. The applicant shall maintain the current color scheme of the building as depicted in four photographs dated 6/9/00. 4 CONTINUED: FFREY & ELI<ZABETH GOLDBERG ® 5 LOT SURD ION PRELEWINARY PLAT APPLICATION —1760 DORSET STREET This application was continued from the May 16, 2000 meeting to the July 11, 2000 meeting to provide staff an opportunity to consult with counsel. Enclosed is staffs 5/16/00 memo for your review. A report from counsel will be available at the meeting. Not included in the 5/16/00 memo is the recommendation that Lot 5 be mowed to preserve the open character of the existing field. 5) GU LLETTE—ADME-4IS TIME OFFICER'S DECISION APPEAL — 314 PATCREN ROAD This application was continued from the June 6, 2000 meeting to the July 11, 2000 meeting to provide staff and Board Members an opportunity to consult with counsel. Enclosed is staffs 6/6/00 memo for your review. 6) GUJ LLETTE — VARIANCE REQUEST — 314 PATCREN ROAD This application was continued from the June 6, 2000 meeting to the July 11, 2000 meeting to provide staff and Board Members an opportunity to consult with counsel. Enclosed is staffs 6/6/00 memo for your review. PINNACLE DRIVE This appeal is per order of the Vermont Environmental Court. The appellant, John Larkin, argued before the Court that when he went before the Zoning Board of Adjustment on 7/6/99 for a variance (see enclosed decision) he really was appealing the Notice of Violation. The violation was discovered during a phone conversation with the appellant that the house at 6 Pinnacle Drive (lot 949) exceeded the height limitation by "about a foot and a half." He was then sent a Notice of Violation (see enclosed). The house at 6 Pinnacle Drive (lot #49) is located in the Dorset Park View Protection Zone A which has a maximum height limit of 417.565 feet above mean sea level. 2 RECENIVED CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON J##N 12 2000. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW Cite of So. Bur yin- o All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on required design plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Design Review Committee and Development Review Board. 1) Approval is being sought for (check all that apply): Design Plan Approval ❑ Sign Design Approval 2) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) fAY F-7F- 23°I 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) Oo ot-j n 1) ` Co,-.-%e.LL t i e - L 4) ; y-e-- w Lt-; S -Na e-7b - (O I Ll F FiaX F-7e -S-lv 1 4) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: bOrSe + stre-e f" 17LS -0 6) TAX MAP NUMBER (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Provide a brief description of the improvement or modification for which design review approval is being sought. If sign design approval is being sought, provide a description of the sign(s) type, size and height. (-0 CA+f MIi ��' r� ♦ �i IN The information listed on Exhibit A attached shall be submitted along with this application form. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (11" x 17") of all required plans and drawings (e.g., site plan, building elevations, sign details) must be submitted. I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. 1 ) /11, . /) r'fir 6" SIGNATURE OF,,APPLICANT SIGNATURE OF LAND/BUILDING OWNER Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: &'/'2 �C' I have reviewed this design review application and find it to be: 0 Complete ❑ Incomplete Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date (ApformDR) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 June 23, 2000 Donna O'Connell Orbit Hair Design, Inc. 387 Metcalf Drive Williston, VT 05495 Re: Orbit Hair Design - Design Review Application - 350 Dorset Street Dear Ms. O'Connell: Enclosed is the agenda for next Monday's City Center Design Review Committee meeting and my comments to the Committee. Please be sure someone is at the meeting on Monday, June 26, 2000, 7:30 p.m. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Sarah MacCallum, Planning & Zoning Assistant JW/mcp Encls PLANNIG COMMISSION page =3- Burl in ton, Vermont re ared Jby, Paul W. Nestork Chittenden Construction Desi n and dated 1 7 93 with the followin sti - ulations: 1. Si ns shall be installed which direct customers of the auto repair business to the back of the building. 2. All exterior li_ghjj:.na shall be downcastin and shielded and shall not cast li ht be and the ro ert line. An new li ht- in or chan e in existin li htin shall be a roved b the City Planner prior to installation. 3. The paved areas shall be striped to delineate customer park- in spaces and the limits of vehicle display areas. This should_ be done prior to November 1, 1993. 4. The PlanninCommission approves 20 customer/employee arking spaces. 5. Prior to issuance of -a zon.inq/buildino�permit, the applicant shall contribute $2L310_ t_o_the. City',s sidewalk �fund �based on 15 feet of�frontaae at $15 per linear foot. 6. The Wapplicant�shall �obtain a zoning/buildinoWpermit Wwithin six months orWthis �approval is_ null_ and voidW 7. The applicantWshall Wobtain a certificate of occupancy permit front the Administrative Officer prior to -occupant of the build- ink.��......�..�.�..._.._..�....�.��..r.._..._..��.. 8. The applicant shall not allow automobiles -to be_parked on space delineated�as- greenWspace on -the proposed -site plan. 9. __Any c-hanoesWtoWthe �site which_ differ from this approved site plan_shallWnot �beWmade Wwithout Wfirst Wobtainiag_a,Mroval fromthe Plannino_Commission. Mr.-TeesonWseconded. Motion passed -unanimously. 5. Continue revised Site Plan application of Eric Fleggenheimer dba EMA, Inc, to amend the circulation, coverage, and land- scaping on a site containing a 7,680 sq. ft. retail building, 350 Dorset St.: Mr. Duffy showed the area to be paved (to the north) and also 9 additional parking spaces. They will also be enclosing a dump- ster on a new location. He noted there had been an oil tank on the property and the State has required they clean up oil that leaked from the tank. PLANNING COMMISSION 9 February 1993 page 4 Mr. Noyes explained the background of the situation. Soils and the water table below have been contaminated by the oil. He then explained the process of drawing out the contaminants. It will be another 15-16 months before they can close this operation. It is important for the top surface to be impervi-ous which is why the paving is necessary. The project is working very well. It is anticipated they will dismantle the structure where the equipment is located at the end of the clean-up project and return the equipment to the State. Mrs. Maher noted this situation was known when the applicant ap- peared originally at the Planning Commission but the applicant never mentioned it. Ms. Peacock raised the possibility of removing the paving at the end of the cleaning process. Mr. Sheahan agreed and suggested a two-year time period in which this should be done. He wanted to see the area as green space when it was safe to be. Mr. Fleg- genheimer felt this was harsh for him to have to undergo this expense. Mr. Duffy added it is the goal to connect city center properties so people won't have to go back onto Dorset St. to get from one property to another. Mr Weith agreed and suggested a green strip 20' x 451. Members agreed to have the applicant come back to the Commission in 2 years to review that portion of the lot. Regarding the dumpster, Mr. Duffy showed the partially enclosed area. With 4 tenants in the building, they needed more space for the sumpster. Members agreed to allow it to be enclosed on only 3 sides. Mr. Weith raised the question of an access easement but he and the Commission agreed this may be premature at this time. Regarding landscaping, Mr. Duffy said they propose to relocate cedars. A tree was mislocated and will be moved. Mr. Fleg- genheimer asked if the Commission might want cedars in other locations in 2 years. The Commission felt they might. Mr. Austin_ moved the Planninq Commission-approve-therevised site_olan_a,Eolication of Eric Fleocenheimer► dba�EMA Inc., to amend the _ci_rcul_a_t_io_n_s.-coverage-and�landscaoinc-on Wa�site �con- retail build_ino as�deoicted_onWaWplan entitled "Site Plan, 350�Dorset _Stree_t, E.M_.A. Inc.," pEr jpare _ b_y Leonard�Duffd_anAssoc. and dated�4 ,___wlast 1/11 93ith�theio Wfollowinq stioulatnsWW W �WWWWWW 1. All yorevious�approvals �and Wstipulations �which Ware �not�suoer__ sededubvWthis-approval shall remain in effect. PLANNING COMMISSION 9 February 1993 page 5 2. The planWshall�beLLrevised to show the location of the access between this Wproperty- and W348 Dorset St. WWThe vaccess Wshall Wbe located soasnot to conflict with Wthe �approvedWparkinnWspaces on the 348 Dorset St.Wproper ._ TheWrevised_plan_shallWbe sub- mittedWto�theLCitvWPlanner-forWapproval�w'TfM 90�davWs. 3.WThe_2Mlicant shall return toWthe WPlanninq Commission �inWtwo years fora review of how the access_con_nectio_nb_et_w_een_the two properties�has Wfunctioned Wover the �two_year_period.WWAtWthat ��W time..the-PlanninoWCommissionWshalldecide Wwhether �or�not Wthe access_shall_re_m_a_in_22ta_and whether WorWnot_a_portionWofWthe pavedWarea�shall Wbe removed and replaced with lawn/landscaping toldimproveWthe_appearanceWofWthe;_orth_side�ofWtheWproperty. 4. Any changesWtoWtheWsite which Wdiffer �from ythis_aop.roved_siteW plan _shall �not WbeWmade �without first �obtaining_approval_fromythe Planning -Commission. Pis.-Peacock�seconded �the �motion Wwhich Wthen_passed_unanimously. 6. Preliminary application of Larkin-Milot Partnership for a planned residential development consisting of 73 single family lots on 66.7 acres of land located on the east side of Spear Street opposite Deerfield Drive: Mr. Austin raised the question of whether he should sit on the Commission for this hearing as he is with a legal firm that has - done work for Fred Hackett who opposes the project. Mr. Milot stated he had no objection to Mr. Austin sitting on the Commission for this hearing as he did not feel it represented a conflict. Mr. Steele noted that two entrances have been provided. There will be 27 acres of open space. All lots will be single family. There is a Class 2 wetlands which dictates the layout of the pro- ject. This wetlands requires a 50 foot buffer around it. Mr. Steele then addressed staff comments. Mr. Weith had questioned the impact of the northerly access on house cross the road as there would be headlights shining in their windows. mr. Milot agreed to move the road over one lot. The question of homes indicated in non -buildable areas was then addressed. Mr. Steele said all or a portion of 45 lots are in restricted areas. They feel part of the unbuildable area was thought to be a wetland and it is now known that it isn't. Mr. Weith noted there is also a restricted area on Spear St. This can be met by setting the building envelopes back. Mr Milot said this will be done on final plat. None of the lots will access Spear St. He said he was willing to give an 80 ft. r.o.w. for a road along the full boundary with the Economou property. ARTICLE XIV CENTRAL DISTRICT (CD) 14.00 Purpose The Central District is hereby formed in order to encourage the location of a balanced and coordinated mixture of residential, commercial, public and private uses adjacent to Dorset Street that support the city center goals and objectives contained in the Comprehensive Plan. It is designed to promote efficient use of land by concentrating mixed uses within a well-defined Central District. This will provide a pedestrian -oriented circulation network that minimizes vehicular traffic. It also encourages the traditional town center pattern of appropriately scaled buildings facing onto a well-defined and active public street. Innovative site planning is encouraged to maximize uses, shared parking, public open space and pedestrian amenities which create an aesthetically pleasing and socially active community center on and around Dorset Street. The Central District is divided into four (4) sub -zones - Central District 1, Central District 2, Central District 3 and Central District 4. 14.10 Permitted Uses The following uses are permitted in the Central District. All uses not expressly permitted are prohibited except those which are allowed as a conditional use. 14.101 Central Districts 1 and 2 - Permitted Uses (a) Retail and personal service uses that include, but which are not limited to, pharmacy, convenience grocery, supermarket, florist, beauty/barber, hardware store and other retail and personal service shops, provided no shop or store exceeds 20,000 square feet of gross°floor area. A shop or store which exceeds 20,000 square feet may be permitted provided: (i) the shop or store occupies at least two (2) stories in a building, and (ii) at least 40% of the shop or store's gross floor area is contained on the second floor. (b) General office (c) Medical office (d) Residential - multi -family and/or mixcd-use structures only. (e) Standard restaurant (not including fast-food restaurants). (1) Bakery and delicatessen restaurants (g) Cultural facilities including museums, studio spaces for craft persons, galleries and theaters. (h) Public parking facilities. (i) Printing, bookbinding and publishing. U) Educational facility (k) Indoor Recreation (1) Accessory uses to the uses listed above. 14.102 Central Districts 3 and 4 - Permitted Uses (a) General office in existing structures with no change to the square footage. (b) Medical office in existing structures with no change to the square footage. (c) Residential - multi -family and/or mixed -use structures only. (d) Cultural facilities including museums, studio space for craft persons, galleries and theaters. (e) Accessory uses to the uses listed above. 14.20 Conditional Uses The following uses are allowed in the Central District as conditional uses subject to approval by the Zoning Board 14.1 i City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 September 23, 1992 Mr. William Fucci Burlington Agency One Burlington Square P.O. Box 246 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0246 Re: 350 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Fucci: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 The Planning Commission approval for the above referenced property as granted on May 21, 1992 allows the building to be used for 43% supermarket (3280 square feet) and 57% specialty retail (4400 square feet). The approval includes a condition that requires the City Planner to approve any new tenant rior,to occupancy. (build' In response to our request to lease the P Y q i ' s remaining _3,-2-0�0' square feet to a bagel bakery, its my opinion that such a use constitutes an allowable retail use as provided in Section 1.101 of the Central District Ordinance. In addition, a bagel bakery meets the criteria for ,,specialty retail center, and therefore is approved. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance. erely, J Weith, C ty Planner JW/mcp cc: Richard Ward PLANNING COMMISSION 29 December 1992 page 4 4. Review site plan application of Eric Flegenheimer, dba EMA, Inc, to amend the circulation, coverage and landscaping on a site containing a 7680 sq. ft. retail building, 350 Dorset St.: Mr. Craig said the Commission has to decide whether to hear this application as the applicant may have to prove a change in conditions that justifies reconsideration. Mr. Weith noted that the changes have already been made as follows: the applicant paved an area that was shown as green space, there was some change in landscaping, and they now propose to keep a gravel area gravel instead of green space as the Commission specifically re- quired. Mr. Duffy showed the area that was paved instead of remaining green. The applicant felt the number of parking spaces aproved was not adequate for seasonal traffic. The Commission agreed to hear the first two parts of the appli- cation and to hear arguments as to why they should hear the third. Regarding the gravel, Mr. Duffy said originally they had one tenant in mind and an unknown space behind that use. They thought it would be a furniture store. This didn't happen, and they ended up with three tenants in back, all approved. This resulted in additional employees. There are 43 paved parking spaces, almost half of which are taken up by employees. There is still one 1200 sq. ft. space which is not rented. Mr DeSarno noted they were maxed out on Xmas Eve. Mr Weith said he went by many times and the lot wasn't half filled. Mr. Austin felt he had heard enough to rehear the application. Mr. Sheahan agreed but felt there may be additional information he needed (re: parking configuration) before he could make a decision. Mr. Austin felt the applicant should be asking for a specific number of additional parking spaces on the lot. Ms. Peacock and Mr. Craig were also willing to hear it. Regarding paving, Mr. Duffy said this came about because the property had an oil tank with a leak in it. Part of the solution to this problem was the need for an impervious surface. This is still being monitored by authorities. Mr Flegenheimer noted that when he got a certificate of ownership the area was not paved. Mr. Weith said the State required the oil problem to be solved and this plan was accepted by the State. Mr. Craig said he is against what he sees there as it looks awful. He couldn't believe this was the only solution. Mr. Duffy noted that the DeSarno property has some very narrow r PLANNING COMMISSION 29 December 1992 page 5 parking and cars always spilled over to this lot. Mr. Weith noted that the shed has to come down in a year. Mr. Flegenheimer said the state said it could be there for 2 years. Mr. Duffy said the monitoring wells have to remain longer. Mr. Weith noted the site plan shows one dumpster. He asked if this is adequate. Mr. Flegenheimer said it is not. He added that where the dumpster was supposed to go there are now com- pressors and mechanical equipment. This area has been screened as in the plan. Mr. Craig said he was bothered that the Commission is getting all of this third hand and the Commission isn't hearing from the property owner and the people who ordered these changes. Mr. Sheahan felt the application should be continued till the Com- mission can hear from those who know the answers. Other members agreed, and Mr. Austin felt the applicant should present a parking plan. Mr. Craig wanted to know if there can be fence posts put into the pavement to help improve the appearance. Mr Sheahan moved to continue the._�application until 9 Februar . Mr. Teeson seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Site plan application of Bruce Barry and David LaRose for use of a vacant 17,200 sq. ft. building for automobile repair and sales, 1907 Williston Rd.: Mr. LaRose said this is the old Mayo Subaru property. Two par- cels have been joined as one. They will move the dumpster in- side the building. 34 parking spaces are required but they are asking for only 20 as thev fee] they don't need the rest. Members had no problem with this. Mr. LaRose noted the Fire Chief would like a cut through the trees so a fire truck might not get damaged. He personally didn't see the need for this. Members had no problem leaving it the way it is today as there is access all around the building. Mr Craig asked if one curb cut on Williston Rd. can be closed. Mr. LaRose felt the 2 cuts made it easier for people looking at cars. Other members felt one curb cut was adequate. Ms. Peacock suggested one cut in the censer. Members felt the applicant should come back in with a plan. Mr Burgess noted no additional landscaping would be required. Regarding the sidewalk, Mr. Weith proposed a fee for a sidewalk be gotten because it would be ripped up when the right of way is widened. Mr. LaRose said he is willing to give the money. PLANNING COMMISSION 21 May 1992 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, 21 May 1992 at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: William Burgess, Chairman; Mary -Barbara Maher, Terry Sheahan, Catherine Peacock, David Austin, William Craig Also Present: Joe Weith, City Planner; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Leonard Duffy, Peter M. Collins, Roger Dickinson, Eric Fleggenheimer. William R. Fucci, David DeSalno, ordon Jarvis, John Jaeger, Maurice Goodrich, Ralph Goodrich, Mike Munson, Kathleen Ryan, Dick Posey, Peter Jacob, Jean Goodell 1. Other Business: Mrs. Maher moved to add Item #6 to the Aqenda: Consider qoin into executive session to discuss the o inion of the Cit At- torne_y regarding which zonin to a 1 to u comin a lications in the Southeast Quadrant. Mr. Sheahan seconded.__ Motion passed unanimousl Mr. Burgess noted receipt of a letter from the State Dept. of Forests and Parks regarding a request for a discharge permit for Adelphia Cable and asking that a notice of hearing be posted in a public place. Mr. Burgess also advised he had gotten a call from the Zoning Ad- ministrator who said the Commission has to decide what to do with City Center Zoning. Mr. Burgess said he thought the Commission had done that last week. He said he recapped that action for the Zoning Administrator and asked him to speak with Mr. Weith if there were further questions. 2. Continue Site Plan application of Eric Fleggenheimer, dba ZMA, Inc., for use of a vacant 7,680 sq. ft. building for retail sales, 350 Dorset Street: Mr. Burgess said the applicant now says he had overstated the estimated trip ends and has supplied new data. Mr. Duffy apologized for misleading the Commission last week. He said they had made several wrong assumptions. One related to distribution of traffic during the day. Traffic is actually more evenly distributed that they had estimated. They also assumed that all customers are trips, which, since they are in a shopping center, is not accurate since some customers come in as part of trips to other stores. He then asked Roger Dickinson to provide PLANNING COMMISSION 21 May 1992 page 2 new data. Mr. Dickinson said they checked the cash register slips for times of sales to get an accurate estimate of traffic peaks. They feel the Net Result falls into the super market category which would allow them 67 peak hour trip ends (based on 3200 sq. ft.). In their study, they used 7 weeks of cash register tapes broken down by hour. They took the peak hour of each day, regardless of when it occurred, and averaged these. The result was 29 customers or 58 trip ends. Mr. Fleggenheimer said he didn't feel the additional square footage would increase customers as much as it would increase how much the existing customers buy. Mr. Duffy added that all the additional square footage is not for retail area. Some is for office and kitchen use. Mr. Fleggenheimer said people are buying more because he has been offering more (cheese, meat, wine, etc.) but the number of customers has not increased. In fact, he said, with the added fish departments in super markets nearby, the number of customers has actually decreased. Mr. Weith said he and Craig Leiner agreed with the method used by Mr. Dickinson. Mrs. Maher asked what would happen if a high traffic generator went into the rear location. Mr. Weith suggested a conditon that only specialty retail can go in there and that the City Planner would, have to approve any new use. He cited a fast food rest- aurant as a use that would not be acceptable. Mrs. Maher reminded members that if this use is approved the city can "kiss goodbye" what the city and the City Center Com- mittee wanted that part of Dorset St. to look like. Mr. Weith said that the Zoning Administrator still has determined that what they plan to do with the building is not allowed. The application has not been formally denied because it has never been presented for a ruling. Mr. Burgess added that this means that if the Commission approves the application, only the use has been approved but it may not be possible for the applicant to have this use in this particular building. If the applicant didn't want to make any changes to the building, there would be no problems. Mr. Craig asked what will happen to the existing gravel area. Mr. Duffy said it will be grassed over. Mrs. Maher asked how many feet in front of the building intrude into the space where City Center Zoning says there should be no building. Mr. Fleggenheimer said 23 ft. He noted that the PLANNING COMMISSION 21 May 1992 page 3 building is also non -conforming in back, so they can't lop_ off from the front and add to the back. Mr. Weith said the trees on San Remo Drive must be set back 32 feet from the center line which is a requirement of the new streetscape recommendations to provide for future widening of the San Remo Drive right of way. Mr. Burgess then polled members as to their willingness to allow the 67 trip ends. Mr. Austin had a serious problem with this but other members were willing to accept it. Mr. Austin then moved that the Plannina Commission approve the site lan application of Eric Fleqqenheimer, dba EMA, Inc, for conversion of a vacant 7,680 sq. ft. building to retail use as depict d on a site lan entitled "Site Plan, 350 Dorset Street," prepared by Leonard Duffy and Associates and dated 4/16/92, last revised 5/4/92, with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall post a $6,000., 3-year landsca in bond rior to issuance of a zonin buildin ermit. The lan shall be revised prior to permit to show: a) the existing_gravel areas, which are not to be used for parking and circulation, converted_ to lawn, and b) the _plantings _along San Remo Drive set back at least 32 feet from the San Remo Drive centerline. 2. A sewer allocation of 225 d is ranted. The a licant shall a the $2.50 er allon fee rior to issuance of a zonin build - in_ g_permit . 3. All -lighting_shall be donwcastinq, shielded luminaire and shall not cast li ht beyond the property line. 4. The lan shall be revised rior to issuance of a zonin build- ing permit to show the following: a) The proposed compression pad set back at least 50 feet from the Dorset Street r.o.w. b) Draina e system including underground i e s stem, i e size and invert elevations. The draina e s stem shall be a roved b the City Engineer. 5. The a licant shall be made aware that a royal of this site lan does not constitute approval to alter the noncom 1 in structure. Alterations to noncom 1 in structures are.prohibited in Section 1.80 of the Central District Ordinance. Compliance with Section 1.80 shall be determined by the Zoninq Administrator at time of permit application. _LANNING COMMISSION 21 May 1992 page 4 6. This property is located within Traffic Overlay Zone 6 which_ allows uses on this property,to enerate 59 vehicle tri ends (vte's) durin the eak hour. Based on ITE tri eneration rates for codd #850 (su ermarket) and code #814 (_specialty retail), it is estimated that the pr9posed use will enerate 67 vte's durin the peak hour. Section 17.50 of the zonin re ulations allows the Planni�ng Commission to approve peak hour volumes above the normal standard if the Commission determines that other im rove- ments will produce a net benefit for traffic flow in the vicinity. It is the Commission's determination that the Dorset_ Street ro t will reatl im rove traffic safet to and from this site and thereforeapproves the additional peak hour vte's estimated to be generated by this project. Approval of this project is conditioned on use of the building for 43% supermarket (3,280 sq. ft.) and 57% specialty retail (4,400 sq. ft.), or 100% specialty retail. In addition, this pKopfj�ty is limited to a maximum eak hour trip..eneration of 67 vte's. In order to assure com liance with these conditions, the City Planner shall approve any new tenant prior to occupancy. 7. The zoning/buildin permit shall be obtained within 6 months_ or this approval is null and void. Mr. Craig seconded. Motion passed unanimously._ 3. Presentation of a preliminary City Center Street Layout and Pedestrian Corridor Plan and Parking Facilities Fund proposal: Mr. Weith advised that the city has retained RESV, Inc. (Mike Munson and Kathy Ryan) to help prepare a City Center street layout and pedestrian corridor plan and to prepare a parking facilities fund in order to help realize some public parking facilities in the City Center. Ms. Ryan explained how the base map was achieved. She noted there is a question of wetlands which will become an issue. At this time, planning is being done on the assumption that this issue can be resolved. She then showed the potential location of all future streets and noted that wherever possible they were striving for 350 foot blocks. Mr. Burgess asked what this would do to setbacks. Mr. Weith said all setbacks would stay as the Planning Commission had planned them. Mrs. Maher asked about the possiblity of having a non -vehicle pedestrian corridor as on Church St. Ms. Ryan said that would depend on how the develop- ment evolved. Mr. Munson said at present they want to maintain a variety of paths for vehicles and pedestrians to move through. Mr. Burgess raised the possibility of Corporate Way becoming a high speed road and still serving as a pedestrian corridor. Ms. 4) ERIC FLEGGENHEIMER - REVIEW ACCESS CONNECTION This review is to fulfill a requirement of condition #3 of the 2/9/93 site plan approval (minutes enclosed) to amend the circulation, coverage and landscaping at the Net Result property located at 350 Dorset Street. The 2/9/93 approval included allowing a connection between this property and the property to north with the following stipulation: "3. The applicant shall return to the Planning Commission in two years for a review of how the access connection between the two Memorandum - Planning November 12, 1996 agenda items November 8, 1996 Page 2 the Planning Commission shall decide whether or not the access shall remain open and whether or not a portion of the paved area shall be removed and replaced with lawn/landscaping to improve the appearance of the north side of the property." Staff recommends that the connection remain open. It appears to be working adequately and the City has not received any complaints. Furthermore, the City Center plan and zoning strongly recommends vehicular connections between properties. 5) ALEXANDER LEWIS - AUTO SERVICE FACILITY - PRELIMINARY PLAT City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 December 11, 1996 Eric Fleggenheimer Net Result 350 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Access Connection to 344 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Fleggenheimer: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is a copy of the November 12, 1996 Planning Commission meeting minutes. If you have any questions, please give me a call. in erely, Jo Weith, Ci Planner JW/mcp 1 Encl PLANNING COMMISSION 12 November 1996 page 3 8 The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six months pursuant to Section 27.302 of the zoning regulations or this approval is null and void. 9 The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy/Com- pliance from the Administrative Officer prior to use of the building. 10 Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Planning Commission. Mr. Dinklage seconded the motion which then passed unanimously.___ Mr. O'Rourke rejoined the Commission. 4. Review access connection between 350 Dorset St. and 344 Dorset St: Mr. Burgess reminded members that in the original approval, the applicant was required to come back for a review of the connection to be sure it was working adequately. Mr. Fleggenheimer said he and David DeSarno agree that it is working fine. Mr. Weith showed the access on the map. He also agreed that it is working well and recommended it stay open. Mr. Dinklage moved to keep the access between 350 and 344 Dorset Street open and made a permanent use. Mr. Beaudin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Teeson arrived at this point in the meeting. 5. Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat application of Alexander Lewis to construct a 9,270 sq. ft. auto service facility on a lot containing a commercial complex of 19,440 sq. ft. for auto sales and service, 1301-1325 Shelburne Rd: Mr. Horton showed two plans, one which will be implemented in full if the road widening of Shelburne Rd. does not occur and one which will be implemented if the road widening does occur. He indicated that by 1999, one of the plans will be in effect. Mr. Burgess asked what happens between now and 1999. Mr. Weith said the applicant will put the building in and leave the site as it is today. There will be a statement in the Findings of Fact that the property along Shelburne Rd. will stay as it is today. Mr. Dinklage asked what would happen if the road widening is put M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: November 12, 1996, agenda items Date: November 8, 1996 3) CLARK HINSDALE, JR. - MULTIPLE USES - SITE PLAN This application was continued from the 10/22/96 meeting (minutes enclosed) so the plan could be revised to relocate the driveway. Staff's 10/22/96 memo is inclosed for your review. Access/circulation: The 20 foot wide access has been relocated approximately 63 feet to the north. Circulation on the site is adequate. Coverage/setbacks: Building coverage is 10% (maximum allowed is 30%). Overall coverage is 60% (maximum allowed is 70%). Front yard coverage is being reduced from 48.5% to 46.6%. Traffic: Relocating the driveway eight (8) feet to the north has placed the property in Traffic Overlay Zone 5 which would allow the property to generate a maximum of 24.1 vte's during the P.M. peak hour. The applicant is requesting approval for 10.2 vte's. The applicant should be aware that the road impact fee is approximately $600. This request is being made with the provision that any use would not require more than 11 parking spaces, would not generate more than 620 gpd of sewer demand and would not generate more than 10.2 vte's. 4) ERIC FLEGGENHEIMER - REVIEW ACCESS CONNECTION This review is to fulfill a requirement of condition #3 of the 2/9/93 site plan approval (minutes enclosed) to amend the circulation, coverage and landscaping at the Net Result property located at 350 Dorset Street. The 2/9/93 approval included allowing a connection between this property and the property to north with the following stipulation: "3. The applicant shall return to the Planning Commission in two years for a review of how the access connection between the two Memorandum - November 12, November 8, Page 2 Planning 1996 agenda items 1996 the Planning Commission shall decide whether or not the access shall remain open and whether or not a portion of the paved area shall be removed and replaced with lawn/landscaping to improve the appearance of the north side of the property." Staff recommends that the connection remain open. It appears to be working adequately and the City has not received any complaints. Furthermore, the City Center plan and zoning strongly recommends vehicular connections between properties. 5) ALEXANDER LEWIS - AUTO SERVICE FACILITY - PRELIMINARY PLAT This project consists of constructing a 9,270 square foot auto service facility on a lot containing a commercial complex of 19,440 square feet for auto sales and service. The ZBA on August 26, 1996 granted the applicant a use variance for the proposed service facility. The sketch plan was reviewed on 9/24/96 (minutes enclosed). The applicant has submitted two (2) plans for the Commission's consideration. The "1996" plan depicts the scenario which the applicant would like to eventually implement if the Shelburne Road reconstruction does not go forward. The "1998" plan depicts the scenario which will be implemented if the Shelburne Road reconstruction goes forward. Until such time as the road construction is complete, or it is decided not to reconstruct the road in the near future, the applicant would like to leave the Shelburne Road portion of the site as it exists today. Staff does not have a problem with this request. A condition should be placed on the approval which requires the applicant to implement the "1996" plan if the Shelburne Road project has not commenced construction by spring, 1999. This property located at 1301-1325 Shelburne Road lies within the Cl and Bartlett Brook Watershed Protection Overlay Districts. It is bounded on the north by the Lakewood Commons, commercial complex, and the west by a distribution/warehouse and fire station, on the east by Shelburne Road, and on the south by Holmes Road. Access/circulation: Access is provided by the following: 1) a 40 foot curb cut on Shelburne Road at the northerly end of the property, 2) a 24 foot curb cut on Shelburne Road at the south end of the property, 3) a 40 foot curb cut on Holmes Road located 110 2 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 November 8, 1996 Eric Fleggenheimer Net Result 350 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05430 Re: Access Connection to 344 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Fleggenheimer: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, November 12, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. S' erely 'r Jo W eith,, City Planner JW/mcp Encls City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 September 16, 1996 Eric Fleggenheimer Net Result 350 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Access Connection to 348 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Fleggenheimer: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 It has come to our attention that you have not complied with condition #3 of your February 9, 1993 site plan approval (see enclosed). Please contact either myself or Joe Weith at 658-7955 to schedule a meeting with the Planning Commission to review the access connection to 348 Dorset Street. Thank you for your attention to this matter. inc rely, Raym6nd J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant RJB/mcp 1 Encl f State of Vermont x Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation Department of Environmental Conservation State Geologist RELAY SERVICE FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED 1-800-253-0191 TDD>Voice 1-800-253-0195 Voice>TDD December 11, 1995 Mr. Greg Kennedy Vermont Federal Bank Tafts Corner Williston, VT 05495 AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Department of Environmental Conservation Hazardous Materials Management Division 103 South Main Street/West Building Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0404 (802) 241-3888 fax (802) 244-5141 RE: Site Management Activity Completed, Former ALCO Equipment Corporation, South Burlington (site #92-1233) Dear Mr. Kennedy: The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Sites Management Section (SMS) has received and reviewed the November 22, 1995 Wagner, Heindel, and Noyes, Inc. report concerning the sampling results and the request for project closure at the Former ALCO Equipment Corporation site in South Burlington. Based on the conditions at this site, the SMS has determined that this site has been successfully remediated and that the site is now eligible for a SMAC (Site Management Activity Completed) designation. This means that the SMS has determined the following: - the free phase petroleum which was released from an underground storage tank on the property has been successfully remediated by the remedial system which operated at this site from 1992 to 1995. - groundwater contamination at this site has been successfully mitigated to levels below groundwater enforcement standards. - Vermont Federal Bank has complied with all of the conditions listed in the 1992 Assurance of Discontinuance. Based on these findings, the SMS has determined that site management activities have been completed. The completion of these activities do not release Vermont Federal Bank of any past or future liability which may arise from the petroleum contamination which was discovered to have originated from the underground storage tank at the Former ALCO Equipment Corporation facility. It does mean that the SMS is not requiring any additional work be performed at this site in response to this contamination which was discovered in 1992. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Richard Spiese or me at (802)-241-3888. Sincerely, 67 Chuck Schwer, Acting Chief Sites Management Section CS/rfs/1295clo.1233 cc: Jeffrey Silfer, WH&N Margaret A. Picard, City Clerk, S. Burlington Chlorine Free 100% Recycled Paper Regional Offices - Barre/Essex Jct./Pittsford/Rutland/N. Springfield/St. Johnsbury PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 May 25 1994 Michael Oman Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission P.O. Box 108 Essex Junction, Vermont 05453 Re: Proposed Dorset Street Median Cut Dear Mr. Oman: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is a plan showing a proposed median cut in front of the Net Result building. Also enclosed is a traffic impact study of the proposed median break. The City requests that the CCRPC review the plan and analysis from a technical standpoint and provide us with comments and/or suggestions. I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments to us by June 15, 1994. Please let me know if this will be a problem. S' rely, U7;� J e Weith, City Planner JW/mcp City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 November 21, 1994 Eric Fleggenheimer Net Result 350 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Ground Mounted Floodlight Dear Eric: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 I am writing in regards to a ground mounted floodlight which was recently installed on your property to light the northwest west corner of your building. I had spoken with your electrician prior to the installation of the light and had suggested to him that the light be installed on a temporary basis so that I could observe it to determine whether or not the light source was visible from off the property. I observed the light several weeks ago and told your electrician that glare was being cast beyond the property line. I told him that the only way I could approve the light is if the light source were concealed from view beyond the property. I suggested that landscaping (i . e . bushes) be placed on either side of the light to shield the glare. Recent observations have indicated that the suggested landscaping has not been installed. This landscaping should be installed immediately or the light must be removed. I would like this issue to be resolved within the next week. Please contact me if you have any questions. Si c rely, Jo Weith, C' y Planner JW/mcp cc: Richard Ward Ray Belair - - -- 1 i - --------------- F- t l t I LOU WA% L14- I De VJA t,14- City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 June 17, 1994 Eric Fleggenheimer Net Result 350 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Dorset Street Median Break Dear Mr. Fleggenheimer: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find a copy of the May 24, 1994 Planning Commission meeting minutes. If you have any questions, please give me a call. inc rely, J Weith, ity Planner 1 Encl JW / mcp PLANNING COMMISSION 24 MAY 1994 page 3 Mr. Austin said the Commission needs to address this type of problem where a PCD has many different business owners. 4. Review proposal by Eric Fleggenheimer to construct an ad- ditional break in the Dorset St. median in the vicinity of the Net Result building: Mr. Teeson stepped down during this discussion due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Weith reviewed the background of the proposal, noting that Mr. Fleggenheimer has met with the City Council on this issue. The plan is for a private road going all the way back to San Remo Drive. City Council discussion centered on this becoming a public street. Mr Weith noted that the Council will have the final decision but wanted the Planning Commission to review the proposal. The proposal would require revised site plan approval because it would cause changes to the site. Mr. Fleggenheimer said he had found a map of the City Center actually showing such a road in this location. Mr. Weith added that this is part of the official city map which proposes to split the San Remo block into two smaller blocks; however, the official map doesn't show a break in the median. Mr. Burgess stressed that the Commission had to consider this as a planning issue, from a planning point of view, not whether it is good for business. Mr. Fleggenheimer said his traffic study saw no significant safety drawbacks to a break in the median. It recommended a left turn in but no left turn out. The proposed intersection would be similar to the Dorset St./San Remo Drive intersections. Mr. Burgess said a break would pose one more potential for a problem and would make the situation slightly worse from a level of ser- vice point of view in 1999 (from LOS "A" to "B"). Mr. Fleggenheimer then showed changes in parking and the location of green space. The question of a city street vs. private street then arose. Mr. Fleggenheimer said he is proposing a private road with a right of way for public use. It was noted that if it were to become a public street, the required widths would take away most of the Net Result parking. Members raised the question of safety with a private right of way, since cars would be backing out of parking spaces along the building into the right-of-way. Mr. Hafter noted that as it is now, southbound cars have to make a U-turn at San Remo to access businesses on the San Remo block. PLANNING COMMISSION 24 MAY 1994 page 4 This is not illegal, but it is not very safe. He said the city would ask for an irrevocable offer of dedication. The city could then get the other 30 ft. required for a public street from the adjacent property when/if they come in for any approvals on that lot. He suggested_ making the road one-way in with all traffic exiting to San Remo. Mrs. Maher again expressed concern with cars backing out of parking spaces onto this road. Mr Weith said the first thing that needs to be done is a road plan. There is a question of moving electrical boxes, and also of future sidewalks. Both Mr. Sheahan and Mr. Austin felt that any road plan would render this site unusable. Mr. Austin said he felt the answer to the problem is better signage. Mr. Hafter and Mr. Fleggenheimer explained why the state won't allow the type of signage needed. Mr. Burgess said he felt the question is: if a city road is a possibility, 'is,,a_median cut a good trade for it. Members felt they didn't know the answer to this. Mr. Austin felt if the other 30 feet for a road were available, he could probably answer yes. Mr. Fleggenheimer asked the Commission what their opinion would be if there is not a public road (city street). Members said they would not be in favor of the proposal in that case. Mrs. Maher moved that the Cit Council be asked to implement a study of all as ects of a possible median break and a ossible city street on the San Remo block with a specific look at the location between the Net Result and the Champlain Oil building. Mr. Austin seconded. Motion asked unanimously. 5. Zoning Regulations Update: a) I-Ag District: Mr. Weith said there was a suggestion that a portion of the Wheelock Farm could be zoned for residential use He showed the 20-acre area on the map. This is currently crop land with prime farm soils, relatively flat with no wetlands. It abuts Stonehedge Drive. Access would be from Stonehedge. The area abuts and R-4 zone on the south and along each border with some R-1 zoning. Mr. Austin noted that this seems to conflict with UVM's expressed interest in a big piece of land for a single use. Ms. Peacock said the idea didn't make sense to her. Mr Weith noted that UVM had asked to add a residential use of 1 unit per 10 acres as a conditional use. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROPOSED NET RESULT ROADWAY FROM DORSET STREET TO SAN REMO DRIVE SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT May 18, 1994 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services -' One Wentworth Drive • Williston • Vermont • 05495 • (802) 878-3000 May 18, 1994 Mr. Eric Flegenheimer Net Result 350 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Traffic Impact Evaluation - Net Result Dorset Street, South Burlington FILE: 94015 Dear Mr. Flegenheimer: As requested, we have analyzed potential traffic impacts associated with a proposed 32 foot wide roadway adjacent to the southerly Net Result property line that will connect from Dorset Street to San Remo Drive. Southbound Dorset Street left -turning traffic will be allowed to enter thus roadway via a proposed opening within the existing Dorset Street median. Left -turning exiting traffic will be prohibited from executing left -turns onto Dorset Street. Right -turning entering and exiting i traffic will be allowed, as they are today. The study area of this traffic evaluation includes Dorset Street, the two Dorset Street/San Remo Drive intersections, and the Dorset Street/Net Result Drive intersection. 1'he posted speed limit along Dorset Street within the vicinity of this project is 35 mph. TRAFFIC DATA Traffic volume information was ascertained from the following data: 1. Route Log and Progress Chart - Dorset Street, Vermont Agency of Transportation (VAOT). 2. Turning Movement Count, Dorset Street/San Remo Drive (North), el- FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated (FLI), May 12, 1994 (PM). 3. Turning Movement Count, Dorset Street/San Remo Drive (South), FLI,\ May 12, 1994 (PM). 4. Turning Movement Count, Dorset Street/Net Result Drive, FLI, May /"`_� 12, 1994 (PM) . l `� 5. Turning Movement Count, San Remo Drive/Net Result Drive, FLI, May 10J 12, 1994 (PM). Design • Inspection 0 Studies 0 Permitting • Surveying .Mr. Eric Flegenheime: FILE: 94015 May 18, 1994 Page Two TRAFFIC CONGESTION The preceding traffic volume data were used to develop 1994 and 1999 design hourly volumes (DHV) at the Dorset Street/Net Result Drive. The DHV is the 30th highest hourly volume of the year and is used to design highways and traffic control systems. Future design hour volumes are calculated by projecting annual average daily traffic volumes (AADT) at an annual growth rate. Within the study area, that growth rate is best estimated by examining recent historical traffic growth along Interstate 189. Based on recently observed growth trends, an annual growth rate of 3.2% was used to calculate future AADT's. DHV's were then determined for future AADT's using DHV/AADT ratios recommended by the VAOT. The resulting DHV's constitute future background traffic volumes. \ Since the proposed Net Result roadway is approximately mid -way between a\o the Dorset Street connections to San Remo Drive, it is anticipated that , N some motorists will divert their traffic patterns away from the San Remo �. entrances and will instead use the Net Result roadway. For this study it is estimated that one-half of the traffic entering and exiting each of the Dorset Street/San Remo intersections will now access via the Net Result roadway. The volume and directional distribution of trafficN' generated by the Net Result site is based on observed traffic patterns. A sketch of diverted traffic and Net Result site -generated traffic is attached as Appendix A. Levels of traffic congestion are defined differently for certain types of intersections. For example, signalized intersections use vehicular delay (seconds) and most unsignalized intersections use reserve capacity (vehicles per hour). In all cases, those parameters are subdivided into ranges which are referred to as levels -of -service (L.O.S.). These are outlined below: LEVEL OF SERVICE VEHICLE DELAY A little or no delay B short delay C average delay D long delay E very long delay F extreme delay Since traffic flow on a street network is typically limited by the available capacity at intersections, potential traffic congestion impacts of the proposed roadway were determined by performing intersection capacity analysis at the Dorset Street/Net Result drive intersection. The methodology used to determine intersection capacity is obtained from the "Highway Capacity Manual - Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 1985". FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Eric Flegenhei.me PILE: 94015 May 18, 1994 Page Three Table 1 presents the results of the unsignalized intersection capacity analyses at the Dorset Street/Net Result Drive intersection. Detailed intersection capacity analyses are enclosed as Appendix B. TABLE 1 DESIGN HOUR VOLUME LEVELS -OF -SERVICE DORSET STREET/NET RESULT DRIVE Existing Proposed Approach & Turning Movement 1994 1999 1994 1999 Net Result Drive Westbound OVERALL APPROACH A A A A Dorset Street Southbound Left - - A B The results of the capacity analyses at the Dorset Street/Net Result Drive intersection indicate that excellent levels -of -service will be maintained for 1999 DHV traffic conditions both with and without the proposed roadway. TRAFFIC SAFETY The safety of traffic traveling to and from this project is dependent on the geometric and physical conditions of the existing roadways and intersections within the study area, projected traffic volumes, and on the presence of adequate traffic control devices. The most recent available five-year (1988-1992) accident history was examined along Dorset Street from the northerly to the southerly Dorset Street/San Remo Drive intersections and at the following intersections: 1. Dorset Street/San Remo Drive (North) 2. Dorset Street/San Remo Drive (South) 3. Dorset Street/Brookwood Drive 4. Dorset Street/Sherry Road During that period, three accidents were reported along the aforementioned section of Dorset Street, one accident was reported at each of the Dorset Street/San Remo Drive intersections and three accidents were reported at the Dorset Street/Brookwood Drive intersection. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Eric Flegenheime ) FILE: 94015 May 18, 1994 Page Four The resultant accident rate along this section of roadway is 0.643� accidents/million vehicle miles (acc/mvm). By comparison the statewide average accident rate for that five-year period on similar roadways in Vermont equaled 3.423 acc/mvm. Since the actual accident rate is less then the statewide average accident rate, this section of roadway is not considered a high -accident location. The resultant accident rates in accidents/million vehicles (acc/mv) at the above intersections are as follows: 1. Dorset Street/San Remo Drive (North) - 0.039 acc/mv 2. Dorset Street/San Remo Drive (South) - 0.042 acc/mv 3. Dorset Street/Brookwood Drive - 0.129 acc/mv By comparison, the statewide average accident rate for that five-year period on similar intersections in Vermont equaled 0.536 acc/mv. Since the actual rates at these intersections are less than the statewide average accident rate, these intersections are not considered high -accident locations. There were no accidents reported at the Dorset Street/Sherry Road intersection. Dorset Street has undergone major reconstruction since the most recent available five-year accident history period. That reconstruction included many improvements to safety, such as: a. Widening of Dorset Street to a four lane roadway b. Exclusive turn -lanes c. Traffic signalization d. Enhanced alternative transportation features such as sidewalks e. Improved sight distance due to the burying of utilities Although the most recent traffic accident data available does not include the period of reconstructed Dorset Street, it is likely that future traffic accident data will reflect lower accident rates due to the safety improvements of Dorset Street. Excellent sight distances exist at the location of the proposed median opening for both entering and exiting traffic. During the traffic turning movement count performed by FitzPatrick- Llewellyn on May 12, 1994, it was observed that a significant number of motorists were executing u-turns at the southerly Dorset Street/San Remo Drive intersection. During the PM peak hour, 20 vehicles were counted making left -turn u-turns along the southbound Dorset Street approach. Safety at the southerly Dorset Street/San Remo Drive intersection will �o be improved since motorists will be less likely to perform u-turns, instead entering at the proposed Net Result roadway. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Eric Flegenheime: PILE: 94015 May 18, 1994 Page Five GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS The proposed median opening at Net Result will require an exclusive left -turn storage lane for southbound traffic along Dorset Street. This exclusive left -turn lane will serve both the Net Result site -generated traffic and some left -turning traffic that would have otherwise used the Dorset Street/San Remo Drive entrances. Based on accepted design standards, the left -turn entering lane would be 11 feet in width with a curbline taper length of 100 feet and a left -turn storage length of 148 feet. Therefore, the total length of the taper and storage lane would be 248 feet. CONCLUSION This report has evaluated the potential traffic impacts resulting from the construction of a 32 foot wide roadway adjacent to the southerly Net Result property line that will connect from Dorset Street to San Remo Drive. An opening would be created in the Dorset Street median to allow for southbound left -turning Dorset Street traffic to enter the site. It is anticipated that the construction of this roadway will not create any unreasonable or adverse traffic congestion impacts. Levels -of -service at the Dorset Street/Net Result Drive intersection will be excellent for future conditions with this roadway. Traffic safety conditions were analyzed along Dorset Street between the Dorset Street/San Remo Drive intersections and at the following intersections: 1. Dorset Street/San Remo Drive (North) 2. Dorset Street/San Remo Drive (South) 3. Dorset Street/Brookwood Drive 4. Dorset Street/Sherry Road The aforementioned section of Dorset Street and all four of the above intersections are not considered high -accident locations. Recent improvements to Dorset Street have significantly enhanced traffic safety. Sight distances at the Dorset Street/Net Result Drive are excellent for both entering and exiting traffic. Therefore, the construction of this roadway will not result in any adverse traffic safety impacts. We thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Should you have any questions, or if we may be of additional assistance, please contact us. Sincerely, FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Brendan Kelly, P.E. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services APPENDIX A DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF DIVERTED AND SITE —GENERATED TRAFFIC FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN ORPORATED One Wentworth Drive WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 (802) 878-3000 JOB C o I SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED13Y {/ ��`�P� DATE CI IECKED BY SCALE DATE PROOM1 za-i ISftk St.�S12% I m: n (nr . mc.. Gaon. Miss. mm mo,m llmf lot, rm[ two In 63m FITZPATRICK•LLEWELLYN I, WORATED One Wentworth Drive WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 (802) 878-3000 N PRODW17N I IOU flit( 1 W0225 6380 JOB 9 ao 1 5 SI WET NO. Of CALCULATEDBY, n DATE CHECKED DY SCALE DATE APPENDIX S UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES DORSET STREET/NET RESULT DRIVE FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services � 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-i ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 3(::) PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION......,............... 50000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET....,.... NET RESULT DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET,'.''.. DORSET STREET NAME OF THE ANALYST..''''''.,'''''.'' D. CONGER DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 5-17-1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. 1994 OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION _____________________________________________________________________ TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB THRU -- 0 678 RIGHT -- 35 37 SB 0 NUMBER OF LANES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB .... ... ..... ..... ___ _______ _______ ..... _.... .... .......... ... LANES -- 1 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-c-, _____________________________________________________________________ PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS _______ __________ ________________ --------------------- EASTBOUND ----- --- --- WESTBOUND 0.00 9S 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 9� 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION _____________________________________________________________________ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV`S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ___________ _____________ --------------- EASTBOUND ~ WESTBOUND 0 0 0 x NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 ' SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS _____________________________________________________________________ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ..... _..... .... ADJUSTMENT ..... ..... ..... ... _.... ... ..... .... ..... ..... CRITICAL GAi:-- __ MINOR RIGHTS .... .... ..... .... WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR LEFTS WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NET RESULT DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... DORSET STREET DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 5-17-1994 ; 1994 OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING CONDITIONS CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-'j _____________________________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph> c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v L�G In M SH R SH _____ _________ ____________ ____________ ---- MINOR STREET WB LEFT 0 75 75 > 75 > 75 > E > 738 > 700 >� RIGHT 39 738 739 > 738 > 700 > A MAJOR STREET SG LEFT 0 480 480 480 480 � IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NET RESULT DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... DORSET STREET DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 5-17-1994 ; 1994 OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING CONDITIONS 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-i IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ � AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION........,............. 50000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... NET RESULT DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... DORSET STREET NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. D. CONGER DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yyl...... 5-17-1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. 1994 DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... LEFT -TURN LANE: ALL DIVERTED TRAFFIC INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL _____________________________________________________________________ ~ INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB ____ ____ ____ LEFT -- 0 0 55 THRU -- 0 671 891 RIGHT -- 63 46 0 NUMBER OF LANES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB ..... ..... .... .... ..... ..... _ _______ _.... ..... ..... .... ......... LANES -- 1 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-�.'_, _____________________________________________________________________ PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNG EASTBOUND ..... .... ..... ... _..... ..... ----- _.... .... ..... ..... .... .... .... .... ..... --- ________________ --------------------- --- - WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 H SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION _____________________________________________________________________ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ___________ _____________ --------------- EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS _____________________________________________________________________ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT ___________ CRITICAL GAF ____________ MINOR RIGHTS ______________ ________ WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.5) MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR LEFTS WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 [DENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NET RESULT DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET...- DORSET STREET DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 5-17-1994 ; 1994 DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... LEFT -TURN LANE: ALL DIVERTED TRAFFIC , CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF _____________________________________________________________________ -SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LD5 p M SH R SH ..... ..... ....... .............. .... .... _..... ..... ..... ..... ..... MINOR STREEl WB LEFT 0 75 69 RIGHT 69 737 737 MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 61 479 479 [DENTIFYING INFORMATION > 69 > 69 > E > 737 > 668 >� > 737 > 668 > (.'i 479 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NET RESULT DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... DORSET STREET DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 5-17-1994 ; 1994 DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... LEFT -TURN LANE: ALL DIVERTED TRAFFIC 418 A 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-i IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ � AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION............''','..... 50000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET.,..,.... NET RESULT DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ....... DORSET STREET NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. D. CONGER DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) .... 4. 5-17-1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. 1999 DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... LEFT -TURN LANE: ALL DIVERTED TRAFFIC INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL _____________________________________________________________________ INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB ____ ____ ____ LEFT -- 0 0 62 THW.,"U -- 0 792 1044 RIGHT -- 6C 47 � NUMBER OF LANES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB _______ _______ _______ LANES -- 1 2 2 � ^. ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-;.'-,. _____________________________________________________________________ PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE ..... _..... ..... ..... .... .... .... ..... FOR RIGHT TURNS ________________ FOR RIGHT TURN,"..") _______ EASTBOUND ----- ..... --- --- - WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION _____________________________________________________________________ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV`S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES .... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... _..... ..... _____________ ---------------- EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS _____________________________________________________________________ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ________ ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP ___________ ---------------- MINOR RIGHTS ______________ WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0,00 5.50 MINOR LEFTS WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NET RESULT DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... DORSET STREET DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 5-17-1994 ; 1999 DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... LEFT -TURN LANE: ALL DIVERTED TRAFFIC ' ~ � . ^^ CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-BERVICE _.... ..... .... .... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ......... _.... ..... ..... ..... ..... _____..... .... ..... _..... ..... ... ..... ________.... Page-3 .... ..... ... .... ..... .... .... ..... .... .... ..... ..... .... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ___ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v L�5 _.... .... ..... _..... ..... p .... ... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... M ___.... .... ..... .... .... _ ____________ SH R SH ..... .... __________ MINOR STREET WB LEFT 0 75 66 RIGHT 75 686 686 MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 68 406 406 > 66 > 66 > E > 686 > 611 > f", > 686 > 611 > vi 406 338 B IDENTIFYING INFORMATIO% _____________________________________________________________________ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NET RESULT DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... DORSET STREET DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 5-17-1994 ; 1999 DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... LEFT -TURN LANE: ALL DIVERTED TRAFFIC MEMORANDUM To: Project Files From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: Proposed Dorset Street Median Cut Date: May 18, 1994 Provided below are preliminary comments on the traffic impact study prepared by Fitzpatrick - Llewellyn, Inc. dated May 18, 1994: a) The analysis should also evaluate the impacts of a future public roadway which may potentially allow westbound left - turns and northbound left -turns at its intersection with Dorset Street. b) The analysis should be reviewed by CCRPC. c) The report should include an exhibit showing DHV turning movements for 1994 and 1998. d) Analysis should address safety impact of increased number of conflict points due tv aiicuyui■ u.i.cun. e) I question whether a left -turn taper and storage lane of 248 feet is necessary. The existing taper and storage lane at San Remo Drive north is 190' while at San Remo Drive south it is 130'. f) Based on several studies which compare the safety of median highways to non -median highways, it is recommended that a minimum distance of 350 feet be maintained between median breaks. The location of the proposed median break near Net Result appears to meet this standard. In addition, the literature recommends that a break in the median which serves a _private business or group of businesses be considered onlv if the use generates a minimum of 100 left -turning vehicles during the peak hour. The Net Result property is estimated to generate a total of 65 trip ends during the peak hour. Based on these standards, it is recommended that a break in the median be considered only if it will serve a public roadway. MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington City Council FROM: Joe Weith, City Planner RE: Proposed Dorset Street Median Break - Net Result DATE: May 25, 1994 The Planning Commission at their meeting of 5/24/94 reviewed the proposal by Eric Fleggenheimer to construct an additional break in the Dorset Street median in front of the Net Result building. The Commission felt that such a break may be beneficial if it were to serve a future public road extending east/west from Dorset Street through to San Remo Drive. In order to properly evaluate the impact of such a median break and public road, the commission recommended that a plan be prepared showing a future public road and how it would relate to the median break, land requirements, access to adjoining properties, utility relocations, etc. The Commission approved the following motion: "To ask the City Council to implement a study of all aspects of a possible —d i an break -"A - cc i hl � city o}� �} }y,,, vi ... t.-- �. a.. -- --A. ---1 -A— - pos---;!✓lc cil.Y st- ect. on l.11c San Remo block with a specific look at the location between the Net Result building and the Champlain Oil building." The Commission did not feel a median break would be justified if it were to serve only a private r.o.w. cc: Chuck Hafter Sonny Audette (cc5-25) Memorandum - May 24, 1994 May 20, 1994 Page 2 Planning agenda items Sewer: No additional sewer allocation needed. Traffic: This property is located in Traffic Overlay Zone 5 which allows this property to generate 16.3 vehicle trip ends (vte's) during the P.M. peak hour. The existing use is estimated to generated 6 vte's and with the increase in size to generate 7.5 vte's for a 1.5 vte increase. The applicant will be required to contribute $216 to the Williston Road Traffic Impact Fund - Area 2 for the 1.5 additional vte's to be generated by this project. Lighting: Existing exterior lighting consists of the following: --- one (1) 100 watt pole mounted incandescent lamp in the front yard. --- one (1) 60 watt building mounted entry light. --- five (5) 150 watt building mounted incandescent flood lights. No additional lighting proposed. 3) GREGG BELDOCK - REVISED BUILDING ELEVATIONS - SKETCH PLAN This application is to revise a condition of the 3/3/92 L&M Park amendment (minutes enclosed) approving certain building elevations/design for the retail building. Applicant proposes to alter the building elevations/design of the building approved on 2/2/94 (minutes enclosed) including exterior appearance. Applicant has submitted an elevation of the building from Shelburne Road. Elevations for the remaining three (3) sides should also be submitted. This information is needed to confirm compliance with height regulations. 4) NET RESULT - DORSET STREET MEDIAN BREAK Eric Flegenheimer of the Net Result met with the Council to present a plan to allow a break in the median in front of the Net Result property which would allow access to a planned roadway over his property. The roadway would connect through to San Remo Drive (see enclosed plan). The Council suggested the plan be reviewed by the Planning Commission for comments/recommendations. A copy of Chuck Hafter's memo to the Council is enclosed. Also enclosed is a 2 Memorandum - May 24, 1994 May 20, 1994 Page 3 Planning agenda items traffic study which was submitted with the plan. The plan is intended to partially implement a planned roadway connecting Dorset Street to San Remo Drive as shown on the City's official map (see enclosed). The purpose of the planned roadway is to divide the San Remo Drive block into two blocks of approximately 650' x 330'. The City Center plan recommends blocks of roughly 350' by 350' in order to promote pedestrian movement and increased access. The planned roadway would bring the San Remo block closer to this goal. At this point, Eric is proposing only a private roadway 30 feet in width which would be open to the public. It is planned that the other 30 feet necessary for a public roadway would come from the adjoining property owner to the south (Champlain Oil) at a later date. The median cut would allow left turns for southbound traffic only. Only right turns onto Dorset Street from the new roadway would be allowed. The new roadway would provide two 11' travel lanes and 8' wide parallel parking spaces on the south side of the road. Staff Comments: 1. The applicant should prepare a plan showing a future public roadway and how this roadway would interact with adjoining properties, Dorset Street and San Remo Drive. This needs to be done in order to properly review the proposed "interim" plan. The plan should show a 60' r.o.w., 40' wide pavement (two 11' travel lanes, two 9' parallel parking lanes), sidewalks, accesses to adjoining properties, etc. The plan should also show necessary site revisions to the adjoining properties to accommodate the public roadway. The plan should include design recommendations for the cut in the median and should identify any utility boxes, utility poles, fire hydrants, etc. that would need to be moved. 2. The applicant and property owner to the south (Champlain Oil) should dedicate access easements over their properties so that adjoining properties to the north and south can benefit from such a median cut and roadway. This is consistent with the City Center plan and Central District zoning. 3. Preliminary comments on the traffic impact study include the following: M Memorandum - Planning May 24, 1994 agenda items May 20, 1994 Page 4 a) The analysis should also evaluate the impacts of a future public roadway which may potentially allow westbound left - turns and northbound left -turns. b) The analysis should be reviewed by CCRPC. c) The report should include an exhibit showing DHV turning movements for 1994 and 1998. d) Analysis should address safety impact of increased number of conflict points due to median break. e) I question whether a left -turn taper and storage lane of 248 feet is necessary. The existing taper and storage lane at San Remo Drive north is 190' while at San Remo Drive south it is 130'. 4. Specific comments on the plan submitted include the following: a) The perpendicular parking spaces in front of the building will require backing out into the new roadway. This will not be allowed when the roadway is made public unless the spaces are angled and included within the public r.o.w. b) The parking area to the east of the building should be designed so that it is separate from the new roadway. A landscaped green strip should separate this parking area from the new roadway. c) The southbound left -turn taper and storage lane as shown on the plan is only 55' in length. This conflicts with the recommended length of 248' as indicated in the traffic study. d) The base of the new roadway should be constructed to City standard. e) The applicant should dedicate to the City an irrevocable offer of dedication for the portion of the future r.o.w. which encompasses their land. In addition, the applicant should record an access easement which allows access to the properties to the north. f) The applicant will need to submit a revised site plan for approval by the planning commission. 4 Memorandum - Planning May 24, 1994 agenda items May 20, 1994 Page 5 5. Because this proposal represents a significant change to the traffic circulation on Dorset Street and in the San Remo Drive area, I recommend that a cut in the median not be approved until a proper public roadway is designed and constructed and all related issues are addressed, including access easements, relocation of utilities, parking, site revisions, etc. 3) ZONING REGULATIONS UPDATE a) Institutional and Agricultural District - UVM lands: At the last meeting this issue was discussed, the commission discussed the possibility of allowing residential use on a portion of the Wheelock farm. The area being considered was the area east of the bikepath and at the bottom of the hill which descends from Spear Street. Enclosed is a map which identifies this area. Attributes of the area include the following. o approximately 20 acres in size. o currently used as cropland (alfalfa?). o Soils consist of Adam and Windsor loamy sands, considered prime farmland by Act 250. o relatively flat. Elevation is approximately 50 - 85 feet below the elevation of Spear Street. o no apparent wetlands on the site. o abuts Stonehedge Drive to the south and Swift Street to the north. Access to Swift Street would require stream crossing. o area runs north/south parallel to Spear Street, located approximately 950 feet west of Spear Street. o abuts R4 zoning to the south, located within 450 feet of R1 zoning located along west side of Spear Street. The primary consideration is whether the designation of this portion of the Wheelock farm for residential use would further the commission's stated goal of promoting the continued use of university -owned lands for educational, research and agricultural purposes. This area and a 10 acre area off Swift Street are the 5 Ive lv7-e �r-4 M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, South Burlington City Engineer Re: May 24, 1994 agenda items Date: May 13, 1994 MEDICAL OFFICE - 1540 WILLISTON ROAD 1. Existing sidewalk is continuous across driveway. 2. Existing lot drainage should be shown on the record plan. MID BLOCK ACCESS - 350 DORSET STREET 1. Opening up the median of newly constructed Dorset Street would be a mistake and may require Act 250 approval. Originally, plans were prepared for Dorset Street as a five lane street without a median. i an The r•ontor 1 F.. .. �.... ,..�,- d i eci mer ian The c-en -e lane was for unrestri 1..1.GU -L L U turns such as exits on Shelburne Road, however, in the Act 250 hearing there was objection especially from residents in the Brookwood area and little or none from the businesses along Dorset Street. That plan was rejected and the City was asked to come up with a landscaped plan and controlled left turns. The resulting plan was as built. This plan was available for at least two years before construction with little objection from the adjacent property owners. If the median is allowed to be opened it should allow for left turns out of the new street. 2. If a street is built it should conform to the City Center concept. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 May 20, 1994 Eric Flegenheimer Net Result 350 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Dorset Street Median Break Dear Mr. Flegenheimer: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 F.nrl nGar-i i s tha ar r7mria fnr npxt TnPsriav's P1 ann i na Cnmmi ss i nn meeting and comments from City Engineer Bill Szymanski and myself. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, May 24, 1994 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. S' :--erely, tkf-" P, Jo Weith, City Planner JW/mcp Encls cc: Brendan Kelley City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 TEL. (802) 658-7953 FAX (802) 658-4748 OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER CHARLES E. HAFTER April 29, 1994 Chairman and City Council City of South Burlington South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Continued discussion of alternate median crossing on Dorset Street To All Members: In previous discussions with business owners/operators in the 300 block of Dorset Street Council indicated that it was willing to continue discussions over an additional median break if such action would not present any traffic safety issues and there was public benefit occurring. I have continued to work with Eric Fleggenheimer of the Net Result. In the past month, the VAOT has turned down his request for a state directional sign on Dorset Street for statutory reasons and owners of the property at Dorset and Sherry Street have decided that they cannot donate land to a visible jughandle due to wetlands constraints on the remainder of the property. Mr. Fleggenheimer has now developed a new conceptual plan which he wants to share with you. It is my understanding that Mr. Fleggenheimer is willing to invest in formal traffic and engineering studies to justify the plan but prior to investing he feels he wants your opinion. A copy of the conceptual plan is attached. The plan is based on the City's eventual desire to have a public street connecting San Remo Drive and Dorset Street mid -block in this area. The mid -block crossing is a part of the City Center traffic plan. Eric is proposing to establish a private street with permanent free public access between Dorset and San Remo. South bound Dorset Street traffic would access the private street through one median City Council Alternate median April 29, 1994 Page 2 break. He will explain the concept to you. I think the concept has some merit but that additional public benefits should be built in. 1) The street should eventually become public property when additional width can be acquired from the adjoining property owners. Mr. Fleggenheimer should be asked to approve an irrevocable offer of dedication for the 30' north of his southern property line. This will, in the future, enable the City to acquire the r.o.w. without having to compensate the property owner for lost parking or for a taking. 2) The concept shows a right -turn only exit on to Dorset Street, so exiting traffic will not be permitted to recross Dorset Street. Based on the proposed design, it would be safer to make the private street one-way only and force exiting traffic to use San Remo Drive. This way conflicts to the perpendicular parking and backing traffic would be reduced. 3) The right of adjacent property owners for future thru connections should be protected by easements. This will make this street a benefit to more than one property owner. 4) All proper planning permits should be required including revision of parking requirements, snow removal and landscaping. Please discuss this matter. Sincerely, Chuck Hafter City Manager CH/mcp Encls 0 A�4 ,vow City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 May 11, 1994 Eric Fleggenheimer c/o Net Result 350 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Landscaping Dear Mr. Fleggenheimer: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 A recent inspection of your property at 350 Dorset Street revealed that there is some landscaping missing. I have highlighted these areas in yellow on the enclosed plan. Please be sure and have this landscaping planted this spring. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Since ely, Raymond J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant RJB/mcp City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 September 22, 1993 Eric Fleggenheimer c/o Net Result 350 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Landscaping at 350 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Fleggenheimer: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 A recent inspection of your property at 350 Dorset Street revealed that you have not installed the landscaping which was part of your most recent site plan approval. The landscaping involved consist of : 1) Boston Ivy along the southerly boundary, 2) the White Cedar along the north boundary easterly of the dumpster enclosure and 3) the trees along San Remo Drive. Please have this landscaping planted this fall. If for some reason you are not able to plant this fall, please let me know Sinc bly, Ra o d J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant RJB/mcp cc: Richard Ward PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 June 1, 1993 Leonard Duffy P.O. Box 366 Hinesburg, Vermont 05461 Re: Net Result Amendment, 350 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Duffy: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision for the 2/9/93 Planning Commission approval. Please note the conditions of approval.. If you have any questions, please give me a call. in erely, i J Weith, Ci, y Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 March 19, 1993 Leonard Duffy P.O. Box 366 Hinesburg, Vermont 05461 Re: Net Result Amendment, 350 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Duffy: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Q Enclosed please find a copy of the February 9, 1993 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please note the conditions of approval. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, zV oe Weith,&d City Planner Encls JW/mcp cc: Eric Fleggenheimer 1 MOTION OF APPROVAL Net Result I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the revised site plan application of Eric Flegenheimer, d.b.a. EMA Inc., to amend the circulation, coverage and landscaping on a site containing a 7,680 square foot retail building as depicted on a plan entitled "Site Plan, 350 Dorset Street, E.M.A. Inc.", prepared by Leonard Duffy and Assoc. and dated 4/16/92, last revised 1/11/93, with the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2,. A- expressly�represente by the applicantt- the applicant shall r cord in the South Burlington Land Records` an "access e sement" ,which allows custome�s and emp cyees df the property the north ( ie . 348 Dorset Street), to travel --ver (the Iptoreet plicant' s property.,. (ie . , 3.50 Dorset ,$-treet ) to access Dorset or' San Remo..--brive . 3. The plan shall be revised to show the location of the access between this property and 348 Dorset Street. The access shall be located so as not to conflict with approved parking spaces on the 348 Dorset Street property. The revised plan shall be �.; submitted to the City Planner for approval within 90 days. 4. The above referenced access easement shall be recorded in the South Burlington land records within 90 days.--ar"this approval is null and void: w-.. Any changes to the site which differ from this approved site plan shall not be made without first obtaining approval from the Planning Commission. (mo-nr) 0 � � � .., ,_ 0� --- ,- _ c "Z-, �'� ....::cu:�..aiw.,ai�vte:t7�+�•ac:o.�.� zab:ai+:,�utabx City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7955 658-7958 February 18, 1993 Leonard Duffy P.O. Box 366 Hinesburg, Vermont 05461 Re: Net Result Amendment, 350 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Duffy: Enclosed please find a copy of the December 29, 1992 Planning Commission meeting minutes. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Si rely, - e Weith, City Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp cc: Eric Fleggenheimer City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 February 5, 1993 Leonard Duffy P.O. Box 366 Hinesburg, Vermont 05461 Re: Net Result Amendment, 350 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Duffy: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Comments from City Engineer Bill Szymanski and Fire Chief Jim Goddette were forwardQd at an earlier date. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, February 9, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Si erely, e Weith, ity Planner Encls JW/mcp cc: Eric Fleggenheimer LEONARD OUFFY and ASSOCIATES architects planners development consultants MAIN STREET BOX 366 HINESBURG. VERMONT 05461 802 482 3040 FAX 802 482 3490 December 22, 1992 South Burlington Planning Commission attention: Raymond J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant City of South Burlington, Vermont 05403 re: 350 Dorset Street, site plan revisions Ladies and Gentlemen: We have submitted a revised site plan for this project indicating two significant changes from the original submission of April 1992. These changes have resulted from conditions that were unforseen at that time, but do not exceed allowable standards of the Zoning Ordinance. 1. The area between the building and the property to the north has been paved to the property line (at adjacent lot paving). An underground oil tank in this area had caused contamination of soils of unknown extent at the time of the original site plan submission. Vermont Federal Bank which was responsible for a clean up and monitoring program related to this problem, was also responsible for paving this area. It is our understanding that an impervious surface was recommended by the soils consultants involved and the Agency of Natural Resouorces. Paving to the adjoining parking lot will have the additional longterm benefit of allowing more manuvering room and exit choices for both properties. Mr Desarno has agreed to the change and if it is approved by the Commission a mutual access agreement will be finalized. 2. It is proposbd to leave a portion of the existing gravel as overflow parking (as per the original submission). At the time of the initial submission, additional tenants for the building were unknown. It has become apparent that the combination of employees and customers, at least on a seasonal basis, require more parking spaces than the 42 dictated by the Zoning Ordinance. We propose to use the designated gravel area for employee parking. After monitoring the situation through several seasons of operation, it may be determined to pave all or part of that area. trust that this request will be considered at your December 29, 1992 meetinq. a��a/sa��d> `/3y ell T, c Memorandum - December 29, December 22, Page 3 Planning 1992 agenda items 1992 Buildings meet the setback requirements for the I-O district. Airport Approach Cone: Lots 2-12 are located in the Airport Approach Cone. Applicant will be subject to the limitations provided in Section 19.45 of the zoning regulations. Preliminary Plat: The following additional information should be provided for preliminary plat review. --- survey of entire tract by licensed land surveyor. --- updated traffic report --- parking spaces shown --- landscaping and lighting plan with details --- dumpsters shown and screened. --- contours, existing and proposed for PUD --- drainage plan 4) detailed engineering drawings for relocated drainageway. NET RESULT - REVISED SITE PLAN - 350 DORSET STREET This project consists of minor revisions to the site plan which increases coverage. Staff discovered the deviation from the approved site plan and requested the applicant apply to the Planning Commission for approval. The site plan was originally approved on 5/21/92 (minutes enclosed). Staff requested, but did not receive, a written statement from the applicant demonstrating that there has been a change in conditions to justify the requested changes and to justify the Planning Commission's reconsideration. This property located at 350 Dorset Street is within the Central District 2 zone. It is bounded on the north by a fabric store and beauty salon (Dorset Street) and a radiator repair shop (San Remo Drive), on the south by Champlain Oil's trucking terminal, on the east by San Remo Drive and on the west by Dorset Street. Access/circulation: No change in access to either Dorset Street or San Remo Drive. The revised plan adds pavement to the north side 3 11�I(D(�z, LA ����3�C,Z December 29, 1992 agenda items December 22, 1992 Page 4 r 0 of the building which connects with the paved area on the adjacent Desarno property. This paved connection allows for the free flow of traffic between the two (2) properties. One of the problems with this proposal is that there are several parallel parking spaces on the Desarno property approved by the y �q Planning Commission in 1985 (see enclosed plan). One solution to this problem would be to designate a specific access point between w s' the two properties which would not interfere with parking on the,I 5 Desarno property. If the applicant wishes to pursue this mutual access, it should be shown on the plan and an access agreement submitted for review by the City Attorney. This mutual access arrangement furthers the provision contained in Section 2.044 of the Central District ordinance. Coverage/setbacks: Building coverage is 14.9% (maximum allowed is 40%). Overall coverage is now 85% (maximum allowed is 90%). This is an increase of 1.9% above the previous approval. The Planning Commission in its 5/21/92 approval required that the existing gravel areas which are not used for parking be converted to lawn., This requirement would further reduce the overall coverage. ,y Applicant is requesting that the gravel areas remain gravel to I"/ provide overflow parking when needed. Staff recommends that the gravel area be converted to grass unless the applicant can demonstrate a need to park in this area. This need has not been Iq demonstrated. a� r�"' No change to the setbacks. Landscaping; Some minor changes have been made to the landscaping. 50 white cedar trees have been relocated from the newly paved area to a strip along the northerly boundary on the San Remo Drive side of the property. There is a tree planted along San Remo Drive a ice, between the access drive and the sign which is not shown on the !"- plan. Parking: No changes. Other: --- plan indicates pavers along the south side of the building but there are no pavers here, instead a concrete sidewalk was constructed, this should be indicated on the plan. �-- 4 Memorandum - December 29, December 22, Page 5 5) Planning 1992 agenda items 1992 --- plan indicates edge of awning/canopy but the existing awning/canopy does not project out from the building as indicated. Plan should be revised to show current condition. KENNEDY DRIVE INVESTMENTS - HAIRDRESSER - SITE PLAN This project consists of the conversion of a 1,300 square foot condominium to retail use (hairdressing and tanning salon). This property was last reviewed by the Planning Commission on 3/13/79. This change in use results in a multiple use of the property requiring approval from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The Zoning Board of Adjustment held a hearing on the proposal on 12/14/92 and continued it to their 1/11/93 meeting. This property located at 595 Dorst Street lies within the C2 district. It is bounded on the north by City Hall, on the south and west by interstate ramps, and on the east by Dorset Street. Access/circulation: Access is provided via the shared curb cut with City Hall and an access drive on City property. The Dorset Street reconstruction eliminated the property's only curb cut on Dorset Street. Circulation is one-way around the building in a counterclockwise direction and is adequate. Parking: This property will now require 43 parking spaces and 45 parking spaces are being provided including two (2) handicapped spaces. Parking spaces #33, 34 and 35 are partially located within the Dorset Street r.o.w. These spaces must be relocated outside of the r.o.w. Landscaping: There is no minimum landscaping requirement since no building improvements are proposed. Existing landscaping is adequate. C.O. Zone: A 50 foot strip along both the southerly and westerly boundaries of the property are in the CO zone. The southerly zone is shown but not the westerly one. Plan should be revised to show the C.O. zone along the westerly boundary. 5 Memorandum - Planning February 9, 1993 agenda items February 5, 1993 Page 3 G Coverage/setbacks: Building coverage is 8% (maximum allowed is 30%). Overall coverage is 23% (maximum allowed is 70%). Front yard coverage is being reduced from 78.7% to 60.1% (maximum allowed is 30%). Setback requirements are met. Parking: This project requires a total of 34 parking spaces for customers and employees. The Planning Commission at the 12/29/92 meeting indicated that 20 spaces would be adequate for customers and employees and the applicant is proposing 21 spaces. The applicant is also providing 44 spaces for display vehicles and two (2) handicapped spaces for a total of 67 spaces being provided. The customer parking spaces should be painted on the pavement. Also, the limits of the vehicle display areas should be painted. Landscaping: No new landscaping is proposed. Lighting: Current lighting consists of one (1) 100 watt mercury vapor light and fifteen (15) 100 watt building mounted floodlights. Traffic: This property is located in Traffic Overlay Zone 5 which would allow this property to generate 240 vehicle trip ends (vte's) during the P.M. peak hour. I.T.E. estimates the proposed use to generate 45 vte's. Sidewalk: The applicant should contribute $15 per linear foot of frontage. 5) NET RESULT - REVISED SITE PLAN - 350 DORSET STREET This application was continued from the December 29, 1992 meeting (minutes not available). The purpose of the application is for the Planning Commission to review minor changes to the originally approved site plan. At the last meeting the Planning Commission requested that an expert be present to address the clean-up issue and whether or not the clean-up could take place underneath lawn as originally shown and approved. The applicant has submitted a letter (see enclosed) to demonstrate that there has been a change in conditions to justify the requested changes and to justify the Planning Commission's reconsideration. Memorandum - Planning February 9, 1993 agenda items February 5, 1993 Page 4 r This property located at 350 Dorset Street is within the Central w District 2 zone. It is bounded on the north by a fabric store and beauty salon (Dorset Street) and a radiator repair shop (San Remo Drive), on the south by Champlain Oil's trucking terminal, on the east by San Remo Drive and on the west by Dorset Street. Access/circulation: No change in access to either Dorset Street or San Remo Drive. The revised plan adds pavement to the north side of the building which connects with the paved area on the adjacent Desarno property. This paved connection allows for the free flow of traffic between the two (2) properties. , One of the problems with this proposal is that there are several parallel parking spaces on the Desarno property approved by the Planning Commission in 1985 (see enclosed plan). One solution to a' this problem would be to designate a specific access point between the two properties which would not interfere with parking on the,va Desarno property. If the applicant wishes to pursue this mutual access, it should be shown on the plan and an access agreement i submitted for review by the City Attorney. This mutual access arrangement furthers the provision contained in Section 1.70 of the J r, Central District ordinance. r� Coverage/setbacks: Building coverage is 14.9% (maximum allowed is 40%). Overall coverage is now 80% (maximum allowed is 90%). The revised plan shows a portion of the gravel area, which was required as part of the 5/21/92 approval to be converted to lawn, as to be paved. This was discussed at the last meeting. No change to the setbacks. Landscaping: Some minor changes have been made to the landscaping. 50 white cedar trees have been relocated from the newly paved area to a strip along the northerly boundary on the San Remo Drive side of the property. There is a tree planted along San Remo Drive between the access drive and the sign which is not shown on the plan. Parking: The expanded parking area results in ten (10) additional parking spaces for a total of 53 spaces. Only 43 spaces are required by standard. 4 Memorandum February 9, February 5, Page 5 - Planning 1993 agenda items 1993 Dumpster: A new 8'x32' dumpster enclosure is proposed along the northerly boundary. The enclosure is proposed for only three (3) sides leaving the south side exposed to the parking area. The applicant should consider enclosing the dumpster area on all sides to enhance the appearance of the property and to contain windblown debris. 6) NOWLAND II - 73 UNIT PRD - PRELIMINARY PLAT This project consists of a planned residential development consisting of 73 single family lots. This project was last reviewed by the Planning Commission on 12/8/92 (minutes enclosed) when this project was combined with the Southeast Summit project containing a total of 369 units. The two (2) projects have again been separated and this project reduced from 132 units (92 single family lots and 40 multi -family elderly units) to 73 single family lots. This property is located on the easterly side of Spear Street in the vicinity of Deerfield Drive. It is bounded on the west by Spear Street and several single family residences, on the north, south and east by undeveloped property. It is located within the Southeast Quadrant District. Access: The development is proposed to be served by two (2) accesses, one at either end of the property along Spear Street . The southerly access will be an extension of Deerfield Drive and is part of the east -west arterial shown on the Interim Official Map. The applicant should address the impact of the northerly access on the adjacent single family homes. The traffic impact analysis (see enclosed) submitted for the project addresses the traffic impact of this intersection but does not address the impact on the adjacent homes. This access will intersect with Spear Street directly opposite the home at 1455 Spear Street which will result in headlights shining into the house. Staff recommends that the access be relocated 150 feet to the south so that the access will be opposite the trees 1--tween the boundary of 1455 and 1475 Spear Street. A cul-de-sac street is proposed on the easterly side of the property running in a north -south direction. This street would serve 20 lots and would provide future access to the Farrell 5 1 LEONARD HUFFY and ASSOCIATES architects planners development consultants MAIN STREET BOX 366 HINESBURG, VERMONT 05461 802 482 3040 FAX 802 482 3490 December 22, 1992 South Burlington Planning Commission attention: Raymond J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant City of South Burlington, Vermont 05403 re: 350 Dorset Street, site plan revisions Ladies and Gentlemen: We have submitted a revised site plan for this project indicating two significant changes from the original submission of April 1992. These changes have resulted from conditions that were unforseen at that time, but do not exceed allowable standards of the Zoning Ordinance. 1. The area between the building and the property to the north has been paved to the property line (at adjacent lot paving). An underground oil tank in this area had caused contamination of soils of unknown extent at the time of the original site plan submission. Vermont Federal Bank which was responsible for a clean up and monitoring program related to this problem, was also responsible for paving this area. It is our understanding that an impervious surface was recommended by the soils consultants involved and the Agency of Natural Resouorces. Paving to the adjoining parking lot will have the additional longterm benefit of allowing more manuvering room and exit choices for both properties. Mr Desarno has agreed to the change and if it is approved by the Commission a mutual access agreement will be finalized. 2. It is proposed to leave a portion of the existing gravel as overflow parking (as per the original suhmission). At the time of the initial submission, additional tenants for the building were unknown. It has become apparent that the combination of employees and customers, at least on a seasonal basis, require more parking spaces than the 42 dictated by the Zoning Ordinance. We propose to use the designated gravel area for employee parking. After monitoring the situation through several seasons of operation, it may be determined to pave all or part of that area. trust that this request will be considered at your December 29, 1992 meeting. LEONARD DUFFY L and ASSOCIATES architects planners consultants MAIN STREET BOX 366 HINESBURG, VERMONT 05461 802 482 3040 FAX 802 482 3490 PROJECT FILE ORRESPONDENCE FILE -BOOK - LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE t/I2 (� ATTENTION RE vAN 1 ? 1933 WE ARE SENDING XATTACHED 0 UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA ❑ SAMPLES ❑ SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ CONTRACTS ❑ LITERATUFE ❑ ENGINEERING DRAWINGS ❑ OTHER ❑ PLANS ❑ CHANGE ORDERS ❑ PAINTS ❑ LETTERS COPIES DATE NO DESCRIPTION r] THESE ARE BEING SENT: ❑ FOR YOUR APPROVAL ❑ OR YOUR USE FOR YOUR REVIEW ❑ FOR YOUR COMMENTS ❑ FOR YOUR SIGNATURE ❑ PER YOUR REQUEST ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ❑ APPROVED AS CHANGED ❑ REJECTED AS NOTED ❑ REJECTED AS CHANGED ❑ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ❑ RESUBMIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL ❑ SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION ❑ RENEW COPIES FOR I Z/-Z, l'r z �G M7-G, m /oz//9 2- a'tC %' Gi Awl LEONARL.J DUFFY and ASSOCIATES architects 0 pianners 0 develop,ent consultants MAIN STREET BOB( 366 F INESf#t3r'$G, VEb2il ONT 05461 002 482 3040 FAX 802 482 3400 December 22, 1992 South Burlington Planning Commission attention: Raymond J. Belair, Zoning and Planning assistant City of South Burlington, Vermont 05403 re: 350 Dorset Street, site plan revisions Ladies and Gentlemen: We have submitted a revised site plan for this project indicating two significant changes from the original submission of April 1992, These changes have resulted from conditions that were unforseen at that time, but do not exceed allowable standards of the Zoning Ordinance, 1. The area between the building and the property to the north has been paved to the property line (at adjacent lot paving). An underground oil tank in this area had caused contamination of soils of unknown extent at the time of the original site plan sub; nission. Vermont Federal Bank which was responsible for a clean up and monitoring program related to this problem, was also responsible for paving this area, It is our understanding that an impervious surface was recommended by the soils consultants involved and the Agency of Natural Resouorces. Paving to the adjoining parking lot will have the additioi,31 longterm benefit of allowing more manuvering room and exit choices for both properties. Mr Desarno has agreed to the change and if it is approved by the Commission a mutual access agreement will be finalized. 2. It is proposed to leave a portion of the existing gravel as overflow parking (as per the original submission). At the time of the initial submission, additional tenants for the building were unknown. It has become apparent that the combination of employees and customers, at least on a seasonal basis, require more parking spaces than the 42 dictated by the Zoning Ordinance. We propose to use the designated gravel area for employee parking. After monitoring the situation through several seasons of operation, it may be determined to pave all or part of that area, trust that this request will be considered at your December 29, 10-92 meeting. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 December 22, 1992 Leonard Duffy P.O. Box 366 Hinesburg, Vermont 05461 Re: Net Result Amendment, 350 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Duffy: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Comments from City Engineer Bill Szymanski and Fire Chief Jim Goddette were forwarded at an earlier date. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, December 29, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. K�Cerely, J e Weith, City Planner Encls cc: Eric Fleggenheimer 1CY�� 271-d" r ' FINE TREES i i Go vARKir.)lx 0 ij r 2o� 1 � i • O O_O / Q4p OO MULCH iGEWALk — G k A `>-) ffPP/Lov�17 e/6/PS VT rye - State of Vermont T fr WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER DISPOSAL PERMIT LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED CASE NO. WW-4-0542-1 Environmental Protection Rules APPLICANT EMA, Inc. Effective September 10, 1982 ADDRESS 350 Dorset Street. South Burlington, VT 05403 This project, consisting of revising use of previously approved commercial building for the following; specialty food store with deli (no seating) and a maximum of 7 employees, hair salon with 3 chairs and 3 operators retail space with 5 employees and a bagel bakery with 20 seats (serving 2 meals) municipal water and sewer services located off Spear St. in the City of South Burlington, Vermont is hereby approved under the requirements of the regulations named above, subject to the following conditions. GENERAL (1) This permit does not relieve the permittee from obtaining all other approvals and permits as may be required from the Act 250 District Environmental Commission, the Department of Labor and Industry (phone 828-2106), the Vermont Department of Health (phone 863-7220), and local officials PRIOR to proceeding with this project. (2) No alterations to the existing building other than those indicated on the approved plan or Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permit, which would change or affect the exterior water supply or wastewater disposal or the approved use of the building shall be allowed without prior review and approval from the Agency of Natural Resources. (3) In the event of a transfer of ownership (partial or whole) of this project, the transferee shall become permittee and be subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit. (4) By acceptance of this permit, the permittee agrees to allow representatives of the State of Vermont access to the property covered by the permit, at reasonable times, for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with Vermont environmental/health statutes and regulations, with this permit. (5) The Vermont Department of Health is to be contacted in regard to any regulations and/or licenses required by their Department. (They may be reached at 60 Main Street, Burlington, Vermont, or by phoning 804-863-7220). or r Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permit WW-4-0542-1, EMA, Inc. P,tge 2 (6) The Protection Division now reviews the sewage and water systems for public buildings under 10 V.S.A., Chapter 61 - Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permit. (7) All conditions set forth in Water Supply & Wastewater Disposal Permit #WW-4-0542 dated 9/8/92 shall remain in effect except as modified or amended herein. WATER'SUPP.LY (8) The project is approved for water supply by connection to the municipal water system. No other means of obtaining potable water shall be allowed without prior review and approval by the Division of Protection. SEWAGE DISPOSAL (9) The project is approved for connection to the South Burlington Airport Parkway wastewater treatment facility for a maximum of 1305 gallons of sewage per day. Dated at Essex Jct., Vermont this 14th day of December, 1992. Elizabeth A. McLain, Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation By QV,n-)6-V-C__.. UJ A �?------ ssanne Wyma Assistant Regional Engineer cc: P. Howard Flanders, P.E. City of South Burlington Water Supply Division Department of Health Department of Labor and Industry Leonard Duffy City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 December 1, 1992 Leonard Duffy P.O. Box 366 Hinesburg, VT 05461 Re: Net Result Amendment, 350 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Duffy: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are some preliminary comments on the above referenced project from City Engineer Bill Szymanski, Fire Chief Jim Goddette and myself. Please respond to these comments with additional information and/or revised plans no later than Wednesday, December 16, 1992. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sin ely, , Raym nd J. Belair Zoning & Planning Assistant RB/peh cc: Eric Fleggenheimer MEMORANDUM TO: Project Files � FROM: Raymond J. BelaifJZoning and Planning Assistant DATE: December 1, 1992 RE: Preliminary Comments - December 29, 1992 Agenda Items GREEN ACRES - 11 LOT PUD & OFFICE COMPLEX - SKETCH PLAN --- this property is located within the Hinesburg Road - North View Protection Zone. Applicant should provide detailed information on the allowable height of each building within the development. plan SP3 should show the wetland protection areas shown on the approved preliminary plat. sheet SP3 indicates that lot #1 is 47.4 acres and sheet S-lA indicates this same lot is 50.44 acres, which is correct? applicant should propose curb cut locations along Swift Street Extension to minimize number of curb cuts. the proposed office buildings do not conform with the building setback from the southern boundary which was approved at preliminary plat. traffic study should be updated. provide front yard coverage percentage. NET RESULT - REVISED SITE PLAN - 350 DORSET STREET coverage information located in box titled "Zoning Information" should be revised to reflect current application. a condition of the 5/21/92 approval required that the plantings along San Remo Drive be setback at least 32 feet from the San Remo Drive centerline, this setback should be indicated on the plan. plan indicates pavers along the south side of the building but there are no pavers here, instead a concrete sidewalk was constructed, this should be indicated on the plan. dumpsters are not located on the concrete slab as shown on the plan, these dumpsters must be placed on the slab behind the fence. fire hydrant located at the southeast corner of the site should be shown on the plan. a new tree was planted along San Remo Drive between the access drive and the sign which is not shown on the plan. Preliminary Comments December 29, 1992 Agenda Items December 1, 1992 Page 2 applicant should submit access agreement for review by City Attorney which allows property to the north access over this property. plan indicates edge of awning/canopy but the existing awning/canopy does not project out from the building as indicated. Plan should be revised to show current condition. the applicant needs to demonstrate that there has been a change in conditions to justify the requested changes and to justify the Planning Commission's reconsideration. This issue should be addressed in writing and submitted to staff. staff recommends that the existing gravel area be seeded and grassed as required in the previous approval. BARRY'S TRANSMISSIONS - AUTO SALES & REPAIR - SITE PLAN plan should indicate the property's street address. existing and proposed exterior lighting details should be submitted and location of lights shown on plan. plan should show location of any proposed dumpsters. 34 parking spaces required for customers and employees and 38 spaces are being provided, this leaves only four (4) spaces for vehicle storage and display. Plan should indicate which spaces will be dedicated for employee/customer and which ones are for vehicle display/storage. Two (2) of these spaces must be handicapped spaces. if the applicant wants approval for auto sales, he might want t"& show more than four (4) spaces for display. parking spaces scale to be 35 feet in length -and the requirement is only 18 feet. P MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer RE: Preliminary Comments December 29, 1992 Agenda Items DATE: November 30, 1992 BARRY'S TRANSMISSION (Former Subaru), WILLISTON ROAD 1. Plan should include a title. 2. A concrete sidewalk should be constructed across the entire frontage. E.M.A. INC., 350 DORSET STREET 1. Plan dated 4-16-92 is acceptable. GREEN ACRES, HINESBURG ROAD 1. Vosburgh Lane shall be a 1private street. 2. Swift Street Extension should include turning lanes for entrance and exit for Lot No. 1 and Goodrich Lane. TO: FROM: RE: DATE: 1. 2. 3. 0§nut� N urliugtnu ire Department 575 +Borset --*trect 5uutb +Burlington. 11Ermnnt 05403 (802)658-7960 SO. BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION CHIEF GODDETTE TUESDAY DECEMBER 29,1992 AGENDA ITEMS MONDAY NOVEMBER 23,1992 GREEN ACRES INDUSTRIAL PARK HINESBURG ROAD PROJECT # 86091-50 PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THIS DEPARTMENT ON THIS PROJECT. AT THIS TIME I FEEL THE LAY OUT OF THE BUILDINGS "- WITH THE PARKING LOTS COULD BE DESIGNED DIFFRENT TO ALLOW BETTER ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY. I ALSO NEED INFORMATION ON THE WATER SYSTEM AND HYDRANT LOCATION ON THE PROPERTY BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL IS GIVEN. 350 DORSET STREET SITE PLAN JOB NO. NET 92 PARKING AND ACCESS CHANGE PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND AT THIS TIME I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM FOR GIVEN EMERGENCY PROTECTION ON THE CHANGES THEY ARE REQUESTING TO MAKE. LOT # 9 WILLISTON ROAD PLAN REVIEWED BY THIS DEPARTMENT AND ONLY PROBLEM I CAN SEE IS CHANGES SHOULD BE MADE FOR BETTER ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT TO THE SIDE NEXT TO THE OLD PLYWOOD CITY BUILDING. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON a tvFj�, SITE PLAN APPLICATION 1) OWNER OF RECORD (name, address, phone #) 2) APPLICANT (name, address, phone #) J 3) CONTACT PERSON (name, address, phone #) 3C40 4) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: �'r' 5) LOT NUMBER (if applicable) 6) PROPOSED USE(SI PC _. _ 7) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e. total building square footage, # units, maximum height and 4 floors, square feet per floor) 8) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 1- �+ 9) LOT COVERAGE: building �_%; landscaped areas P %` < building, parking, outside storage/0 % 10) COST ESTIMATES: Buildings Landscaping $ Other Site Improvements (please list with cost) $ � _ 11 ) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: tJf7. 12. M2 12) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in and out) As R--g oR467X*?, 1100ff1. Estimated trip ends (in and out) during the following hours: Monday through Friday 11-12 noon 12-1p.m. 1-2 p.m. 2-3 p.m. 3-4 p.m. 4-5 p.m. 5-6 p.m. 6-7 p.m. 13) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 14) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: DATE OF SUBMISSION SIGNATURE WrXAPTLICANT DATE OF HEARING Ol 'erou (04 -19 ,(2C ek7 offlow -ig LEONARD DUFFY L and ASSOCIATES architects planners consultants MAIN STREET BOX 366 HINESBURG, VERMONT 05461 802 482 3040 FAX 802 482 3490 TO C�y"� L 5eet3 PROJECT FILE --� -)RRESPONDENCE FILE BOOK LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE ATTENTION l RE WE ARE SENDING ❑ ATTACHED ❑ UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA ❑ SAMPLES ❑ SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ CONTRACTS ❑ LITERATUFE ❑ ENGINEERING DRAWINGS ❑ OTHER ❑ PLANS ❑ CHANGE ORDERS ❑ PRINTS ❑ LETTERS COPIES DATE NO DESCRIPTION a iI 2 C I I x 1 ^T e.tooze-o TH SE ARE BEING SENT: FOR YOUR APPROVAL FOR YOUR USE ❑ FOR YOUR REVIEW ❑ FOR YOUR COMMENTS ❑ FOR YOUR SIGNATURE ❑ PER YOUR REQUEST ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ❑ APPROVED AS CHANGED ❑ REJECTED AS NOTED ❑ REJECTED AS CHANGED ❑ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ❑ RESUBMIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL ❑ SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION ❑ RENEW COPIES FOR Name: ((2 ApP • # _ AGENCY OF (office use only y T�.�iUP'1L iL�SO[Ji',GF:S Permits, Compliance & Protection Division PUBLIC BUILDING APPLICATION (See instructions on back. Contact District Environmental Office if questions.) • r � CONSULTANT: (architect, engineer, plumber) •.�. ��! I / J� (mail) (street) (town APPLICANT: (if other than landak-ner) �i' a - .. ON +.' Address: —Ilkt� (mail) Tel. No.: Tel. No.. 45z :5G40 s zip PROJECT: F-&%t &-5 ?l' c5;0 poese-^ S'(m6ey- -- A D'P (cA•(_ Location: (Attach map) Town: ZIpZ,%TH J�Uj-�,L -CRoad/Highway:_ A. Size of Parcel: (include all adjacent tracts of land which you may own, or control by lease, option, etc.) (, S J& B. Does landowner own or control (lease, option, etc.) any other property within a 5-mile radius: Yes No _ . If so, what? Acreage: List any prior Environmental or Act 250 permits issued for A & B above: WW--A -OS4 2 Describe the project: (Be specific: see item #1 on back) (Attach 2 sets of plans) •.fir.. 6 1 P41 _ % a �i�..ri.�►� ^ '.ram %r ii: �! �' .di �/� J�' •• TYPE OF WATER SOURCE: (I-inicipal, offsite, camunity, onsite) LAOL�V-LI jqSd (Attach approvals - see #6 on back) TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL: (MLmicipal, offsite, coma pity, onsite)�Au1'1GtF (If municipal, attach approval - see #5 on back) Number of gallons of sewage generated: IWVM4 fV Lvr�' ZZ'71;W#-4-1T � lc�f;o Pk Project Cost: (Building and site improvements only. DO NOT incl de cost of land, plant equipment, etc.) TOTAL COST: _/2 6=2 APPLICATION FEE: Secra,xe Flows: 0 - 409 grxi - $60.00; 500 - 1000 08o $10zr" 0•0ZZ ; Aver 10 0 0 gpd $1 .0 0 , payable to STAT? OF VE iicffP . K1,0S (da e) ( landowner) ( to) ) scant) TfERE IS rM BE NO SITE WORK OR OON.STRIJCTIGN CUhrU\XMD ON THIS PRaTDCP WI E D. A pr"VAL FROM THE AGENCY OF M`T'+TDAT. TD'VQ-rT[X-1-C.. . SEP 301987 R. 4/86 LEONARD DUFFY AND ASSOCIATES City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH RI R1 IA1!_TllK1 \/ C O R A/I R iT AC A no v11�11�u1 V1I vL1 IIVIVI`I1 VJ`tuo FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 September 30, 1992 Leonard Duffy P.O. Box 366 --- Hinesburg, Vermont 05461 Re: Net Result, 350 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Duffy: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Please be advised that your request for an additional sewer allocation of 500 gpd for the above referenced property is approved. This property is therefore approved for a total sewer allocation of 725 gpd. This building is served by the City's Airport Parkway Treatment facility which has sufficient capacity to handle this additional demand. If you have any questions, please give me a call. S/Tin, c e r e Y. wg�.� e Weith, City Planner JW/mcp City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 November 5, 1992 Eric Fleggenheimer The Net Result 350 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Site Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Fleggenheimer: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 As discussed by phone on November 4th, you will be required to obtain an amendment to your previously approved site plan. This amendment is for the additional amount of paving you installed on the north side of your property. Please complete the enclosed site plan application and return it to me with the $25.00 application fee and the revised plans as soon as possible. Upon receipt of this information you will be scheduled for a meeting before the Planning Commission. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sin r6ly, Raym nd J. tBelai�r, Zoning and Planning Assistant RJB/mcp cc: Leonard Duffy City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 November 19, 1992 William Fucci Burlington Agency One Burlington Square P.O. Box 246 Burlington, VT 05402-0246 Re: Net Result, 350 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Fucci: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Please be advised that your request for an additional sewer allocation of 580 gpd for the above referenced property is approved. This property is therefore approved for a total sewer allocation of 1305 gpd. This building is served by the City's Airport Parkway Treatment facility which has sufficient capacity to handle this additional demand. Please be advised that you are required to pay a $2.50 per gallon sewer allocation fee. Please submit the payment to Zoning Administrator Richard Ward. Please contact me if you have any questions. i er 1 J e Weith, ity Planner JW/mcp City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET S011TH B 1R1 INOTON VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7955 658-7958 � e , October 26, 1992 Leonard Duffy, AIA Box 366 Hinesburg, Vermont 05461 Re: Retail, 350 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Duffy: Enclosed please find a copy of the Findings of Fact � Decision on the above referenced project. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Si c Ily-, oe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp cc: Eric Fleggenheimer PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BUR`!NGTON VERMQn:T vSTvv FAX 658-4748 August 28, 1992 Leonard Duffy P.O. Box 366 Hinesburg, Vermont 05461 Re: Net Result, 350 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Duffy: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Please be advised that the South Burlington Planning Commission at their meeting held on May 21, 1992 allocated 225 gpd to Eric Fleggenheimer. This allocation was granted in connection with the conversion of a vacant 7,680 square foot building to retail use at 350 Dorset Street. This building will be served by the City's Airport Parkway Treatment facility which has sufficient capacity to handle this additional demand. If you have any questions, please give me a call. 5nc rely, 6tkjz e Weith, City Planner JW/mcp Phone No. �� �-`s?v2 r VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH /� DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TT Samtarian�/LG-z�e-k W< w DatZ- Time In Time Out County Town L#7 J AJ,1 Licensed ❑ I.D. No. Licensee Unlicensed ❑ Pending Address ��✓. _ _ G ;Ziu Person Contacted H VN Wagner, Heindel, and Noyes, EaC. consulting geologists P.O. Box 1629 Burlington, Vermont 05402-1629 802-658-0820 October 19, 1992 Mr. Dick Ward Planning and Zoning City of South Burlington City Hall 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 350 Dorset St. Temporary Building Permit Dear Mr. Ward: To follow up our recent telephone conversation, I am writing to request a temporary building permit for a small wooden shed that will be used to house petroleum recovery equipment at 350 Dorset Street (the new location of the Net Result). I have enclosed a brochure from the building manufacturer (Little Houses by Andre) and a sketch map depicting the proposed location of the structure. We are currently engaged in the clean up of a No. 2 heating fuel oil release from an underground storage tank that was formerly located at the north side of the property. We have installed a network of air injection (sparging) wells and vapor recovery wells that will essentially vacuum the petroleum from the ground. For the above ground portion of our remediation facility we need an 8' x 10' (or slightly smaller) shed to house the required air blowers and carbon scrubbing canisters. A copy of our Corrective Action Plan for 350 Dorset Street is on file with the City Clerk's office and also with Chuck Hafter if you desire=:dditio ,21 in.or.:zatioa rega:ui:.g the project. However, please feel free to call on me or Jeff Noyes at 658-0820 if you have any questions or comments. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerel , ,I 1 Michael K. Sparks Hydrogeologist/Construction Manager Enclosures cc: Greg Kennedy, Vermont Federal 1UWARD/MKS 9.26.921 GREAT IF HAIR ---CONCEPTS PEGTON'S$FINE F-/11,BRICS BM-C,R-ATE ELEv--=1o0.00 CB-2 - - - 5B 11 Q 0 SB-12 ❑ U+ 14y SB-10 �_voult MW-1 1 n 4!�' SB--1 Paved Ict . _ I � MERRILL'5 RPDI,gTOR NORTH 1 1 t�From �lo.:r dro�n5 -G6=3= t rr'o osQ.0 a.acs�w.>. - o�r' a.KPoronj SheoQ --------�'- ---------- 0- ................. �- 61 SB-5 �- Ernpfy 55-9*01. t L 5B=1 MW- �C— O./er {��rned 30-oat• iF Gil dr�..� Frssc�"-= W shed Concrete �o�rs SB-3- 5B-8. 1InPCaved gravel lot S g.4 0 SE-2 II L-ILY- TRU CK LE/\SI N G M..I- 2 PROPERTY LINE CHAMPLAIN OIL GOMFANY — FENCE LINE ALCO EQUIPMENT PROPERTY Drawn b Approved - S STORM DRAIN SYSTEM 350 Dorset Strut RWR JEN MONITOR L,,IELL SoumBurtinslon,Vcrmont Date Scale ® GATGH EhSIN - -.S 1 T F pLP, N 1-30-92 V=30' 0 SOIL BORING-- Wagner, Heindel, & Noyes, Inc. - Consulting Geologists .. _- . PROPERTY LINES PAPROYIMP,"rE 285 North Street - Burlington - VT - 05401 802 658-0820 No Text l City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7955 658-7958 October 21, 1992 Mr. Michael Sparks Wagner, Heindel & Noyes, Inc. P.O. Box 1629 Burlington, Vermont 05402-1629 Re: Temporary structure, 350 Dorset Street Dear Mike: Your request to erect a 81x10' storage shed housing air blowers and scrubbing canisters to the rear of 350 Dorset Street is hereby granted. I understand that the building will be removed upon completion of the project which is approximately one (1) year. This letter will serve as your permit. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp z October 2,1992 Mr. Dick Ward, Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vt. 05403 re: 350 Dorset Street Dear Dick: Regarding our conversation yesterday concerning signs, I am enclosing the section of the South Burlington Sign Ordinance which I used in assuming that a separate Free Standing Directory Sign was permitted on San Remo Drive. If you have a differing interpretation of this language, please explain. Identification of the businesses in on this site from San Remo Drive will become critical once the Dorset Street improvements are completed. Because of the proposed divider on Dorset Street, southbound traffic going to the site will presumably be forced to turn left onto San Remo. Once on that street, drivers will need positive identification of their destination. I am also enclosing a sketch of some slight modifications proposed to the site plan: addition of a catch basin in the storm drain line along the north of the property; and an additional pad for tenants' mechanical equipment on the East side of the building. If this should go to Joe instead, please forward it to him. The reason for the catch basin is to minimize overground runoff from the new paved loading area. The reason for the equipment pad is to locate condensers and HVAC equipment for the additional tenants. We are also proposing additional screening at this area. Thank you for your cooperation throughout this process. I trust that the City is pleased with the results. Yours very truly, Leonard Duffy, AIA copy: Eric Flegenheimer 1mv (Extsr) U Witt-t E+ctsT' 1�tPE-i 4t,, - 1 T _�___ , -��--• .sus--• z: - R�,.:-,- ; -}- ' t -jafl .� N G'f"i*a . Wes;.,-• �. 13- K ISLe 1 ' 4011. TO T-7 X !.OI � �i ���.-�`Y/ Cyr '��-i ✓�� ( ��"� � �J'1 (1YP.) �ivl_ (/ "`�,--.-''h Iry .k"�.� • � �-r -_ �, � i "G u it ! ,�GMf77 1 • LQ R-.�LA�.-. - -�1 _ ._. __-_._. _ _ �,-,•� { I^ 1' 1 I •�- 1 L�l �1-�_ f I^���F''j r .--_ 1. �.. �M �' � _ i� I I I � \'' / I I 1 I I, /,AiZ �IA 4�11 ♦ Ii � I JOB FRAME AND GRATE BY LEBARON 140.LCG266 Da 24' 0 OPENING N W K OUT PIPE INV. EL. AS 12� AL___JII • • • • �' • COMPACTED I 1/;r CRUSHED STONE S.T. GRISWOLD CO. PRECAST CATCH BASIN OR EQUAL. TO BE CF 5rg0FD FOR TRAFFtG L OADI U4 CATCH BASIN DETAIL SCALE: NONE PRODUCT 204-1 (Single Sheets) 2051 (Padded) ®w Inc., Groton, Mass. 01471 To Order PHONE TOLL FREE 1 800-225-6080 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SCII ITH RI 1R1 INr T0M VFRMCINT QRAgi FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 September 28, 1992 Leonard Duffy, AIA Box 366 Hinesburg, Vermont 05461 Re: Retail, 350 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Duffy: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is a copy of the May 21, 1992 Planning Commission meeting minutes. If you have any questions, please give me a call. i erely, oe Weith, ity Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp cc: Eric Fleggenheimer PLANNING COMMISSION 12 May 1992 page 5 being reviewed by the Agency of transportation and they will abide by the Agency's decision. Mr. Burgess said they will also have to abide 6y what the Planning Commission decides. Mr. Weith said he would talk with the City Engineer about this. Mr. Burgess noted the major issue would be the Conservation Zone. He asked Mr. Weith to share the thoughts of the Natural Resources Committee with the applicant. 7. Site Plan application of Eric Fleggenheimer, dba EMA, Inc., for use of a vacant 7,680 sq. ft. building for retail sales, 300 Dorset Street: Mr. Burgess noted this is the old Alco Building. Mr. Duffy said the major issue will be that of alterations to a non -conforming building in the City Center. The lot is just over an acre and goes back to San Remo Drive. The existing building is 7,680 sq. ft., made of steel with metal siding. The existing parking is paved to the back of the building and then there is a gravelled lot behind. The applicant proposes to remove the existing shed on the property. There is already a drainage system in place. There is a chain link fence on the south side of the building which belongs to Merrill Transit. Mr. Duffy noted this building lines up with the other non -conforming buildings on dorset St. They would use the 30' curb cut planned by the Dorset St. project. The primary tenant in the building would be The Net Result, with additional retail tenants in the rest of the building. Lighting would be mounted along the fence to the south. Theypropose to extend the driveway back to San Remo Drive and will bring a service drive to the north side of the building. The question is what can be done to rehab the building. The applicant had originally planned a major facade rehabilitation and the moving of doors and windows. After talking with city personnel, they have backed off from this plan and will use the existing structure with no alterations. What they do want to do is replace the existing doors and windows. The zoning admin- istrator has ruled that this cannot be done because of the special requirements of the City Center Zoning. Traffic: Mr. Duffy said they used the "specialty retail center" criteria of ITE to compute allowable traffic and arrived at a total of 270 vehicles over a 6-day period with 60 cars per pm peak hour (based on 240 cars per weekday). Mr. Burgess asked if these are cars or trip ends. The applicant acknowledged these figures are for cars. Mr. Burgess then noted that would double PLANNING COMMISSION 12 May 1992 page 6 the projection to 120 trip ends in a location that allows 59. Mr. Weith noted the Commission has the power to approve a number more than this if the applicant can show that significant im- provements are being made to mitigate the additional traffic. Mr. Weith said that in this case the Commission could find that guaranteeing access to San Remo Drive is Such an improvement. Mr. Burgess said he would hate to make a non -complying structure be non -complying forever because it uses San Remo Drive and goes through the building envelope on the other side. Mr. Weith said if this were a PUD, the traffic overlay wouldn't apply but they would have to have 2 or more buildings on the lot. Mr. Burgess noted that to do that you'd have to put up another non -conforming structure on the lot. Mr. Duffy noted that when Mo Senesac came in last year for a retail use he was granted a waiver. Mr. Weith said that waiver was for up to 70 trip ends for a mixed retail/office use, and the Commission had the right to approve any use that went in to be sure it didn't exceed the 70 trip ends. With regard to the non-compliance issue, Mr. Burgess recalled that this provision was put in to hasten the demise of non- complying buildings. The 25% rule was deliberately precluded from this district. Mr. Duffy said the implication in all of this is that these buildings have no value when in fact they have a very high appraised value (in the hundreds of thousands of dollars). He felt the only architectural limit to this particular building was that which was being imposed by the zoning. Mr. Sheahan said his only hang up is traffic. Mr. Weith asked if the Commission would consider a waiver for a significant im- provement. Mrs. Maher said the bigger issue is the design of Dorset St. and the fact that the Commission might be forever shutting off the possibility of getting buildings set back so that there can be the design and amenities the city foresees for this area. She said she knows this building can be made to look decent, but it won't be the character envisioned for the City Center and it would set a precedent for all of Dorset St. Members agreed they could not in good conscience agree to so much more than the allowable trip ends for this location. Mr. Burgess then offered the applicant the opportunity to with- draw. The applicant did not wish to do so. Mrs. Maher then moved to continue the hearing until 21 May 1992. Mr. Craig seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Craig left the meeting at this time. (- I �/� 4 . State of Vermont WATER SUPPLY WASTEWATER CASE NO. WW-4-0542 APPLICANT EMA, Inc. ADDRESS 100 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 AND DISPOSAL PERMIT LAWS REGULATIONS INVOLVED Environmental Protection Rules Chapter 4, Public Buildings This project, consisting of converting an existing building into a specialty food and dry goods store with no on -premise public seating located at 350 Dorset Street in the City of South Burlington, Vermont is hereby approved under the requirements of the regulations named above, subject to the following conditions. GENERAL (1) The project shall be completed as shown on the plans Job NET 92; Sheet SP-1 "Site Plan" dated 4/16/9 last revised 6/16/92 prepared by Leonard Duffy and Associates and which have been stamped "approved" by the Division of Protection. The project shall not deviate from the approved plans without prior written approval from the Division of Protection.. (2) No alterations to the existing building other than those indicated on the approved plan or Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permit, which would change or affect the exterior water supply or wastewater disposal or the approved. use of the building shall be allowed without prior review and approval from the Agency of Natural Resources. (3) In the event of a transfer of ownership (partial or whole) of this project, the transferee shall become permittee and be subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit. (4) The Vermont Department of Health is to be contacted in regard to any regulations and/or licenses required by their Department. (They may be reached at 60 Main Street, Burlington, Vermont, or by phoning 804-863-7220). 0 t Watel• Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permit WW-4-0542, EMA, Inc. Page 2 (5) The Protection Division now reviews the sewage and water systems for public buildings under 10 V.S.A., Chapter 61 - Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permit. WATER SUPPLY (6) The project is approved for water supply by construction and utilization of the municipal water service depicted on the approved plans. No other means of obtaining potable water shall be allowed without prior review and approval by the Division of Protection. SEWAGE DISPOSAL (7) The project is approved for connection to the South Burlington Airport Parkway wastewater treatment facility for a maximum of 225 gallons of sewage per day. Dated at Essex Jet., Vermont this 8th day of September, 1992. Elizabeth A. McLain, Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation By�G��! C27i/ Ernest P. Christianson Regional Engineer cc: Donald Robiskv City of South Burlington Water Supply Division Department of Health Department of Labor and Industry Leonard Duffy LAMOUREUX & STONE-( 14 Morse Drive Consulting Engineers, Inc. Essex junction, Vermont 05452 (802) 878-4450 May 14, 1992 Mr. Eric Flegenheimer The Net Result 100 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Proposed Relocation to 350 Dorset Street South Burlington Dear Mr. Flegenheimer: 27 High Street St. Albans, Vermont 05478 (802) .524-5245 As requested, we have evaluated the potential p.m. peak hour trip generation for the proposed uses of the Alco building at 350 Dorset Street. As we understand this project, it includes relocating The Net Result, which is a seafood market presently located at 100 Dorset Street, to the Alco building. The proposed market will utilize the front 3,280 sq.ft. and the remaining 4,400 sq.ft. will be leased to a furniture store. This project is shown on a site plan entitled "Site Plan - 350 Dorset Street", prepared by Leonard Duffy and Associates, last revised May 4, 1992. This project is located in Zone 6 of South Burlington's Traffic Overlay District, which allows a p.m. peak hour trip generation of 45 vte/hour per 40,000 sq.ft. of lot size. For this 1.2 acre lot, that translates to 59 vte/hour. In October 1989, a retail/office project in this building received site plan approval that included an allowance for up to 70 vte/hour. That project apparently was subsequently dropped and this building has since remained vacant. To calculate the estimated p.m. peak hour trip generation of this project, we used the reference "Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 5th Edition". Calculations were performed for both the p.m. peak hour of adjacent street traffic and the p.m. peak hour of the generator. As can be expected, the latter provides the larger p.m. peak hour volume and better complies with the intent of the Traffic Overlay District requirements than does the peak hour of adjacent street traffic. Three land -uses were selected to determine the trip generation of this project. They include: #814 - Specialty Retail Center, #850 - Supermarket and #890 - Furniture Civil, Environmental & Transportation Engineering • Planning • Land Surveying Mr. Eric Flegenheimer May 14, 1992 Page 2 Store. The shopping center land -use category was not considered appropriate for this project because of two reasons. First, examining the data plot of all 345 shopping centers used to develop the p.m. peak hour trip generation equation indicates that approximately 95% of the data points are from shopping centers in excess of 25,000 sq.ft. in size. The average shopping center size in this data plot equals 406,000 sq.ft. Secondly, the equation fitted to this data plot is an exponential equation, which is not linear and by its nature tends to overestimate the trip generation of small projects. Two land -use scenarios were examined for this project, the first being a supermarket plus a furniture store, and the second being a supermarket plus a specialty retail center. The results are tabulated below. Detailed calculations are enclosed as Attachment A. TABLE 1 PROJECTED P.M. PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION (vte/hour) P.M. Peak Hour of Adjacent Street P.M. Peak Hour of Generator Scenario 1 Supermarket 34 45 Furniture Store 5 6 TOTAL: 39 51 Scenario 2 Supermarket 34 45 Specialty Retail no data 22 TOTAL: - 67 In addition to performing the above calculations, we have also analyzed the customer volume data which you provided us. For The Net Result, this data consisted of hourly customer counts (from cash register tapes) for seven weeks in early 1992. The results of our analyses of this data indicates that the average weekday p.m. peak hour trip generation of the existing store equaled 58 vte/hour. Additionally, a tabulation of the number of furniture store customers at its existing location were provided for the period of 4-6 p.m. for 44 weekdays and Saturdays.. That data indicated an average p.m. peak hour trip generation of 4 vte/hour for that use. The combined total for these two land- Mr. Eric Flegenheimer May 14, 1992 Page 3 uses equals 62 vte/hour. Copies of this data and of our calculations are attached as Attachment B. We thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Should you have any questions or if we may be of additional assistance, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely(, Ro Y'r ckinson, P.E. cc w/ enclosures Len Duffy Joe Weith r/flegenhe.rjd ATTACHMENT A TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS LAMOUREUX & -)NE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 14 Morse Drive ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452 (802) 878-4450 JOB SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY ZG���/1�5�%�/ DATE CHECKED BY 0' Ca DATE__-- �Y� 1 P �GnJG�tr3i�itJry }"cJ►2G1�U�►�S �t/'it�Nr2 PEr-� ), CYX> � L b1= �, �: l�,) r �GGv�r�iJ i U,' }ncC 1 r4 t-TY 'IZe _A 1 tr �1 /VUi nhttAr'cE /k:5F roRm a Lj) >G4PURrAel10KG ) �.C-1 FU ry I—) U ►2G `i'oA E KlqU, 3 ` /KsF U. y 7�1tsr L,, G�Cr) K v S�CCx)�a,�r� LNCr) v6vy c�(x) U,�83 PRODUCT 204-1 (Single Sheets) 205-1(Padded) ®F. Inc Groton, Mass. 01471. To Order PHONE TOLL FREE 1.800 225 6380. JOB LAMOUREUX & I, )NE SHEET NO. OF 3 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. r IL, 14 Morse Drive CALCULATED BY / �CK�(1i�U/U DATE `� ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452 CHECKED BY_ A7 _ DATE (802) 878-4450 —"` �' SCALE PROO(R1204 1 (SingleSheels) 205 1(Padded) ®° Inc , Groton Mass 01471. To Order PHONE TOLL FREE 1-800225 6380 LAMOUREUX & ONE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 14 Morse Drive ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452 (802) 878-4450 JOB SHEET NO. ' OE CALCUL.ATED SI RI A DATE C�5 � �y1�: 1 CHECKED BY DATE PRODUCT 204 1 ISinaie Sheets) 205 1 (Padded) t -� Inc.. Gmton, Mass. 01471. To Order PHONE TOLL FREE 1-800-225 638D ATTACHMENT B CUSTOMER VOLUME DATA AND CALCULATIONS JOB LAMOUREUX & 5 ONE SHEET NO. OF CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. r- tJ 14 Morse Drive CALCULATED BY �' ?C141r./�4,v_ DATE_-, ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452 CHECKED BY (802) 878-4450 A_A���1. DATE sr.At r C/9LGF'.(Z/aTC ;_. 7"NC !i/t:T puqt-T Avr— /l)• '',_Pe/�I{ f.JULfrZ 7-i1/'%' L..._�\.,Gr4lUnJ,..... AS,S�AI)'1 { . V �. � /H U,cA ►2 . PLC: � �t :S T �> �a r �_ . �A/v1�19Kt/_ �' �j AVG• .�l`� � �G+o2� t'oZq + yr l '. TOM EA S 5f3 v-rF- you? + 31 co'5 01)'Ic'2s / N vyt z � = `�� y vrE uu ►2I �g 6 I NOOK ' Vc, ►' x = a. Vtc In ()LAP, /)P,q3U, Avg ( lG++ 35 a Vim/)9()UA /dP1211 %% AV(S �olU + 37 3 4, 3 3G cusTun�Er�s//wurz x %CA /rE PRODUCT 204 1 Ongle Sheets)205 1(PadderH ®^ Inc.. Groton, Mass. 01471. To Order PHONE TOIL FREE 1-800-225 6380 LAMOUREUX & ( _ ONE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 14 Morse Drive ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452 (802) 878-4450 JOB SHEET NO. OF �7 CALCULATED BY 1'C • , �L�IC�^iS�/r DATE CHECKED BY AI CWIK DATE SCALE CA&coL/37a I'u1Q1VIil414C- s,UnC S I)VC)�AGC- 7?'t�) � T'CrJ �C , h' �.�G f IZ T i�' l i� , �'�+C� �.; c^,1r�T/U�u . i� s � i,� i >' ► r::� i� V7"Cf lJiJt.IXT. '%�L:i? GU..S%UY91Cr? ,. Z-/ S7ori,'CYzs y CL'SlUl71Ey2"�4 x ,Vrc�WUUl2 0...H UUn a i I 1 750 r) 6 - I ( �c 3 J2 Iz u 1 3 13 Z Y 2-1 2l 3a Vo �y 2Z ��s z�- 2 3 26 13 Lo— 2 �/ 12, z (� 17 25 �f U oZ 2- (� io 2I I � 22 2 { 22 �o 23 2- 2- Al— l�1 J A 50 15S0 '32' 1, �v kjj P. `6 lv 9 tC/ S Z3 Zz 0 2z 3s 3o )6 l� 2-1 16 d, 6 ICE /\ v ,� I �2 (-1-,30 Wv ,A ����-�r Tf 1 5�T 2 0 `Z 3 2_ zo Q3 4/Iv qS�P�k�iv I",ino-l-kor -T Iq IV- A C4 1� C�6 13 z ZZ ?� Iz `� `� ►`G a � �'� �,� ill �� z do rO N rM 2 I� �- It 1 !s �? 2.z (] Z Z 22 3 H l� 10 13 2 O 2-z- 12- o o 2 21 IJ u� L 23 _ 1� 6,50 vw le. VATE Cc�v �jT ' , VA L 5/20/92 JW MOTION OF APPROVAL I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan application of Eric Fleggenheimer, d.b.a. EMA, Inc. for conversion of a vacant 7,680 square foot building to retail use as depicted on a site plan entitled, "Site Plan, 350 Dorset Street", prepared by Leonard Duffy and Associates and dated 4/16/92, last revised 5/4/92, with the following stipulations: 1) The applicant shall post a $6,000, 3-year landscaping bond - -- - prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit. The plan shall be revised prior to permit to show: a) the existing gravel areas, which are not to be used for parking and circulation, converted to lawn, and b) the plantings along San Remo Drive setback at least 32 feet from the San Remo Drive centerline. 2) A sewer allocation of 225 gpd is granted. The applicant shall pay the $2.50 per gallon fee prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit. 3) All lighting shall be downcasting, shielded luminaire and shall not cast light beyond the property line. 4) The plan shall be revised prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit to show the following: a) The proposed compression pad set back at least 50 feet from the Dorset Street r.o.w. b) Drainage system including underground pipe system, pipe size and invert elevations. The drainage system shall be approved by the City Engineer. 5) The applicant shall be made aware that approval of this site plan does not constitute approval to alter the noncomplying structure. Alterations to noncomplying structures are prohibited in Section 1.80 of the Central District Ordinance. Compliance with Section 1.80 shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator at time of permit application. 6) This property is located within Traffic Overlay Zone 6 which allows uses on this property to generate 59 vehicle trip ends (vte's) during the peak hour. Based on ITE trip generation rates 1 for code #850 (supermarket) and code #814 (specialty retail), it is estimated that the proposed use will generate 67 vte's during the peak hour. Section 17.50 of the zoning regulations allows the Planning Commission to approve peak hour volumes above the normal standard if the Commission determines that other improvements will produce a net benefit for traffic flow in the vicinity. It is the Commission's determination that the Dorset Street project will greatly improve traffic safety to and from this site and therefore approves the additional peak hour vte's estimated to be generated by this project. Approval of this project is conditioned on use of the building for 43% supermarket (3,280 square feet) and 57% specialty retail (4,400 square feet), or 100% specialty retail. In order to assure compliance with this condition, the City Planner shall approve any new tenant prior to occupancy. __ 7) The zoning/building permit shall be or this approval is null and void. within 6 months City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 John Thibault & Co. C/O Mr. William Fucci Burlington Agency 1 Burlington Square Burlington, VT 05401 Re: 350 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Fucci: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 August 3, 1992 The Planning Commission approval for the above referenced property as granted on May 21, 1992 allows the building to be used for 43 % supermarket (3280 square feet) and 57% specialty retail (4400 square feet). The approval includes a condition that requires the City Planner to approve any new tenant prior to occupancy. After reviewing the letter from Mr. Thibault dated July 31, 1992, it is my opinion that the proposed 1200 square foot hair salon meets the criteria for specialty retail center, and therefore is approved. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance. CC: Richard Ward (fucci) rely, IV goe Weith City Planner JOHN THIBAULT & CC~ 119 College St. �� �� Burlington,Vt. /9 05401 41V I CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON SITE PLAN APPLICATION 1) OWNER OF RECORD (name, address, phone #) Vermont Federal Bank 2) APPLICANT (name, address, phone #) Eric Fleggenheimer dba EMA inc. 100 Dorset Street, 862-5227 3) CONTACT PERSON (name, address, phone #) Leonard Duffy, AIA box 366 Hinesburg, Vt. 482-3040 4) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 350 Dorset Street 5) LOT NUMBER (if applicable) 6) PROPOSED USE(S) Specialty Retail _(Relocation of the Net Result Dlus additional tennant space) 7) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e. total building square footage, # units, maximum height and # floors,_. square feet per floor) _ 7600 sauara_feet subdivided as-2-4 units 8) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 15 +/- 9) LOT COVERAGE: building __L5%; landscaped areas 33 % building, parking, outside storage 67 % 10) COST ESTIMATES: Buildings $ 200,000 , Landscaping $ 7350 Other Site Improvements (please list with cost) $ 30000 walk. asnhlt Davine. sign. utilities 11 ) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: August 1, 1992 12) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in and out)270 Estimated trip ends (in and out) during the following hours: Monday through Friday 11-12 noon_; 12-1p.m.14 ; 1-2 p.m. 14 ; 2-3 p.m.14 3-4 p.m. 30 4-5 P.M. 60 ; 5-6 p.m. 60 ; 6-7 p.m.14 13 ) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 11-1 3-6:30 14) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: 4/17/92 DATE OF SUBMISSION DATE OF HEARING SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPING COST ESTIMATE 4/17/92 PLANTING SCHEDULE 350 DORSET STREET. NO SYMBOL COMMON NAME LATIN NAME PLANT SIZE COST ! CWB clump wh. birch betula papyrifera b&b 12-14' 500 1 MA mountain ash soerbus decora b&b 10-12' 350 1 T tamarak larix laricina b&b 5-6' 300 5 BB burning bush euonymus compactus b&b 2-2' 300 12 SP spirea spirea billiardii 511pots 18-24" 300 23 LL lillac syringa vulgaris BR 2-3' 350 2 RM red maple aces rubrum b&b 2-2111 1200 2 RM2 redmaple b&b 1-14" 300 170 WC white cedar cedrus br 2-4' 500 4 FC flowering crab malus baccatia b&b 6-8' 20 50 BI boston ivy hedera helix baltica 22"pots 1 50 3 XWC white cedar move existing 0 XPL exist. plantings to be moved 500 1 annual bed by owner 200 miscellaneous topsoil, grading, mulch, seeding, and fertilizer 1000 TOTAL $ 7350 4 . —Io //.3x � - 6 3 � /,(I=. �oio 52� �1a = /�. q la �2-�f sa, a�a = /�. � 1a �,41 vg�-Q= C� x /60 , ceo&),Jv Preliminary Memo - Planning May 12, 1992 agenda items April 28, 1992 Page 4 --- appropriate legal documents for the 20 foot r.o.w. over the Kelly/Jennings parcel must be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and must be recorded in the South Burlington land records prior to or at the -same time the final plat is recorded. --- appropriate legal documents foiz the proposed bike path easement must be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and must be recorded in the South Burlington land records prior to or at the same time the final plat is recorded. -- plat as submitted is acceptable. --- when plat is reduced to 18" x 24" recording size, some of the lettering will be less than 1/10" in height, a violation of the State plat law. HOWARD SLACK - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION - GILBERT STREET Additional information needed on sketch plan: --- name and address of the owner of record and applicant. --- type of, location and approximate size of existing utilities. --- location map --- the plan seems to show creating a new lot 5' x 182', the final plat should show the old boundary line as a dashed line with a notation that this line is to be dissolved. EMA, INC. - SPECIALTY RETAIL - 350 DORSET STREET. Additional information needed on site plan: --- property boundary dimensions. Other: --- indicate number of clump white birch to be planted (planting schedule does not indicate a number). --- site plan contains symbols "NM" and "CWL" for plants but these symbols do not appear in planting schedule. --- provide total retail floor area in building. --- note on plan indicates that building is 40 feet from front property line, Dorset Street reconstruction plans show it to be 26-27 feet from the new r.o.w. line. 4 Preliminary Memo - Planning May 12, 1992 agenda April 28, 1992 Page 5 --- staff is unclear as to the meaning and intent of Section 1.80 of the Central District Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission will be consulted for their interpretation. --- will amy exit facilities be altered? --- will existing gravel areas shown on plan be turned into lawn? If so then this should be indicated on plan. --- sewer allocation required is 225'gpd based on 15 employees. --- building is nonconforming because it doesn't meet front yard setback and the 80 foot building envelope. The parking within 120 feet of the Dorset Street r.o.w. is also nonconforming. --- proposed canopies and compressor pad are not allowed under current zoning. --- the first two (2) parking spaces along the south side of the property must be eliminated, parking is not allowed in front yard. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 May 4, 1992 Leonard Duffy, AIA P.O. Box 366 Hinesburg, Vermont 05461 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Re: Retail, 350 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Duffy: Enclosed please find some preliminary comments on the above referenced project from City Engineer Bill Szymanski. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Since ly, �'A . R'- ymond J . Belair , , Zoning and Planning Assistant 1 Enc:.l. RJB1mcp M E M O R A N D U M Tp: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer Re: May 12, 1992 Preliminary Comments Date: May 1, 1992 SOUTH BURL INGTQN_CHRYSLER-_.PLYMOUTH 1. The storm drain system crossing this property should be shown on the plans. 2. The "new vehicle storage area" is adjacent to City's Shelburne Road cemetery, a large healthy oak tree is very close to the cemetery line. This oak tree should be saved. This line should have substantial screening because there are burials close to this line. A cedar hedge or a stockade fence is recommended. 3. A drainage plan shall be submited. 4. A sidewalk should be included along Shelburne Road. DR. SLACK PROPERTY GILBERT STREET The record plan should show the drainage pipe in the area. If a portion of this pipe crosses the property a drainage eaement shall be given to the City. 350 DORSET STREET (ALCO BUILDING) 1. The entrance drive shall conform to the Dorset Street improvement plans. 2. The existing gravel area should be top soiled and seeded and maintained as a lawn. 3. The record plan should show the drainage system incLuding the piping and discharge point. "'Z State of Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation Department of Environmental Conservation State Geologist Natural Resources Conservation Council (�D"T"Q_ AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Department of Environmental Conservation Hazardous Materials Management Division 103 South Main Street / West Building Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0404 802-244-8702 June 12, 1992 Maurice Senesac Former Alco Equipment Building 350 Dorset St. S. Burlington, VT RE: Petroleum contamination at Former Alco Equipment \\_ Building, South Burlington, VT (Site #92-1233) Dear --Mr. Senesac: The Sites Management Section (SMS) has reviewed the tank pull form and accompanying report by Wagner, Heindel, and Noyes, Inc., regarding the removal of one underground storage tank (UST) from the above referenced site. The UST contained heating oil with a capacity of 4000 gallons. The tank was removed from the site on May 28, 1992 by Tom Boise of T.L. Boise Excavating. The SMS also received a complaint in November, 1991 from the Agency of Transportation regarding petroleum contamination found during road reconstruction activities on the easterly side of Dorset Street. A monitoring well was installed and free floating product was measured in the well. The source of this contamination appears to be from the leaking UST at the Former Alco Equipment Building. According to the UST removal report, soils surrounding the site showed elevated levels of volatile organic compounds as well as free product contamination. All excavated soil was backfilled. Groundwater was encountered during tank removal and two temporary monitoring wells were installed in the excavation. Additionally, there are five monitoring wells in the vicinity of the excavation. Surface water in the adjacent storm drainage system is believed to have been impacted by heating oil. In order to determine the extent of contamination, five test pit wells were installed surrounding the site. Based on the above, the SMS is requesting that you continue to retain the services of a qualified consultant to immediately develop and implement a plan to remove all free floating product in excess of 0.01' (1/811) and to prevent further free product impact to the sewer lines along Dorset Street. Your consultant will also need to develop a plan to define the full extent of the contamination, as well as develop a corrective action plan to clean up the contamination. A survey of sensitive receptors that may be impacted by this contamination will also need to be completed. Following completion of this work, a report detailing the results of this work will need to be provided, as well as any conclusions and recommendations which can be reached. Please have your consultant submit a work plan within fifteen days of receipt of this letter for SMS approval. If you have any questions, feel free to call. Sincerely, Charles B. Schwer, Supervisor Sites Management Section cc: South Burlington Selectboard Robert Rooks, WHN City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 June 30, 1992 Eric Fleggenheimer d.b.a. EMA, Inc. 100 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Retail Use, 350 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Fleggenheimer: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find a copy of the May 12, 1992 Planning Commission meeting minutes. If you have any questions, please give me a call. «-- S' cere y, 4 1 e Weith, ity Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp C1 MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: EMA, Inc. (Net Result), 350 Dorset Street. Date: May 28, 1992 The Planning Commission granted site plan approval for the above referenced application on 5/21/92. It is the Commission's understanding that the applicant will be going to the Zoning Board to either challenge the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of section 1.80 of the Central District ordinance, or seek a variance from this section. Section 1.80 prohibits alterations to noncomplying structures in the CD1, CD2, and CD3 zones. The Planning Commission asked me to send you a memo making it clear that the Commission's granting of site plan approval for this application should not be construed as support for altering noncomplying structures. The Planning Commission reviewed the application on the basis of site plan criteria only. The issue of whether the applicant is proposing to "alter" the structure was not considered in the Commission's site plan review. cc: Dick Ward LEONARO OUFFY and ASSOCIATES architects planners development consultants MAIN STREET BOX 366 HINESBURG, VERMONT 05461 802 482 3040 FAX 802 482 3490 May 15, 1992 MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission c/o Joe Weith, City Planner FROM: Leonard Duffy, AI f RE: 350 Dorset Street This is to explain the discrepancy in the traffic figures presented to the Commission on May 12 with those presented by Roger Dickinson P.E. of Lamoruex and Stone. In attempting to be overly conservative in our original projections, we assumed a daily and hourly distribution of total customers which was evenly divided by day and allocated 50 percent of the daily total to the 4-6 P.M. hours. This allocation was not verified with actual hourly customer counts because we erroneously assumed that this conservative approach still fell within acceptable limits. Upon recognizing that the data presented might not be acceptable, we reviewed the base data concerning hourly traffic directly from actual cash register tapes. This information clearly indicates a much more even distribution of customers during the day, which contradicts our previous assumptions. This new information was provided to Roger Dickinson, who has since be engaged to develop a more complete analysis for the commission's review. A copy of Roger's report is being forwarded to your office under separate cover. I sincerely apologize for the confusion this has created and thank the members of the Commission for their consideration. C M E M 0 R U N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Joe We.ith, City Planner Re: Trip generation analysis, 350 Dorset Street Date: May 20, 1992 Staff reviewed the above referenced trip generation analysis conducted by Roger Dickinson of Lamoureux & Stone dated 5/14/92. Staff concurs with Roger's recommendation that the ITE trip generation rate for "Shopping Centers" is not the appropriate rate to apply in this case. Craig Leiner of CCRPC was also consulted and he agrees that due to the size of the building and number of uses proposed, ITE code #820 (Shopping Centers) is not the appropriate rate. Craig felt code # 814 (Specialty Retail) may be the more appropriate code. Based on Roger's assessment, the property is estimated to generate 51 to 67 vte's during the P.M. peak hour, depending on whether furniture store or specialty retail is assumed for the remaining 4,400 square feet not to be occupied by Net Result. In 1989, the Planning Commission approved a limit of 70 vte/hour for the property, 11 vte's above the 59 vte limit set by zoning. The increase was allowed based on traffic improvements to be realized by the completed Dorset Street project. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the application and establish a limit of 70 vte's during the peak hour. The approval should include a condition that restricts the building to all specialty retail use, or 3,280 square feet supermarket and 4,400 square feet specialty retail. City Planner shall approve all new tenants prior to occupancy. ITE's definition of Specialty Retail is attached. 05/20/92 11:23 Description U802 879 3610 CCRPC Land Use: 814 Specialty Retail Center Specialty retail centers are generally small strip shopping centers containing a variety of shops, specializing in quality apparel, hard goods, services such as real estate offices, d studios, or florists, and small restaurants. Additional Data Information on transit trip ends is not available. Information on person trip ends is not available. - Information on truck trips is not available. Vehicle occupancy: Average 1.23 persons per automobile (range 1.10 to 1.44). Information on peak hours of the generator is not available. The studies were conducted in the late 1970's and late 1980's, in San Diego and Atlanta. The sites average 50 employees, 58,000 square feet gross floor area, 3 acres, and 520 parking spaces. Average densities are summarized below - Specialty Retail Center Average Densities F— Independent Variables Employees Per 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area_ Average 1,82 _ Range 0.87 - 2.29 Employees Per Parking Space ---�0.37 0.23 - 0.41 Employees Per Gross Acre, 16.06 v 6.67 - 22.44 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area Per Parking Space u 0.11 0.09 - 0.27 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area Per Gross_ Acre- 8_P„ 3 _ 7.39 - 10A9 Parking Spaces Per Gross Acre* 43.51 28.67 - 55.37 The relationship between gross square footage and gross acreage var;e:s considerably and is a function of the local zoning code, the nature of the development and landscaping, and the type of parking provided. It is suggested that when only the acreage is known, 9-ie building size in gross square feet be estimated from the average square footage per acre as shown in the above table. Source Numbers 100, 304, 305 Trip Generatign, January 1991 1126 Institute of Transportation Engineers M E M 0 R U N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: Trip generation analysis, 350 Dorset Street Date: May 20, 1992 Staff reviewed the above referenced trip generation analysis conducted by Roger Dickinson of Lamoureux & Stone dated 5/14/92. Staff concurs with Roger's recommendation that the ITE trip generation rate for "Shopping Centers" is not the appropriate rate to apply in this case. Craig Leiner of CCRPC was also consulted and he agrees that due to the size of the building and number of uses proposed, ITE code #820 (Shopping Centers) is not the appropriate rate. Craig felt code # 814 (Specialty Retail) may be the more appropriate code. Based on Roger's assessment, the property is estimated to generate 51 to 67 vte's during the P.M. peak hour, depending on whether furniture store or specialty retail is assumed for the remaining 4,400 square feet not to be occupied by Net Result. In 1989, the Planning Commission approved a limit of 70 vte/hour for the property, 11 vte's above the 59 vte limit set by zoning. The increase was allowed based on traffic improvements to be realized i by the completed Dorset Street project. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the application and establish a limit of 70 vte's during the peak hour. The approval should include a condition that restricts the building to all specialty retail use, or 3,280 square feet supermarket and 4,400 square feet specialty retail. City Planner shall approve all new tenants prior to occupancy. ITE's definition of Specialty Retail is attached. _87% 0u2 Land Use: 814 Specialty Retail Center Description Specialty retail centers are generally small strip shopping centers containing a variety of retail shops, specializing in quality apparel, hard goods, services such as real estate offices, dance studios, or florists, and small restaurants. Additional Data Information on transit trip ends is not available. Information on person trip ends is not available. - - Information on truck trips is not available. Vehicle occupancy: Average 1.23 persons per automobile (range 1.10 to 1.44). Information on peak hours of the generator is not available. The studies were conducted in the late 1970's and late 1980's, in San Diego and Atanta. The sites average 50 employees, 58,000 square feet gross floor area, 3 acres, and 520 parking spaces. Average densities are summarized below_ Sp2SiaRetail Center Avera a Densities -independent Variables Average Range i Employees Per 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area 1.82 0.87 - 2.29 Em Io ees Per Parking Space _ 0.37 0.23 - 0.41 Em to ees Per Gross Acre, 16.06 6.67 - 22.44 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area Per Parking S ace 0.11 0.09 - 0.27 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area Per Gross Acre- i 8.83 7.39 - 10.49 Parking Spaces Per Gross Acre- 43.51 28.67 - 55-37 The relationship between gross square footage and gross acreage varies consider ably and is a function of the local zoning code, the nature of the development and landscaping, and the type of parking provided. It is suggested that when only the acreage is known, the building size in gross square feet be estimated from the average square footage per acre as shown in the above table_ Source Numbers 100, 304. 305 Tip Generabgn, January 1991 1126 Institute of Transoortation FnninpAm PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTO Re: APPLICATION OF ERIC FLEGGENHEIMER, d.b.a. EMA, INC. This matter came before the South Burlington Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 19.10 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations on application of Eric Fleggenheimer, d.b.a. EMA, Inc. hereinafter "Applicant" for approval to convert a vacant 7,680 square foot building to retail use as depicted on a site plan entitled, "Site Plan, 350 Dorset Street", prepared by Leonard Duffy and Associates and dated 4/16/92, last revised 5/4/92. The Planning Commission conducted public meetings on this application on May 12, and May 21, 1992. The applicant was present at all of the public meetings. Based on the evidence submitted at the meetings and as part of the application, the Planning Commission hereby renders the following decision on this application: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Vermont Federal Bank is the record owner of the property which is the subject of this application. This property is located at 350 Dorset Street. 2. This property is currently developed with a vacant 7,680 square foot building. The previous use of this building was a truck repair shop. This proposal would convert this building to retail space for 2-4 retail units. 3. This property located at 350 Dorset Street is within the Central District 2 zone. It is bounded on the north by a fabric store and beauty salon (Dorset Street) and a radiator repair shop (San Remo Drive), on the south by Champlain Oil's trucking terminal, on the east by San Remo Drive and on the west by Dorset. Street. 4. Access/circulation: Access will be provided by a 30 foot curb cut on Dorset Street, in conformance with the Dorset Street reconstruction plans, and a 24 foot curb cut on San Remo Drive. Traffic circulation on the site is acceptable. 5. Coverage: Building coverage will be 16.3% (maximum allowed is 40%). Overall coverage will be 83.1% (maximum allowed is 90%). 1 6. Setbacks: The existing building does not meet the front yard setback requirements and the rear of the building extends beyond the 80 foot building envelope. This building is therefore a non- complying structure. The proposed 71x100' canopy along the south side of the building extends beyond the 80 foot building envelope on both the east and west sides of the envelope. (This requirement was adopted by the City Council on May 4, 1992 and will not take effect until May 25, 1992). 7. Landscaping: The landscaping requirement for this project is $6,000 which will be met. Plantings will include Birch, Ash, Red Maple, Cedar, Lilac and Flowering Crab. 8. Parking: This project requires a total of 43 parking spaces and 43 spaces are being proposed including two (2) handicapped spaces. Parking stall dimensions and aisle widths meet minimum requirements. 9. F.A.R.(Floor Area Ratio): The floor area ratio for this project is .15 (maximum allowed is .5). 10) Alterations: This building will be altered by adding a 71x100' canopy along the south side of the building and adding a 121x12' canopy on the north side of the building. 11. Traffic: This property is in Traffic Overlay Zone 6 which allows this property to generate a maximum of 58.8 vehicle trip ends (vte's) during the P.M. peak hour. Using the I.T.E. shopping center code, it is estimated that this project will generate 163 vte's during the P.M. peak hour of the adjacent street. This is 104 trips or 175% greater than permitted by regulation. The applicant submitted some traffic projections for his proposed use at the 5/12/92 meeting. These projections indicate that during the P.M. peak hour the new use will generate 60 trips (the applicant explained that a trip equaled one (1) customer). This information provided by the applicant translates to 120 vte's since each customer makes two (2) trip ends. 12 Lighting: Proposed exterior lighting consists of five (5) 250 watt lights on 20 foot poles with sharp cutoff luminaries. These lights are located along the south boundary line. CONCLUSIONS 1. Section 1.80 of the Central District Zoning Ordinance, which is a part of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, prohibits alterations to non -complying structures except for alterations to facades and exterior finishes. The two (2) proposed canopies would result in alterations to this building as that term is defined under Section 21.102 of the zoning regulations. 2 2. Section 1.6022 of the Central District Zoning Ordinance requires that "all buildings and structures,... shall be constructed within an allowable building envelope. Allowable building envelopes shall be between zero (0) and 80 feet from the nearest public street right-of-way. Along Dorset Street, the envelope is measured from a point 50 feet east of the right-of- way, thereby creating a 50 foot front yard setback from Dorset Street". The proposed 7'x100' canopy extends beyond the limits of the building envelope and therefore does not comply with Section 1.6022. This section was adopted by the City Council on May 4, 1992 and will take effect on May 25, 1992. Since this section is not yet in effect, the applicant would have to obtain approval from the City Council to deviate from this requirement. The applicant has not received nor applied for approval from the City Council. 3. The subject property is located in Traffic overlay Zone 6 as defined in Section 17.20 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. The Traffic Overlay Zone limits the peak hour trip end generation for this property to 58.8 trip ends. Using the shopping center code in the I.T.E. Trip Generation manual, it is estimated that this project will generate 163 vehicle trip ends (vte's) during the P.M. peak hour of the adjacent street. The applicant has estimated his use to generate 120 vte's. Section 17.50 of the zoning regulations allows the Planning Commission to approve peak hour traffic volumes above the normal standards if it determines that other site improvements will produce a net benefit for traffic flow in the vicinity. In making its determination, the Planning Commission may consider the requirements contained in Sections 17.501 through 17.504. It is the Planning Commission's opinion that: a) Section 17.501 is not met since this proposal does not include a PCD. b) Section 17.502 is not met since it is not proposed to change or reduce the number and locations of curb cuts. c) Section 17.503 is not met since no data was submitted to show a benefit on traffic volumes and on levels of service at nearby intersections. The increased traffic estimated to be generated by the proposed use would tend to have a negative effect on levels of service at nearby intersections. d) Section 17.504 is not met since the proposed use will result in peak hour trip generation higher than is permitted and no access management improvements are proposed as part of this application. DECISION Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the Planning Commission makes the following decision: The Planning Commission hereby denies the applicant's request to convert a 7,680 square foot building to retail for 2-4 retail units at 350 Dorset Street for the following reasons: a) The application does not meet the requirements of Section 1.80 of the Central District Zoning Ordinance. The two (2) proposed canopies are alterations to the building which is prohibited by this section. b) The application does not meet the requirements of Section 1.6022 of the Central District Zoning Ordinance. The proposed 71x100' canopy will extend beyond the limits of the allowable building envelope. Approval to extend beyond the limits has not been obtained from by the City Council. c) The impacts resulting from the retail conversion do not comply with or satisfy the requirements of Article XVII, Traffic Overlay District, of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Dated this day of 1992 in South Burlington, Vermont. Chairman or Clerk South Burlington Planning Commission 4 1 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 May ". 5 1. 9 ".):' Leonard Duffy, AAA Box 366 Hinesburg, Vermont 0546:1 Re: Retail, 350 Dorset. Street Dear Mr. Duffy: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enc1osced is t.he. ,��;e.nda for next. Thursday'.-, Planning Commission meeting and my comments to t.:ie Planning Commission. Please be sure someone �L: pze�;�>>it on `� �u-sc1aY, May 31. 199:.'. at. "?.'.() P.M. t represent your app.. i cat i- .-rz . 1 f you have any quest i ..)ns , p? el-ise live me a call. z-re } y , J :> fzl-- Weith, City Planner Encls Jw/mcp cc: Eric Fle genheirne.- PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Re: APPLICATION OF ERIC FLEGGENHEIMER, d.b.a. EMA, INC. This matter came before the South Burlington'Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 19.10 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations on application of Eric Fleggenheimer, d.b.a. EMA, Inc. hereinafter "Applicant" for approval to convert a vacant 7,680 square foot building to retail use as depicted on a site plan entitled, "Site Plan, 350 Dorset Street", prepared by Leonard Duffy and Associates and dated 4/16/92, last revised 5/4/92. The Planning Commission conducted public meetings on this application on May 12, and May 21, 1992. The applicant was present at all of the public meetings. -Based on the evidence submitted at the meetings and as part of the application, the Planning Commission hereby renders the following decision on this application: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Vermont Federal Bank is the record owner of the property which is the subject of this application. This property is located at 350 Dorset Street. 2. This property is currently developed with a vacant 7,680 square foot building. The previous use of this building was a truck repair shop. This proposal would convert this building to retail space for 2-4 retail units. 3. This property located at 350 Dorset Street is within the Central District 2 zone. It is bounded on the north by a fabric store and beauty salon (Dorset Street) and a radiator repair shop (San Remo Drive), on the south by Champlain Oil's trucking terminal, on the east by San Remo Drive and on the west by Dorset Street. 4. Access/circulation: Access will be provided by a 30 foot curb cut on Dorset Street, in conformance with the Dorset Street reconstruction plans, and a 24 foot curb cut on San Remo Drive. Traffic circulation on the site is acceptable. 5. Coverage: Building coverage will be 16.3% (maximum allowed is 40%). Overall coverage will be 83.1`/0 (maximum allowed is 9 0%) . 1 6. Setbacks: The existing building does not meet the front yard setback requirements and the rear of the building extends beyond the 80 foot building envelope. This building is therefore a non- complying structure. The proposed 71x100' canopy along the south side of the building extends beyond the 80 foot building envelope on both the east and west sides of the envelope. (This requirement was adopted by the City Council on May 4, 1992 and, will not take effect until May 25, 1992). 7. Landscaping: The landscaping requirement for this project is $6,000 which will be met. Plantings will include Birch, Ash, Red Maple, Cedar, Lilac and Flowering Crab. 8. Parking: This project requires a total of 43 parking spaces and 43 spaces are being proposed including two (2) handicapped spaces. Parking stall dimensions and aisle widths meet minimum requirements. 9. F.A.R.(Floor Area Ratio): The floor area ratio for this project is .15 (maximum allowed is .5). 10) Alterations: This building will be altered by adding a 7'x100' canopy along the south side of the building and adding a 12'x12' canopy on the north side of the building. 11. Traffic: This property is in Traffic Overlay Zone 6 which allows this property to generate a maximum of 58.8 vehicle trip ends (vte's) during the P.M. peak hour. Using the I.T.E. shopping center code, it is estimated that this project will generate 163 vte's during the P.M. peak hour of the adjacent street. This is 104 trips or 175% greater than permitted by regulation. The applicant submitted some traffic projections for his proposed use at the 5/12/92 meeting. These projections indicate that during the P.M. peak hour the new use will generate 60 trips (the applicant explained that a trip equaled one (1) customer). This information provided by the applicant translates to 120 vte's since each customer makes two (2) trip ends. 12 Lighting: Proposed exterior lighting consists of five (5) 250 watt lights on 20 foot poles with sharp cutoff luminaries. These lights are located along the south boundary line. CONCLUSIONS 1. Section 1.80 of the Central District Zoning Ordinance, which is a part of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, prohibits alterations to non -complying structures except for alterations to facades and exterior finishes. The two (2) proposed canopies would result in alterations to this building as that term is defined under Section 21.102 of the zoning regulations. 2 2. Section 1.6022 of the Central District Zoning Ordinance requires that "all buildings and structures,... shall be constructed within an allowable building envelope. Allowable building envelopes shall be between zero (0) and 80 feet from the nearest public street right-of-way. Along Dorset Street, the envelope is measured from a point 50 feet east of the right-of- way, thereby creating a 50 foot front yard setback from Dorset Street". The proposed 7'x100' canopy extends beyond the limits of the building envelope and therefore does not comply with Section 1.6022. This section was adopted by the City Council on May 4, 1992 and will take effect on May 25, 1992. Since this section is not yet in effect, the applicant would have to obtain approval from the City Council to deviate from this requirement. The applicant has not received nor applied for approval from the City Council. 3. The subject property is_.locate.d in Traffic overlay Zone 6 as defined in Section 17.20 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. The Traffic Overlay Zone limits the peak hour trip end generation for this property to 58.8 trip ends. Using the shopping center code in the I.T.E. Trip Generation manual, it is estimated that this project will generate 163 vehicle trip ends (vte's) during the P.M. peak hour of the adjacent street. The applicant has estimated his use to generate 120 vte's. Section 17.50 of the zoning regulations allows the Planning Commission to approve peak hour traffic volumes above the normal standards if it determines that other site improvements will produce a net benefit for traffic flow in the vicinity. In making its determination, the Planning Commission may consider the requirements contained in Sections 17.501 through 17.504. It is the Planning Commission's opinion that: a) Section 17.501 is not met since this proposal does not include a PCD. b) Section 17.502 is not met since it is not proposed to change or reduce the number and locations of curb cuts. c) Section 17.503 is not met since no data was submitted to show a benefit on traffic volumes and on levels of service at nearby intersections. The increased traffic estimated to be generated by the proposed use would tend to have a negative effect on levels of service at nearby intersections. d) Section 17.504 is not met since the proposed use will result in peak hour trip generation higher than is permitted and no access management improvements are proposed as part of this application. 3 DECISION Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the Planning Commission makes the following decision: The Planning Commission hereby denies the applicant's request to convert a 7,680 square foot building to retail for 2-4 retail units at 350 Dorset Street for the following reasons: a) The application does not meet the requirements of Section 1.80 of the Central District Zoning Ordinance. The two (2) proposed canopies are alterations to the building which is prohibited by this section. b) The application does not meet the requirements of Section 1.6022 of the Central District Zoning Ordinance. The proposed 7'x100' canopy will extend beyond the limits of the allowable-bui:l-ding envelope. Approval to extend beyond the limits has not been obtained from by the City Council. c) The impacts resulting from the retail conversion do not comply with or satisfy the requirements of Article XVII, Traffic Overlay District, of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Dated this day of 1992 in South Burlington, Vermont. Chairman or Clerk South Burlington Planning Commission 4 M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: May 21-, 1992 agenda items Date: May 15,1992• -- 2) SITE PLAN 350-DORSET STREET The Planning Commission continued this item to Thursday's meeting in order for staff to draft a denial motion. It. was the Commission's determination that the proposed project would exceed trip generation limitations, and therefore must be denied. Since the meeting, the applicant hired Roger Dickinson to conduct a more thorough trip generation analysis for the project (see enclosed report). Also enclosed is a letter from Leonard Duffy explaining an error in the methodology of the earlier assessment. The analysis conducted by Roger was received late Thursday. Staff has not had a chance to review -the study. A recommendation will. be provided at Thursday's meeting. Staff will also have available both an approval and denial notion for the Commission's cony,iderat.ion. 3) CITY CENTER STREET LAYOUT PLAN/PARKING FUND PROGRAM The Consultants for the City Center Street Layout./Parking Fund project will be at. Thursday's meeting to present the preliminary :report. The consultants have been working on the project along with an advisory committee since early February. The Advisory Committee consists of: Joe Weit.h Sonny Audet.t.e Dick Posey (Business owner) John Jaeger (Business owner) John Dinklage Bill Craig Bernadine Collins (resident, City Center Committee) Peg Strait (Assistant City Manager) u�/("/;i1 � �- j 41 arl)l s-rve�1�1---Z-Z-7b� Z-7-1077f4' 3 ^ ' -�tv ql G o el J 0 1 ... _. _.. _................_. .. _,. ... _. .__ .. .. �u .d.•.. J ]..0.y:.:N:Pw!'.:gb�d.::a�..14,{Il,�. ,I J�I b.l, .�u„�..� w4 n6Mi.�. L.0 u... 6Hsd 1•d.l..�rldb..e.. LE 'BARB) IDUFFY & ASSD r" +TES P. 0. OWX 366 MAIN STREET HINESBURG, VT. 0$461 802) 482-3C40 JJnriM s�Mw1+lY1�w.J.. w. .. .fin.• 1n. . .. .. .A 1. ..�� .i. a ... i 1. .. � .�. .., •. �u� • .�.� _. �:. nNNF•..1.. /.Y 1•..r .n..r •.r..l •. I.0 .u� . i �i �•W A. �. •. ...,.�. u. �.. �r� ... . 1 .. �. ..u.� r.r..,.• .i. .� LCIL-M You t6l6 ' vs";ram- k eAu, tt"-P -° - To tA` i94 m #fir -p"6- &A-1844' 1-4 LEONARD OUFFY and ASSOCIATES architects planners development consultants MAIN STREET BOX 366 HINESBURG, VERMONT 05461 802 482 3040 FAX 802 482 3490 350 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS (for Site Plan review 5/12/92) USE: SPECIALTY RETAIL (maximum three establishments) Primary tenant with maximum frontage exposure is to be "The Net Result", a specialty food market. Secondary tenant(s) are to be related but non competing retail businesses. DAILY TRAFFIC INFORMATION: ITE: Average for specialty retail=27.7 trips/1000 s.f. x 7600 s.f.= 211 trips/day Application assumed 270 (=median of 21-51 ITE range) Actual use for "The Net Result" based on customer records = +/- 170 cars per day ( 17,700 customers/103 days, first �• 1992, 98% assumed in separate cars) YVIIiIf'j�J Assuming additional traffic generated by secondary tenants (separate trips) = 60%, total daily traffic volume = +/- 270. Average weekday traffic = +/- 240. DISTRIBUTION: The Net Result is open from 10 AM to 7 PM Monday through Saturday. It is assumed that other tenant(s) will be similar. Saturday and Friday are peak days. Peak traffic is generated from 3:30 to 7PM, earlier on Saturdays. Distribution for this application (weekdays at +/-240 trips) is based on the following: hour % of day trips 9-10 2 6 10-11 6 14 11-12 6 14 12-1 6 14 1-2 6 14 2-3 6 14 3-4 12 30 4-5 25 60 5-6 25 60 6-7 6 14 SPECIALTY RETAIL CENTER (814) ,Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1,000 SQUARE FEET GROSS FLOOR AREA On a: WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION RATES Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area Average Range of Standard Number of Average 1,000 Trip Rate Rates Deviation Studies Square Feet GFA 40.675 21.304-50.941 3 27.7 DATA PLOT AND EQUATION CAUTION —USE CAREFULLY —SMALL SAMPLE SIZE. 2, 000 ° 0 1,800 z / n- 1, 600 / 1,400 U w / > 1, 200 w < 1,000 w u 800 600 ,400 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 X = 1000 SQUARE FEET GFA ❑ ACTUAL DATA POINTS FITTED CURVE Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 1.12 Ln(X) + 3.24 RZ = 0.549 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Not available. Trip Generation, September 1987/Institute of Transportation Engineers 1082 M USE: 814 Y RETAIL CENTER I CHARACTERISTICS Specialty retail centers are generally small shopping renters which contain shops specializing in quality apparel or hard goods. The centers studied ranged in size between 17,000 and 43,000 square feet gross leasable area. AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRANSIT TRIP ENDS No data available. DATA LIMITATIONS Only three centers were studied. Therefore, more data are required for this use. SOURCE NUMBER 100 4 Trip Generation, September 1987/Institute of Transportation Engineers 1081 LEONAR6 OUFFY and A.4---iOCIATES architects planners development consultants MAIN STREET BOX 366 HINESBURG, VERMONT 05461 802 482 3040 FAX 802 482 3490 May 12, 1992 MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Leonard Duffy, AIA RE: 350 Dorset Street Based on recent conversations with staff and others concerning the City Center II District, there appears to be a perception that the existing (noncomplying) buildings on Dorset Street have little or no value as structures. We offer the following as background information regarding this particular property. Since the "Alco" building is unoccupied and internally unfinished, similar or greater evaluations may apply to some of the more substantial neighboring structures. The following information may be useful to the commission's deliberations regarding properties in this district: I. City's Appraisal Although the city listing on the property is somewhat out of date ($195,000 total), it is based on a valuation of the building at approximately 47 percent of the total value (32% without proportioning update factors). II. Sellers Appraisal The building is presently owned by the Vermont Federal Bank and was appraised in October 1990 as follows: land @ 300,000/acre $360,000 building and site improvements $240,000 total $600,000 building and improvements = +/- 40% (Note: the property sold in September 1988 for $625,000) III. Buyer's Evaluation The purchaser has had the property evaluated, subject to approvals, by a professional commercial real estate broker familiar with properties in the area as follows: land @$8/sf $400,000 building @10/sf $76,000 paving @ 3/sf $18,000 building and paving = 20% proposed purchase cost V. Replacement Cost Analysis This firm completed the attached breakdown of costs necessary to replace the building "in kind" on the same site. Demolition costs were assumed to be equivalent to salvage value; Replacement sitework costs were not included (extended utilities,additional front landscaping, relocation of curbs, additional. pavement required, etc.); and real (as opposed to tax) depreciation was considered where appropriate. replacement cost only +/- $118,000 = +/- 25% proposed purchase cost Note: The existing building is constructed as a clear span, fixed width structural system of a type which can not: readily be reconfigured or expanded laterally. V. Intrinsic Values The existing structure also has considerable value as it exists in ways less easily analyzed numerically: Parking is visible from street (essential to retail) Relative visibility of building from street Time advantage regarding local permits ?? Time advantage regarding state permits Time advantage to construction process Single entrance building vs. double (also an operating factor) Proportion of building/land mass regarding intended use. Limited site development costs/time Limited demolition costs/ time Clear span structural system Interior plumbing and floor drain system Intact paving and site drainage system Intact Utilities including new underground electric and gas services to the building No Text 5 Table 1 Shopping Center Vehicle Trip Gener,7Vor1 Vehicle Trip Ends (Two -Way Volume) Independent Variable -Trips per 1,000 Square Feet Gross Leasable Area A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Average Weekday (1 Hour Between (1 Hour Between Gross Leasable Area Vehicle Trip Ends 7-9 A.M.) 4-6 P.M.) (1,000 Square Feet) Rate Volume Rate Volume Rate Volume 10 166.35 1,664 4.39 44 18.82 188 50 94.71 4,735 2.31 115 8.69 435 100 74.31 7,431 1.75 175 6.23 623 200 58.93 11,785 1.32 265 4.49 897 300 48.31 14,492 1.13 338 3.85 1,155 400 43.00 17,199 1.00 401 3.53 1,413 500 39.81 19,906 0.92 459 3.34 1,671 600 37.69 22,613 0.85 512 3.22 1,929 800 35.03 28,027 0.76 608 3.06 2,445 1000 33.44 33,441 0.70 696 2.96 2,961 1200 32.38 38,855 0.65 776 2.90 3,477 1400 31.62 44,269 0.61 851 2.85 3,993 1600 31.05 49,683 0.58 922 2.82 4,509 Source: Trip Generation Equations Table 2 Hourly Variation in Shopping Center Traffic Under 100,000 Square Feet Gross Leasable Area Average Weekday, Saturdayb of % of % of % of 24 Hour 24 Hour 24 Hour 24 Hour Time Entering Exiting Entering Exiting 10-11 A.M. 7.6 6.5 6.8 5.8 11-12 Noon 7.6 8.4 8.8 8.9 12-1 P.M. 7.6 8.2 9.4 8.8 1-2 P.M. 6.9 7.5 10.0 10.1 2-3 P M. 9.0 7.8 9.7 8.4 3-4 P.M. 9.6 9.5 10.3 9.6 4-5 P.M. 9.7 10.4 10.7 10.7 5-6 P.M. 10.3 11.0 9.4 8.7 6-7 P.M. 7.4 8.3 7.3 8.3 7-8 P.M. 5.4 5.3 5.0 5.7 8-9 P.M. 4.2 4.3 3.2 3.9 9-10 P.M. 1.9 1.8 2.0 3.3 Source numbers: 95, 124, number of studies: 4 ° Source numbers: 95, 124; number of studies: 4 Trip Generation, September 1987/Institute of Transportation Engineers 1151 LAND USE: 810 RETAIL -GENERAL MERCHANDISE DESCRIPTION AND TRIP CHARACTERISTICS A general merchandise retail establishment is an individual free-standing store selling general mer- chandise. AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRANSIT TRIP ENDS No data available. DATA LIMITATIONS More data are needed in order to make valid con- clusions. SOURCE NUMBER 182 Trip Generation, September 1987/Institute of Transportation Engineers 1050 RETAIL -GENERAL MERCHANDISE (810) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1,000 SQUARE FEET GROSS FLOOR AREA On a: WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC, ONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND 6 P.M. TRIP GENERATION RATES Average Vehicle Trip Ends (Weekday —Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 P.M.) per 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area Average Range of Standard Number of Average 1,000 Trip Rate Rates Deviation Studies Square Feet GFA 4.804 1 214.0 CAUTION —USE CAREFULLY —SMALL SAMPLE SIZE. NO PLOT OR EQUATION AVAILABLE —INSUFFICIENT DATA DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION: 50% enter, 50% exit. Trip Generation, September 1987/Institute of Transportation Engineers 1051 Memorandum - Planning May 12, 1992 agenda items May 8, 1992 Page 11 7 ) EMA . I NC__ - -TET RESULT -350 DORSET S This project consists of the renovation and change in use to retail of an existing 7,680 square foot building (the former Alco building). This property located at 350 Dorset Street is within the Central District 2 zone. It is bounded on the north by a fabric store and beauty salon (Dorset Street) and a radiator repair shop (San Remo Drive), on the south by Champlain Oil's trucking terminal, on the east by San Remo Drive and on the west by Dorset Street. An issue has arisen regarding the alteration of nonconforming structures in the Central District. Section 1.80 of the Central District ordinance states "No alterations will be allowed to a noncomplying structure..." An alteration is defined in section 21.102 as "... a change or rearrangement in the structural parts or in the exit facilities, or an enlargement..." The original- intent of Section 1.8 of the Central District Ordinance was to make it difficult for existing nonconforming structures to be rehabilitated and, therefore, encourage new, conforming structures to be constructed. This application is not proposing any expansion, however, several exit facilities would be rearranged or altered. Therefore, the Zoning Administrator will not be able to issue a permit, unless a variance is obtained. The Planning Commission needs to discuss whether it was intended to make it extremely difficult for noncomplying structures to improve, even if they are not expanded. If this was intended, the zoning regulations should be amended to clarify this issue. Access/circulation: Access will be provided by a 30 foot curb cut on Dorset Street, in conformance with the Dorset Street reconstruction plans, and a 24 foot curb cut on San Remo Drive. Traffic circulation on the site is acceptable. 11 Memorandum - Planning May 12, 1992 agenda items May 8. 1992 Page 12 Coverage/setbacks: Building coverage is 16.3% (maximum allowed is 40%). Overall coverage is 83.1% (maximum allowed is 90%). 1-1 The building does not meet the front setback requirement and the /lf '"' rear of the building extends beyond the 80 foot building��.✓' envelope. This building is therefore a noncomplying structure and is subject to Section 1.80 of the Central District Zoning Ordinance. The proposed 71x100' canopy along the south side of the building extends beyond the 80 foot building envelope. Landscaping: The landscaping requirement for this project is $6,000 which will be met. Plantings will include Birch, Ash, Red V`1 Maple, Cedar, Lilac and Flowering Crab. Staff recommends that the gravel area which is not to be used for parking be converted(�f to green area in order to improve the appearance of the site. Parking: This project requires a total of 43 parking spaces and �,.�.. 43 spaces are being proposed including two (2) handicapped spaces. Parking stall dimensions and aisle widths meet minimum requirements. F.A.R.(Floor Area Ratio): The floor area ratio for this project is .15 (maximum allowed is .5). Traffic: This property is in Traffic Overlay Zone (which allows this property to generate a maximum of 58.8 vehicle trip ends (vte's) during the P.M. peak hour. The Planning Commission in, ? 1989 approved the conversion of this building to retail and/or office use and allowed up to 70 vte's. Using the I.T.E. shopping center code, staff estimates this project to generate 163 vte's during the P.M. peak hour of the adjacent street. This is 104 trips or 175% greater than permitted by regulations. The applicant estimates 60 vte's but has submitted no supporting data. / wer: The sewer allocation for this project is 225 gpd based orf 15 employees. The applicant will be required to pay the $2.50 per gallon fee prior to permit. Lighting: Exterior lighting proposed consists of five (5) 250 watt lights on 20 foot poles with sharp cutoff luminaries. These � ^ lights are located along the south boundary line. It'' 'X A 12 Memorandum - Planning May 12, 1992 agenda items May 8, 1992 Page 13 Other: --- a dumpster is proposed which will be screened by a combination of a six (6) foot board fence and a cedar hedge. 8) O'BRIEN'S TRAININGCENTER_ -_ADDITION - 1475 SHELBURNE ROA The only remaining issue left to be resolved was fire protection. The applicant and the Fire Chief met to discuss the best way to resolve this issue. It was determined that the problem would be in the future when Shelburne Road is improved and a median constructed. To alleviate this problem, the City should incorporate as part of the improvements a new water line on the west side of Shelburne Road (see Chief Goddette's memo). 13 M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer Re: May 12, 1992 Preliminary Comments Date: May 1, 1992 SOUTH BURLINGTON CHRYSLER - PLYMOUTH -Drainage system pipe shall be plastic or concrete not metal or aluminum. 2. Plan prepared by Civil Engineering Association dated April, 1992 is acceptable. DR.. SLACK PROPERTY, G.ILBERT STREET The record plan should show the drainage pipe in the area. If a portion of this pipe crosses the property a drainage easement shall be given to the City. 350 DORSET STREET (ALCO BUILDING) 1. The entrance drive shall conform to the Dorset Street. improvement. plans. 2. The existing gravel area should be top soiled and seeded and maintained as a lawn. 3. The record plan should show the drainage system including the piping and discharge point_. BONANZA. SHELBUR E ROAD 1. The drainage plan, shall include the underground pipe system including pipe size and invert. elevations. 2. Large trucks especially those that have equipment that runs constantly should not be allowed because of the close proximity to the residential area. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURUNGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 May 8, 1992 Leonard Dutty, AIA Box 366 Hinesburg, Vermont 05461 Re: Retail, 350 Dorset. Street. Dear Mr. Duffy: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the— agenda for next. Tuesday's Planning Commission w meeting and _::_,rwrnents tram City Engineer Hill Szyman!, Fire ".hie:: Jim Goddetre and myself. Please be sure someone is present on `1'ueFday, Psi, y 1z, 1992 at. 7:00 P.M. to represent your request.. if you have any question , please give me_. a call. Sincerely. Joe Weith, } City Planner .' w/mcp . Eric FlE_'1_,i,_,-'enheimer MEMORANDUM - FIRE CHIEF MAY 12, 1992 AGENDA ITEMS APRIL 28, 1992 5. NET RESULT 350 DORSET STREET PLANS WERE REVISED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND AT THIS TIME I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM IN GIVEN EMERGENCY PROTECTION IF REQUIRED. e-1 ^4020 7— "1 r-gexle" y�86y X � 6 = 3�. s �,�'s l✓ 1 ��K ,�f � vF G�O r-YA70 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 May 1, 1992 Leonard Duffy, AIA Box 366 Hinesburg, Vermont 05461 Re: Retail, 350 Dorset. :street Dear Mr. Duffy: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find some preliminary comments on the above referenced application form Fire Chief Jim Goddette and myself. Comments from City Engineer Bill Szymanski will be forwarded to you as soon as they are available. Please submit the additional information requested and/or revised plans no later. than Tuesday, May 5, 1992. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Since ely, �. A,& -- Raymond J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant Encls RJB/mcp MEMORANDUM - FIRE CHIEF MAY 12, 1992 AGENDA ITEMS APRIL 28, 1992 5. NET RESULT 350 DORSET STREET PLANS WERE REVISED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND AT THIS TIME I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM IN GIVEN EMERGENCY PROTECTION IF REQUIRED. LEONARO OUFFY and ASSOCIATES MAIN STREET BOX 366 HINESBURG VERMONT 05461 802 482 3040 FAX 802 482 3490 PROJECT FILE CORRESPONDENCE FILE -BOOK - LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE ATTENTION RE w\ 3A�7n ' WE ARE SENDING 1�r ATTACHED ❑ UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA ❑ SAMPLES ❑ SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ CONTRACTS ❑ LITERATURE ❑ ENGINEERING DRAWINGS ❑ OTHER ❑ PLANS ❑ CHANGE ORDERS ❑ PRINTS ❑ LETTERS -_ AMAZ\ f walls .. fir � '• � � . WIN THESE ARE BEING SENT: ❑ FOR YOUR APPROVAL 'FOR YOUR USE ❑ FOR YOUR REVIEW ❑ FOR YOUR COMMENTS ❑ FOR YOUR SIGNATURE ❑ PER YOUR REQUEST NOTES COPY TO ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ RESUBMIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ❑ SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION ❑ APPROVED AS CHANGED ❑ RENEW COPIES FOR ❑ REJECTED AS NOTED ❑ REJECTED AS CHANGED ❑ ❑ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS SIGNATURE J=_ d / - �A_ 1 TITLE I WDATE No Text - 3 Sege tl l e Ab 0 019Z �� ©D 2 _S' SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RE: ERIC FLEGENHEIMER (NET RESULT) ZONING APPEAL JUNE 8, 1992 MEMORANDUM TO THE SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Eric Flegenheimer, the Applicant, is before the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment requesting alternative forms of relief from the decision of the Zoning Administrator in connection with certain improvements to be made to the former "ALCO" building at 350 Dorset Street in South Burlington. The property is presently owned by the Vermont Federal Bank, which recently obtained the property through a foreclosure action against the former owner. Eric Flegenheimer has a contract to purchase the ALCO building, subject however, to obtaining the necessary permits for him to move his existing business (The Net Result) from 100 Dorset Street to 350 Dorset Street, and rent the back portion of the building to another specialty retail operation. The Applicant has already received site _plan approval_ for this property from the South Burlington Planning Commission. Historical Background 1. The lots on the east side of Dorset Street between the entrances to San Remo Drive were all originally developed so that the buildings were set back approximately the same distance from Dorset Street. The fifty foot setback for these lots was originally established so as to allow future widening of Dorset Street. (See Exhibit A) 2. Upon information and belief, eight buildings (including the ALCO building) were constructed in conformance with the then -existing zoning regulations for the district. The ALCO building was constructed in 1969, and from 1969 through 1989 was used as a tank trailer and truck equipment sales and repair facility. (See Exhibit B and B-1) 3. The ALCO building has been vacant since 1989, and as such, none of its former uses are grandfathered under the present zoning regulations. In other words, it can only be used for those uses which are specifically permitted under Section 1.101 and Section 1.20 of the Central District Zoning Ordinance enacted in 1988. 4. Prior to 1988, a wide variety of commercial uses were permitted in the Central District area, including retail and wholesale operations, car washes, printing, laboratories, and similar ventures. In addition, there were many uses allowed as conditional uses. See Exhibit C attached hereto. 5. Prior to 1988, the C2 Zoning District provided for 50 foot front yard setbacks for buildings, 15 foot wide side yard setbacks, and 30 foot rear setbacks. The 50 foot setback requirement was for the sole purpose of allowing a future widening of Dorset Street. The setback requirement for Dorset Street is not consistent with the setback requirement for other areas in the City Center District, which allow for either 25 foot setback or even 0 foot setback in some places. Upon information and belief, all of the buildings along Dorset Street between the San Remo Drive entrances were conforming buildings and the uses of those buildings were either permitted or conditionally permitted. 6. Two major occurrences have created a condition which makes it virtually impossible to use, sell, or lease the ALCO building at 350 Dorset Street. These conditions are (a) the Dorset Street improvement project, which widened Dorset Street, and thereby automatically reduced the front yard of these properties; and (b) the enactment of certain portions of the Central District Zoning Ordinance in 1988. 7. The former actual use of the ALCO building is expressly prohibited under the new Central District Zoning Regulations. In fact, considering the design, construction materials, layout, and facade of the existing building, there is virtually no likelihood that someone would want to lease or buy this building in its present layout and appearance -forme of-thepermitted or conditional. uses now allowed in the zone. 8. This building has been on the market since 1989 for sale or lease without success. 9. The former owner was unable to attract any potential user, and in April of 1992, the building was lost in a foreclosure action brought by the Vermont Federal Bank. 10. Mr. Flegenheimer's lease at 100 Dorset Street has not been renewed and he must find another location for his business, and be able to move to that new location within the next few months. 11. The Net Result is an established, well -run retail operation, with a loyal following of customers. In order to maintain its customer base, it is essential that The Net Result be able to relocate on Dorset Street. 12. Eric Flegenheimer has signed a contract to purchase the ALCO building from Vermont Federal Bank, conditioned upon receipt of the necessary permits and approvals in order to operate his business in the front portion of the building, and lease the back portion to another retail specialty store. 13. Eric Flegenheimer, and his real estate agent, have conducted an exhaustive search for a new facility to house The Net Result, and to date, the only viable alternative space in the area is the ALCO building at 350 Dorset Street. N 14. After receiving site plan approval from the South Burlington Planning Commission, the Applicant applied to the South Burlington Zoning Administrator for a zoning permit. The proposed project encompasses only the following changes to the exterior of the building (requiring approval of the Zoning Administrator): A. Upgrading the appearance of the building by changing the exterior facade, and removal of an existing shed. B. Relocation of an existing doorway on the north side of the building, adding one doorway on the east side of the building, eliminating two existing doors on the south side of the building, and the removal of three existing overhead doors. 15. Since the changes to the doors in the building are such an insignificant portion of the total project, and form an integral part of the facade rehabilitation, the Applicant asked the Zoning Administrator to issue a permit on the grounds that the proposed improvements did not violate the spirit or intent of Section 21.102 (Alterations), or Section 1.80 (Alterations to Non -Complying Structures). 16. The Zoning Administrator has ruled that the modifications of any exterior door (overhead or not) or the addition of a new door does not come within the allowable changes to "Facades and Exterior Finishes" under Section 1.80. 17. The Applicant is asking the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment to grant the following alternative relief: either: or A. Overrule the decision of the South Burlington Zoning Administrator and allow the proposed changes to occur as "Alterations to Facades and Exterior Finishes", B. Grant a variance under 24 V.S.A. §4468 for the proposed changes to the doors of the building. ISSUES I. Whether or not the proposed changes and additions to the doors on the former ALCO building at 350 Dorset Street should be considered a portion of the "Alteration of the Facade and Exterior Finish" under Section 1.80 of the Central District Zoning Regulations, and hence allowed without a variance. Or, if the decision of the Zoning Administrator is upheld, II. Whether or not a variance should be granted under 24 V.S.A. §4468 for the minimal changes to the building based on the five criteria of the statute. 3 ARGUMENT I. THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT THE CHANGES TO THE DOORS PROPOSED BY HIS ARCHITECT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE UPGRADING OF THE FACADE, AND HENCE ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 1.80 OF THE ORDINANCE. In it's present condition, the building is an unattractive metal structure which is totally unsuitable for a retail establishment, not to mention a grocery store or fish market. (See Exhibit D-1, D-2, D-3) Since the Applicant intends to incorporate more attractive and functional doors into the facade, the definition of facade and exterior finishes should be broad enough to include the replacement and rearranging of doors, especially where the total number of doors is decreased. The Applicant is not proposing to construct any stairs or increase the total number of exits. Neither is the Applicant planning to construct any porches, ramps, foyers, or other structures commonly associated with "exit facilities". Finally, the South Burlington City Council has on June 1, 1992, directed the City Planner to address the entire issue of whether or not Section 1.80 of the City Center Zoning Ordinance enacted in 1988 should be rescinded to prevent unreasonable and unanticipated results to property on Dorset Street, including the ALCO building. 7Jg majori, of the counsel members expressed ,grave concerns over the hardships and unfairness of the existing ordinance to this Applicant, icant. (See Exhibit E) Under the circumstances, the Applicant should be given the benefit of the most favorable interpretation of the Zoning ordinance and be permitted to make the changes as part of the facade upgrade and rehabilitation. II. IF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS UNWILLING TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, THEN SURELY JUSTICE DICTATES THAT A VARIANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED TO ALLOW THE MINIMAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY. 24 V.S.A. §4468 sets out the five criteria which must be met before a zoning board should grant a variance. 4 1. THAT THERE ARE UNIQUE PHYSICAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS, INCLUDING IRREGULARITY, NARROWNESS OR SHALLOWNESS OF LOT SIZE OR SHAPE, OR EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHICAL OR OTHER PHYSICAL CONDITIONS PECULIAR TO THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY, AND THAT UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IS DUE TO SUCH CONDI770NS, AND NOT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS GENERALLY CREATED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING REGULATION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT. IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. A. The ALCO building is indeed unique, in that it was constructed for a specific use which is now expressly prohibited under the current zoning ordinance. B. The building in its present form fails to meet current building code exit requirements for any use, and additional doors have to be installed in order to meet state fire codes. C_ _ Th? pllanning gals for which. Sections1-6022_and_Section1.80 were-. enacted have already come under serious question by the City Council because those sections have in effect created an involuntary urban renewal, subsidized by a few unfortunate landowners. D. The ALCO building (and the other buildings on Dorset Street between the San Remo Drive entrances) are unique because they are the only buildings in the City which are subject to such arbitrary zoning requirements as to make them virtually impossible to upgrade and make them useable under present use restrictions. In the recent City Council meeting, the council member who had lobbied the hardest to have the present ordinance enacted, admitted on several occasions that it was his intention all along to force these landowners to remove the buildings so that the new "preferred" plan would be implemented. The ALCO building has been singled out for destruction based upon (1) utopian planning goals; (2) unrealistic assumptions of a market -driven economy; and (3) a planning failure to realize the real consequences of such draconian zoning measures. E. The lot is also unique because it has been subject to both front and rear setback reductions at the same time that Dorset Street was widened. F. There have been recent substantial changes in the City Center Master Plan which cast serious doubt on whether the goals in the "San Remo Block" are achievable or even desireable. The City Council has instructed the City's planning staff to "go back to the drawing table" in order to deal with the apparent serious flaws in the present k plan. In the meantime, however, this lot is in the unique position of being burdened with "spot" zoning restrictions which may well be changed in the near future because of the hardship they cause. It is ironic that if a property owner asked for "spot zoning" his request would be summarily dismissed by the City Council. G. Another hardship is that approximately 25 feet must be removed from the front of the building and approximately 25 feet from the back of the building in order to make in conforming. This is a substantial taking without any compensation. H. For the reasons outlined above, the existing conditions create an unnecessary hardship on the property and make it unusable for any reasonable commercial venture. 2 THAT BECAUSE OF SUCH PHYSICAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS, THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY THAT THE PROPERTY CAN BE DEVELOPED IN STRICT CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING REGULATION AND THAT THE AUTHORIZATION OF A VARIANCE IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE REASONABLE USE -OF THE PROPERTY.. A. A variance is needed to make the minimal changes to the door layout of this building. The building does not meet present day code requirements for exits, so a variance is necessary to make the building commercial useful and safe. B. The uses for which the building was originally designed and constructed are no longer permitted in this zone. The uses which are now permitted are only feasible with the alterations being proposed by the Applicant. 3. THAT THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP HAS NOT BEEN CREATED BY THE APPLICANT A. The hardships described herein were directly caused by the implementation of an impractical and unrealistic zoning measure, in an attempt to carry out a planning goal of dubious value or practicality. It was also caused by the widening of Dorset Street. Neither the landowner nor the Applicant created any of the present conditions. T 4. THAT THE VARIANCE IF AUTHORIZED, WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, SUBSTANTIALLY OR PERMANENTLY IMPAIR THE APPROPRIATE USE OR DEVELOPMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTY, REDUCE ACCESS TO RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES, NOR BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE A. There can be no question that the proposed rehabilitation and restoration of this building allowed by the variances requested will substantially improve the character of the neighborhood, and in fact, will be the first positive step in bringing the rest of the street into conformity with the "desired" use patterns, namely, retail, office, and residential. B. It will be a great loss to Dorset Street and South Burlington if The Net Result goes out of business because it cannot relocate to the City Center District on Dorset Street. S. THAT THE VARIANCE, IF AUTHORIZED, WILL REPRESENT THE MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT WILL AFFORD RELIEF AND WILL REPRESENT THE LEAST DEVIATION POSSIBLE FROM THE ZONING REGULATION AND FROM THE PLAN. A. The Applicant is asking to change a very small part of the existing building, and will actually reduce the present number of doors. B. The door changes are minor relocations or additions, and in fact locate the doors further from Dorset Street. C. Without the ability to make these minor changes to doors, the building is simply not useable for any use. CONCLUSION In addition to reasonably meeting the five criteria under 24 V.S.A. §4468, a variance should be granted to correct an obvious glitch in the future plan for Dorset Street, which has already been recognized informally by the Planning Commission and formally by the City Council of South Burlington. 7 We respectfully ask the Zoning Board of Adjustment to either (1) find that the proposed renovations by the Applicant be considered a portion of the "Alteration of the Facade and Exterior Finishes" under Section 1.80, or (2) grant the variance requested. pmc/emezoning Respectfully submitted, PAUL, F & COLL S, INC. By: AW Peter . Collins, sq. for the Applicant, Eric Flegenheimer, The Net Result i O�3 Of�- vi 0 P No Text No Text :.TA � _rpcse �•, 1 i ; rmesc:ai 1 Zatr:ct __ -erecy :cr �d order �� encourage aenerai `r 17 :merciai activity. :7. addition to uses permitted in c^,e C1 district, __roe _-t retail ses, such as sale of :rotor .-enicies and building materials, -av te=ermittea. A pane of _ndustriai :ses as weii as ciustered .'sidentiai .:eveicoment 7av ce permitted in. Locations trat are-utuaily :?riati: ie with cenerai `olrmerc:dl_ Lanneo C-mmrc:di ieveiop" -ents are encouraaea to L=rcinate traffic .-ve-ments am to provide a 7,tentsai location for nian-traffic --eneratirq cc merciai uses. ..ie tollowing uses are permitted :n -ne Commerciai Z District. Dusiness.,and professional offices such as real estate, _nsurance, architect, •_noineer, sawyer, :eter:narian, doctor, edical clinic, zovernment, r:vate non-profit, and travel ,cency. _._,_ 7ne following • retail businesses:-aroersnop, ceauty salon, _crest, nursery, caraen center, ?reennouse, aaies and :ervice of electrical facilities ana cameras ana accessories, -ailor,launaromat, irycieaner, iaunary, _cozen :pod locker, _noe sales and repair, _lothina sales, dales ana service of [lice equipment and supplies, ..araware, -ousenold furniture, .ales of interior aecorating supplies, iet shop, indertaker .nd memorial sales, sales or sports equipment, Bata pro- _essina services, copying, :iueprintina, _no .rapnic arts services, artist's or pnotoorapnic stcalo, .ift shop, book- store, musical instrument sales ana service. __.103 F.otels and motels __,104 Standard restaurants, coffee shops .2.105 Service stations :2.106 Drug stores _Z.107 Sale of dry goods, variety merchandise and sundries 2.108 Bake shops -139 :ndoor theatres : r wasnes caticnai :st-t000 restaurants 3anKs ;aermarKets ._15 Department and discount stores __.116 :ndoor recreational facilities __.11-rinting, cooxbinding, puolisning, and enaravina Research and testing laboratories .nait:cnai ':ses -he toilowing uses may ce permitted the �:,:mmercia_ _ District as •cnaitionai uses by the Board of Adjustment :n accoraance with the rovisions of Section 19.05. 2.201 'averns,private clubs and amusement arcades 2.Z02 :ndoor and outdoor recreational facilities :_.203 Printing, booKbinding, publishing ana engraving .Z04 Research and testing laboratories ;2.205 Manufacturing and assembly from previously prepared materials and components _Z.Z06 Public utility substations and transmission and distribution lines. Review of these facilities snail include an evaluation of safety, aesthetics, noise, and availability of alternate sites. 'Z.207 State and municipal facilities 12.208 Day_ ca a centers 12.209 Roomingrand•boarding houses L2.210 University facilities, including offices, classroon buildings, A;,. ,. ;•.;, and -suppose services but excluding buildings for residential use. 12.211 :hirsing and convalescent hones 12.212 outdoor recreational facilities 12.213 Kennels and animal hospitals 12.214 Aumrtr ile and marine sales and service 12.215 Agriculture and construction equipment sales and service L2.216 Fental of equipment and miscellaneous its, 12.217 Equipment service and repair sib 12.218 Wholesale establishments 12.219 Storaae and distribution facilities 12.220 Sale of building materials 12.221 Mobile home sales 12.222 Catering and food delivery 12-223 Taxi caroanies _'-.224 Sale of automotive parts -2.225 Automooile repair aria' service _Z.Z26 Automobile rental. _Z.227 TrucK terminals 12.228 Contractors and lumber yards 12.229 Outside storage in connection with any permitted or conditional use r ' I • r� :� i j ► Tl= OR �P/ / el _r � CITY COUNCIL 1 June 1992 page 3 just passed addresses issues of concern and noted that reasonable people can disagree. Mr. Milot noted that last Tuesday the Planning Commission refused to hear his plans for an area that has been in interim zoning. The plans conform to both the old and newly passed ordinances. He wanted to know if they would now be heard by the Commission if the area is back in interim zoning. He felt a lot of posturing is being done behind closed doors. He specifically asked if his plans would be heard by the Planning Commission or City Council. Mr. Cimonetti said that under interim zoning they would be heard by the City Council. Mr. Milot noted the plans had been sub- mitted prior to interim zoning and it is their contention that they are thus grandfathered. He added that he felt there are--- already-growth caps built.into the zoning regulations that ad- dress the ability of the city to provide services. Mr. Milot.- asked for confirmation as to whether his previously submitted plans would be subject to the action being taken on interim -- zoning. Mr. Flaherty said he didn't have the answer to that tonight. Dr. Ratkus said that he owns land on Spear St. in a view cor- ridor. Mr. Weith explained that a structure and landscaping can be put within a 100' by 100' building envelope. The spaces be- tween the building envelopes are to be kept open. Dr. Ratkus said there are 500 trees on the his lot line and he didn't feel they came within the view corridor zoning.because the trees are already there. Mr Dinklage asked if this is new or different testimony from what was -(given when the view protection zone was enacted, noting there had been discussion on the grandfathered trees at that time. Dr. Ratkus said there was no new testimony. Mr. Flaherty suggested Dr. Ratkus meet with Mr. Weith and if he decides there is new evidence, he can bring it to the Commission and then to the Council. In the vote that followed, the motion was passed unanimously. The Council then set 6 July 1992 for the public hearig on the proposed interiar zoning. 3. Second Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the South Burlington 1991 Comprehensive Plan, Southeast Quadrant and Future Land Use: Mr. Dinklaq emoved to adopt the proposed amendments as presented. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed 4-1, Mr. Chittenden opposinq. 4. Discussion of Zoning Regulations within Central District: Mr. Ward said as he interprets the statutes, buildings that are r CITY COUNCIL 1 June 1992 page 4 within 25 feet of the existing and new right-of-way are non- conforming and thus can't be altered at all, even to the ex- tent of changing the location or type of a door. The issue came about with an application from the Net Result for use of the Alco building. The development was approved by the Planning Commission, but the applicant now wants to make door changes which, according to the Zoning Administrator's interpretation, are not permitted. The major non -conforming issue is setback. Mr. Ward noted there are 8 other buildings in the immediate area that will also fall into this category if they ever come in for development/alterations. Mr. Cimonetti asked if the setbacks in this area are different from anywhere else on Dorset St. Mr Weith said they are as the CD-1 area -has zero setbacks. Mr. Cimonetti asked why this was --- done. Mr Ward said that with the 50 ft. setback and --the building envelope concept, there can be a corridor between the two streets for parking, etc. Mr. Dinklage then provided some background on this -as-he had served on the City Center Committee which developed the Master Plan for the area. He said the concept was to have a major ped- estrian promenade down the middle of this block. He said it was the specific intent of the Committee that the 25% alteration concept that applies elsewhere in the city NOT apply here so that in time the existing buildings could be brought into conformance with what is intended and planned for this area. He said it was the clear intent of the City Center Master Plan and Ordinance that the fronts of these buildings disappear over time. He said he felt the Zoning Administrator's decision was correct. Peter Collins, representing the Net Result, noted the building is now owned by Vermont Federal Bank via foreclosure). He said he was aware of the history, but he would be surprised if everyone - on the committee had been informed as to how literal implementa- tion of the plan would affect the street. He said there are 10 buildings in this strip of land ranging in value from $250,000. _ He felt the city could bring the uses into line, encouraging retail, office use, and residential use, but that owners of the buildings had to be given incentives to upgrade their buildings. - He said the New Result is willing to put money into making this a good building usage. Mr. Dinklage emphasized that it was the very clear understanding of the City Center Committee that this area was being planned as a clear slate. Incentives are built in in terms of mixed use, heights, setbacks, etc., to replace the existing buildings with conforming buildings, He also noted plans for an access road. Mr. Weith said that is no longer in the plans. Mr. Collins said he felt the Ordinance should be amended to give CITY COUNCIL 1 June 1992 page 5 owners the right to the 25% rule as in other parts of the city. He noted that the proposed development meets all other criteria except for the proposed changes to the doors. Mr. Duffy, architect for the proposed project, showed the plans, I nothing it had originally been the developer's intent to put a new facade on the building, but they had backed away from this because of the regulations. They then agreed to keep all the exits where they now are but want to replace 2 overhead doors with regular doors. They would also like a door in back where there is now a window. Mr. Duffy noted they had researched the City Center history and found there were 2 development schemes one showing the public mall/street and one similar to that with only a 10-foot setback. There was no indication which was the preferred plan. He said the 50-foot setbacks would require _ 1. lopping off the fronts of 8 buildings. Mr. Dinklage again said it was the intention that those buildings not remain in the long- term in their current form. Mr. Cimonetti said he had a problearer- that the City enacted an Ordinance that is deliberating taking valuefrom these buildings. He said he would support the process that would amend the Ordinance. A representative of Vermont Federal Bank said they would like to see the building sold. Gordon Jarvis, owner of another of the beildings in question, said his building is practically vacant. He can't rent it because he can't make changes to the building. But taxes go on just the same. Interest and principal payments go on. He said there will be more foreclosures unless there is -some leniency on this. There will also be a lot of non -conforming uses that go one and on. He felt the overall vision was great, but there has to be some reality considered. Mr. Yeager of S. Burlington Realty said he shared the city's -40' vision and goals but you have to deal with marklrt-driven real- ities. HE favored discretionary power if the direction someone wants to go will really upgrade property and provide uses the city wants. It was noted that the applicant is appealing the Zoning Admin- istrator's decision to the Zoning Board. Mr. Dinklage felt this could lead to "zoning by variance" and he didn't feel this should be done without a full discussion of the issues. Mr. Cimonetti agreed and felt staff should be directed to initiate discussion on changes to the Ordinance. Eric Flegenheimer, owner of the Net Result, said they want to move into this building and make it a nice building. He stressed this is a local South Burlington business which has been a good CITY COUNCIL 1 June 1992 page 6 member of the community.: Mr. Cimonetti moved to direct staff and the Planning Commission to proceed with a study of Central District zoning with specific consideration of Section 1.80: Change to Non -conforming Struc- tures and Section 1.6022: Setbacks. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Liquor Control Board: Mr. Chittenden moved the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. a. Request from Bambino's for relief from condition #4: Noise Control (required erection of fence) of Liquor License Approvals - Mr Brown, representing Bambino's, said Mr. Farrell hadn't been consulted about the fence when the conditons were drawn up -- because he had been in the hospital. On May 21, Mr. Farrell's lawyer, indicated the fence would not be allowed as Mr Farrell felt it would diminish the value of the property. Mr. Dinklage asked if Mr. Brown was able to offer any plan to get the fence erected as required by the conditions. Mr. Brown said there were not. He said the fence wouldn't have any noise re- duction.value but would keep people off Hadley Rd. and also keep headlights from hitting the homes. He said their security people can keep people off Hadley Rd. Mr. Dinklage asked the City Attorney how to initiate action to suspend the liquor license for non-compliance. Mr. Stitzel said statute requires the holder of the license to be given written notice of charges, so a motion should direct the City Manager to send such a letter. Then a public hearing should be set. The Council can enact a suspension of the license; revocation re- quires state notification. Mr. Stitzel said the applicant can appeal the action in court. Mr. Dinklage then moved to direct the City Manager to issue a notice of suspension hearing to be held on 15 June 1992 to Bam- binos for failure to comply with Section 4, Paragraph 3 of the Conditions of Liquor License Approval issued on 5/18/92 by the South Burlington Liquor Control Board. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. b. Request for Entertainment Permit from Bambino's for Bikini Contest to- be held every Tuesday evening from 9pm to lam begin- ning 2 June until 8 September 1992: M E M 0 R A N D U M To: South Burlington City Council From: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer Re: Zoning regulations within Central District Date: May 27, 1992 Planning and zoning staff is requesting of the City Council direction dealing with the use of those buildings which front on Dorset Street located within the so-called San Remo Drive block. Eight. structures are non -complying to the minimum setback requirements. (Section 1.602 of the Central District zoning by- laws requires a 50 foot setback). These structures are setback approximately 25 feet (with one exception, Burlington Rent -All). Section 1.80 states that "no alterations will be allowed to a noncomplying structure except for alterations to facades and exterior finishes". Section 19.002 Alterations to noncomplying structures does not apply in the Central District. Section 21.10 Specific definitions sub section 21.102 Alterations as applied to a building or structure, a change or rearrangement in the structure parts or in the exit facilities, or an enlargement, whether by extending on a side or by increasing in height. The City has a request to alter one of the buildings in question (former Alco building). The use is permitted (Net Result) and the Planning Commission has granted site plan approval. The proposed alteration would result in a change to the facade plus a change to the exterior of the building. Existing exit facilities will also be changed . The staff's interpretation of Section 21.10 prohibits the proposed alterations to the building in question. The applicant has appealed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. They have also made statements -regarding a taking without compensation. The issue which must be addressed is the City's long range plan for the eight buildings affected by the setback requirements. If the plan is to allow alterations to the buildings, the zoning bylaws must be amended. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 June 2, 1992 Mr. Eric Fleggenheimer EMA, Inc., d.b.a. Net Result 100 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: 350 Dorset Street Dear Eric: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Your request for a zoning permit to remodel the building located at 350 Dorset Street is hereby denied. It is my opinion that your proposal does not comply with Section 1.80 of the Central District by --laws. Alterations as proposed under Section 1.80 are prohibited. Your request for a variance is scheduled for June 8, 1992. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, GQ--- Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp D Z- f44 �i-e X4 ool� "4-61 Ala w - IUA.6�4 A,—,L 64 70� M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: EMA, Inc. (Net Result), 350 Dorset Street Date: May 28, 1992 The Planning Commission granted site plan approval for the above referenced application on 5/21/92. It is the Commission's understanding that the applicant will be going to the Zoning Board to either challenge the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of section 1.80 of the Central District Ordinance, or seek a variance from this section. Section 1.80 prohibits alterations to noncomplying structures in the CD1, CD2, and CD3 zones. The Planning Commission asked me to send you a memo making it clear that the Commission's granting of site plan approval for this application should not be construed as support for altering noncomplying structures. The Planning Commission reviewed the application on the basis of site plan criteria only. The issue of whether the applicant is proposing to "alter" the structure was not considered in the Commission's site plan review. cc: Dick Ward % es, / s��` SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Reeggulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Mu- nicipal Offices, Confer- ,,— Room, 575 Dorset ,treat, South Burlington, 'ermoM on Monday, une 8, 1992 at 7:00 P.M. i t cbrtsider the following: #1 Appeal of Champlain Oil Company, C.A. Cairns seeking a variance from Section 18.00 Dimensio- nal requirements of the South Burlington Regula- tions. Request Is for per- mission to construct a J 30'x48' pump Island cano- py to within one (1) foot of the required front yard, located at 510 Shelburne Road. #2 Appeal of John Shep- ard seeking a variance from Section 18.00 Area, density requirements and Section 18.113 Minimum dwelling standards of the South Burlington Regula- tions. Request is for permission to convert a existing de- tached garage Into an effi- ciency apartment containing 480 squre feet on a lot containing 9425 square feet with seventy (70) feet of frontage, lo- cated at 8 Brookwood Drive. #3 Appeal of EMA, Inc., Eric Flaggenheimer ap- pealing a decision of the Administrative Officer per- taining to a ruling regard- ing a proposed alteration to a structure which Is non -conforming to Sec- tion 1.602 building set- backs within the Central District, property in ques- tion formerly Alco Equip- ment, 350 Dorset Street. #4 Ap�peal of EMA, Inc., Eric Fiaggenheimer seek- ing a variance from Sec- tion 1.80 Alterations to non -complying structures of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to alter an existing structure which is non -complying to the min- imum setback require- ments, property located at ' 350 Dorset$treet. Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer May 23, 1992 MR Jim f w,* •+P ,if {"`J� ,F'+n.. � .a .e'er MLA t � �M `� ti� w i" "..fy*tr �' P'ti;'�+.�+y4a +,. .. '.d}Y '�'� '+ _'' _ , ..N�� bE�e r.'_y+� %,�':�h'�`�+��� �.. S . ,..... . w ���?.e'a►.'3^., .rya tea:<�+-� ,Xe: �� �,�r`y y�,'��iieir *�t+G+3ry°.,..� _ +�4 1 7! 4 g'` i �c t� 15' A" 2�0 LEONARO OUFFY and ASSOCIATES .F f..v� architects planners davelopment consultants P' Ii MAIN STREET BOX 366 HINESBURG, VERMONT 05461 802 482 3040 FAX 802 482 3490 � C o 1 a F 1�1 . I v PLANTING SCHEDULE NO SYMBOL COMMON NAME LATIN NAME I PLANT ! CWB clump wh. birch betula papyrifera b&b 1 MA mountain ash soerbus decora b&b 1 T tamarak larix laricina b&b 5 BB burning bush euonymus compactus b&b 12 SP spirea spirea billiardii 511pots 23 LL lillac syringa vulgaris BR 2 RM red maple acer rubrum b&b 2 RM2 redmaple b&b 170 WC white cedar cedrus br 4 FC flowering crab malus baccatia b&b 50 BI boston ivy hedera helix baltica 2j"pots 3 XWC white cedar move existing XPL exist_. plantings to be moved 1 annual bed by owner I CV,' 6 ` -- - - - — �ZopEc'�'Y L-!►J E —__-- �z;o.►..l. LINE ---N - ---3 -, �elz E C E. ! VE U APR 17 1992 City of So. Burlington 2c"IMG IN SIZE 12-14' 10-12' 5-6' 2-2}' 18-24" 2-3' 2-2#" 1-1V 2-4' 6-8' U?ul� �Yroo-4Tc�`-"r u cj C�iLGY� I FWAZI ort I Off. 61To(zi-44E _ � Corf'fa djlpE D-pep �5/�'1 �2tGlrJ4 �4P 1;GizJh2 � { } brc-,: Krl Nor ccl � a RQNISIONS BY_ u v W E A N Q J o _ N Y B.0 0 0 U, NCB° Na. Ep aN n: 0 ° �Dz ° }- a W LL L LLLY W C Y. 0 C W M 2 0 a Y n x N Y Q o U t U W W 0 1.1 Y WL= U` Cn �L.l 0.- DATE SCALE y oij DRAWNM 400 SHEET OF SHEETS 4 1 1 b I 1 LJ yam' AFt�X• l►l. J (,) -!'. 42 fl�Av e,rL oI �1 ns4 P7 U9 ctsr(�jl ) PM 1NY. li' W PLANTING SCHEDULE 350 DOkSET STREET NO SYMBOL COMMON NAME LATIN NAME PLANT 1 CWB clump wh. birch betula papyrifera b6b 1 MA mountain ash soerbus decora bfib 1 T tamaraA larix laricina bfib 5 BB burning bush euonymus compactus bib 5- Sp spirea spirea billiardii 5"Pots 23 LL lillac :syringe vulgaris RR 2 RM red maple acer rubrum bbb 2 RM2 redmaple bSb 170 WC white cedar pedrus br ' 4 FC flowering crib malus baccatia bab 50 BI boston ivy hedera helix baltica 2j"pots 3 XWC white cedar move existing XPL exist. plantings to be moved I 1 annual bed by owner Mil. _ rT' ���1 � '�•.,r,.a.a,. 1 ��� hMESi � afFiC2c7 /� .per � I• i..� �' - `K@ � ' I I So W,G, n � � —�Q h%�'� ... _.. ,�� h L�i44tfi.�GlbMr - -r \ • - - . ,.?> 7C�, �. = -,�74 Xlg - FlG�1 _`�11�Y'�+'ily. -4- `�-�N �/'(uTNrd�+*1 � • �'�(I�iTtr16 6RA�8EL - C _...... I-10flyt i•••�Y'1`% plt� h10� i' � w .lS. - M (�) I•� �� � 1 I 128' I. L.iN� jOta-TG, tN TCl � I F_ . �t-L,•..i C'•^�; ;-,•.LI-� I.I. i.-}ice .•'.y rt•'q'.:p �• l•{11!, 1,W 1,1 G f7111fiYiTIL1^ Gp �C,� Op�4Np(.� =W— t'Pt�oc• L-X#rIoN at- WAT —g— ® iz>�/Iseo CovEiU.�y6 I►1�0• 11�23�92 - 1Z7(hL GoJFseh[iGC�"iPAVI"541GeAVr�,ETL, f 44,7Gb -e(`il0%ALLD WEV I �.oIL� zEao oVGR_ b #° GL►raPF WMIrWr� or! 2o' bI L.�, Z� W H IV . (h-rar*L) SIZE 12-14' 10-12' 5-6' 2-2j' 18-24" 2-3' 2-2j" 1-1 j'• 2-4, 6-8' Fzc� iiuG IN' l .LL emL4a '7labo ,Eq•rTTJ xi` gig; j c7r ' CL i 14•q I arj p O!f. ` fDQh46� =1* (a7' I ; RAP Nor r ,� Ev 04 <I i I I I RrYISIOMB I eY I (0/101%1A'iI N i u � WC L � i Q3; N (J ` 0 °' 3 U3 Q n. I C w > a a M 10 = 0 F LL" 1_ �"� c„ nr Q N o 7 f� u uC 0&� J W`_ u 2 4 m aaT1 Ili 2 'G`aPy°YliO:•�N om "R{ "oo Nrof etz ulcer � ut 6<t�EiVI: NOV 2 3 1992 City of So. Burlington \I I I I' 6h i I $PAW I:._.. IFJJ. Ili° I►J (�I_�G u UiC.' uGiPGiJNR u,ter" v" w 11'-' PLANT ;CAEDULE 350 T STREET NO S1„o0L COMMON NAME LATIN NAME PLANT SIZE 1 CWB clump wh. birch betula papyrifera b&b 12-14' 1 MA mountain ash soerbus decora b&b 10-12' 1 T tamarak larix laricina b&b 5-6' 5 BB burning bush euonymus compactus b&b 2-2j' 5- SP spirea spirea billiardii 5"pots 18-24" 23 LL lillac syringa vulgaris BR 2-3' 2 RM red maple acer rubrum b&b 2-2j" 2 RM2 redmaple b&b 1-1j" 170 WC white cedar cedrus br 2-4- 4 FC flowering crab malus baccatia b&b 6-8' 50 BI boston ivy hedera helix baltica 2j"pots 3 XWC white cedar move existing XPL exist. plantings to be moved 1 annual bed by owner . - . ;.� , — i , I —, I -- - I - T �3,rxe, aslcnlr lv Imo') _ _ of'H14N hgXXX1 F��� I 1 BY� iiJG.ISIl>Z'� + M -i i I I r y �,��t71Nb '- i pr�ad (d'G!►MI� j:-kAm— pl.e 404 9h a321 L- tp I -_CVIC:llX C2'axz—ffivsQ+A® 211 ® ® , a:-{ i O CatAP �cP _ 14 I� City of So. Burlington I 1 + . � _ � I III • � S ^� 1VN F 11 I, a 'OCR L z,.V L I LINE. i•OI'-'TIE; IN Tt� 39 33l0. 3G) �}•}}� GI.KC�i= W M u,Wl� o� COI 1 }?.;'i I� Ii•1 G %a0 Psr Fe? 1250 WI H I,b�{(hC JVr,,4L) ----- �z;o,I.J. LINE. !-��c�:��i�, :_., �. 1<}-•>G} °'�4' (�0�, �tiow►,�'� -- ►�Il�r�.T►a-t c - .ram t II -I ® c,. I f 0�l, Orr. �,m"467 — w — �`• �TI� � war cvj ' t�tlJL� i=G? P I ,� 1 Ih 4G �3 REVISIONS I BY K/t/4t fi/Is/gZ r�sM U I t'i/bl2 Ffia1 4 I/II 3 w ijT w « » OF U) N W C f n ID N Ff 11 f Q I O In a uC x 0 O u ° Ulan C N Nv QE n N C, m 0 N m C w ° ° a W LL. N LLL° ]v� C H' a C x �Z e n x QUI m u V W Q a N M LU U DATE •1 - I iQ •"I� *cue A,j,,rr+ bW N DRAwwr4&M Jos NiGT41Z Mao �{;- 1 OF ' SHUT$ REVISIONS BY 7.20-9Z t9 ge t ,--,yA /, L TTE'x i7►11L(ZiE1= -gtae�p,�tcsUc �Sv.�lr.> _3�C1'.ltiit�.1.IE'�t.�5tfd►�7t --- s� - f '-UIw1u11 ■p wi�1��/:�.�s��■iavluuuu pnw uuppawi u1'IUIIUIrIDlglt.u�. � r � � � �i \ � �; w.■ wmgmm all RUN �� _6cm °raf■ ■u u■�rwHpwtiwwr ■wrr■rorrr Hnua Ha y .- I i:.. i ''�iI � �`,�� 1 tt..Mt ■■ ........w...� ■ppprwwr '� rraara. wp■f■ww■�i����w� H i■iiaiiiii■ oull ■■■■ a ff"wm nooa low �I� i�J `---_ ®m _� r 2=2 �—^ fi ii ■Hrrropa .appruurF� awmmwvam■ar aapwaso■wr 1• .■■■pwgpw■ wmw.Nwtwwmrr opop■aa■■■ wpuapoNrrr aouugaoraa 0 L ®�I gw�ruma 'pwpw Huuw .wmwaa� rwr.or� i ... iaGwf■iawra■iaf:R ■u■Nuomwurr C■iiiiiiisriiiii ��� ��I 'r rrar 'iimagmas iWN I, • 'I �'! a_._.... rniarr ar■ar.!■a■■gi■rrra■wr■rwr■rt w _ .f _-� �' is®sSrJ�amraaHntHttwrrwa�.rwarw�v mgrUlgNwaaNaaHwwwwm ■wrvnwwsauane■Hgw■mr.rra■awry ■■w/r■■ra■w■■r■rrO■wRJ■aw■rra■rrra w _ y-" ^'- - ���_ # mw�s,r ■ ■�`��!- �■^�-- i a ,- r . .- � • ! r _ aw►.ousauwwumaa■srwarour■spr 5/■f■awwawwww■H►'�.1awlNHHwrwwsN waa.wiwaNlN�S\wH c_.._,�—^•� -...-. ` _ .. all wrwtHwHwa9 .'- i. . r- itHwwtwH.EGNtHmgwwawnawwwwtmt pwNoa■srquaHgwarrrHwsaaafw ar!■SsaraaaHNNNwr7aN.N.aaw)w r ----_ . - —._� _..._ .�_ __ __.... -_. i tl - — / wq" a!Srirgwlar!gtaiHwwwwlHHiwwqamw uoaowHwgpaprrw■rau■ammas arraroouqur■rwpaamupapwrs ■wruwsa■wo■ouuwuooit rlwrwaawirwgwpwOmawaOparpwwri wwwiwwtaaaawataNtwawwaHHmwHawN w.NruwrrnawrwgH■wmraaarar . a ■ ON a ■ a ■ - ® la rs rr � Hl�aruMNwm■HiwItaiimFwwtnoiHttimm� ■a wa■■o■ ■ IHI ■ ammo ; ua■unruuaw ua=awaaa= ■uuiunupur■p■rfmw■H. ittatawmtatittaaaaa■■marawa.rl� ■■H■ ■a■uu■irr.. HHHHtrawapirfpwH oavro.■ ...., ■ruu..r ■ I iw it fn aa. p ® r a wuuuruwruppgquuilrwwwraw rNNwaaa■Orp■wwwwwwrf■wrfr■iraR .a •ir�l.i@r■@i@@■■■@■@@@ir!■■!mal ■u■iis..aX i■itw■wi■s.r■.!l.ir@■r■rwr■wrwir■a aaaiwpwm/aHRwagrwwHiMwaM ■ ■ �® ®I� �® __ .—_._— !r■r■.prpr mim..mHpmp Ni:::rNmirumwawaufrirral■wpwnn is . ■■■■■■awa■.■■a■■rw�rwrr■ww■H■ ..u.........o..aua�rwraa�.a _^�- HHaiHrw.ailiiM.N.C., a■■■.■■ar■ar■rra■■ro■■.r■ r.�...__r�_.w......... 1 ��� r..__...__. ,_. . 1 _..... «.-..._._ S!1 ■■ r�� S m.•.�-,e-,.. �I■ w ^� zae■ ■ ..............:�..� r i— __ e z :0 Y- DATE SCALEi ie'7l-c, DRAWX,, JOB (��. SHEET ILA A 4 OF SHEETS PROJECT SITE N/F d 5L JANET M. & C. DAVID DESARNO TRUST S.e•H.s. 0570 - 00344 LOCATION PLAN N/F DAWSON DORSET STREET PROPERTIES LLC 1490 - 0035 GENERAL INFORMATION ZONE: CENTRAL BUSINESS 2 LOT SIZE: 1.2 ACRES 52,272 SF BUILDING SIZE: 7,680 SF - 14.7% COVERAGE. (EXISTING) BUILDING, PAVING, ETC.: 40,772 SF - 78 % COVERAGE (EXISTING) PARKING: REQUIRED 49 SPACES PROVIDED 60 SPACES + 3 HANDICAPPED (EXISTING) LEGEND �.,"`V 26 u PROPERTY LINFof-c' - - - - - - R.O. W LINE vni�9to - DIRECTION OF SURFACE RAINAGE (V� S' SANITARYVV WATER NOTE: THIS SITE PLAN IS NOT BASED ON AN ACTUAL SURVEY. INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY APPROVED SITE PLAN DATED 3.29.1993 AND ACTUAL FIELD DIMENSIONS. .''JUNE 11, 2009 . -- SP1 City of South P—lington �,Application to Boar(, f Adjustment Da t-,_ 20 2 Applicant c" „j'' Owner, leasee, agent APPLICATIr— # HEARING DATE FILING DATE FEE AMOUNT Address ICI �i1,�_..a -• • - . . . - Landowner kAs�l �� v► ■ _ Location and description of property '? 0 Ptg*56T" S- . Type of application check one ( ) appeal from decision of Administrative Officer.( )request for a conditional use ( ) request for a variance. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month (second and fourth :Mondays). That a legal advertisement must appeal a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. _I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Provisions of zoning ordinance in question 21.102 21.1111_A30 IZ f9,00 Reason for appeal Arne+ tok wi-ei c6ct4trn�z e6< &2Da_Y& The owner or applicant should submit along with this application (8 copies) plans, elevations, landscaping diagrams (drawn to scale) traffic data and any other additional information which will serve as support evidence to the Board. / Hearing Date Signature of Appellant Do not write below this line SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Roo„, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Day of Week at to consider the following: Month and Date Time Appeal of zz_:_14 7xt4 � �- f � _. - � ���0'� Seel e€ the South Burlington Regulations. to-- G No Text • City of South Burlington ` 4pplication to Board Adjustment Date t5 zo 19S Applicant CAL;A K)61—Y,�' &Sc Owner,+ leasee, agent Address SrONIShNk Telephone # APPLICATION# HEARING DATE FILING DATE FEE AMOUNT �62-512� eLu7i�BD . Landowner,� ���'.� ram_ i Address Vt Location and description of property 3545 �Q��-,� 5= Type of application check one ( ) appeal from decision of Administrative Officer.( )request for a conditional use (j% request for a variance. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month (second and fourth Mondays). That a legal advertisement must appeal a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Provisions of zoning ordinance in question 11.102 /21,119 1 i,$O Act.602. Reason fo`r, appeal The owner or applicant should submit along with this application (8 copies) plans, elevations, landscaping diagrams (drawn to scale) traffic data and any other additional information which will serve support evidence to the Board. Hearing Date Signatu a of Appellant Do not write below this line ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Month and Date Appeal of e/h 14 at Time Day of Week to consider the following: seeking a _(/44 t," C4, from Section aztld't�-.-( of the South Bur ing on Akegulations. Request is � Z,3 i /ter r � /— or permission to - -- City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 May 26, 1992 Eric Flaggenheimer NET Result South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Zoning appeal Dear Mr. Flaggenheimer: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will bold a public hearing at the City Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, June 8, 1992 at 7:00 P.M. to consider your request for a zoning variance. Please plan to attend this meeting. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer 1 Encl RW/mcp Fle, -2- Mr. Randazzo asked do you plan any modification to the exterior of this building and Mr. Frazier replied no. Mr. Blais said we understand that the bylaws would not be affect. Also utilization of renewable energy resources. Mr. Boehm came in at 7:10 PM and did not vote on this. �- The appeal was granted unanimously with one abstention. No. 2 Appeal of S.S.L. Corporation, Joseph Senesac Appeal of S.S.L. Corporation, Joseph Senesac seeking a variance from Section 1.80 alteration to non -complying structures and approval from Section 19.65 Multiple uses. Request is for permission to construct a 1500 square foot addition to an existing non -complying 7500 square foot structure and occupy with a maximum of five (5) retail and or business office uses, on a lot containing 1.2 acres located aL 350 Dorset Street. Mr. Ward said area in question zoned Central District 2. Section 19.65 Multiple uses, sub section 19.05 conditional use applies. Building 60' x 126' 1 story. Lot contains 52,272 square feet (1.'4 acres) with 160' frontage. Former use Alco Equipmp-t (truck repairs and hody mounting). Proposed uses retail business (Sectiu.. 1.101) aiid business and proi=ssional offices (Section 1.102) maximum of 5 uses. Request to construct 1500 square feet addition has been deleted from this proposal. Mr. Ward said the only issue before you is 19.65 Multiple uses. The building will have a new facade, additional parking, sidewalk and landscaping. Mr. Ingram said there will be a maximum of 5 spaces. We would like to have 5 different uses within the permitted use category. We may end up combining spaces -a group of compatible tenants or one single tenant. We have adequate parking. As far as the impact on traffic. We're not going to be picking up much new traffic. These would be permitted uses and would have no negative impact on the character of the area. This will be an improvement. We will be going to site planning. Mr. Senesac said we're doing some clean up from when our last tenant moved. We have a number of people interested in going in there - a Toy Store which would be retail. Mr. Blais asked if there would be any exterior storage. Mr. Senesac said there wouldn't be. Mr. Blais said if this were to be passed would you have any problem that this board have an administrative review of the permitted uses if there is more than one. Would you also be willing to stipulate that there would be no.exterior storage. Mr. Senesac said he would have no problem with these stipulations. There was some discussion as to new seth^ck for Dorset Street. Mr. Senesac said I'm trying to work with the City -3- Mr. Condos moved that if this appeal is approved that it be with the stipulation that the appelant will come before this board for an administrative review based on the permitted uses in Sections 1.101 and 1.102 of the Zoning Code and that there be no exterior storage or display. This was seconded by Mr. King and all voted aye. Mr. Ingram asked why would you limit the uses to 1.101 and 1.102. We were hoping that we would be permitted a mix of uses. We would like a sit down restaurant. Mr. Condos said the appeal was not warned that way. Mr. Ward said you never talked about this - it was strictly retail or business offices. Mr. Blais said we can't tonight. We can only deal with the public warning. We can consider it in the future. The appeal was granted unanimously subject to stipulations. No. 3 Consider the reauest of Allenbrook. 100 Allen Road to amend a stipulation from a variance granted in September 1981. Mr. Ward said I mailed Allenbrook a letter but no one is present tonight. He asked the board if they wished to table this. Mr. Condos moved to table. This was seconded by Mr. King and all voted aye. This was tabled. Mr. Blais said the board is instructing the Zoning Administrator to add to the criteria for Conditional Uses or Variances a statement that the appelant make a presentation in an expedient and reasonable manner. If they are not prepared to do so the board could table their appeal until the next meeting. Mr. Condos asked that the minutes be changed as follows: Page 2 paragraph 4 -should be single wall gas tanks to double wall gas tanks.. Page 4 paragraph 7 - should be intensifying use of the property. Mr. Condos moved that we accept the decision of findings of fact for the minutes of February 27, 1989 as amended. This was seconded by Mr. King and all voted aye. Mr. Thibault moved for adjournment. This was seconded by Mr� Grafandthe n � meeting adjourned at 7:45 PM. 11 Clerk City of South Burlington Application to Board of Adjustment Official Use APPLICATION # HEARING DATE---, I Date - �-cg`� FILING DATE .. _ Applicant SSA Corp, SaSePI'SewxcAddress 44q S. FEE AMOUNT _ Owner, leasee, agent Telephone # Landowner SGtYVI Address Tel # Ccr,4r,ci Pe esar, - Foe- Z�qGrc-I,^ - 0captisscY- �hKe* a,... 874- z4Z.Z_.0 Location and description of property 3so ,. nn Type of application (check one ( ) appeal from decision of Administrative Office ( ) request for a conditional use ( ) request for a variance. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month (second and fourth Mondays). That a legal advertisment must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off-se.t the cost of the hearing. Provisions of zoning ordinance in question Reason for appeal The owner or applicant should submit along with this application (8 copies) plans, elevations, landscaping diagrams (drawn to scale) traffic data and any other additional information which will serve as support evidence to the Board. Hearing Date Signat e o A el e , Do not write below this line ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on (Day of week) at to consider the following: (month and date) �, Time Appeal of aC f seeking a / (,{ from Section %� -4 � ���J�t �'�-�-c.r �l1 % of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to Gel l S c� J •0 j' •7 c.n^�+ G�- . �_ v��l `a•'` wg� j' 7S_1 City of Solid) 11111-lington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 6547955 February 27, 089 Mr. Joseph Senesac SSL Corporation 444 South Union Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Zoning application Dear Mr. Senesac: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Be advised that. the South Burlington Zoning Board. of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the City Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street on Monday, March 13, 1989 at 7:00 P.M. to consider your zoning application. Please plan to attend this hearing. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp l Enc1 a o, 'o- r LEGAL NOTICES SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning - Regulations and Chapter I 117, Title 24 V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the _ South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, March 13, 1989, at 7:00 P.M. to consider the following: *I - Appeal of Rivco, Ronald Frazier seeking opprovol from Section 19.65 Multiple uses of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to occupy on existing structure (80' x 1501) with a maximum of three uses (ap roximately 10,000 square feet) in con- junction with existing use, on a lot containing 1.8 acres located at 2 Gregory Drive. N2. Appeal of SSt Corpora- tion, Joseph Senesoc seek- mgg a variance from Section 1.80 Alteration to noncom- plying structures and appro- val from Section 19.65I Multiple uses of the South Burlington Regulations. Re- quest is for permission to construct a 1500 square foot addition to an existing non -complying 7500 square I t foot structure and occupy with a maximum ffive ) retail and or business office uses, on a lot containing 1.2 , acres located at 350 Dorset i Street. Richard Ward, Zoning Administrotive February 25, 1989 Officer 1 f � w i �y, 9 � r d 1� 6 x /a,. r r 4 , :L S.S.L. CORPORATION SENESAC, Joseph 350 Dorset Street Area in question zoned Central District 2. Section 19,65 Multiple uses, sub section 19.05 conditional use applies. Building 60' x 126' - 1 story. Lot contains 52,272 square feet (1.2 acres) with 160' frontage. Former use Alco Equipment (truck repairs and body mounting). Proposed uses retail business (Section 1.101) and business and professional offices (Section 1.102) maximum of 5 uses. Request to construct 1500 square feet addition has been deleted from -this proposal. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 January 16, 1990 Joseph Senesac SSL Corporation 444 South Union Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Retail/office use, 350 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Senesac: ZONING ADMINIST 658-7958 Enclosed are the 10/17/89 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please meet the stipulations contained in the approval motion before applying for a building permit. Please call if you have any questions. S' c ely, oe Weith, Citv Planner 1 Encl. cc: Mr. Richard Whittlesey JW/mcp PLANNING COMMISSION 21 MARCH 1989 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 21 March 1989, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Peter Jacob, Chairman; William Burgess, Mary -Barbara Maher, Catherine Peacock, Ann Pugh, William Craig, John Belter Also Present Joe Weith, City Planner; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Joseph Senesac, Michael Dugan, Allen Gear, Richard Canil, Dick Underwood, Kevin Eberle, Judith Bell, Bill Schubart, Sue Brynn, Stephen Crowley, Zoe Hart, Ken Schatz, Bill Orleans, Iris & Rudy McDonald 1. Minutes of 2/14/, 2/21, and 3/7 Mr. Craig noted in the Minutes of 2/14 that it was Mr. Weith, not Mr. Craig who made the observation on the I-189 off -ramp under "Other Business," page 4, item 2. Mrs. Maher moved to approve the Minutes of 2/14 as amended. Ms. Peacock seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mrs. Maher moved to approve the Minutes of 2/21 as written. Mr. Craig seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Craig moved to approve the Minutes of 3/7 as written. Ms. Peacock seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Continue site plan application of SSL Corporation for conversion of a vacant 7600 sq. ft. building to retail and/or office use, 350 Dorset St It was noted that 59 is the maximum number of trip ends for all „GPS_ RPaardina the Dorset St. entrance, Mr. Weith advised that Mike Munson has provided new information on the proposed curb cut and it is 4 ft. south of where the state is planning a curb cut. This may interfere with a culvert, but he didn't know if the State will change its plan. Mr. Senesac didn't feel it would be a problem with the State and that they would solve it with the State people prior to permit. Ms. Peacock moved the Planning Commission approve the Site Plan application of SSL Corporation for conversion of a 7600 sq. ft. vacant building to retail use as depicted on the plan titled "Proposed Alterations, 350 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont," prepared by Graphics/Construction Management Service, Inc, and dated 3 6 89 with the followinq stipulations: PLANNING COMMISSION 21 MARCH 1989 page 2 1. The applicant shall post a $3500, 3-year landscape bond prior to issuance of a zoning permit. 2. This property is limited to a maximum of 59 peak hour trip ends (Article XVII, SBath Burlington Zoning regulations). ,Io use or combination of uses shall be allowed which exceeds the 59 peak hour trip end maximum. Trip generation from the Ipro�oertx shall be reviewed for each proposed new retail use or chap e in use during administrative review by the Zoning Board. So long as the Zoning Board reviews new retail uses or change in uses pursuant to said condition, the Planning Commission will not conduct similar reviews. If Zoning Board declines or fails to review new retail uses or change in uses for compliance with said condition, the applicant shall be required to seek such review by the Planning Commission. 3. A sewer allocation of 150 gpd is granted. This assumes 2 employees per space and 15 gpd per employee The applicant shall pay the $2.50 per gallon fee prior to zoning permit. 4. The zoning permits must be obtained within 6 months or this approval is null and void. 5. The proposed curb cut shall be approved by the State prior to permit. If not approved, the applicant shall revise his plan and resubmit it to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Burgess seconded. Motion passed 6-0, Ms Pugh abstaining. 3. Public Hearing: Final Plat application of Michael Dugan for construction of a 3 unit residential building on a 20,900 sq. ft. lot, northwest corner of White and Charles Streets Mr. Dugan advised the new storm drain has been approved by the City Enqineer. Mrs. Maher recommended a pavmpnt ;n i;P„ of a siddwalk as a sidewalk is not needed in this location and vis- needed elsewhere in this neighborhood. Ms. Peacock moved the Planning Commission approve the Final Plat application of Michael Dugan for construction of a 3-unit res- idential condominium building on a 20,900 sg ft lot as depicted on a plan titled "2 Unit Townhouse addition for Jack Russell, 110 White Street, South Burlington, Vermont," prepared by Michael Dugan, AIA, dated 11/11/88, last revised 2/14/89 with the fol- lowing stipulations: 1. A $4,200, 3-year landscape bond shall be posted prior to permit. PLANNING COMMISSION 17 OCTOBER 1989 page 3 Ms. Peacock moved that the Planninq Commission approve the Site Plan application of Airport Realty Associates for erection of a 420 sq. ft. building to be used as a pilot's lounge, 3060 Williston Rd., as depicted on a plan entitled "Valley Air Services" prepared by Richard Kelloqq and dated 10/5/89, with the followin stipulations: 1. The applicant shall post a $540 , 3-year landscaping bond prior to permit. 2. The building permit must be obtained within six months or this approval is null and void. Mr. Belter seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. S.)Revised Site Plan application o a 7,600 sq. ft. vacant buildin 350 Dorset Street. of SSL Corporation for conversion to retail and/or ottice uses Mr. Weith advised that SSL received site plan approval in March, 1989, for retail use, but they never got a building permit. That approval is now expired, and this is a new application. They are now requesting more trip ends than in the previous approval and are also asking for approval for office use. Retail use would be the deciding factor for traffic, so Mr. Weith did not see a problem with allowing office use. He noted that 59 is the trip limit, but the Commission could approve a higher number if it felt significant improvements are made in other areas such as access. Mr. Whittlessy said they will be improving ingress and egress on the site by narrowing and curbing the access. A poll of the Com- mission indicated the following: Mr. Belter felt a 10-15% in- crease in allowable traffic was acceptable. Mr. Craig agreed. Mrs. Maher felt a maximum of 70 trips was all she could approve. Ms. Pugh felt she could approve only 7 additional trips. After some further discussion, members agreed on a total of 70 trip ends. The question of a traffic light at San Remo was raised and Mr. Weith will check on this. PLANNING COMMISSION 17 OCTOBER 1989 page 4 Ms. Peacock moved the Planning Commission approve the Site Plan application of SSL Corporation for conversion of a 7600 sq. ft. vacant building to retail and/or office use as depicted on a plan titled "Proposed Alterations, 350 Dorset Street, South Burlington Vermont," prepare Inc, and dated 3/ by Graphics/Construction Management Service /89 with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall post a $3500, 3-year landscape bond prior to issuance of a building permit . 2. This property is limited to a maximum of 59 pea.k hour trips (Article XVIII, South Bulrington Zoning Requlations). The Planning Commission approves a peak hour trip generation of up to 70 trips for this property because ingress and egress is being improved (curb cut being narrowed and curbed) which will improve the traffic flow situation on and off the site. No use or combination of uses shall be allowed which exceeds the 70 hour peak hour trip maximum. Trip generation from the property shall be reviewed for each proposed new retail use or change in use during administrative review by the Zoning Board. So long as the Zoning Board reviews new retail uses or change in uses pursuant to said condition, the Planning Commission will not conduct similar reviews. If Zoning Board declines or fails to review new retail uses or change in uses in compliance with said condition, the applicant shall be required to seek such review by the Planninq Commission. i A allocatin of 150 ranted This 4. The zoning permit must be obtained within 6 months or this approval is null and void. ML6 . 'Maher seconded. Motion passed 5-1 with Ms. Pugh opposing because of traffic considerations. 6. Discussion of draft checklist for municipal plan consistency with Act 200 prepared by the CCRPC Members felt they would like more time to review the checklist before making comments. Mr. Weith will write to CCRPC indicating this. The Commission also asked that the City's representative to Regional Planning, Pat Brennan, be invited to the next meeting to discuss the checklist. Mr. Weith will also check with the City Attorney to see what the implications are to accepting the checklist. PLANNER 658-7955 a City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 June 25, 1992 Mr. Joseph Senesac SSL Corporation 444 South Union Street, Suite 2A Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: 350 Dorset Street, Letter of Credit. #90-09 Dear Mr. Senesac: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Please be advised that the City of South Burlington releases you from your obligation under Letter of Credit #90-09 (see enclosed). You are being released of this obligation because you no longer own this property. Should you have any questions, please give me a call. S-1ncex-olly, Raym nd J. Belau, %,. _ 1A TipaiiisT 1i r 1 ii.li1-1JS 15 _A C_11L �_- 1 Encl RJB/mcp cc Vermont Federal Bank LETTER QE FRB= AggBBMENT THIS AGREEMENT, in triplicate, by and between hereinafter referred to as "Developer", the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, hereinafter referred to as "Municipality", and �111't(� t hereinafter referred to as "Bank". i t L Lk ' W 1 T H 9 A S R T R WHEREAS, Developer has received site plan approval from the Municipality's Planning Commission for the construction of a as depicted on a plan entitled _ ma • /bigJ. dated prepared b and WHEREAS, Developer is required by said approval, at its own expense, to complete certain public improvements; and WHEREAS, the parties to this agreement wish to establish a mechanism to secure the obligations of the Developer as set forth above, and WHEREAS, the bank executes this agreement solely in the capacity of issuer of the Letter of Credit hereinafter specified. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby covenant and agree as follows: at its own expenses complete the following improvements in connection with its development: (Description of public improvements required by subdivision approval) ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------- ---------------------------------------- 2. Developer will convey to the Municipality by properly executed Warranty Deed, free and clear of all enoumbrances, the roadways, easements, and other public improvements prior to the Municipality granting any zoning permits to the developer. 3. The Developer shall complete the improvements set forth in paragraph one no later than 4. The Developer shall repair or replace any faulty or defective work or improper material which may appear within year. of completion. 5. For the guaranty of Developer's performance of all requirements hereinabove set forth, Developer and Bank agree that the sum of $(Amount set by planning commission or its designee) shall be set aside and held in escrow by the Bank and shall be available for payment to the Municipality, in accordance with the terms herein set forth. 6. If the Municipality shall file with the Bank a statement that Developer is in the judgment of the Municipality in sixty (60) day default under the terms of this agreement, the Bank shall from time to time pay monies from said escrow fund to the Municipality to complete the improvements and requirements set forth in this agreement. 7. The Municipality will promptly submit to the Developer a copy of such statement as it files with the Bank. The consent of the Developer to such payment by the Bank to the Municipality shall not be required. The Bank shall incur no liability to the Developer on account of making such payment to the Municipality, nor shall the Bank be required to inquire into the propriety of any claim by the Municipality of default on the part of the Developer or into the use of such funds by the Municipality in completing such improvements. The Municipality shall not file with the Bank a statement of default until sixty (60) days after notice has been sent by it to the Developer by certified mail, return receipt requested, setting forth its intention to do so. 9. All monies released by the Bank to the Municipality pursuant to paragraph 6 shall be used by the Municipality solely for the purpose of performing obligations imposed upon the Developer by that portion of this agreement upon which the Developer is then in default. Any work to be aerfnr-aA wn +Ue 19.._:____11�_ pursuant hereto shall be let on a -contractual+ basis, oraonja�time and material basis, or shall be performed by the Municipality with its own work force and equipment or shall be accomplished in such manner as in the judgment of the Municipality shall accomplish the work most expeditiously and economically. 10. If monies are released by the Bank to the Municipality pursuant to paragraph 6 and it shall later develop that a portion of the released monies are surplus to the Municipality's needs, any such surplus shall be refunded by the Municipality to the Bank to be held and distributed by the Bank pursuant to the terms of this agreement. 11. The Bank will not refuse or delay to make such payments to the Municipality when requested by the Municipality by the appropriate statement, and Developer will not interfere with or hinder such payments by the Bank to the Municipality. Said statement shall contain a certificate of compliance with the notice requirements of paragraph S of this agreement. 12. This agreement shall terminate and shall be of no force or effect upon performance of all requirements contemplated hereby and the completion of the warranty period set forth in paragraph 4. 13. Upon request of Developer, but only at the sole discretion of the Municipality, the Municipality may release a portion of said escrow funds if the Municipality believes that the retention of said funds is not necessary to protect its interests after a funds portioonlyfuponsaid writtenhas consentcompleted. Municipality. may release such ipality. 14. Notwithstanding the _ C_.�, provisions of paragraph 13 the sum of shall be in any event maintained in escrow until certification to the Bank by the Municipality of the completion of the warranty period set forth in paragraph 4. 15. This agreement shall not only be binding -upon hereto, but also their respective heirs, the parties ccadministrators, successors and assigns. executors, Dated this day of , 198 IN THE PRESENCE OF: (DEVELOPER) Its Duly Authorized Agent CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: -.-. Its Duly Authorized Agent ( BANK) BY: Y! A7C Its"Duly Authorized Aaent xF Vermont Federal ® Bank F,, 5 Burlington Square, P.O. Box 789, Burlington, Vermont 05402-0789 (802) 658-6000 A Federal Savings Bank IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT #90-09 July 5, 1990 City of South Burlington South Burlington Vermont 05403 Re: SSL Corporation Gentlemen: We establish our Irrevocable Letter of Credit #90-09 in favor of the City of South Burlington for the account of SSL Corporation in the aggregate amount of Three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500.00), U.S. Currency, available by your drafts at sight at the Vermont Federal Bank, FSB, 5 Burlington Square, Burlington, VT 05401, until June 26, 1993. Sight drafts may be drawn by the City of South Burlington and must be accompanied by the City of South Burlington's signed statement that SSLCorporation is in default according to the terms of a Letter of Credit Agreement dated June 26, 1990, and that SSL Corporation has received at least sixty (60) days notice of such default status, and that sight drafts will only be for amounts as called for by the agreement. All drafts drawn under this credit should bear the clause, "DRAWN ON THE VERMONT FEDERAL BANK LETTER OF CREDIT #90-09" and be presented at this bank no later than June 26, 1993, pursuant to the terms as outlined above. We hereby agree with the drawers, endorsers, and bona fide holders of all drafts drawn under and in compliance with the terms of this credit that such drafts will by duly honored upon presentation to the drawee. Except as otherwise expressly stated herein, this credit is subject to the Uniform Customs and Practice for Commercial Documentary Credits fixed by the International Chamber of Commerce, I.C.C., Publications 400 (1983 revision) and any future revisions thereof, and is governed by the Uniform Commercial Code of the State of Vermont, as from time to time amended. Sincerely, Vermont deral Bank6T(- PAR By: C� " t4L Its my Authorized Agent Cori . C6t u� S� . 350 Dorset St. Partnership 444 So. Union Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 April 10, 1990 South Burlington Planning Commission Mr. Joe Weith 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: 350 Dorset St. Site Plan Review Dear Joe: Please accept this letter as request for a six month extension for the site plan review and zoning approval request dated April 16, 1989. Please let me know if you have any other information regarding this property. Thank you for your time and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Bruce C. atelle City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 April 19, 1990 Mr. Bruce Latelle 350 Dorset Street Partnership 444 South Union Street. Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: 350 Dorset Street, office/retail use Dear Mr. Latelle: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 The South Burlington Planning Commission approved your request. for a 6 month extension in which to obtain a building permit for the above referenced project. This request was approved at the 4/17/90 Planning Commission meeting. The building permit must be obtained by 10/17/90 or this approval is null and void. If you have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. S,i�cerely, n i . 1 .4-)1 Lkje�4 Jz- J e Weith, ity Planner JW/mcp M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: SSL Corporation, 350 Dorset Street Date: March 26, 1990 As a condition of approval for the above referenced project, the Planning Commission set a limit of 70 peak hour trips to be generated from the subject property (see attached condition #2, 10/17/89 Planning Commission minutes). As part of this condi- tion, the Planning Commission left review of this condition to the responsibility of the Zoning Administrator or Zoning Board during administrative review of new uses. I am writing this memo to make you aware of the condition imposed by the Planning Commission and also to express concern regarding the proposed yogurt store. The I.T.E. trip generation manual estimates that fast food restaurants without drive through win- dows (code 833) generate 139.9 peak hour trip ends per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Based on this standard, the proposed yogurt store will generate 210 trips during the peak hour. This far exceeds the 70 peak hour trip limit imposed by the Planning Commission. This standard may not exactly apply to this particular use. However, in order to appropriately enforce the condition imposed by the Commission, I recommend the Board require an adequate trip generation analysis prepared by an independent consultant as part of this application. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 February 9, 1990 Mr. Joe Ingram P.O. Box 5219' Essex Junction, VT 05452 Dear Joe: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find your copy of Findings of Fact. If you have any questions please call me. Sincerely, Joe Weith, City Planner JW/mcp 1 Encl � Planning File Data fpr Computer Input l. Original Property owurr_ 2. Developer's Name 3 --'- -' --'----------------'-----'----'--- Type of' Project__ --'--------'-- ^ Minor Subdivision (MI) Major Subdivision <M8> Site Plan (8P} 6. Zoning District l ` 7' Zoning District 2 8. Zoning Board Approval ci ' 9. . Date Planning Commission ks of Site Plan Date ���^~°� m���- ������O'F or ~ Sketch Plan Date lU' Preliminary Plat date ll. Fina| Plat Date 12, Revised Final Plat Date l (if applicable) }l' Revised Final Plat Date 2 (if applicable) l4. Acreage of Total Project l5' (|sp o[ Lund l o[ Land 2 |T. (/s'' ^t* Land J {.and 4 l9. Momh"r of Lots / --- -- � ^ �um�.,/' o[ 5io�|, Fxmi|� '/.\�e ^�/w� ,- -/' � | . Nomher ^[ Mu | \ i - h.o` i | N7 (h i t 4//4 _ nwt i.* /nn' '.f, Uoi |di/'� / � 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Size of Building (Square footage) 7 /pUd Streets City Street CS Private Street PS Date of Acceptance of streets by City — Bond -Landscaping Bond -Streets Bond -Sewer Bond -Water Bond -Other Date Mylar Due (90 days after approval) 32. Date Recorded - 33. Expiration date of Approval /gD 34. Date of First Building Permit 34. Tax Map Number 2S "l "' /A _ 36. Map File Location 1 37. Map File Location 2 38. Map File Location 3 Other fees ('Type and amount) -3 ? Preparers Name: __I --_---- - --- Date : /d// Posted in Computer (Name, Date): CITY OF SOUTH BURL.INGTON S I TF PLAN APPI,) C'AT ION 1 ) OWNER OF RF.(OPI) (name, address, phone # ) SSL Corporation, 444 South Union St., Burlington, VT 05401 (862-8068) 2) APPLICANT (name, address, phone #) Joseph Senesac (same as above) 3) CONTACT PERSON (name, address, phone #)__Joseph Senesac (same as above); Bruce Latelle (863-1315) 4).PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 5) LOT NUMBER (if applicable) 350 Dorset Street 6) PROPOSED USE(S) Multiple uses - possible retail/restaurant/office and whatever zoning regulations allow 7) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e. total building square footage, # units, maximum height and * floors, square feet per floor) 7770 square feet; single story 8) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES unknown 9).LOT COVERAGE: building %; landscaped areas % building, parking, outside storage % 10) COST ESTIMATES: Buildings $ , Landscaping E_ Other Site Improvements (please list with cost) $ 11) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: already completed 12) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in and out) Estimated trip ends (in and out) during the following hours: Monday through Friday 11-12 noon___; 12-1p.m. 1-2 p.m. 2-3 p.m._�____ 3-4 p.m.__..._ 4-5 p.m. 5-6 p.m. 6-7 p.m. 13) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 14) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: DATE OF SUBMISSION DATE -OF HEARING **Site plan previously submittid. IGNATURE OF APPLICANT 10/17/89 JW OTION OF APPROVAL I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the Site Plan application of SSL Corporation for conversion of a 7600 square foot vacant building to retail and/or office use as de- picted on a plan titled "Proposed Alterations, 350 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont," prepared by Graphics/Construction Management Service, Inc. and dated 3/6/89 with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall post a $3500, 3 year landscape bond prior to issuance of a building permit. 2.'-This property is limited to a maximum of"ak hour trips (Artic19_.XVII, South Burlington Zoni u ations). No use or combination---s „uses shall be ed which exceeds the 59 peak hour trip maximums.,- Trip eration from the property shall be reviewed for each pro new retail use or change in use during administrative rev' w by the ing Board. So long as the Zoning Board reviews retail uses or a in uses pursuant to said condition, e Planning Commission w �not conduct similar reviews. f Zoning Board declines or fails to�yiew new retail uses, or change in uses for compliance with said condition, the apoplicant shall be required to seek such review by the Planning mission. 2. This property is limited to a maximum of 59 peak hour trips (Article XVII, South Burlington Zoning Regulations). The Plan- ning Commission approves a peak hour trip generation of up to _2_ trips for this property for the following reason: /. via �~.✓ 2�r..� J �-a.��-,�,.��— No use use or combination of uses shall be allowed which exceeds the '70 peak hour trip maximum. Trip generation from the proper- ty shall be reviewed for each proposed new retail use or change in use during administrative review by the Zoning Board. So long as the Zoning Board reviews new retail uses or change in uses pursuant to said condition, the Planning Commission will not conduct similar reviews. If Zoning Board declines or fails to review new retail uses or change in uses in compliance with said condition, the applicant shall be required to seek such review by the Planning Commission. 3. A sewer allocation of 150 gpd is granted. This assumes 2 employees per space and 15 gpd per employee. The applicant shall pay the $2.50 per gallon fee prior to zoning permit. 4. The zoning permit must be obtained within 6 months or this approval is null and void. PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 March 21, 1989 Mr. Mike Munson RESV, Inc. 83 Park Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Re: 350 Dorset Street Dear Mike: Enclosed is a copy of the proposed project at 350 Dorset Street. Please check with the State to see if the proposed Dorset Street widening project can accommodate the proposed curb cut as shown. Your assistance is much appreciated. JW/mcp 1 Encl Sincerely, oe Weith, City Planner 1=1 E M 0 FZ A N D U M To: South Birlingt-on Planning Commission From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: March 21, 1989 agenda items Date: March 17, 1989 2) SSL CORPORATIC';, 35Q DORSET STREET Enclosed is the draft motion of approval for the proposed change of use at 350 Dorset Street (old Alco Building). Stipulation #2 sets the maximum peak }your generation at 59 and gives review responsibility to the zoning board. 3) FINAL PLAT, 3-UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, WHITE & CHARLES STREETS Michael Dugan proposes to add two units and renovate an e.-isting house on the corner of White & Charles Street for a 3-unit town- house complex. At the 2/14/89 meeting, members approved the Preliminary Plat application for t=a above project, with stipulations. Each of the stipulations required to be satisfied prior to Final Plat review have been arjdressed. These are: 1) Property ssrveyed by a licensed surveyor. 2) Approval t y City Engineer of a site drainage plan. 4 ) SITE PLAN APPI." 7AT1O1q RESOLUTION. It'=.. L..CQ 2 GREEN TREE PARK, SHUNPIKE ROAD Resolution Realty Partnership, Ltd. proposes to construct a two- story, 27,500 sq, .e foot building for office/light manufactur- ing/warehousing on a 3.76 acre lot (lot 2) in the Green Tree Park industrial park su •4�ivision. The property is bounded on the north by GTP lot 3 and a .single-family residence, on the east by Grego- ry Drive , on the south by GTP lot 1, and on the west by Shunpike Road. A single- fa.-'_ly residence is located on the other side of Shunpike Road direr_-ly west of the lot. The lot is zoned Indus- trial -Commercial. 1 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658.7955 March 17, 1989 Mr. Joe Ingram Graphics Services P.O. Box 5219 Essex Junction, Vermont 05453 Re: 350 Dorset Street Dear Joe: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission, Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, March 21, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. cerely, C;oe Weith, -y Planner Encls JW/mcp City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 October 13, 1989 Joseph Senesac SSL, Cori-,r,rc tlol, 444 South Union Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: 350 Dorset Street. Dear Mr. Sens:":.:: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, October 17, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request.. erely, C` ) t oe Weith, City Planner Encls cc: T?;-bard t,?�-it'-lesey JW/mcp ROESLER & WHITTLESEY Attorneys At Lazo Robert C. Roesler Richard C. Whittlesey Marsha Smith Meekins Colleen Conti Walsh* *Also admitted in Massachusetts October 10, 1989 Mr. Joseph Weith City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: SSL Corporation 350 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Weith: P.O. Box 488 131 Main Street Burlington, VT 05402 (802) 863-1182 Fax (802) 863-9778 This office represents SSL Corporation. I have been asked by Mr. Senesac to prepare and forward to you the enclosed site plan application. As I believe you are already aware, efforts at finding tenants to occupy the building at 350 Dorset Street have been hampered considerably by the peak hour trip and restriction imposed by the Planning Commission in March of 1989. SSL Corporation would like to come before the Planning Commission to request a revision of that condition in order that the structure might be leased in the reasonably near future. I understand that the Planning Commission is scheduled to meet on the 17th of October at 7:30 p.m. It is my understanding that we are included on the schedule for that evening. We have made arrangements to have Joe Ingram from Graphic Services and Roger Dickenson present who are both familiar with this project. Would you please confirm this. I look forward to talking with you. RCW/dmv Enc. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard C. Whittle ey TELEPHONE MEMO Name: Date: Contact: A(LM)f0d Subject I r --- --- ---- Signature Chhhhh.. GRAPHIC/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. P.O. BOX 5219 ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05453-5219 (802) 879-4220 September 12, 1989 City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Attention: Joe Weith Reference: 350 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT Dear Joe: I recently consulted with Michael J. Munson about the 350 Dorset Street curb cut correlating with the State of Vermont Agency of Transportation plan. Enclosed you will find his response. We have met the planning commissions stipulations for approval and now would like to get the permit. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Tina L. Walker Enclosure cc: Mr. Moe Senesac MICHAEL J. MUNSON. PH.D. PLANNING CONSULTANT J September 6, 1989 To: Tina Walker Pitt W~k~� From: Michael J. Munson Project Coordinator Subject: Site Plan for 950 Dorset Street Under cover dated 8/31/89 I received a copy of the proposed site plan for the property at 350 Dorset Street, dated 2/10/89 for review relative to plans forthe reconstruction of Dorset Street. The site plan shows a 24 foot wide driveway from Dorset Street located slightly to the south of where we have presently shown it on the Dorset Street plans. The Dorset Street plans also show a 30 foot driveway. I will notify the Agency of Transportation to revise the Dorset Street plans to be consistent with the proposed driveway as soon as the final permit is issued. Please notify me when the permit is issued , or if, for any reason, this driveway is not constructed as proposed. The site plan also shows a radiussed approach to the driveway from Dorset Street. Since Dorset Street is to be widened, most of that radius will be removed as part of the construction. While I cannot guarantee when the reconstruction will take place, it may make sense to not place curbs along the radius of this curb cut as they 4ill be taken out later. Also, you.should know that when the reconstruction project is implemented, virtually all curb cuts along the street will be treated with flared rather than radiussed entries. Finally, the site plan shows some plantings located on either side of the driveway adjacent to the proposed Dorset Street R.O.W. Since the new bike path will be located one foot inside of the R.O.W. line, it is quite likely that these plantings will fall within the slope easement which will be disturbed by the construction. In order to prevent destruction of the plantings, it may make sense to move them further from the proposed R.O.W. If I can be of further help, please let me know. p1 —.-4-'_ pool! _ r Co- c..c __�- — - i 8q tt11 41 r •� ,� ` •' .. .. '1 r r �,�]�� � • •r�' t. '-�,� �� '.S � '� 1. t4 ,}.� L, ,X �.,, rY� t• w a 'l. 'r ri y +f _� - .•� t't .i r `.r .r- s :1 st • t , '.--•'...t .7 `."•I'!�!•� fr '••4.f .•(t �1 • K • �"•� ` !' t i •� �, r ,.• S -3.O ...��r-�..�+-++n4••� % � ,��j�j//��E�_'+�t .1.��J -t r� a t a,• �J >„ f � 1'� �. -- T _ i ,, M � : f - t � ia� �� rcaT F ,: r • ° •f {, . Y +� ,�i t j" i r � - i >�' 'r �,. •/T,.: r r��; �11?.• ••'fir. r 1 ji. rr• _t•��� �;. .tt� '+ .t ~�• �.-, >. �._ 5�: ;fie+. ��.t� � }...,'L j,44� .. `..S .. • �- n.. ✓ w f '+X - : �.•. i. '. =' Y'�r" ri�i"" r ��f ` � ' v r �:♦' ••. .. � .�• ••.f.: rr r , j f�.. f-. 1,f �.�/�•Zt L' ' r ..r. C f1 ( i - _ V C t. i`.y '%� ♦ r` • ( �. �r �}�� 'F �� •-+ ': .r.: �.-` �' -�f r. � s, t r '.{��>. ��}I S f �' • +` f '` t `. i ';r �iC`, r r �•'�� ... a l• �'•la,f.. `�,1�'���q•'�'•`s �St � � �, r .`,�a ' i. r} Tf it�r�.� .. 3 j• C t r 1' y .>l'�l'}'� `�" 3�Y' •) It 'r '4d1 `k� K :y r 'tjs t . ' �r - , -�:... �i - "._ �X A j •}et•' j,,+'r'�r+a'i •�t�Ti}.f l..:#�' % .� jr •• •'^°'� t• .�,t�r'f ✓ t 'rf1 •M� .•s k' Ar;4i r •w.�•' - i ,�' drt� ��- ram'{ {• L.-Ir`l'- :-%'•TR*��` �L` •� ��1�.YN�,' t� -. it AO . � n _ t � i : r { � t -N �T♦.� .»rY%�-;",'.�►��! y'. • r • s* Y� �i'. /�r ` ��/�'% f. � � r,. r ° t.; �n *`• •i y ,y�> �, ° E - • ,. i. >' pr .`t, �r. .. . (,� `/ tM�i��Q�/V„ I., r✓#�r5�. �. ; h':�4q"�� +:,*. t •� ' .� f i rT hj s(}`_f•.;"r , < .. , •r. ,� ->r. fr .',�- y-h, r•J..i..,' -•��� 't, i♦ r r a ,r • };tt�„ �- ✓�- Mrr j •.j >�f�. 1t-Y >>. t. f1� 1' �.. T• t•i�,. `. r ;�y�` s* � t i � \ ,tr: J • • �.... ••' •' j ,� i f � ~ r ••••'a K sr : '•. t• i �'y• .: !' • 'icy, j�-t. � ��r4`. 1 ~ i7y�,•Yrt t Y., sy'-.fit 6 t.f •.�`. , 4.'�'} Xl���yf��•/1[. •1 1.2 ..t Y� f 11:�> y:7F i .` + �� r .t.r �♦ Y �! 11 :' �zl t . �.•yy1. ' 1 tiii� �( Yly 1 .., _. .t t f i=i ' i 1'i � _.> : ' _ (" �F � ti �• � t _ .i,. + �'' ' � ,'V-a. r� �rh•% x r + ♦+. *;,x ~ �.. S !. _:ry t � / - iA"�.•/ V/'—I/: 1r��I �r�:7!•.r'Jar � �"ttv`•�f I /��%C�/S• .�"'-: t .r '�•� r4 �.��$''4' 1.v r �* f .�i'C/u�/i 7� � .> ... �;.' - .S�QE��i=a�.��•. '.S 7~ y �SLr7r /7t� .� ! F i � sr r ? j t�t} li �• x ^ 6rA71 W. d TAT/©>Y LCr��'/GYY = • y ' / 3Ga O c • GYM GE—�r r ' � r k 00 + .. .597�YY 92 30 _,fix a ti' :i •.r t . � r s 'i S ��= � ��. ,� �,� _�_��.r �r �: t .r`.,� a .� REMY,or MICHAEL J. MUNSON, PH.D. PLANNING CONSULTANT it 1_ B ark Street, Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 (802) 879- f - ,:% oS` March 27, 1989 Joe Weith City Planner 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, 'VT. 05403 Dear Jae: In response to your letter of March 21 regarding the proposed access at 350 Dorset Street, I have reviewed the plan and discussed it with Robert Murphy at the Agency of Transportation. I have the following observations and comments.- 1. As a general. rule, site plans proposed for properties on Dorset Street should be designed to be consistent with the plans for reconstructing Dorset Street. 'This includes planned curb location„ planting strip, sidewalk., bike path„ utilities and curb Cut design treatment„ 2. 1 assume that the applicants are aware that the proposed reconstruction project includes a median strip in front of 350 Dorset which will eliminate all left hand turns into and out of that property. It would be good to make them explicitly aware of that at this time. . The south edge of the curb Cut proposed at 250 Dorset Street is 2 to 3 feet South of that propose on the Dorset Street Plans. This should not cause any problem. It does not conflict with any utilities (although the drive appears to he over some private storm drain lines which (nay be relocated) . When the City approves any site plan for this property, the location of the curb cut can be changed on the Dorset Street Flans, if necessary. 4. The proposed Curb cut is only 24 feet in width, compared to the 30 foot width shown on the Dorset. Street Flans. The 3(.) foot cut is a common width being used along Dorset Street for commercial properties. I really feel that a 24 foot Curb cut will be constrictive for the traffic generated by the proposed commercial uses on this site. 5. Perhaps more important (and closely related to the width issue) is the design treatment of the curb cut. The City has worked long and hard to develop a standard design -treatment for this street in order to create the ordered visual character appropriate to the City's "main street". 'This standard design treatment includes a flared design for all curb cuts, 'flared at. 45 degrees between the sidewalk and the curb. I feel strongly, and Bob Murphy agrees, that: this should be retained all along they street. Otherwise the st'.re3et will take on the appearance of a side road anywhere. Therefore, I strongly urge that whatever is approved for this parcel includes they flared curb cut design treatment. Keep in mind that the Dorset Str'-eet project will be building ea=ie curb cuts to meet e mist:ing driveways, so the driveways should be designed te.-.i be c::ons:i.ste=nt with the design. 6, The Agency has agreed to look: at the width question in order to establish a design which .is consistent: with plans for the Street and will accommodate anticipated traffic on the parcel. This requires that the applicant provide traffic, generation data and a l.:ist of vehicle types (and frequencies) ca,:pect:.e: d to use this curb cut„ Possible solutions im:ight:. range from determination that. the 24 foot: drive is <:ade?t;tuat.e to a compromise where the curb 1:..ut:. is ::c) feet, wide bt_tt t".he:? driveway tapers as it moves east: to match with the proposed curb along the planting areas south of the proposed vestibule e?•:p ans:ion u I will be happy to discuss this further w.i.t:.h•a you :and/or.. the applicant, but I must st'.ress=, the :i.mpor't.anc:e of making sure that: whatever is approved is consistent with plans for the Road t_tpgr'ryadi.ncl effort ,. _ ... .• eae.t ��hi:�t..c.lc:l r-ee�e�a.vi�� �:a e:�ur-r•-e�r•a't 4,�..t:•. e:a•fi� I.?.lane: for the r-ecc:ar7s:str"t..tct:i..rara projec-t:. (if you haven't already received d them). I...c-?ok them over carefully. 1t may be useful for the two of t_ts to sit drawn and discuss the general concepts which should apply to review of any proposed developments along the Street. I hi~..ape that, this i,s-;; helpful. Sincerely, Michael J. Munson, Ph.D. Project Coordinator PS I have enclosed ca crude sketch of a possible access plan for this parcel, showing the road as planned„ a flared casrto cut of 30 feet, and a tapered driveway meeting the curb in front of the building. It's _lust <:a PVIJIll 575 DURSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 March 30, 1989 Joe Ingram Graphics Services P.O. Box 5219 Essex Junction, Vermont 05453 Re: S.S.L. Corporation, 350 Dorset Street Dear Joe: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the letter we talked about from Mike Munson, the Project Coordinator for Dorset Street. As you remember, the approval for the 350 Dorset Street project contained a condition that. the State Agency of Transportation must approve the curb cut design. I would advise that the applicant set up a meeting with the State in order to get this issue resolved, especially as it relates to continent number 6 on the enclosed letter. Also, please be aware that any change to the approved plan requires approval by the Planning Commission. Please keep me posted on any discussions or decisions concerning this issue. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Si rlcerely, Joe Weith, City Planner 1 Enc] JW/mcp CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON SITE PLAN APPLICATION 1 ) OWNER OF RECORD ( name, address p `�`) �_.____. _ phone #) .---5_�..' _ C� a�c-c.., -- -- �r11 1 g�z— go6�'' 2) APPLICANT (name, address, phone #)_IJG.vn 3) CONTACT PERSON (name, address, phone #) __- _Sv��•-� ____ �rcfll�;�s SP.�J�cc� Q. 5 9 k 9 4) . PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 3jO �OcSe �� • __`___________ 5) LOT NUMBER (if applicable) 6) PROPOSED USE(S)tA,��-1 4C Dry--,, 61 L' 7) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e. total building square footage, # units, maximum height and # floors, square feet per floor) SE- 'SiAr- P " �24 Gai2 �c SfWui(eS 8) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES LAY-)) IIIIVW h C-i �+S -�l w --- 9).LOT COVERAGE: building 9L; landscaped areas % building, parking, outside storage % 10) COST ESTIMATES: Buildings $ 10., Landscaping $ Other Site Improvements (please list with cost) $ 11) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 12) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in and out) Estimated trip ends (in and out) during the following hours: Monday through Friday 11-12 noon—_; 12-1p.m. _ 1-2 p.m. 2-3 3-4 p.m.---; 4-5 p.m. 5-6 p.m.—-; 6-7 P.M. ---___-- 13) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 14) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: C? DATE OF SUBMISSION SYGNATU E P III ANT DATE OF HEARING PLEASE SUBMIT FIVE COPIES OF THE SITE PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Lot drawn to scale (20 foot scale if possible.) Location of streets, abutting properties, fire hydrants, existing buildings, existing landscaping. Existing and proposed curbcuts, pavement, walkways. Proposed landscaping plan (number, variety and size) equal to of greater than the required amount in the Zoning Regulations. Number and location of Parking Spaces: (9' x 181) with 22 or 24 foot aisles as required. Number and location of compact car spaces. ( This requires separate Planning Commission approval). Number and location of handicapped spaces as required. (13 feet by 20 feet in size, one per every fifty spaces) Location of septic tanks (if applicable). Location of any easements. Lot coverage information: Building footprint, building, parking and outside storage, and landscaped areas. Location of site (Street # and lot #). North arrow. Name of person or firm preparing site plan and date. 2 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 April 18, 1989 Mr. Joe Ingram Graphics Services P.O. Box 5219 Essex Junction, Vermont 05453 Re: SSL Corporation, 350 Dorset Street Dear Joe: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are the March 21, 1989 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please meet the stipulations contained in the approval motion before applying for a building permit. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Joe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl Jw/mcp Memorandum October 17, October 13, Page 3 - Planning 1989 agenda items 1989 5) VALLEY AIR. BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Airport Realty Associates proposes to erect a 420 square foot "temporary" building to be used as a pilots lounge to serve as a place for transient, corporate pilots to wait until a return flight is needed. Overnight pilots are currently and will con- tinue to be referred to a motel. The project is located in the Airport -Industrial zone and is located immediately to the southwest of the existing Valley Air Hangar. Access/Circulation: Access and circulation would remain as is which is adequate. Access for the property is via a private drive over 3060 Associates property and connects to Williston Road across from Shunpike Road. Landscaping: The project requires $540 in new landscaping. The plan shows 5 new spreading yews, one new white pine and one new Norway maple. Also, one existing Norway maple would be relocated to make room for the structure. Traffic: The proposed use should not create any additional traffic/parking or demand for additional parking. 6) S.S.L. CORPORATION. 350 DORSET STREET S.S.L. Corporation received site plan approval on 3/21/89 for conversion of a 7,600 square foot building to retail use (minutes enclosed). I do not think they ever obtained a building permit, therefore, the approval is null and void. S.S.L. has submitted a new application basically for the same project. They are asking, however, that they be allowed more peak hour trips than were allotted in the approval (see stipula- tion #2). They are also requesting approval for office use. Since retail is the deciding factor in terms of traffic, I do not see a problem with also allowing office use. The 59 peak hour trip limit is set by Article XVII of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations.The Planning Commission can approve a higher number of trips only if a condition setforth in Section 17.50 is met. Please review this section before Tuesday's meet- ing. 45 CALc c, (7 12-1 4r; rs Aj 711d L9 63 to v C-1 �e- /,-, �-w 1.0 r I / a- co i Memorandum - Planning March 14, 1989 agenda items March 10,.1989 page 4 Other: The use appears to be to big for the lot. There are cars, boats, boat racks and boat trailers parked all over several areas which the approved plan shows as green space. These areas include: 1) the front yard, 2) in front of the boat storage building, 3) between the boat storage building and the boat showroom, 4) on the west side of the shed building, and 5) on the west side of the wash rack building. Recommendations: If the Planning Commission approves the request, it should be stipulated that a zoning permit will not be issued until all required site work and landscaping from the 8/13/85 approval is complete. If the applicant does not accept this condition, or decides not to pursue a building permit for some other reason, measures should be taken by the City to enforce the proposed plan and conditions of the 8/13/85 approval. 3) S.S.L CORPORATION, 350 DORSET STREET S.S.L. Corporation proposes to convert the old Alco building to multi -tenant retail uses. The applicant proposes to divide the 7590 square foot building into 5 separate 1500 square foot spaces. The property is zoned Central District 2 (CD-2) of the City Center Zone. The property is on the east side of Dorset Street and is bounded on the north by a car rental business, on the south by Champlain Oil, and on the east by San Remo Drive. Setbacks: CD-2 requires a front yard setback of 50 feet from Dorset Street, 0-5 foot side yard setbacks and a 100 foot rear yard setback from the centerline of the block. The existing building is only 26 feet from the front property line and 7 feet from the block centerline, therefore the structure is non- conforming. Section 1.80 of the City Center Zoning Ordinance provides that no alterations will be allowed to a non -complying structure except for alterations to facades and exterior finishes. The applicant is planning on adding an 8 foot wide vestibule to the south side of the building. The Zoning Administrator has determined that the vestibule falls into the facade and exterior finish alteration designation and therefore does not require a variance. Coverage: Proposed building coverage is 16.5% (40% maximum allowed) and total lot coverage is 67% (90% maximum allowed). 4 Id Memorandum - Planning "March 1.4, 1989 agenda items March 10, 1989 Page 5 Access: Access would be provided by a 24 foot wide curb cut on Dorset Street and a 24 foot wide curb cut on San Remo Drive. The Dorset Street widening plan proposes a shared access off Dorset Street for this property and the property to the south. The proposed access for this plan should be moved closer to the south property line so that when the Dorset Street project is completed, the new access to this site won't require major revisions to the parking layout. An alternative to consider would be to move the access drive closer to the south property line and relocate parking to the front of building (see enclosed sketch B). I will check with Chief Goddette on this suggestion. Another possible alternative is shown in sketch C. Circulation: Circulation is provided along the south and east sides of the building. No circulation is provided in the rear (north side) of the building. This could pose problems for deliveries. Currently the plan proposes receiving deliveries through the front door. Parking: The project requires 42 parking spaces, 55 spaces are proposed. Traffic: The property is located within traffic overlay zone 5 which allows 59 peak hours trips. Based on ITE Trip Generation rates for small shopping centers, the proposed project will generate 129 trips during the peak hour. It should be noted that if the building were to be occupied by one individual retail business, based on ITE Trip rates, the projected peak hour trip generation would be only 36. Alternatively, if the proposed spaces were leased to specialty retail tenants (i.e., hardgoods such as clothing, sporting goods, antiques, etc.) projected peak hour trip generation would be 34. Specialty retail does not include such uses as convenience marts, grocery stores, restaurants, delis, etc. Landscaping: The project requires $ in new landscaping. The plan proposes ,yew, maple, juniper, burning bush, and potentilla which is valued at $ 3,270. The appliant estimates the value of proposed landscaping to be $3555. Other: This is an area of the City Center zone which needs wort. The current zoning encourages property owners, like this one, who own a parcel which extends from Dorset Street to San Remo Drive to subdivide the property into two lots, one fronting Dorset Street and one fronting San Remo Drive. For the lot fronting San Remo Drive, the minimal front yard setback and 100 foot setback from the block centerline allows sufficient space to erect a 5 Memorandum March 14, March 10, Page 6 - Planning 1989 agenda items 1989 building which promotes the City Center plan, that being a building up front and parking in the center. However, for the lot fronting Dorset Street, the 50 foot front yard setback arid 100' setback from block centerline does not leave sufficient space to erect a building. Something else the Planning Commission should be considering is access to the future center parking lots. Unless there tire several publicly owned r.o.w.'s providing access to these lots, there is no guarantee that private property owners will allow public access over their land. As a result, each lot will have its own driveway leading to the center lots, which is not what the City Center plan calls for. 4) DISCUSSION WITH PETER JUDGE, 100 DORSET STREET PROPERTY Peter Judge is interested in having his 100 Dorset Street property included in the City Center zone and would like to discuss his proposal with the Planning Commission. See the enclosed letter dated 1/13/89 from Peter Judge to Steven Stitzel. Former Planner Jane Lafleur said that the 100 Dorset Street property was considered during the development of the City Center plan. She said the Planning Commission decided not to include it, however, she could not remember why. I will go through the minutes to see of there is anything on why the Commission decided this way. Mr. Judge indicated that he would like to be included in the zone because if offers more flexibility on placement of buildings. He contends this would allow greater potential for better access between the new light of his property and the Greer property to the north. It should be noted that the current City Center zoning does not allow multiple buildings on the lot. Therefore, new, or relocated buildings would have to receive a variance. Alternatively, -the property could be subdivided to bring number of buildings on a lot into conformance. I feel Mr. Judge's proposal is important to consider, especially, as it, might relate to additional access to the City Center arer+. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION 14 MARCH 1989 PAGE 2 2. Site Plan application of SSL Corp. for conversion of a vacant 7600 sq. ft. building to retail use, 350 Dorset St. Mr. Ingram noted they got a permit from the Zoning Board for more than one use (office and retail), but that the Zoning Board had reserved the right to make an administrative review of the proposed uses. Mr. Ingram said there would be a maximum of 5 uses. Mr. Burgess asked what can be done when the Zoning Administrator changes what the Planning Commission absolutely wants or does not want. He stressed it was the intent of the Commission not to allow any changes to the footprint of those buildings. Mr. Senesac said this was not a long range proposal but would be just until something definite happened with Dorset St. When the City Center is ready to go, he would scape the present building off the lot. Trip Generation: Mr. Weith said if the projected use is a small shopping center, the project would generate too much traffic. For one retail use, it would be OK or for specialty retail use. Mr. Senesac said there are millions of dollars of property on Dorset St. that can't just sit there because of traffic problems. He said he is willing to work with the Commission but it has to be a mutual effort. Mrs. Maher suqgested office use. Mr. Senesac said there is too much office spacevacant in the city now. Mr. Poger suggested giving approval for a given number of trip ends and when they reach that number, there can be no further tenants allowed. Mr. Senesac asked what the Commission wants to see there. Mr. Burgess said he didn't know. Mrs. Maher said low traffic retail. Members then discussed the vestibule addition. Mr. Senesac said it would not be enclosed and no displays would be allowed in the area. Mr. Burgess questioned the glassed in portions of the walkway. Mr. Senesac again stressed this space would not be usable by the tenants for display or sales. Access: Access is off Dorset St. The plan for the new street proposes combining access with the lot to the south. Mr. Weith thus suggested moving the access closer to that property line and readjusting parking, so it won't have to be done again when Dorset St. is widened. Circulation: Mr. Weith said there are no major problems, and the Fire Chief has no problems. Proposed landscaping is more than enough. Mr. Weith agreed to check with the City Attorney as to PLANNING COMMISSION 14 MARCH 1989 PAGE 3 whether the Commission could enforce a stipulation as to the number of trip ends allowed for the project. Mrs. Maher moved to postpone action until the next regularly scheduled meeting Ms. Peacock seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Discussion with Peter Judge regarding inclusion of the 100 Dorset Street property in the City Center Zoning District Mr. Judge noted that Mills & Greer is opposing the Dorset St. project because they will lose a left turn access. Mr. Judge said he is agreeable to having Greer's access through the 100 Dorset St. lot with an undefined access. He stressed this would not be a trade, but they do want to be included in the City Center Zone for purposes of density and dimensional relief. He felt this would benefit the city by allowing possible access to other properties (Arby's, Mills & Greer, Texaco, etc.). Mrs. Maher asked where they would find parking. Mr. Judged said they could share with Ramada or have mixed uses that would not conflict. Mr. Weith said the problem is the number of buildings on the lot. There are already 2, and the City Center Zoning would allow only one. It might be possible to get a subdivision or to connect the existing buildings. Mrs. Maher said she didn't want to see a change until the City Center zone is changed to accommodate traffic figures. She had not objection to moving the Net Result but did not want to allow an increase in square footage now. Mr. Jacob felt there is a need to look at the whole City Center Zone. Other Business 1. Members were given a copy of the UVM Master Plan and parking management plan for Gutterson. UVM will be in for a discussion on 4/4/89. 2. Members agreed to writing of a charge for the Southeast Quadrant Committee. 3. Mr. Jacob felt the City Center Committee should be re- activated, with a maximum of 6 members. 4. Mr. Burgess cited a problem with the new traffic light on Williston Rd. and felt there should be a sign to indicate to left turners from the hotel that they will be merging with traffic moving out from White Street. A separate cycle may be required for safety. M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: March 14, 1989 agenda items Date: March 1.0, 1989 1) MAPLE LEAF MOTEL, SHELBURNE ROAD 1. A sidewalk should be constructed across the frontage on the street property line. 2. The entrance drive shall have a radii on both sides of the curb opening. A State permit will have to be obtained for all work in the street r.o.w. 2) P.J.'S AUTO VILLAGE, WILLISTON ROAD The site plan dated 7/2/85 with revision dated 3/2/89 is acceptable. 3) SSL CORPORATION, 350 DORSET STREET The proposed improvements shall conform with the plans for widening Dorset Street especially the driveway location. PLANNER fi58-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 March 10, 1989 Mr. Joe Ingram Graphics Services P.O. Box 5219 Essex Junction, Vermont 05453 Re: SSL Corporation, 350 Dorset Street Dear Joe: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR fi58-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Also enclosed are Bill Szymanski's comments. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, March 14, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. S i_ricerel,y , Joe Weith, City Planner JW/mcp Encls PLANNING COMMISSION 21 FEBRUARY 1989 page 3 Mr. Belter felt the development could be reconfigured with a cul de sac. The applicant felt the City Engineer preferred a through road, but Mr. Weith said this wasn't necessarily the case. Mr. Jacob suggested all utilities could come in on the easterly most ingresg/egress. Members felt regulations did not give them the right to waive the 80 foot frontage requirement. Mr. Jacob asked for an interpre- tation of that. Mr. O'Brien said the problem is that variances had been granted to allow adjacent owners to build additions up to the property lines adjacent to this property without taking into account the right- of-way. Mr. Craig felt that Section 18.102 of the Zoning Reg- ulations should be amended to include the wording "..or a right- of-way that may become a street." Residents and Commission members liked the single family home approach. 4. Discussion with Joe Ingram regarding a proposed amendment to the South Burlington Zoning Regulations to move the Commercial-1 Zone boundary on the Lindenwood Motel poperty 65 feet eastward Mr. Ingram noted this is one property with the zone line going through it. They would like to make the zoning uniform on the property. No particular ' use is presently planned. If the land were commercial, it would require a 15 foot buffer and a 50 foot setback from the residential area adjacent to it. Members had no objection to warning a public hearing for a possible zone change. Ms. Pugh asked that the applicant come prepared to say what type of development could go on the land if it were all Commercial (building height, size, uses, etc.). 5. Review draft #1 of the proposed amendment to Article 17 of the South Burlington zoning Regulations to establish a City Center Traffic Overlay Zone Mr. Weith noted Mr. Farrar has concerns with traffic in the City Center Zone and feels it should be controlled until it can be de- termined what is to be done there. There is also a concern with fairness as one or 2 developers could use up all the traffic capacity allowed and other landowners could then not build. Mr. Weith was asked to come up with a plan that would give everyone a fair shot. He looked at the JHK study and calculated how many trips would be generated in the study years of 1997 and 2002 and found that in 1997, 28 peak hour trips per 40,000 sq. ft. would l 2- Mr. Randazzo asked do you plan any modification to the exterior of this building and Mr. Frazier replied no. Mr. Blais said we understand that the bylaws would not be affect. Also utilization of renewable energy resources. Mr. Boehm came in at 7:10 PM and did not vote on this. The appeal was granted unanimously with one abstention. No. 2 Appeal of S.S.L. Corporation, Joseph Senesac Appeal of S.S.L. Corporation, Joseph Senesac seeking a variance from Section 1.80 alteration to non -complying structures and approval from Section 19.65 Multiple uses. Request is for permission to construct a 1500 square foot addition to an existing non -complying 7500 square foot structure and occupy with a maximum of five (5) retail and or business office uses, on a lot containing 1.2 acres located aL 350 Dorset Street. Mr. Ward said area in question zoned Central District 2. Section 19.65 Multiple uses, sub section 19.05 conditional use applies. Building 60' x 126' 1 story. Lot contains 52,272 square feet (l.t acres) with 160' frontage. Former use Alco Equipmp-t (truck repairs and body mounting). Proposed uses retail business (Sectiv,. 1.101) alLd business and pro.L�ssional offices (Section 1.102) maximum of 5 uses. Request to construct 1500 square feet addition has been deleted from this proposal. Mr, Ward said the only issue before you is 19.65 Multiple uses. The building will have a new facade, additional parking, sidewalk and landscaping. Mr. Ingram said there will be a maximum of 5 spaces. We would like to have 5 different uses within the permitted use category. We may end up combining spaces -a group of compatible tenants or one single tenant. We have adequate parking. As far as the impact on traffic. We're not going to be picking up much new traffic. These would be permitted uses and would have no negative impact on the character of the area. This will be an improvement. We will be going to site planning. Mr. Senesac said we're doing some clean up from when our last tenant moved. We have a number of people interested in going in there - a Toy Store which would be retail. Mr. Blais asked if there would be any exterior storage. Mr. Senesac said there wouldn't be. Mr. Blais said if this were to be passed would you have any problem that this board have an administrative review of the permitted uses if there is more than one. Would you also be willing to stipulate that there would be no exterior storage. Mr. Senesac said he would have no problem with these stipulations. There was some discussion as to new serh-ck for Dorset Street. Mr. Senesac said I'm trying to work with the City -3- Mr. Condos moved that if this appeal is approved that it be with the stipulation that the appelant will come before this board for an administrative review based on the permitted uses in Sections 1.101 and 1.102 of the Zoning Code and that there be no exterior storage or display. This was seconded by Mr. King and all voted aye. Mr. Ingram asked why would you limit the uses to 1.101 and 1.102. We were hoping that we would be permitted a mix of uses. We would like a sit down restaurant. Mr. Condos said the appeal was not warned that way. Mr. Ward said you never talked about this - it was strictly retail or business offices. Mr. Blais said we can't tonight. We can only deal with the public warning. We can consider it in the future. The appeal was granted unanimously subject to stipulations. No. 3 Consider the request of Allenbrook, 100 Allen Road to amend a stipulation from a variance granted in September 1981. Mr. Ward said I mailed Allenbrook a letter but no one is present tonight. He asked the board if they wished to table this. Mr. Condos moved to table. This was seconded by Mr. King and all voted aye. This was tabled. Mr. Blais said the board is instructing the Zoning Administrator to add to the criteria for Conditional Uses or Variances a statement that the appelant make a presentation in an expedient and reasonable manner. If they are not prepared to do so the board could table their appeal until the next meeting. Mr. Condos asked that the minutes be changed as follows: Page 2 paragraph 4 -should be single wall gas tanks to double wall gas tanks.. Page 4 paragraph 7 - should be intensifying use of the property. Mr. Condos moved that we accept the decision of findings of fact for the minutes of February 27, 1989 as amended. This was seconded by Mr. King and all voted aye. Mr. Thibault moved for adjournment. This was seconded by Mr. Graf and the meeting adjourned at 7:45 PM. . Clerk No Text E X. �SIOW of WAJIEr . 21 IA I �v ±k 2.A L;E14v k�: y i i TY I� Kok. 4" 14-Lo CA7V �R KI 4 p(' -err. 1.6 w l og wp- to �5 wet, L r'L:' 14 1; , 0 � rA I L- �-TAf �11- r--,H W044 W f W PUA- L f --*Y' F-SSE-:-, sf . T�H C,) 5 PLAKrrl Qc� 5CHF—PIJL-e FYEMI F4-'L yiVw �c L-P M�-v WTF4-�l L-LA I tom -.Ate - Arc 0 6, CA p6- Cj&cLC,'5 P(4,,J DATli5,,. 9 w TA"LrD CUTOATA A:—r—p— rt��AQOIMS — AkilrFrevs fexakwwc-, I rIWIAI r--UcklrLy-, ALNLr--. -CDA� LY>, N-OQ'YmLr-> F�UNEFI Ft-Tp,�qluikc f2l-)T?:ca 1---!Af-JPK4 4RF-AS MIUMLM 12.". lwc,-JJDeS IWSTA,"Arlc*� *40 Ou ¢105,OLDD A .03 V-9000�FL--) WtAAr M " -3,U f7 5 w 105-0 -4 2-lz-* C)E+ " 3 13,50 1' 1 7,q 4'- Lo' #75 1 SO 1z" Z7,�D fikf-:Vl A f SkJlE;�,-k SOWVS� W.->bMQSPEN. A p :-qT-IF JUC �'(,C)7,! 53, Z72 zLf11-)--a $(co2 �►�ca�, i PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 April 3, 1989 Mr. Joe Ingram Graphic Services P.O. Box 5219 Essex Junction, Vermont 05453 Re: SSL Corporation, 350 Dorset Street Dear Joe: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are the 3/14/89 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please meet the stipulations contained in the approval motion before applying for a building permit. Please call if ,you have any questions. Sincerely, /Joe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl cc: Joe Senesac JW/mcp PLANNING COMMISSION 17 APRIL 1990 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday 17 April 1990, at 7:00 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present William Burgess, Chairman; Mary -Barbara Maher, Ann Pugh, William Craig, Catherine Peacock, David Austin Also Present Joe Weith, City Planner; Greg Dicovitsky 1. Executive Session Mr. Craig moved the Commission meet in Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. Ms. Peacock seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Reqular Session 1. Other Business: Mr. Weith announced that the Airport presentation scheduled for this meeting has been canceled. Mr. Weith reported that the 350 Dorset Street Partnership has r--- quested an extension of their office/retail use approval. Mrs. Maher moved to grant the 6-month extension of the office use approval for 350 Dorset Street.— Mr. Craig seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Weith also reported that Ken Desmond has requested an extension for the approval for lot #7, Greentree Park. Mrs. Maher moved to grant the 6-month extension for the approval for lot #7, Greentree Park. Ms. Peacock seconded. Motion.passed unaniously. Mr. Burgess advised that Ms. Pugh will be absent from the Commission from mid -June through July. Mr. Burgess also advised that he had received a call from Jean McCandless of the Social Responsibility Committee who wants to meet with the Commission before the end of May regarding provisions for the homeless. Mr. Weith suggested the May 8th work session. Ms. Pugh will discuss the agenda for this item with Ms. McCandless. Douglas C. Pierson William H. Quinn Richard H. Wadhams, Jr. Glen L. Yates. Jr. James W. Coffrin Lewis K. Sussman Michael J. Gannon (VT & 1N) Thomas M. Higgins (VT & NJ) James E. Preston August 20, 1992 LAW OFFICES 253 South Union Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 M2) 863-2888 Fax:(802) 863-2863 Mr. Joseph M. Senesac, President SSL Corporation The Brentwood Corporation 444 South Union Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: The Burlington Tennis Club, Inc. Dear Mr. Senesac: I was surprised to see that you excavated on BTC land along our easterly and northerly boundaries without permission or notice to us. Although I am unsure of the exact location of our boundary, it appears that the underdrain and crushed stone that you installed is entirely on BTC property and you admitted as much when we talked on August 19. Since I am unsure of the extent of your intention to encroach upon BTC property,.and because you chose to forge ahead with this phase of your project without notice to us or our permission, I am requesting that you cease all activity and encroachment upon BTC property immediately and replace the excavated soil. We are very concerned for our cedar hedge and believe that your excavation within a couple of feet of the hedge may have already caused irreparable damage. The soil has to go back immediately to mitigate the harm that may already have been caused. If you choose to leave the underdrain and crushed stone on our property it is entirely at your risk. I am requesting its immediate removal until and if you receive our permission to put it on our property. One other thing. You mentioned that you will be constructing a concrete retaining wall along the boundary. Please take pains to be sure that the wall is entirely on your property and does not CONTINUED Mr. Joseph M. Senesac, President Page Two August 20, 1992 encroach upon BTC property. In light of your activities, I plan to recommend to the Board that we have our boundary line surveyed. We will not tolerate any encroachment without permission and fair compensation, if at all. Sincerely, res. Coffr President Bton Ten Club cco Robert C. Roesler, Esq. Mr. Joseph Sussman Mr. Louis Mazel Mr. Richard Ward Mr. Joseph Weith i i -2- b) This will not change the character of the property or the area. It is commercial - we have car sales, auto parts, carpet sales, warehouse, electronic r' repair facility, etc. The property to the west is also commercial. This is in character. To the east are mobile homes and sales. c) There would be no change in traffic. The traffic is now lower than we have had in the past. d) This is in compliance with all Bylaws. e) There would be no change in the capacity of existing facilities. This building is piped -in gas heating and the usage is very efficient. We are negotiating with several tenants but don't have a signed lease on hand. Mrs. Bouchard questioned the parking on the side of the building. She said she saw several cars parked there under "No Parking" signs. Mr. Rose said I have seen that and have advised my tenants. I will be numbering all the spaces and giving all my tenants spaces. I will take care of this. We have enough parking - we exceed the requirements. Mr. Sheahan said I have a question - if we grant this appeal we have given them a blank check as to which tenant they can have there. Mr. Ward replied the board has conditioned the approval on a review of each tenant. (firnr Mr. Rose said what I was really seeking was the Board's approval of the usage but when I get a tenant I will come back with a specific usage. Mr. Sheahan moved that assuming that the appeal is granted this evening that any tenant come before the Board for a Conditional use approval of this tenant. This was seconded by Mr. Randazzo and all voted aye. The appeal was granted unanimously. Mr. Graf said it has been requested that Appeal #4 be moved up to #2 because Mr. Latelle is to meet with Planning tonight. Mr.Handy said it would be alright with him. No. 4 Appeal of Three Fifty Dorset Street Partnership, Bruce Latelle seeking approval from Section 1.20 Conditional uses sub section 1.201 fast food restaurants of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to occupy 1500 square feet of an existing 7500 square foot building with a yogurt shop in conjunction with four other retail and or business uses on a lot containing 1.2 acres, located at 350 Dorset Street. Mr. Ward informed the Board members that the area in question is zoned Central District 2. Section 1.20 Conditional uses, sub section 1.201 fast food restaurant (Section 19.05 criteria applies). Existing structure 7500 square feet - lot 160' x 350' = 56,000 square feet = 1.2 acres. Variance for multi uses granted 3/13/89. Zoning Board voted on 10/23/89 that proposed use yogurt shop was not a permitted use. Proposed 1500 square feet to be occupied as a -3- urt shop, other 6000 square feet not ail/business. The only issue is the taurant under Section 1.20. occupied, uses as approved section dealing with fast food Latelle said that at the previous meeting I believe it was our point that this yogurt shop is not your typical fast food restaurant like a McDonald, etc. It does not generate as much traffic and the highest use would generally be after rush hours like in the evening. At the existing facility at Taft Corners they open at 11:00 AM and there is no traffic flow before that. It's slow during dinner hour - the business is in the evening hours. It should not affect the character of the neighborhood or the educational facilities as it exists. At our last presentation the Board felt that it was a fast food restaurant and they couldn't approve it. Now that it's come under a Conditional use we feel that it does not generate the trips that a fast food restaurant would. Mr. Chamberland asked is it a typical fast food restaurant? Mr. Latelle replied it's the type of facility like downtown. Mr. Randazzo said I disagree with that. The time that it takes to prepare the food and leave is not the same. In 20 minutes I saw about 4 vehicles. The trip ends that are generated from that would be in the 90 - 120 range when you look at Dorset Street now and you add to it the High School. I think you're going to have a traffic problem. Michelle Richard said we have reports that give us a count tally and now we're lucky if we get 126 people all day long. Even in the summertime we're lucky if we get 250 people all day. Mr. Graf read the fast food restaurant definition in the Zoning Regulations and said that's what we're using as a definition of a fast food restaurant. Mr. Randazzo asked are you aware of the memo from the City Planner? Mr. Latelle replied that Mr. Ward had just given it to him. He said I would like the Board to also keep in mind that we have had this property for a considerable amount of time. We have turned a lot of individuals away because we felt that they would not fit the criterias. The market is extremely soft at this time. We are aware of what the City is trying to do to this area. It seems that there is a computer program out there for traffic but many of these numbers will be upgraded as improvements to the road occur. This is the first tenant we are placing in the building at this time. I am sure there will be improvements later on. Mr. Graf asked will this be a self-contained store or the prime commodity in part of another store. Mrs. Richard said no - totally yogurt. Mr. Chamberland asked do you consider it a restaurant. Mrs. Richard said we consider it a retail store. I think you would get a lot of walk-ins right there. -4- Mr. Latelle said I asked Michelle if she would check with her clients as to whether they are there to buy or sit.. Mr. Graf asked how many people will you be able to seat. Mrs. Richard said probably will be seating as many as we seat in Williston. Mr. Graf asked that the letter from Joe Weith be copied into the minutes. "Memorandum To: South Burlington From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: SSL Corporation, 350 Dorset Date: March 26, 1990 Zoning Board of Adjustment Street As a condition of approval for the above referenced project, the Planning Commission set a limit of 70 peak hour trips to be generated from the subject property (see attached condition #2, 10/17/89 Planning Commission minutes). As part of this condition, the Planning Commission left review of this condition to the responsibility of the Zoning Administrator or Zoning Board during administrative review of new uses. I am writing this memo to make you aware of the condition imposed by the Planning Commission and also to express concern regarding the proposed yogurt store. The I.T.E. trip generation manual estimates that fast food restaurants without drive through windows (code 833) generate 139.9 peak hour trip ends per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Based on this standard, the proposed yogurt store will generate 210 trips during the peak hour. This far exceeds the 70 peak hour trip limit imposed by the Planning Commission. This standard may not exactly apply to this particular use. However, in order to appropriately enforce the condition imposed by the Commission, I recommend the Board require an adequate trip generation analysis prepared by an independent consultant as part of this application." Mr. Chamberland asked would you like to consider this appeal as a retail store instead of a fast food restaurant? Mr. Ward said the Board already ruled that it was not a retail store. We have to consider it as a fast food restaurant. The appeal was denied 5 - 0. No. 2 Appeal of Salamin Handy seeking approval from section 19.65 Multiple uses. Request is for permission to construct a 20' x 63' addition to an existing 3300 square foot building and operate a third use (State Liquor Store) in conjunction with a mini mart and gasoline sales on a lot containing 1.1 acres located at 974 Shelburne Road. Mr. Ward informed Board members that the area is zoned C-1 District. Section 19.65 Multiple uses. Variance granted October 23, 1989 allowing construction of a 3300 square foot mini mart and gasoline sales. Proposed addition 20' x 63' (1260 square feet) to provide space for a third use (State Liquor Store). Lot 163 foot frontage, 48,481 square feet = 1.11 acres. STATE OF VERMONT COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DECISION & FINDING OF FACT On the 27th day of March, 1990, the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment heard evidence regarding the appeal of Three Fifty Dorset Partnership , Bruce Latelle, agent, 350 Dorset Street on the following facts and findings: 1) The existing traffic on Dorset Street would generate peak hour traffic to this location which would exceed the total trips allowed by the Planning Commission. 2) The general character of the area presently would be affect- ed by the type of use proposed 3) Until improvments are completed on Dorset Street any addi- tional trips would have an adverse affect. 4) No addition evidence was submitted since the Board's October 1989 decision. Based upon the above statpd facts and findings the appellant's request for a conditi al is ere y denied. Chairman of the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment JUN 111990 Official Use City of South Burlington Application to Board of Adjustment Date Applicants Owner, leasee, agent Address y 4 U h,I GIj Si Telephone # lr n�ithi 0 c N& [ APPLICATION # HEARING DATE 31?_ 61Co FILING DATE _:�, L& 1 �� �c FEE AMOUNT`'.' Landowner (1_c - Address -jL! L{r ��, Location and \\description of property 35-6 LDov;r �;�- urn � , V4 oS o� Type of applicagion check one ( ) appeal from decision of Administrative Officer.( )request for a conditional use ( ) request for a variance. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice month (second and fourth Mondays). That a legal advertisement must appeal a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Provisions of zoning ordinance in question Reason for appeal The owner or applicant should submit along with this application (8 copies) plans, elevations, landscaping diagrams (drawn to scale) traffic data and any other additional information which will serve as support evidence to the Board. Hea ing Date Signature of Appellate Do not write below this line SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Day of Week at to consider the following: Month and Date Time % f �Q Appeal of A� �-''� ^�tl�t 4� , �-K- seeking 10 9AQ-k 0--tvZ/ from Section 1,20 ALVI ` of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to Z�OYD /.e 4 . ` X' �'o M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: SSL Corporation, 350 Dorset Street Date: March 26, 1990 As a condition of approval for the above referenced project, the Planning Commission set a limit of 70 peak hour trips to be generated from the subject property (see attached condition #2, 10/17/89 Planning Commission minutes). As part of this condi- tion, the Planning Commission left review of this condition to the responsibility of the Zoning Administrator or Zoning Board during administrative review of new uses. I am writing this memo to make you aware of the condition imposed by the Planning Commission and also to express concern regarding the proposed yogurt store. The I.T.E. trip generation manual estimates that fast food restaurants without drive through win- dows (code 833) generate 139.9 peak hour trip ends per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Based on this standard, the proposed yogurt store will generate 210 trips during the peak hour. This far exceeds the 70 peak hour trip limit imposed by the Planning Commission. This standard may not exactly apply to this particular use. However, in order to appropriately enforce the condition imposed by the Commission, I recommend the Board require an adequate trip generation analysis prepared by an independent consultant as part of this application. PLANNING COMMISSION 17 OCTOBER 1989 page 3 Ms. Peacock moved that the Planninq Commission approve the Site Plan application of Airport Realty Associates for erection of a 420 sq. ft. building to be used as a pilot's lounge, 3060 Williston Rd., as depicted on a plan entitled "Valley Air Services" prepared by Richard Kellogg and dated 10/5/89, with the followin stipulations: 1. The applicant shall post a $540 , 3-year landscaping bond prior to permit. 2. The building permit must be obtained within six months or this approval is null and void. Mr. Belter seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Dorset Street. Mr. Weith advised that SSL received site plan approval in March, 1989, for retail use, but they never got a building permit. That approval is now expired, and this is a new application. They are now requesting more trip ends than in the previous approval and are also asking for approval for office use. Retail use would be the deciding factor for traffic, so Mr. Weith did not see a problem with allowing office use. He noted that 59 is the trip limit, but the Commission could approve a higher number if it felt significant improvements are made in other areas such as access. Mr. Whittlessy said they will be improving ingress and egress on the site by narrowing and curbing the access. A poll of the Com- mission indicated the following: Mr. Belter felt a 10-15% in- crease in allowable traffic was acceptable. Mr. Craig agreed. Mrs. Maher felt a maximum of 70 trips was all she could approve. Ms. Pugh felt she could approve only 7 additional trips. After some further discussion, members agreed on a total of 70 trip ends. The question of a traffic light at San Remo was raised and Mr. Weith will check on this. PLANNING COMMISSION 17 OCTOBER 1989 page 4 Ms. Peacock moved the Planning Commission approve the Site Plan application of SSL Corporation for conversion of a 7600 sq. ft. vacant building to retail and/or office use as depicted on a plan titled "Proposed Alterations, Vermont," prepared by Graphics Inc, and dated 3/6/89 with the 350 Dorset /Construct followin Street, South Burlington on Management Service, stipulations: 1. The applicant shall post a $3500, 3-year landscape bond prior to issuance of a building p( rmit. 2. This property is limited to a maximum of 59 pea.k hour trips (Article XVIII, South Bulrington Zoninq Requlations). The Planning Commission approves a peak hour trip generation of up to 70 trips for this property because ingress and egress is being improved (curb cut being narrowed and curbed) which will improve the traffic flow situation on and off the site. No use or combination of uses shall be allowed which exceeds the 70 hour peak hour trip maximum. Trip generation from the property shall be reviewed for each proposed new retail use or change in use during administrative review by the Zoning Board. So long as the Zoning Board reviews new retail uses or change in uses pursuant to said condition, the Planning Commission will not conduct similar reviews. If Zoning Board declines or fails to review new retail uses or change in uses in compliance with said condition, the applicant shall be required to seek such review by the Plannin4 Commission. 3. A sewer allocatin of 150 gpd is granted. This assumes 2 employees per space and 15 gpd per employee. The applicant shall pay the $2.50 per gallon fee prior to zoning permit. 4. The zoning permit must be obtained within 6 months or this approval is null and void. Mrs. Maher seconded. Motion passed 5-1 with Ms. Pugh opposing because of traffic considerations. 6. Discussion of draft checklist for municipal plan consistency with Act 200 prepared by the CCRPC Members felt they would like more time to review the checklist before making comments. Mr. Weith will write to CCRPC indicating this. The Commission also asked that the City's representative to Regional Planning, Pat Brennan, be invited to the next meeting to discuss the checklist. Mr. Weith will also check with the City Attorney to see what the implications are to accepting the checklist. THREE FIFTY DORSET PARTNERSHIP LATELLE, Bruce 350 Dorset Street Area zoned Central District 2. Section 1.20 Conditional uses, sub section 1.201 fast food restaurant (Section 19.05 criteria applies). Existing structure 7500 square feet - lot 160' x 350' _ 56,000 square feet = 1.2 acres. Variance for multi uses granted 3/13/89. Zoning Board voted on 10/23/89 that propose use yogurt shop was not a permitted use. Proposed 1500 square feet to be occupied as a yogurt shop, other 6000 square feet not occupied, uses as approved retail/business. �L`='� "'C�-y"""'- ;/ , j��. % * 4: ..,,}s1�,.r r� `'. �: .�+' � _Ie,,.,a'�..�w�'" iC � yam✓ - _ _ .. "r4.!;.�..ti'4�`f / r � L/l �✓/ '' �,, / . � � r, �e �.�,�,.. ��..! �... .r�.'� ..,+"..: yj �/i7'_"'L..� +�1 /l��'1_" r�..".�'�` � - - ,_:: °�1,.�,�•-C' --� � r � �' � l✓J � .�r ,fit "� w°' > 1, r fi �9 ,.�"'"'i'""''` �..- ✓"''7f`�'''- + ,{ $•_t- y.�F � trlt-.i '. �rC. �r�-'- ✓,y �r1.} / G'C�''� � ri����,!..rJ' �"'._.-.. -..tX ... u:...on,� PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 October 26, 1989 Bruce Latelle Associates in Comprehensive Dental Care 61 South Willard Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Yogurt shop Dear Mr. Latelle: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 On Monday, October 23, 1989 the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment ruled that the use proposed for the former Alco build- ing is not a permitted use. The area in question is zoning Central District II and under Section 1.104 a fast food restau- rant is prohibited. The Board voted that "I can't believe it's yogurt" is considered a fast food restaurant and not a retail shop. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp October 20, 1989 Mr. Richard Ward Zoning Administrator South Burlington,VT. 05403 Dear Mr. Ward: As per the planning commission meeting of March 21, 1989, I am submitting for administrative review the following tenant. A yogurt retail store "I Can't Believe It's Yogurt" wishes to rent 1500 square feet in the former Alco building. The store's representative indicates to me that they feel they may experience 10 trips per hour and based upon other stores, these trips are largely from traffic presently on the street. They expect a substantial walk-in draw from the two schools nearby. The business opens at 11:00 AM does a modest draw from 1:00 to 4:OOPM, very lite from 4:00 to 7:00 PM and busiest time from 7:00 to 9:OOPM. Sincerely, d �. SSL Corporation City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 March 6, 1990 Three Fifty Dorset Partnership 444 South Union Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Zoning hearing Dear Mr. Senesac: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Be advised that the South Burlington Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Monday, March 26, 1990 at 7:00 P.M. at the City Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street to near your request for a zoning variance. Please plan to attend this hearing. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer 1 Encl RW/mcp I LEGAL NOTICES ' SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE (In accordance, with the 'South Burlington Zoning Reggulotions and Chapter 117 Title 24, V.S.A. thel South Burlington Zoning Board , of Adjustment will, hold a public heari ng at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room,' 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, March 26, 1990. at 7:00 P.M. to consider the following: 1) Appeal of Thirty Sixty Associates, Alex Rose sent seeking a proval from Sec- tion 13.20 Conditional uses Sec - and Section 19.65 Multiple uses of the South Burlington regulations. Request is for permission to occupy on existing 6000 ssqq h. structure with "condiho.1 and per- mitted uses to include recre- i ational facilities, repair shops, retail businesses and storage and distribution fa - ties, in conjunction with an existing retail complex, on a lot containing 2.9 acres, located at 3060 Wil- liston Road. 2) Appeal of Solamin Handy seeking approval from Sec- tion 19 65 Multiple uses of the South Burlington regula- tions. Request is for permit• lion to construct a 20' X 63' ; addition to an existing 3300 sq.ft. building and operate a thud use (State Liquor Store) in conjunction with a mini mart and gasoline sales on n lot containingg 1.1 acres mated at 974' Shelburne 3) Appeal of Linwood Ab- bott seeking a variance from Section 18.00 Area, density and dimensional re- ijii}yji43 pirements of the South Bur- mgton regulations. Request s for permission to set-off a 'ot containingg 2000 sq.ft. pith forty (40) feet frontage Tom an existing let which -ontains 22,390 sq.ft. and is xcupied by two buildings, a' t unit multi -family and a ingle-family dwelling, lo- ated at 4 and 6 Birch :ourt, Q.C.P. N Appeal of Three fifty )orset Street Partnership, -ruce Latelle seeking appro- al from Section 1.20 condi- onal uses subsection 1.201 ast food restaurants of the oath Burlington regulations. equest is for permission to ccupy 1500 sq.ft. on an xisting 7500 sy ft. building ith a yogurt shop in con- nction with four other re - A and or business uses on let containingg 1.2 acres, cated at 350 Dorset root. Richard Word, Zoning Administrative Officer arch 10, 19W CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON PERMIT NO ........... APPLICATION FOR ZONING PERMIT 1st. Copy CODE OFFICER Zone............ 2nd. Copy CITY ENGINEER 3rd. Copy CITY ASSESSOR 4th Copy APPLICANT Date...........i.:.................. The undersigned hereby applies for permission to make certain building improvements as described below. (Plans to be submitted if required by Building Inspector.) All construction to be completed in accordance with the Zoning Laws and Building Regulations of the City of South Burlington and the State of Vermont, and con- form to the Regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters and any and all Federal Regulations now in effect. CONSTRUCTION STREET f NUMBER OCCUPANCY FLOORS LOT SIZE: Frontage / ;; Depth Lot No. Single Family B 1 2 3 Two Family Apartment No. Fam. Store Offices Warehouse Res. Garage No. Cars Det.0 At Gas Station Additions -Alterations FOUNDATION Concrete Concrete Block Brick or Stone Piers Cellar Area Full 1/e No Cellar EXTERIOR WALLS Clapboards Wide Siding Drop Siding No Sheathing Wood Shingles Asbes. Shingles Stucco on Frame Stucco on Tile Brick Veneer Brick on Tile Solid Brick Stone Veneer Conc. or Cind. BI. Terra Cotta Vitrolite Plate Glass Insulation Weatherstrip ROOFING Asph. Shingles Wood Shingles Asbes. Shingles Slate Tile Metal Composition Roll Roofing Cement Earth Pine Hardwood Tile 4 Carpet Attic FI. & Strs. Height INTERIOR FINISH Pine Hardwood Sheetrock Unfinished Paneling Recreat. Room Finished Attic Fireplace HEATING Pipeless Furnace Hot Air Furnace 4 Forced Air Furn. Steam Hot Wat. or Vapor No Heating Electric Gas Burner Oil Burner Solar Panels PLUMBING Bathroom Toilet Room Water Closet Kitchen Sink Std. Wat. Heat Auto. Wat. Heat Elect. Wat. Syst. Laundry Tubs No Plumbing TILING Bath Fl. & Wcot. Toilet FI. & Wcot. LIGHTING X Electric No Lighting NO. OF ROOMS Bsmt. 2nd. 1 St. I 3rd. OWNER c BUILDER ,y j WATER SUPPLY: Public Private SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Public ® Septic Tank ❑ Permit 0 ROAD OPENING: (Show layout) Permit # ELEC. WIRING: Underground ❑ Overhead ® Permit # Plot to scale Lot and Building Improvements, showing width of Front, Side and Rear yards. Mark N at Compass point indicating North. PROPERTY LINE Remarks ❑ Demolition ❑ Utilities closed ❑ Estimated Cost L 1.; FEE COMPUTATION $ �/ "I a/ Plans received Yes ❑ No ❑ azvl Z141 i:2 1"', /Z,/"f si f 'Y - E ./SIGNATORt of OWNER or BUILDER } ADDRESS of OWNER APPLICATION: REJECTED ❑ APPROVED ❑ % '� SIGN `ATUR4R' 5 E OF C i GNCODE OFFICER ISSUED TO Date 19 PERMIT VALID FOR SIX MONTHS PERMIT SUBJECT TO APPEAL WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED I WWI VC164 ago -.boom.. mb riomww -mcklaw 2m 114009plo ;9 ... .......... , Ail _ 1. LR... L.Now C4 4; r- \\\ -Al 21 -a 7 7 U, (3 1*1 - A*:�� Sir 1". a Pt—.4 M 4""411 —14. —...4.. b— 0 Mo. APR 0 8 03 NPROJECT WORTH ti it 4 L; -.. �• 9 Y :ESE• Et :tLKti' f PWIVE PEA--1'>I,IST i j A. •- It fl.f r-2 AC = �� V— L '_ M °-446- - g _. _ _Ltics�t LcA�rti � � • X W z Q I- •_1„ fL A• Y 3.jX j, ."SFRT i.#rAV/C MT-K• lE'--fr.r. (}lLL w�`/I iR -•if0'Y D�f�r' S•. ��l['I�MI.T-M �'i[. 2. F; ANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1982 a. A landscaping bond of $40,000. b. huffigk nt bonding amounts to cover costs of public streets pLnd utilities. 3. The recreation_ fee for this project is $40,000. A base fee of �1�5 j?er_unit shall be provided prior to issuance of each building permit. The balance of V18.33 per unit shall be paid within 6 months after issuance of each building permit and shall be secured by a letter of credit or equivalent sure. ter• �— 4. All f in_al 1 Attorney and si 5. All _boardwalks along the beach shall be removed prior to each winter season 6. This approval expires in 2 years. 7. Screened recreational vehicle storage area shall be designated on sheet 2. Mr. Jacob seconded the motion. Mr. Poger asked how the units would be heated and was told they were not sure yet. Using lake water and heat pumps will not work, as had been discussed as a possibility at the last meeting. Mr. :spitz noted that he had not included a stipulation that construction vehicles only use the new road, as the residents have requested. he felt that should be encouraged, but he did not know how to stipulate it. Mr. Walsh felt that Mr. Milot had stated that he would use the new road as much as possible, and he thought that was good enough. The recreational vehicle storage area was discussed. Mr. Page said there was only one area that could be and that is near the entrance to the project. They have not graded or sized the area, feeling that the homeowners association can decide on the size needed. Since the area is very conspicuous, he felt there would be incentive to screen it. The area set aside is 100' x 100'. The Commission felt the area should be screened when it was used. It was noted that the stairs to the beach might be permanent, although they have not been designed yet. Mr. Spitz noted that stipulation #6 meant that building permits had to be obtained within 2 years. The motion carried unanimously. Site plan application by Robert and Frances Townsend for an 1800 sq. ft. addition to the ALCO business on Dorset Street Mr. Johansson said they proposed to add an area 30' x 60' to the back of the building, for parts. By doing this they will eliminate the eyesore of all the storage trailers in the back. They also plan to install a fence along the back of the property with a gate. This should make more traffic come out San Remo Drive instead of this property. The addition will be used to store parts. Mr. Woolery said it would be nice if the storage trailers could be replaced by some nice landscaping. Mr. Woolery moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve 3. PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1982 the_-ol.tv_p1an application by Robert and Frances Townsend for an addition to ALCO at 350 Dorset Street as depicted on a_lan entitled "Proposed 1800 sg, ft. Addition and Alterations South Burlington Facility," prepared b Paul E.�Wams anz dated 2 20 82 subject to the following stipulations: 1. A landscaping bond of $750 shall be provided. 2. T,�iis approval expires in 6 months. Mr. Walsh seconded the motion and all voted aye. Other business Mr. Spitz noted that neat Tuesday's meeting would be at the high school and would be on the agricultural study he has been working on. The Co=ission made some suggestions on who to send letters to notifying them of the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 pm. Clerk Date Received Date Application Completed and Received By CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIE64 1) NA,''"lE, ADDRESS, AND PHONE -NUMBER OF: (a) Owner of Record Robert W. and Frances Townsend, 350 Dorset St. , South Burlington, Vermont Telephone 864-0112 (b) Applicant Same (c) Contact Person Dick Johansson, Branch Mgr. or Paul 17amsganz 864-0112 879-6112 2) PRCXJ X.'T STREET ADDRESS: 350 Dorset Street, So. Burl., Vt. 3) PROPOSED USES): Relocated and expanded retail parts sales and rearrangement of existing truck service bays 4) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e.,- # of units, floor area, etc.) 1800 sf Proposed addition- 30 x 60 Extension to existing metal building with 16' eave height ( See plans SITE and Al ) 5) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (full & part time) No change (18) 6) COST ESTIMATES: 7) 8) 9) 10) (a) Buildings $ 21, 600. 00 (b) Landscaping$ 754.00 (3% of $21,600=$648.00) (c) All Other Site Improvements (i.e., curb work) Entrance Planter with pine bark mulching constructed out of RR ties, Installation of 6' clhpa��inlink fence alonge east property line to help restrict traffic E T1,�]ATttEDh a lot Reestablishment ReestabN D ent of lawn along north side of building July 1, 1982 ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in & out) No change from present PEAK HOUR(S) OF OPERATION Same as present (open 7am to 5pm) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION Mon thru Fri Feb 26, 1982 - -- DATE SIGNATURE OYAPPLICANT March 24, 1982 Dick Johanson ALCO 350 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Johanson, Enclosed is a copy of the South Burlington Planning conmission's site plan approval for the ALCO addition. Please indicate the landscaping for the notth side of the building on the plan and return one copy to me. Please call if you have any questions. D Sincerely, David H. Spitz, City Planner DS/mcg 1 EnF cl DHS 3/23/82 MOTION OF APPROVAL For the Site Plan Application by Robert and Frances Townsend for an add- ition to ALCO on Dorset Street as depicted on a plan entitled "Proposed 1800 SF Addition and Alterations, South Burlington Facility," prepared by Paul E. Wamsganz, dated 2/20/82: Stipulations: 1) A landscaping bond of $750 shall be provided. 2) This approval expires in 6 months. MEMORANDUM To: South Burinigton Planning Commission From:- David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 3/19/82 3) Bartletts Bay Several loose ends remain on this application, but I expect there will be sufficient progress to take final action at Tuesday's meting. 4) ALCO The proposed 60'x30' addition is onto the rear of a 7200 spare foot building. The location will not interfere with any existing use of the property. Some additional landscaping will be added to the front to meet the ordinance requirement. I see no problems with this application. March 23, 1982 Alco Equipment Mr. Robert Townsend 350 corset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Townsend: : Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment has granted your request for a zoning variance. The Board will issue formal findings at a later date. U Upon completion of site plan approval this office will issue your permit. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer R6d/mc9 No Text —SOUTH BURLINGT91J , ZONING NOT"jr In accordance with the _4\ ur- Iington Zoning Reguloti, and.. Chapter 117, Title 21 V.S.A. the+ South Burlington Zoning Board of Adiustment will hold a public d hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference: Room, 575 Dorset Street, South' Burlington, Vermont on Mondov,' March 72, 1987 of 5:00 P.M. to can. Sider the following: No. 1 Appeal of Thomas A. Farrell seeking a variance from Section 6.O0 Permitted uses -sub section 6.001 of the South Burlington Regu. lotions. Request Is for permission to convert on existing summer cottage into a second dwelling unit of approximately 850 square feel In coniunction with on existing dwelling and other summer cot. tage area, at Allenwood Estates, Shelburne Road. No. 2 Appeal of Matthew Counter, William Ready, agent seeking a variance, from Section 13.00, Non- conforming uuest 6 structures and section 11.15 Multiple uses of the South Burlington Regulations. Re- quest Is for permission to convert an existing 20' x 24' garoge Into ,crematory, and In conjunction maintain an existing dwelling for residential use, on o lot containing 1.7 acres, located at 75 Allen Road. No. 3 Appeal of Alco Equipment, Inc., Robert Townsend seeking a variance, from Section 13.00, Non- conforming uses 6 structures and Section 11.00 Dimensional require. ments of the Suuth Burlington Regulations. Request Is for per. mission to construct an addition ' 30' x 60' to within ten (10) feet of the northerly side yard (present structure being non conforming to dimensional requirements) at 350 ; Dorset Street. No. 4 Appeal of Budget Rent -a - car, David Robertson, agent seek- Ing a variance, from Section 11.00, Dimensional requirements of the South Burlington Regulations. Re- quest Is for permission to con- struct a 40' x 80' building to within twentv-six (26) feet of the required rear Yard, at 700 Airport Parkway. Richard Ward Zoning Administrative ^ March 6. 1962 March 9, 1982 Alco Equipment Mr. Robert Townsend 350 Dorset Street. South Burlington, Vermont 054U1 Re: Zoning variance Dear lAr. . Townsend: Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearinq at the City Hall, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street on Monday, March 22, 1982 at 5:00 P.M. to consider your request for a zoning variance. Please plan to attend this meeting. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/iriCg NOTICE OF APPEAL SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Name, address and telephone # of applicant Alco Equipment, Inc. , 350 Dorset Street, ,_South Burlington. Vermont Telephone 8640112 \_J Name, address of property owner Robert W. and Frances Townsend 350 Dorset Street, So. Burl., Vermont Property location and description 350 Dorset Street (East Side) Zone: Comm. 2 I hereby appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the following: conditional use, variance or decision of the administrative officer. I understand the meetings are held twice a month (second and fourth Mondays). The legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days before the hearing. I agree to pay the hearing fee of $30.00 which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. 7 Hearing Date Sign ure o Appellant Do not write below this line ---------------------------- SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24 V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on at (day of week) (month and date) time to consider the following: Appeal of Q�� t� G q-4-r- ^-x s►x �.� c. �c �1n ,-4 a.. s l seeking a� t�'_.,R , from Section c �,� �._.r� t41R-.e. r►°k ✓: �,.._,.:..,� of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to 3 O �X" lv � i Le GJ �.� � �� t� ) �..cs.:� o� � �n-o-� Ls�l.► � ....�.�...0 t.,..