Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0000 Winding Brook DriveDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 AUGUST 2009 PAGE 5 more staff, and existing staff can park in the new lot. Ms. Dattilio said she favors expansion of the business. Her only concern is parking as she now has trouble getting out of her driveway. Ms. Troyan said there were a lot of cars associated with the house that Dr. Schwartz is buying. Staff felt they need to find at least one more parking space. Ms. Quimby moved to continue Site Plan Application #SP-09-62 until 1 September 2009. Mr. Stuono seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Conditional Use Application #CU-09-06 of Steve & Jennifer Heroux to install a 10-foot high fence in conjunction with a proposed tennis court, 670 Nowland Farm Road: Mr. Snyder said Mr. & Mrs. Heroux are building a tennis court and need a fence. Art 8- foot fence is allowed, but most tennis courts have a 10-foot fence. Neighbors are OK with the plans. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Conditional Use Application #CU-09-06 of Steve & Jennifer Heroux subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Birmingham seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Final Plat Application #SD-09-33 of Steve & Jennifer Heroux to amend a previously approved four lot subdivision. The amendment consists of merging lots #3 and #4 into lone lot of 1.72 acres, 670 Nowland Farm Road: Mr. Belair said staff has no issues. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Final Plat Application #SD-09-33 of Steve & Jennifer Heroux subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Birmingham seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Miscellaneous Application #MS-09-06 of Winding Brook Homeowners Association to alter the existing grade by removing 1450 cubic yards of fill to reconstruct a storm water pond, Winding Brook Drive (Winding Brook Condominiums): Mr. St. Germain noted this had been approved in 2007, but the approval has lapsed. Mr. Berkett said it is the same exact plan as was approved. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Miscellaneous application #MS-09-06 of Winding Brook Homeowners Association subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Birmingham DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 AUGUST 2009 PAGE 6 seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 13. Miscellaneous Application #MS-09-07 of Twin Oaks Homeowners Association to alter the existing grade by removing more than 20 cubic yards of fill to reconstruct a storm water pond. Twin Oaks Terrace (Twin Oaks Condominiums): Mr. McClellan noted the Stormwater Superintendent supports this. Mr. Belair said staff has no issues. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Miscellaneous Application #MS-09-07 of Twin Oaks Homeowners Association subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Birmingham seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 14. Site Plan Application #SP-09-63 of Burlington International Airport to construct two additional parking levels to an existing two -level parking garage to accommodate 1370 vehicles, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. McEwing said this will be a phased project. Two levels will be added with a roof. On the roof they propose to add solar, a green area, and a viewing area. The finished structure will hold 1400 cars. The northern end will be built first. Mr. McEwing noted 1 the existing structure is full almost all the time now. J Mr. Dinklage raised the possibility of a pedestrian connection across Airport Drive. Mr, McEwing said they are not doing anything like that. There are existing crosswalks, and they don't see the need for anything additional. Ms. LaRose said there is a concern for pedestrians, even those not going to the Airport, since the addition will generate more traffic. Mr. Dinklage asked Airport people to work with staff on that issue as part of the traffic analysis. Mr. Dinklage raised the question of on -site traffic problems and asked if they are close to needing two ramp systems. Mr. DeBaie said that rental cars already have their own ramp system. He also noted that the garage never empties all at once. Ms. LaRose said she has been told the garage is very difficult to navigate. Mr. McEwing said they will improve lighting and provide lighted signs. Mr. Dinklage asked about landscaping and asked how much of the roof garden would count toward the requirement. Mr. Lawrence reviewed plantings and costs that would qualify. He gave members photos of the "green screen" on the roof perimeter. This would be composed of deciduous vines. Ms. LaRose noted the regulations require "trees and shrubs," so a waiver would be required for what the Airport is proposing. Mr. Belair said there is also the issue of whether this would create a precedent. Mr. Leinwohl said the building is already heavily landscaped. Ms. LaRose said there can be trees planted on other spots on the Airport site. �) 1 ,® �► ►WIN L southburlington PLANNING & ZONING August 20, 2009 Michael St. Germain Winding Brook Homeowners Association 35 Winding Brook Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Windingbrook Stormwater Pond Dear Mr. St. Germain: Enclosed, please find copies of the Findings of Fact and Decisions rendered by the Development Review Board on August 18, 2009 (effective 8/18/09). Please note the conditions of approval includinq that a zoning permit must be obtained within six (6) months. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, 1441A 4� — Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT: 7008 0150 0003 6150 7359 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.346.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com PLANNING & ZONING August 20, 2009 Susan Deacon 3 Winding Brook Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Winding Brook Stormwater Dear Sir or Madam: Pursuant to 24 VSA 4464(b)(3), enclosed please find a copy of the Development Review Board decision regarding the above referenced matter. You are being provided a copy of this decision because you appeared or were heard at the hearing. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Enc. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com PLANNING & ZONING August 20, 2009 S. Berkett 8 Winding Brook Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Winding Brook Stormwater Dear Sir or Madam: Pursuant to 24 VSA 4464(b)(3), enclosed please find a copy of the Development Review Board decision regarding the above referenced matter. You are being provided a copy of this decision because you appeared or were heard at the hearing. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Enc. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com 1 .1• south PLANNING & ZONING August 20, 2009 Barbara Romanoff 9 Winding Brook Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Winding Brook Stormwater Dear Sir or Madam: Pursuant to 24 VSA 4464(b)(3), enclosed please find a copy of the Development Review Board decision regarding the above referenced matter. You are being provided a copy of this decision because you appeared or were heard at the hearing. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Enc. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www,sburl.com 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 having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. §. 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of otice of a d 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). HEA ING DATE: G� /� N�CC�q�,� NA MAILING ADDRESS PROJECT OF INTEREST bq /9 ) Alve, �,4 I 1�,c L„C- bi V Cie V LJ rci Cc Ara - � n S-o irrn u�_4JL4 P,,-n-I 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. § 44G1(b). The DRB must keep a written recordof:the name, address a-nd 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). HEA G DATE: � V� pe y OT C��� L NA E y MAILING ADDRESS PRn.iFr_T nP: 1K1TC:oC:cY ftv�, j t b q- 1 - . 13 er /'t.' l' ft � ��a✓. ` �r �o U� _D,o 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: _lq�t6 C N�IMEI�U/Y MAILING ADDRESS PROJECT OF INTEREST R Grod�'&' �Y-0-04uucd sl�- 1443 r1t v, ew T Co l a1 k-y- I V 1 .c IS- ►3 r4Y --d Rc0 all, -/ Sga3 f7e✓�4X /3-0)"21-f P� Agenda # 12 southburlington PLANNING & ZONING MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Cathyann LaRose, Associate Planne G DATE: August 11, 2009 CC: Winding Brook Homeowners Association, Applicant Miscellaneous Application #MS-09-06 Meeting Date: August 18, 2009 The applicant, Winding Brook Homeowners Association, is seeking miscellaneous approval for removal of 1450 cubic yards of fill for reconstruction of the stormwater pond for the purpose of compliance with the State of Vermont stormwater rules, Winding Brook Drive. The applicant was originally granted approval for this proposal in July 2007 (#MS-07-05) but did not obtain the necessarily zoning permits within the required time period. The application is not changed. The South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent has reviewed the plans and states that they remain acceptable. This application shall be reviewed under Section 3.12 of the Land Development Regulations. The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation. Standards and Conditions for Approval: 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tell 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com Agenda # 12 (1) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this sub -Section 3.12(B). An application under Section 3.12(A) above shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. The applicant submitted a plan, containing five (5) sheets, including one site plan showing the removal of the fill and subsequent regarding on the subject property. This plan is sufficient to satisfy this requirement. (2) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. Staff does not feel this requirement is applicable to the subject application. (b) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing drainage, and other appropriate measures. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct one of their existing stormwater management ponds. The South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent has been working with the applicant to review the plans and will continue to do so. He has stated that he approves of the plans. (c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of this Section. Staff does not feel this requirement will be necessary for the subject application. (d) Determination of what shall constitute pre -construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. The pre -construction height for future development will be the existing grade. Staff recommends that the DRB approve miscellaneous application #MS-09-06. m Q X 0 O z O z l) / // �l1 ! ( I JJ/% ! ( t IL // J /!/ /lam• 1 .--_ ^_—�`� \ ��\ / J /Jill / Jill it I \ !Nit / I / / l iit J Imv ) 1 i I1�lj IllilJ /lilt% 16 / 1 \ ( r' J I \ \ f I I r i I i 31 -298 0 CD ) � o \ f Y N f Y f Y N N O \ 11 , Ili h MIN �14 il it I Ifig Rgil - liqO Ali ill, g> gelA Vag$ d D gill sa a A y / ) _ WINDING BROOK Champlain Consulting WINDING BROOK DRIVE="°'�' E N G I N E E R S STORMWATER SYSTEM g� 85PRIM ROAD, P.O.BOX 453 OVERALL EXISTING CONDITIONS ��m * � ���-BW-864-188FAX SOUTH BURUNGTON VERMONT oorrxusrr®mess CONFarMENO amp AUUMr MMM 11111111111111110. } �3 \ �p 1 1 � 1 t 4 i / ,/ i///'� //'� tom.•" �\6t e 1RIM 1 ; .A, rn Z © 1 / // / f rr�-•�+-�'\\ �',o �i I 1 !J� / %/ j 8i /f J // t /l fr // 1/ i If 1 ! I ..r•-1 N t \ I Il! !rr /f!� !!/ ! // ---/ Z f =� // 1 l t I t t• / -- _ I f t i N 1 ( i I I w R / o� /77 lax J C7 �p � N WINDING BROOK * s, Cha plain Consulting WINDING BROOK DRIVE ^ �w°s�^ E N G I N E E R S STORMWATER SYSTEM 85FRIMROAD,e.o.Box453 EXISTING CONDITIONS * CO 863- LCHMIER`'�OM ° (802) 563-8060 - 864-18'78 FAX SOUTH BURUNGTON VERMONT COMIOrrCm CHAM"-AMCMMr»EaMMAURK MUMVW �r Q 0 Z r 1 At l is J'l N II pn 0 ° a� co q � � q S ML m a a WINDING BROOK * s, Ch plain Consulting WINDING BROOK DRNEg"�� E N G I N f E R S W STORMWATER SYSTEM & �� ,P.o.BOX 453 SITE PLAN /' * ` (W2) 864. M - 864-1878 FAX SOUTH BURLINGTON VERUONT cu MMT 0 =60UM ANCM nrnxs nu MmnsM=Rv® 0 I t I e a r + / b \ \ 16 -y t Ell pin s IR ` 9 � 8 g ' ON 4�a / / / / / / 1 t I 4 I 1 t I I / " 11 g$ N WINDING BROOK ChaMplain Consulting WINDING BROOK DRIVE"°w -Q- E N G I N E E R S STORMWATER SYSTEM 85PR1MROAD, P.O.BOX 433 CHESTM 3446 POND DESIGN '4 x * 8M)963soW-864-1978FAX OUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT r02WCRAIB%AMCOMXTMM40DM s RXUMRBMv® all 3 Ir Ad a 3� 1 g T 1A 0 g m l 7 Ail g, g CA IR M Alf I A 7z ARXxxI Z lip g43P Ili WINDING BROOK �a * ChaMplain Consulting WINDING BROOK DRIVE Q °i'R -91 E N G I N E E R S STORMWATER SYSTEM 95 PRIM ROAM, P.O. BOX 453 DETAILS * '� IWz>� �saFAXXW IOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT cart=mrrom cRAteLAmoommT mm4ammAu Rmmmw CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 Permit # APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month. That a legal advertisement must appear 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. Type of application (check one): ( ) Appeal from decision of the Administrative Officer (includes appeals from Notice of Violation ( ) Request for a conditional use ( ) Request for a variance Other PROVISION OF ZONING ORDINANCE IN QUESTION (IF ANY): zV/10 WHAT ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ARE YOU APPEALING ? A 1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone & fax #): —W,',vd,wo dro • if' /5'Ofy I Z'*"- 19 N�V • I1 AP. . sC ✓ 7 /tT V %/. Ai it/ v 4__. VT dv a — 7e y6 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (book & page #) 3) APPLICANT (name, mailing address, phone and fax #) A^ e- A J 0 G /' 46r 4) CONTACT PERSON (person who will receive staff correspondence. Include name, mailing address, phone & fax # if different from above): i e �A e a n+.�,.�.� /di- e r o%ti T` �? s' b✓i.�d s g o o k V ,Or . ,9fo�. yr a�6a- 76y6 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: leer o o /0J_ , e, 6) TAX PARCEL ID #: / /s 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION use): A. Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate lee J: sleA., 1. 1 — d o c "N9e B. Proposed Uses on Property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): C. Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings & existing building to rema n): D. Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to re�main, specify if basement & mezzanine): E. Number of residential Units (if applicable, new units & existing units to remain): y - -/li0 C ✓1,,,�, e, F. Number of employees & company vehicles (existing & proposed, note office vs. non -office employees): /1✓/,q �'e s, ales, /';r / G. Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if overlay districts are applicable): /0. 21n r✓&_ /3'6'e c v.�i .a, ds 6,K ec �i'o.v w• �� f� A �Q- 0 7� i/6 h .� o n--�" e' /O V e- D T C o J p /'A.v a 'L- 8) LOT COVER J' In j-.r, w A h /e .r . AGE A. Total parcel size: _Ar c 14 Sq. Ft. B. Buildings: Existing /Ye 4 A%o=oho c_�,_,�Sq Ft Proposed ya cA% 2. Sq. Ft C. Overall impervious coverage (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing /1/a . c/i...�.�a % // c,(q,v Sq. Ft. Proposed cA4 Sq. Ft. D. Total area to be disturbed during construction: /esa 7'X4 o 6q. Ft. 6J e e /,;^,/9 �i`2aa/y S dAit�iTTCe� " 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): $ 17 B. Landscaping $ S 0 0(/ C.9ther site improvements (please list with cost): A,ap. 90 ouu Sri' .r laeo% WA /Ci 10) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC: A. Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out): �o rB. A. M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): 11?�, C. P.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): No c ��•- q 11) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION A., c /,Q, e 12) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION 14 a c /41, e_ 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE /'_g l/ 02 0 0,P 14) LIST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS: (list names and address of all abutting property owners, including those across any street or right-of-way. You may use a separate sheet of paper if necessary): /O %i c, a Ili o �o t��,► . 7'�. �/ �`rs G i6/ /4� I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is apcurate to the best of my kno ledge. G ATURE OF ADCANT S�l N RE �F P OPf� OW R Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: / /`> v REVIEW AUTHORITY: Development Review Board ❑ Director, Planning & Zoning I have reviewed this application and find it to be: rf/COMPLETE ❑ Incomplete e Dirkcfor of PIdnriing & Zoning or Designee Date south urlJkngtwa PLANNING & ZONING August 6, 2009 Winding Brook Homeowners Association Attn: Michael St. Germain, President 35 Winding Brook Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Winding Brook Drive — Stormwater Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is the draft agenda for the August 18, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board Meeting. It includes an application for development on your property. This is being sent to you and the abutting property owners to make aware that a public meeting is being held regarding the proposed development. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburi.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 r o ,% 01igoiool� 11 1 southburlington PLANNING & ZONING August 6, 2009 Gardner and Sons Development Corp. 18 Southview Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Winding Brook Drive — Stormwater Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the August 18,--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.sburi.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 1 ► SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 (802)846-4io6 July 25, 2007 Michael St. Germain 35 Winding Brook Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Minutes - Winding Brook Dear Mr. St. Germain: For your records, enclosed is a copy of the approved July 10, 2007 Development Review Board meeting minutes. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 04L 1 �M Betsy cDonough Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. � l Ic SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 10 JULY 2007 The approval motion was amended to add Stipulation 3d and Stipulation 911 as follows: 3d: The plans shall be revised to show the existing runoff mitigation. 11. The applicant shall consult with the Stormwater Superintendent and seek mitigation for the new encroachment into the wetland buffer. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Site Plan Application #SP-07-44 of Vermont Gas subject to the stipulations in the draft motion as amended above. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. (7. Miscellaneous Application #MS-07-05 of Winding Brook Homeowner's Association for removal of 1450 cubic yards of fill for reconstruction of the stormwater pond for the purpose of compliance with the State of Vermont stormwater rules, Winding Brook Drive: Staff had no issues with the application. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Miscellaneous Application 4MS-07-05 of Winding Brook Homeowner's Association subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Final Plat Application #SD-07-37 of Eighty Midas Drive, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of an 8,480 sq. ft. general office building, including a drive-in bank. The amendment consists of minor site modifications, 80 Midas Drive: Mr. Vock said the project was approved about a year ago. There was discussion then about a transformer. The transformer has been moved from its original place and the sidewalk has been "jogged" a bit to accommodate it. Mr. Vock said there was no other viable and cost effective location for it. They have put much more landscaping around it and a walkway to it. Staff wants the walkway filled in with landscaping. This is acceptable to Green Mountain Power and the developer. Mr. Belair said the major issue is the setback waiver of 25 ft. bringing the setback to 5 ft. One corner would be within the 5 ft., and there is an option to "shave" it down. Mr. Vock showed that corner. He noted that Green Mountain Power has said the cap can be pushed back within compliance. Mr. Belair said the other waiver needed is for having an accessory structure in the front yard. Mr. Dinklage reminded the applicant that decision made because of cost are not decisions that should be made without DRB input. -3- 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 ever y 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 fi; working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: '7..�p NAME MAILING ADDRESS PROJECT OF INTEREST _F, ( d1 nolo _4� 6 v �`_' Nam' `' j ' - � o z V' g =W 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 coi in the nRR .,,..,+ — ---i- - i:-. ,_._ _ • -- •� JuNNly Cl 110L v1 nnerested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE; NAME MAII IM(-- ennoCec nrlr% IrnT . - .., L-JEDLcG �._rvt �- J�►..I t� c� (Sc" QC- Id C n� �p . Qx 1P��I`QQff a,31 ',-(1 CC--D SC 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 eve been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)() eUpon rson orece receipt of ody notice of a earing d having the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested ►,A��,,., . a� appeal to appellan4 in fib- i.•.- § r' lv ll le VV king days. 24 V.S.A. "`""J 4471(c). HEARING DATE. NAME TAMES MULLOW�l or rin Gourcelle 16, 4� el, -51 � L R it b j.v MAILING ADDRESS P too >1:� yG -7 v r �� M^ �n5vi'n� or- Co t c IvOb-, V05YY 6 Sp 311 r `E �0 s� ,7o• K-f�t Q-0�- - I I g 3 PROJECT OF INTEREST car 6�l f'l4 0<46- bl 1'40 Vi'l d, 6 n�0k 1, 0 t1 iac> Act sfeve 01(4- �- LW CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 July 11, 2007 Martin Courcelle Champlain Consulting Engineers 85 Prim Road Colchester, VT 05446 Re: Winding Brook Dear Mr. Courcelle: Pursuant to 24 VSA 4464(b)(3), enclosed please find a copy of the Development Review Board decision regarding the above referenced matter. You are being provided a copy of this decision because you appeared or were heard at the hearing. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, �� Yl Betsy McDonough Planning & Zoning Assistant CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 July 11, 2007 Michael St. Germain, President Winding Brook Homeowner's Association 35 Windinn Rrnnk Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Miscellaneous Application #MS-07-05 Dear Mr. St. Germain: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision of the above referenced project approved by the Acting Administrative Officer on July 10, 2007 (effective 7/10/07). Please note the conditions of approval including that a zoning permit be obtained within six (6) months. Should you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT: 70063450 0002 0948 8352 Agenda # 8 MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board �1 FROM: Cathyann LaRose, Associate Planner) DATE: July 2, 2007 CC: Winding Brook Homeowners Association, Applicant Miscellaneous Application #MS-07-05 l Meeting Date: July 10, 2007 The applicant, Winding Brook Homeowners Association, is seeking miscellaneous approval for removal of 1450 cubic yards of fill for reconstruction of the stormwater pond for the purpose of compliance with the State of Vermont stormwater rules, Winding Brook Drive. This application shall be reviewed under Section 3.12 of the Land Development Regulations. The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation. Standards and Conditions for Approval: (1) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this sub -Section 3.12(B). An application under Section 3.12(A) above shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development Agenda # 8 or subdivision plat application showing the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. The applicant submitted a plan, containing five (5) sheets, including one site plan showing the removal of the fill and subsequent regarding on the subject property. This plan is sufficient to satisfy this requirement. (2) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length ol'time. Staff does not feel this requirement is applicable to the subject application. (b) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation ol'the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing drainage, and other appropriate measures. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct one of their existing stormwater management ponds. The South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent has been working with the applicant to review the plans and will continue to do so. He has stated that he approves of the plans. (c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of this Section. Staff does not feel this requirement will be necessary for the subject application. (d) Determination of what .shall constitute pre -construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. The pre -construction height for future development will be the existing grade. Staff recommends that the DRB approve miscellaneous application #MS-07-05. I CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 (802)846-4106 June 27, 2007 Michael St. Germain, President Winding Brook Homeowner's Assoc. 35 Winding Brook Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a draft agenda for the July 10, 2007 Development Review Board Meeting. It includes an application for development on your property. This is being sent to you and the abutting property owners to make aware that a public meeting is being held regarding the proposed development. 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, Betsy McDonough Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. ,ITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTG.,, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 (802)846-4106 June 27, 2007 Gardner & Sons Development Corp. PO Box 21 Colchester, VT 05446 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda (please check our website www.sburi.com for the official agenda, posted the Friday before the meeting) for the July 10, 2007 Development Review Board meeting. It includes a proposal that abuts property you own. 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, --fDcN a�b Betsy McDonough Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 July 6, 2007 Winding Brook Homeowner's Assoc Michael St. Germain, President 35 Winding Brook Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Winding Brook Stormwater Dear Mr. St. Germain: 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, July 10, 2007 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, "'�* Ray"k Betsy McDonough Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. Permit Number Pvs -y-T V5 APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month. That a legal advertisement must appear 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 hearing. Type of application check one: ( } Appeal from decision of Administrator Officer (includes appeals from Notice of Violation) ( .) Request for a conditional use Request for a variance Other PROVISION OF ZONING ORDINANCE IN QUESTION (IF ANY) WHAT ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ARE YOU APPEALING? 1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #)_ W;,, Lo (goo k R ontoune,-s SSoeiafsbn 35 V; M rook r.'Ye " iouA 6ur1MqJvn, VT 05q63 -0737 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) 54 n7 2 4) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) P"Ce ,Je, 35 Wind;n9 ✓rdd L( Or: VL ' South 6urlinjion ,VT O 5YU • (qO)6 5-- p i37 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: W ind inq, !grow is Or" lre 44 6) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) ($15 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION p I �` a) Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use) I eel' 2n , q m hgngQ b) Proposed Uses on pro erty (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain) _ Re5ldenfr4l ` No G d"sg c) Tot 1 buira mg square foot ge on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) n /Vy Cny/— d) Height of building r& number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine) /(/o C a n ae Lf c) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain)_ No G f) Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees) iv1.4-&5ldent;41 g) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): Remove, MO GuS,c, yards of far tAe (econs%ruJI'dn of a .5'fermwat"er OnnJ -'ar + ,. 0 r r W:f-h +(L 51-41e of Verman- Sformwater Pules. ► l 8) LOT COVERAGE ,,,,// a) Building: Existing !�0 % Proposed(%a da % b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) ,n,f Existing /i�i G�� % Proposed !V/ am % c) Front yard (along each street) ExistingAWa /o Proposed /Vj Chan % (does n t apply to residential uses) FA 9) COST ESTIMATES a) Building (including interior renovations): $ /v _ b) Landscaping: $ 5, 000 c) Other site improvements (please list with cost): 74, 10) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC a) Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out): _Na C nqf- r— b) A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): N# c) P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out):__ /l% Chance 11) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: a C�an,t 12) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: QUO C 4 q 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:I-t it 100 14) LIST ABUTTERS ( List names and addresses of all abutting property owners on a separate sheet of paper). See 10V C'W 3 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. Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: a REVIEW AUTHORITY: LJ Development Review Board ❑ Director, Planning & Zoning I have reviewed this site plan application and find it to be: 17 Complete ❑ Incomplete 4 EXHIBIT A ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION (please contact the assessor's office for assistance) Account: #1630-00018 R Account: #1590-00010_N Account: #0860-00550_C Gardner & Sons Dev. Corp. Fire District #2 550 Hinesburg Rd. LLC Southview Drive 10 South Road 550 Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05407 Account: #0970-00110 C Account: #0970-00140_C Account: #0970-00150_C Caimes CD Irrevocable Trust H. V.M Corp, Luther F. Hackett Kennedy Prof. Assoc., GO Dr. 110 Kennedy Drive 140 Kennedy Drive Renee Bergner So. Burlington, VT 05407 So. Burlington, VT 05407 150 Kennedy Drive So. Burlington, VT 05407 Account: #0970-00255 L Forest Park Realty Corp. 255 Kennedy Drive So. Burlington, VT 05407 u860-00450_N own—UW "-- Hinesburg Road �` 1 So. Burlington, Vt. 05403 UV /U4)OIUU_L U wn Owner'---- 100 K Drive urtington, 05403 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 4, 1999 Sandra Lacroix, Manager Winding Brook Condominiums P.O. Box 3009 Burlington, Vermont 05401-3009 Re: Access Alteration Dear Ms. Lacroix: This is in response to your letter of August 2, 1999 regarding the blocking of one (1) of your entrances with a fence. Since this would be a change to the approved plan, approval would be necessary from the Development Review Board (DRB). Enclosed is a Sketch Plan Review application. Please complete this application and submit five (5) copies of a complete site plan showing the proposed change. Once a complete application has been received, you will be placed on the next available DRB meeting agenda. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Since , Raym rid J.Zir/ , Administrative Officer RJB/mcp 1 Encl PPLETREE AY August 2, 1999 City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Zoning Department Dear Sir: Property Management The Winding Brook Board of Directors requested I contact you regarding blocking off one entrance to Winding Brook Drive. At our last Board meeting the topic of speeding came up. Many residents of Winding Brook have contacted me with a complaint about the amount of speeders on Winding Brook Drive. This summer it seems to have become a drag strip for non residents. I spoke with someone in the zoning department a while ago and was told they could notblock off one end. The reason was that. Winding Brook has more than 50 units. Treetop Condominiums on Kennedy Drive has 90 some units and they have one entrance blocked with a fence. Winding Brook would like to put a similar fence at the entrance off from Kennedy Drive. This would not block the entrance to Sugartree Condominiums. The fence would be installed from April till November. It. would be removed for the snow plowing season. The fence could easily be knocked over for emergency vehicles. I look forward to hearing your ideas regarding this subject. Winding Brook does feel the fence would be more effective than speed bumps or dips. Sincerely, -5- "4,' "V-- Sandra Lacroix, Manager Winding Brook Condominiums 1205 North Avenue • P.O. Box 3009 • Burlington, Vermont 05401-3009 • Phone: (802) 863-6940 • Fax: (802) 865-7928 'ful. P a ,•-e KARRA I'Y DEED KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS I. THAT DONALD C. RYAN of New York in the County of New fork and State of New York and ROBERT P. RY.kLN of South Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont and URSULA R. BEUXAIS of Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont Grantors, in the consideration of TEN AND '-TORE Dollars paid to our full satisfaction by the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Vermont of South Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont Grantee, by these presents, do freely GIVE, GRANT, SELL, CONVEY AND CONFIRM unto the said Grantee the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON and its successors and assigns forever, a certain piece of land in South Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, described as follows, viz: A pedestrian easement fifteen feet (151) in width which commences at the northerly boundary line of property owned by the grantors on Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive in South Burlington, which boundary is also the southerly boundary of certain property owned by the City of South Burlington, and which easement proceeds southerly into the grantors' proposed subdivision.' All as shown on a certain plat entitled "Final Plat, Winding Brook, Kennedy Drive, Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vermont" by. Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated Ne�e.nb�l4l9Rl/last to , 1981 and recorded in Volume 17Z at page `'41 �""�o the South Burlington Land Records. Being a portion of the lands and premises which were conveyed to William R. Ryan, Donald C. Ryan, Robert P. Ryan and Ursula R. I; Beauvais by Decree of Distribution in the Estate of Owen E. Ryan, dated November 8, 1971 and recorded in volume 109 at page 138 �i of the South Burlington Land Records. Reference is hereby made to the above mentioned deed and plan and i� to references contained therein in aid of this description. The within grantors, their heirs and assigns, shall have the right to make use of the surface of the land subject to this right of I' way easement such as shall not be inconsistent with the use of said right of way; but specifically shall place no structures, J! I landscaping or other improvements within said easement and right of way which shall prevent or interfere with the within grantees' ability to use, repair, replace and/or maintain said pedestrian j easement. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD all said granted premises, with all the privileges and appurtenances thereof, to the said Grantee the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON and its successors and assigns, to their own use and behoof forever; and we the said Grantors DONALD C. RYAN, ROBERT P. RYAN and URSULA R. BEAUVAIS for ourselves and our heirs, executors and administrators, do covenant with the said Grantee the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON and its successors and assigns, to their own use and behoof forever; And we the said Grantors DONALD C. RYAN, ROBERT P. RYAN and URSULA R. BEAUVAIS for ourselves and our heirs, executors and administrators, do covenant with the said Grantee the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON and its successors and assigns, that until the ensealing of these presents we are the sole owners of the premises, and have good right and title to convey the same in manner aforesaid, that Vol. 2211 they are FREE FROM EVERY ENCLMIRANCE; and we hereby engage to IVARRA\-r !'AID DEFEND the same against all lawful claims whatever,is ' IN WITNE-SS MEMOF we hereunto set our hands and seals this day of 12 1981. ij IN PRESENCE OF DOMED L. RYW KUBERT P. R� izc -.7 R. B'I--ALXArS— STATE OF i/; COUNTY OF At this day of DONALD -d�g 44f) .1981 yan p d he--a-c1F;-%,rTedged UTIN ilnstr:Z:�ent,- by him sealed and s scribed, to be his free act and deed. before me, 4Z 6 C -N o, t a rr�v STATE OF VERAYNT cutAry OF C]IITTjjNDr_N At Burlington, this 12 r^� day of P. 1981 ROBERT RYAN personall\ appcar-eU-a-n-TTjc acknow-led.oCd tFi—sinstrument, by him 1; sealed and subscribed, to be his free act and deed. before Inc, tar), is STATE OF 1'ERs1OIN-1 COUYI)' OF 17i I TTENDEN At Burlington, this 2 -4 day of z:�, 1981 URSULA and deed. her sealed and subscribed, to be her free act R. BEAWAIS personally ap-pe-a-re-d-anU she aclZ��O'�%Iicgc�ls instrument, by before Inc, rotary !1WM0,n Prop" TMnoot Zu A. N() V'v 1. E D G M E N'r— AK d. Received for Record "larch 6, 1985 at 8:00 a.m. 11-11EM-TWIM il 241:1 ATTORNEY'S REPORT AND OPINION ON TITLE Form of Report Suggested by Chittenden County Bar Association RECORD OWNER: Donald C. Ryan, Robert P. Ryan, William R. Ryan and Ursula R. Beauvais, each having an undivided one-fourth interest as tenants in common PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: A parcel of land located in the City of South Burlington, consisting of approximately twelve (12) acres, more or less, and being on the westerly side of Hinesburg Road and the northerly side of Kennedy Drive. Being all and the same land and premises as were conveyed to Donald C. Ryan, Robert P. Ryan, William R. Ryan and Ursula R. Beauvais by Decree of Distribution in the Estate of Owen E. Ryan, dated November 8, 1971 and recorded in Volume 109 at page 138 of the South Burlington Land Records; except so much thereof as was conveyed to Richard E. Tarrant, Joseph Larkin and Robert H. Hoehl by the warranty deed of Robert P. Ryan, Donald C. Ryan and Ursula R. Beauvais, dated February 5, 1979 and recorded in Volume 146 at page 445 of the South Burlington Land Records; and except so much as was conveyed by Margaret W. Ryan, Administratrix of the Estate of William R. Ryan to Richard E. Tarrant, Joseph Larkin and Robert H. Hoehl, by Administrator's Deed dated February 5, 1979 and recorded in Volume 150 at page 22 of the South Burlington Land Records. The following opinion and report on the title of the record owner to the above described property is based on an examination of the appropriate records of the (City) (TC§n& of South Burlington It is furnished in connection with a proposed XWxmm conveyance to C'i ty of South 'Burl iligton (Purchaser) for a consideration of $ 0.00 and a proposed mortgage to (.Mortgagee) as security for a loan of $ (strike out inapplicable purpose); it is for the sole use of the purchaser and any mortgagee above named; and is not transferable. Based on such examination and the assumption that the records examined are currently and correctly indexed in the general indices, it is my opinion that, except as set forth below, on the effective date of this report the title of the record owner is a marketable title in fee simple: 1. MUNICIPAL CHARGES: (Unless otherwise indicated, these are based on oral verification by the appropriate municipal officer.) a. Assessed Valuation - $25,100.00 b. Taxes for the current fiscal period - Tax year is July 1 through June 30 With current taxes of $1,043.67 being payable in three installments due on the 15th of July, November and March. c. Delinquent Taxes - None d. Street, Curb and Sidewalk assessments - None e. Water Liens - None f. Electricity Liens - None g. Sewer Assessments - None h. Fire District, School District or other Municipal Liens or Assessments - None 2. MORTGAGES: None 3. ATTACHMENTS and LIENS: None C 4. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY: None 5. PROTECTIVE COVENANTS; OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD: None 6. LEASE LAND RENT: Not applicable 7. COMPLIANCE WITH BOARD OF HEALTH SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS: Not applicable 8. OBJECTIONS TO TITLE; REMARKS: Since acquisition of this property on November 8, 1971, record owner William R. Ryan has died and his estate offered for probate in the Chittenden Probate Court. It would appear that Margaret Ryan has been named Administratrix of that Estate. A conveyance of the William R. Ryan Estates' one-fourth undivided interest in this property may be accomplished only upon application to the Chittenden Probate Court and issuance of a Licence to Sell 9. EXCEPTIONS — This report does not cover: and this opinion is subject to: a. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown of record b. Mechanics' or Materialmen's Liens not recorded c. All applicable statutes, ordinances, and regulations of governmental bodies including use, zoning and building restric- tions, imposed by them except as included in paragraph 7 above. d. Any facts which would be disclosed by a physical survey or inspection of the premises. e. Except where indicated, Probate, Bankruptcy and other Court records, and records of birth, death, marriage and divorce. f. Special assessments or liens, if any, not shown of record. This report and opinion refer to and apply only so far back as November 9, 1941 and are effective down to the 9thday of November 19 81 at 1(J�e) o'clock P M. McNamara $ Fitzpatrick, Inc. By:/ Attorneys) at Law l� 0- 10, ��16-411-e /00) low- , 1 ul 41`777 -,7777' ......... ----------- 4 A"v; ro �d �d "a4�t Afr� ` /J, 0 �- n Y3 6,, �171 iw l%at3 3 ld' �vo 5-1 S � 1240 Z 3 °fin ZS-g3oo3 ; q3 S(ao PLANNING COYIMISSION APRIL 14, 1981 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, April 14, 1981 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall 575 Dorset St. Members Present Sidney Poger, Chairman; Robert Walsh, Peter Jacob, Ernest Levesque, George Mona Members Absent Kirk Woolery, James Ewing Others Present David Spitz, Planner; Ann Emery, Andy Ryan, Madlyn Morrissey, Judy Hurd, Len P'olen, Uroula & Robert Beauvais, J. McNamara, Robert & Clara Ryan, Carl Creedon, Peter Sidel, Steve Page, Bill Dorf, Robert Krebs, Robert Cain, N.r. Yawney Minutes of April 7, 1981 The April 7, 1981 minutes were approved on a motion by Mr. Mona, a second by Mr. Walsh and a unanimous vote. No one was present on the first application, so it was postponed until later in the evening. Aphlicntion by Robert Ryan et. al for sketch pinn review of an 84 unit plhnned residential develo1ment fronting, on Hinesburg; Ron(] and Kenr c(iy Drive Mr. Spitz showed the area on a slide. Potash Brook runs throu�,h the general area, but the setback from that should not be much of a problem for this developer, although there is a question on soil suitability. The property has access to both Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive. The Church of God shares the same right of way this property will use to Hinesburg Road and Mr. Spitz mentioned a possible land swap with the church. Mr. Robert Krebs said there was frontage both on Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road. Access to Kennedy Drive can be through the Sugartree development. Mr. Krebs showed the drainageways on the land and said buildings had been kept 50' from those. There is a wet area in the middle of the property. The 84 units proposed is the maximum allowed under the ordinance. There will be garages for about 112 the units, a pool, and perhaps a small storage shed. The units will be on slabs. Mr. Mona noted that the property did not have to be developed to the maximum density and he noted that cars going through the project would have to go through parked cars on both sides of the road, watching every one. It was noted that the Commission had been requiring 2 parking spaces per unit. Mr. Mona felt this was a lot of units for the lot and Mr. Poger agreed, especially noting that the Commission had had concerns about drainage in that area. It was felt that the Commission, the City Engineer, the Natural Resources Committee, and the owner should walk the property. Mr. Spitz noted that ways to have developers pay a fair share of intersection improvements were being studied now. Mr. Poger said the entrance I 2 . PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 14, 1981 to Hinesburg Road would be close to the intersection and that he would be happier if, until the intersection or the road were fixed, the development take place toward the Kennedy Drive side of the lot and that access to it be from there. he said phasing might be the answer. Mr. Walsh shared the concern about the number of units. Mr. Jacob wanted to look at the site first and Mr. Levesque wanted the City Engineer to look at it. Mr. Bob Ryan said that 3 1/2 years ago he had contacted the city to see if there was any interest in buying that land from him. An appraisal was done, but it was more than the city wanted to pay, so the land was not bought. Mr. Poger suggested that until Hinesburg Road was widened or made safer or the intersection improved, the access to that road not be opened. The applicant was told that a sidewalk would be required. Aot>lication by Richard and Dawn Derridinger for sketch Plan review of a subdivision to create 1 ten acre lot on Dorset atreet in the southeast Quadrant Mr. Spitz showed the area on a slide. he said there was a right of way across the Yawney property and that in 1975 t.)ere had been discussion about which right of way to use. The applicant wanted availability of the right of way in case the other one was blocked off and he was granted use of it. The proposal is to have the right of way also serve this 10 acre parcel. Mr. Yawney, who was in the audience, said that as far as he knew, the Derridingers had the right to use the right of way. Mr. Bob Cain represented the Derridingers and said there was no question that they had a right of way across the Yawney land and he added that they will locate the house on the lot so as not to create any setback problems from the stream on the land. It was noted that the Commission usually allowed 3 houses on a private right of way. When the 4th one went in, a city street was required. Mr. Cain said the owners were aware of that. Application by Ridgewood Xstates Development Inc for general discussion of changes for a revised final plat Mr. Spitz said this project had received approval for phases 1, 2 and 3 from the Planning Commission and approval for the overall project from both Council and Commission in the mid-70's. The approval was for 112-114 units of which 13 were single family homes. They now want to make those single homes into multi -family units. There are some access questions - a through road to Dorset Street and a right of way for Economou. A pedestrian easement location will have to be determined and the recreational vehicle storage area will have to be screened. It was noted that the Commission had originally asked for a bikepath/ walkway and what it had gotten was a gravelled area. I+Ir. rage showed the location of the existing units and the proposed layout for the rest of the project. It is 57 acres and 114 units are proposed. There will be a more economical layout and more amenities in the new area. Mr. Levesque noted that there were no trees in the present project, and he felt that for every tree the developers took out for the new units, they should put one more in in phases 1 and 2. He said the equivalent dollar value should be planted. Kr. Poger agreed the area would look better with some trees. Mr. Page said they would save as many trees as possible and he 3. COMMISSION JULY 14, 1981 entrance shall be at least 20 feet 4. The frontmost parking space shall be removed. 5. Finished slopes shall not exceed a 2:1 grade If any proposed fill will go onto the adjacent property to the east a construction easement will be necessar 6. If a retention pond is required by the State, landscaping information for the l,ond area shall be submitted with the final plat application. 7. One hydrant shall be provided at a location as approved by the Fire Chief. 6. All required easements and other legal data shall be submitted with _the _final plat application. 9. If there is to be a pond, consideration of it should be reviewed by the Natural Resources Committee. 10. The applicant will provide adequate planted screening between the proposed 4 units and the existing dwelling to the south. iwiag seconded the motion. V r. Ewing felt the developer should be aware that if the fire chief did not like the 2J' road, there might be some problems connected with it. Mr. Nona said the Commission would take the chief's recommendation under advisement but would decide what to do itself. Mr. Jacob noted that there were two ways to go around the buildings. Mr. rdoolery said it was unfortunate that this land had been zoned R7, but it was, and he did not see how a much better layout could be devised. The motion carried with Mr. Mona voting no. He stated that he opposed it because of his 'concern for the road width and the steepnessrelative to the fire chief's Concerns. Ifr. Upitz said the land had been proposed for the maximum density. The city engineer has expressed some concerns about drainage under Hinesburg Road. The situation in the area is bad and has recently backed up. He feels it could flood out the entire proposed development area. The State has no immediate plans to deal with the problem and someone must have a talk with them. As far as density, Yr. Spitz said that due to the CO zone and the steep slope on the east, one area of the land is not developable. On the other side also is some land which is not developable. Taring those areas out leaves 7.6 buildable acres, not the 12 the developer has used for calculating. density. Using 7.6, 53 units would be allowed. On that basis, Mr. Spitz felt the density should be somewhere between 53 and 84 units and there are some criteria in the PUD to say how to obtain credit to increase the units. Mr. Robert Krebs, representing Ryan, said that if the undevelopable land were taken out, no one would touch this land and he felt the development had positive aspects. They meet all the required setbacks. The brook is 85' from the property line at the closest point and the elevation change is about 181. He did not feel the developed area would be flooded if the PLAITNING COICMISSION JULY 14, 1981 drainage backed up, saying it would go over the road before it would flood this area. He added that there was a large area of land which could store flood water and said that they would treat storm water and release it no faster than natural from the retention pond. ;dr. Levesque avid density had always been based on gross land area and he asked why this wits different. Mr. Spitz said there was a book with a formula for calculating density and he noted that both Grandview and Treetops had not built to full density for reasons similar to this. Mr. Ewing thought the developers had submitted plans for lesser density in those cases. Mr. ;Iona asked how wet this land was and was told there were wet areas, but the developers plan to put in underdrains and swales. Mr. Krebs noted that one criteria for maximum density was efficiency of utilities and he said this layout was very efficient. He added that the city engineer had no negative comments about drainage except for the problem under Hinesburg Road. Mr. Spitz said he needed more information on floodplain elevations and distances. Mr. Mona asked about the drainage problem from the San Remo property. :r. Stoddard, representing the Church of God, said his sump pump ran 9 months a year and last year there was 1' of ice on top of his driveway. Every spring he has to fix his drive. He was not at all satisfied with the situation there and did not want any more water dumped on his land. Iir, hawing tt:sked that the elevation of Mr. atoddard's house be brought in. Mrs. Golovin said she lived in the area and she agreed it was very wet. Krebs said there would be swales, catch -basins and underdrains along to south property line. Water not taken by the underdrains will go into the swales and the catch -basins. There will also be underdrains on the north behind buildings 1, 2 and 3. The underdrains should dry the land. Water along the road will go to manholes and the retention pond. The underdrains will be about 4' below ground and the foundation drains will be lower than that. Areas from building 1 east and building 8 west will not be touched at all. Mr. Mona asked if the retention pond would be large enough to handle all the water and was told it would be. Mr. Stoddard said the 30" pipe was large enough to handle the water, if it did not freeze. Mr. Levesque felt the developer had planned to adequntely handle water on this property and that the city should assume some responsibility to fix the existing problem. Mr. Woolery asked about.putting the church drive in a little more toward the corner of the.property and bypassing the 30" culvert. Mr. :toddard said there was a 30" pipe under the San Remo property and in a good storm it was 1/2 full. Mr. Mona said the drainage problem would not be solved tonight. He said the city engineer should review it further, since he might be a party to whatever, if anything, was done upstream. Mr. Spitz said the fire chief did not like the orientation of the large building because the back was too far from the road. The water main loop on Kennedy Drive will have to be completed. Mr. Krebs said it would be extended to the end of the property on Kennedy Drive and then will be looped to the line on Hinesburg Road through the development. Mr. Spitz said straight roads were not too Rood in a development like this. A couple of curves and an inland have been added. The road is 24, wide. A traffic evaluation will have to be done. Mr. Spitz said there were 2 parking spaces per unit over the entire development, but in some areas the available spaces were less convenient than others and he felt the layout would have to be changed. � ' M 5• PLA.''vNING CUMXTSSION JULY 14, 1981 Mr. Spitz said that if any of the church land were to be developed for residential uses, it would be desirable to have a combined proposal now, because it would be hard to develop the back of the church land independently. The developers pro,ose a concrete walkway through the development. I:r. Zipitz felt there should be a sidewalk on the Hinesburg Road frontage including the section in front of the Goodrich land. Mr. Woolery agreed that this applicant had a sidewalk responsibility. Mr. Mona felt it should be on the opposite side of the road. As far as density, Yr. Spitz said this was addressed in section 6.302c of the zoning regulations and he read 6.302c, sections 1-4. It was noted that the applicant had open space on both sides of the units. They also do not object to part of the pedestrian system going through the property. There is enough room in the sewage treatment plant to handle the development. Nr. Ewing felt that widening might be needed on Hinesburg Road. Zr. Mona felt the density on the property was too high. Mr. Jacob wanted to look at the site. ►1r. Levesque saw no density problem with exits on Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road and with a sidewalk on Hinesburg Road. Mr.,Ewing felt there were too many units, because part of the land is undevelopable. ','r. Woolery felt that if the building the fire chief thinks is oriented wrong were shortened, that would satisfy him. Ile felt the buildings were tight and if they were broken up and reoriented, it might seem less dense. He did not have that much faith in how well the underdrains would take the water away and he said that if they built to the maximum and the drainage did not work, it would be bad for everyone. He felt perhaps the units could be cut down by 8 to 16. Mr. Nona preferred fewer. Yr. Woolery moved to continue the public hearing for preliminary Plat approval of Windinp Brook nark until next week, July 21, at 7:30 pm at City 'fall. Mr. Levesque seconded the motion and all voted favorably. Application by Ray Pecor for final plat approval of a 134 unit subdivision consisting of 55 single-family and 79 multi -family units Mr. Spitz said preliminary approval had been given on February 3, with 14 stipulations attached. Yr. Pal;e went through the stipulations to show the changes made since. The intersection of the new street with Pheasant Way is now about 250` from Spear :.street and there is adequate sight -distance. This will also mean that traffic from that street will impact only one lot on the street. Lots on :'heasant Way have been reduced to 7. Sight distance was measured in the field and is adequate for speeds between 40 and 60 mph. On #4, the two "paperclips" have been eliminated and standard city cul-de-sacs have been put in. i5 pertained mostly to the private drive in the multi- family section, and this has been done. Mr. Page said the developers maintained that the dual drives constituted two access points to the multi- family units. Mr. Page saw no problem with ##7. ##8 has been done. The walkways are parallel to the dual drives. #9 has been done, as has #10. „r. Page said they did not plan to go to the Meadowood sewers. Sewage will be collected by gravity and go north and over UVM property, ending up at the nroth end of Green Mountain Drive. The interior network of streets will be curbed, with storm drainage in .the street right of way. In addition to the access to Pheasant Way, which the developer is aware is the center of an ownership dispute, a 60' right of way to Spear St. is shown. The developer fools that ultimately there will be access to I'heasunt Way, but until that happons, the other access will be provided. a�li��ulaNC 01, 16+16-N8 ImA (61301 C) -�"� ' u ,'� a►, � ' # y �o 4e n, Lta&mvw�R -iA 6, e p ibu�i a c - „L, dMe a,�,a vcd, vv,uQa, Ct a�llurti + - jut —.)1q4UA,s idol &)we A,,f4 A-L C t yea.; va; l w A-, H—/&: , 01 40 641 ,7 � r, ule � v i ,a� l4! _ `p �� €11 ��� MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 7/9/81 2) Ashbrook Park, Ying Liu Number of new units has been further reduced to 13, in addition to 4 existing units. Maximum density for the site is 23 units. Access: Proposed access will be directly across from the recently approved access for the Wessel office building. Traffic volumes should be lower than for the office use. Geometrics of the driveway entrance should meet the same standards as the office building. The access is now located as far from the Kennedy Drive intersection as possible without requiring a major crossing over Potash Brook, and I feel it is the best location. The Planning Commission should decide whether it still wants to require relocation of the Chastenay entrance across this property. Setbacks: All buildings, parking, and driveways have been kept out of the CO setbacks from the Potash Brook and I-89. However, the setback from the I-89 ramp to the driveway is only 30'. I think this arrangement is acceptable givi,n the re^triction:; of the site. Building Locations: One building (6 units) has been placed on a fairly steep slope (33%), but proper finished slopes appear to be obtainable. Small amounts of fill in the CO Zone abutting I-89 may be necessary. If any fill goes onto the adjacent property to the east a construction easement will be necessary. Building elevations must be provided. Walkways: Internal walkways are provided. A sidewalk along Dorset Street is not being suggested since none was required for Chastenay and since there will be one across the street. Utilities: Water and sewer requirements will be reviewed at the final plat stage. See the City Manager's comments on drainage. Other: A recreation fee will be required. The frontmost parking space should be removed to reduce potential conflicts with a line of stacked cars. Will a detention pond be required by the State,, One hydrant is being requested by the Fire Chisf. 3) Ryan Winding Brook Application is basically the same as the sketch, plan - 84 multi -family units on 12 acres of land with entrances on Hinesburg Rca4 and Kennedy Drive. Memorandum Pe: Next week's agenda items 7/9/81 Page 2 Density: Section 6.302c. of the Zoning Regulations explains procedures for calculating total permitted density. Approximately 4.4 acres are undevelopable leaving 7.6 developable acres with a base density of 53 units. Additional density could potentially be granted for pedestrian trail improvements and contributions to public road improvements. The impact on storm drainage may also be pertinent. The final density should be somewhere between 53 and 84 units. Streets: The thtu-road is still very straight. The narrowness of the lot makes additional curves difficult, but the straight stretch should be broken up as much as possible. The eastern access over City property must receive City Council approval. The impact of this project on public streets must be evaluated. A traffic report must be submitted for final review, and the applicant may be required to contribut(, to improvements on Hinesburg Road or at the Kennedy Drive/iiinesburg Road int(,r_.ection. Sidewalk: A public sidewalk should be provided along Hinesburg Road ill front of this project, including the portion directly abutted by the Goodrich property. Storm Drainage: Detailed information of drainage areas, volumes of water during major storms, and underdrains Nis been submitted. The City Manager will provide comments on this subject. Aesthetics of the detention pond should be reviewed at final. plat. Also, data on elevations and distance to Potash Brook should be suhiiitted. Fire Protection: See the enclosed letter from the Fire Chief. Parking: Additional parking spaces are needed in the vicinity of the main grouping of residential buildings. Spaces should be as convenient as possible to prevent unauthorized parking along the road. Other: Combined development with the Church of God land would still be desireable. If not possible, consideration should be given to a mid -property right-of-way to the Church of God property. Legal documents must be submitted along with the final plans. 4) Pecor (Nowland) The proposed development now contains 55 single-family and 79 multi -family units. Two lots have been removed since preliminary plat approval to provide for a scenic overlook. Streets: Public street layout is the same as on the preliminary plat except (1) the shape of the 2 "paperclip" streets has been changed, and (2) the entrance onto Pheasant Way has been moved up the street directly across from the southerly boundary of Ireland's lot. Access onto Pheasant Way is still not resolved. The developer is proposing an additional "emergency access" onto Spear Street. I still strongly recommend against this prc�jx).;al since (1) an additional access onto Spear Street is not de:.;irahle, anti (2) the in-between status of emergency accesses has often created difficulties and should be avoided whenever possible. I would suggest as an alternative that certain I v MEMORANDUM 1 ---------- To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 4/10/81 2) Derridinger A map of the area is enclosed. Applicant is proposing to subdivide a 10- acre lot (#2) which will he served by a right-of-way across the Yawney property. Existing house (lot #1) is served by a r-o-w across Demers but also has potential use of the r-o-w across Yawney. A minor stream apparently crosses lot #2. Its location will have to be verified. Also, percolation data must be available for final review. There are no proposed city streets across the property, but there are 1 or 2 proposed pedestrian trails. CL3 9 ei is long and narrow and has fronta,- ,., itf ci entrance is ideal. The 1 must cL: oss a CO zone and is 'r-,ction The Kennedy Drive :, r c : _ oss a CO Z01'e, cjo a ;a f i:r1C .1,�'e of F.,r!L. a'' ct'_. ,t. Any development,of this parcel should also consider combined development ` t•; i th the Church of Gcxl prolx,rty, another long and narrow parcel. milc•h of the prOJX.tty i:: -.(•,u,onally wet, and detailed drainage plan: will 1 x r?(.-( •(i(-(1 to prove d(•v(• 1O1 ,11, i 1 i. ty ()f the site. Two specific QO zones crors the rapt and west ends of: t hc, ,A tcc. Setbacks from Potash Brook appear sufficient l,ut elevationo st?ould lx, checked. other initial comments: (1) buildings must be setback at least 75 feet f r(xn Kenncdy Drive and Hinesburg Road; (2) internal walkways and a sidewalk along lline:;hurg Road may berequiied; (3) parking spaces should be 2 per unit; (4) ]()(•,tt ionof pedestrian trails must be discussed; (5) use of "storage" building near 1 l i nc-::)ur. g Road must be explained. (4) isido-jr_wood This project ha.; t ' id -,( vie major financial problems. In the interest of c(anplo-ting the project (65 units remain to be build out of an originally approved 112 units), the new land()wner is proposing the elimination of the single-family m-1 i(•placem(,nt with a newly -designed clustered condominium arrangement. 'I'h(It((t,tl nLcnlx,r of unit:; will not change. TUO.",lay's meeting will he equivalent to a sketch plan discussion. Subsequently, since this is a revision to an existing approval, there only needs to be a revised final plat public hearing. The City Council is not required to participate in the revised approval, but the members involved in the original approval have been notified I have not yet Lx)mpleted my review of previous Ridgewood files. Revised access pattorns must certainly be reviewed, and there may be additional relevant points. C.-irdinal Woxxls c t, to f( for t h i r(,v i r;ed final plat application are relative _ (,illy mrj<>r lx)int for (,-()n:,ideration is whether the modified driveway ace�� •s. (. all Layc)ut will still _,ati-, fy the fire chief's requirements for access be available by Tuesday's meeting. if t i r( lx•rrni+::, ;,r;,t�,:;.t]� for general )f nc•w industrial 1 hc• next regular industrial and conap.ervial r(aonin.1 will zoning for the cii s: zrg l))ci ::irezi work session., A )Mt n:.ctantl wit`? the? City Council is rcntativc.ly schedule +c;;r 21 :At 7 • 30 p.m. T r.: • k�ork es :ion that had been sc'neduled for h -it • r'G ,.il("Uld be t0 t-,he following evening. DHS 11/24/81 MOTION OF APPROVAL For the final plat application of Robert Ryan et.al. for a 72-unit develop- ment on Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive as depicted on a 12 page set of plans entitled "Winding Brook", prepared by Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers with revisions through November 6, 1981: Stipulations: 1) All required legal documents as approved by the City Attorney shall be signed and delivered to the City prior to recording of the final plat. 2) 20 foot wide utility easements along all 8 inch or larger sewer and water mains shall be indicated on the plan to be recorded. 3) The applicant shall complete the private road between Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive prior to issuance of the fifty-first building permit. If the entrance on the "Milo.t, and Gagne" property has not been built prior to that time, this developer shall be responsible for constructing it. 4) Within 50 feet from the edge of Hinesburg Read, the private road shall have a grade of less than 30. 5) Construction of sewer lines and pumping station and construction of water lines shall conform to the specifications of the City Manager's memo dated 11/6/81 and the Water Superintendent's letter dated 11/9/81 respectively. 6) The applicant shall provide $3350 to be used by the City towards improve- ments in the Kennedy -Hinesburg intersection. The fee may be paid on a per unit basis. 7) Recreation fee for this development is $5800. 8) Sewer allocation for this development is 18,000 gallons per day. 9) A bond to cover the cost of landscaping ($28,000), water line extension, and construction at the intersections with City streets shall be provided prior to issuance of the first building permit. 10) The applicant shall provide a defined area suitable for pedestrian crossing across the stormwater detention pond. The applicant is also encouraged to cooperate with the Trails Committee to clear other portions of the relocated pedestrian trail as needed. 11) The revised final plat, containing required changes from stipulations 2 and 4, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner and shall be recorded within 90 days. 12) This approval expires in 2 years. )/25/85 SB MOTION OF APPROVAL That the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the Revised Final Plat for Phase II of Winding Brook for construction of 12 additional units and revised layout with the additional 2 acres of the Church of God lot as depicted on plans entitled "Winding Brook, Kennedy Drive — Hinesburg Road" prepared by Krebs and Lansing, dated 10/83 and 11/83 and revised 2/4/85 with the follow- ing stipulations: 1) A -rev sect landscaping plan of Phase II shall be submitted to the City Planner for approval. The�l_t t sha„ll. -be- in ac=­d-ante w i g--- the _ l a nds.c a,.p. i n g. -to.raiu la 2) Parking shall be revised to show, spaces for Phase II as required.�`3 3) The street shall be completed prior to the 51st unit. 4) A $2400 recreation fee shall be paid prior to permit. 5) A bond shall be posted for the sidewalk construction along / the Hinesburg Road frontage and continuing to Kennedy Drive. 6) A sewer allocation of 5400 gallons per day is made in accordance with the South Burlington Sewer Policy. The final 12 units shall not be constructed until capacity is available or the Treatment Plant is expanded. 7) Revised plans shall be submitted to the City Planner within 30 days. 8) This approval expires in three years. a *out4 Nurlington Nire Department � 575 Boroet #treet #out4 igurlington, Vermont 85401 OFFICE OF JAMES W. GODDETTE, SR. CHIEF 863-6455 November 4,1981 Mr. Sidney Poger Chairman South Burlington Planning Commision 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Poger, On Friday October 30,1981 plans were reviewed by this office on the Winding Brook development between Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive. The plans were recieved at city hall Oct.20,1981. Because of the growth of the city in the past five (5) years the fire department is in need of a third pumper if we are to give proper fire protection to the city. As far as the design and services of the winding Brook development, with proper fire equipment proper fire protection can be given. If you have any questions please feel free to call me. Sincerely Ai=mes'l. Goddette Sr r ITy9 Lead Delon Incorporated 12 Pearl Street • Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 (802) 878-3303 September 20, 1983 City of South Burlington Planning Commission City Offices 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Attention: Sid Poger Dear Sid: I would like to respond to the concerns Mr. Milot raised in his letter to you dated September 1, 1983. As you know, Homestead Design has pursued the project known as Winding Brook, adjacent to the Sugartree condominium complex owned by Mr. Milot, for the last several months. At this point we have signed a purchase agreement with the Ryan family to purchase this property, and have invested a substantial amount of time and money in developing a market study, unit designs, and financial plan in order to follow through with what we believe will be a very successful and attractive condominium complex. We believe that one of the key ingredients in achieving a successful project is the Kennedy Drive curb cut planned to be the "front door" to Winding Brook, to be shared with the Sugartree project. The curb cut onto Hinesburg Road takes place in an area adjacent to the Goodrich property, near the corner of Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road, that is presently used for materials storage and is very unattractive. We have planned the phasing of our project and construction of roads and utilities so as to allow for the first part of the project to be built and available for sales purposes on the eastern part of the parcel at the Kennedy Drive entrance. In so doing we will incur substantially more expense because the entire storm system will have to be built, whereas if the western part of the project was completed first, only a portion of the storm water system would have to be built. This choice was made because both Homestead Design and our lending partners feel that the Kennedy Drive access should be the primary access to the project. After receiving a copy of Mr. Milot's letter, we met with him on September 15, 1983 in an effort to resolve this difficulty concerning access prior to this Tuesday's meeting with the Planning Commission. We expressed to him our desires as outlined in the first part of this letter. In no way do we wish to adversely affect his project, and I believe that we can speak to his concerns. The result of the meeting was the following: both Homestead Design and Milot Real Estate would prefer that Sugartree and Winding Brook each have their own access to Kennedy Drive. If this is not acceptable to the Planning Commission, then Homestead Design would offer the following to ease the concerns Mr. Milot expressed in the points he raised to the Planning Commission. 1. Should a stop sign be required at the intersection of the two streets, Homestead Design will bear the cost of the sign. 2. I have checked with the Planning Department and the City Manager's office to reconfirm that the road will remain a private road. I would suggest that any maintenance costs on the portion of the road beyond the intersection of the Winding Brook and Sugartree access roads be jointly shared by the two condominium associations. 3. We have the same concern for privacy concerning our project as Mr. Milot does for his project. As I hope you can see by the accompanying drawings, we are extremely concerned with producing an attractive project which retains a maximum amount of tree cover. No more trees will be cut than are absolutely necessary to install the Winding Brook road. In order to provide for a minimum of disturbance to the Sugartree project, we would ask that the Planning Commission allow a temporary curb cut separate from the Sugartree entrance so that during the initial phase of construction only, we could avoid disrupting traffic in and out of Sugartree with heavy construction equipment. Once the entire road is roughed in, we would close access to construction equipment from Kennedy Drive and limit its access to the Hinesburg Road entrance only. The only traffic allowed access to the Kennedy Drive curb cut would be automobile traffic for sales purposes. 4. Homestead Design would share a pro rata share of costs related to the 80 foot length of road which would be shared by both projects. The City of South Burlington has approved Winding Brook with a number of conditions attached. The City has required a fee of $3,350 towards intersection improvements and a $5,800 recreation fee. This was voted on and approved by the Planning Commission on November 24, 1981. 5. As stated before, Homestead Design disagrees that the Kennedy Drive entrance should serve as secondary access only. It is important to us that we have the Winding Brook sign on Kennedy Drive, and we could place such a sign on our property without any problem. However, for purposes of clarity and to prevent cars looking for Winding Brook from making an incorrect turn into the Sugartree project, we propose locating a small directional sign on the City of South Burlington's property directing traffic coming off Kennedy Drive to turn left into Winding Brook. 6. Again, Homestead Design disagrees with Mr. Milot's suggestion. To raise such a point at this juncture does not seem appropriate. These concerns should have been raised at the time final approval was given to this project by the City of South Burlington. Sincerely, John Hausner cL�/ Gerald Milot William J. Szymanski M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: James Goddette, Fire Chief Re: Agenda Items Date: 3/26/85 I would like to remind the Commission of the serious need for an additional fire station in the Shelburne Road vicinity. Additional facilities and expansions place dozens of lives and valuable property in danger due to the distance, traffic and time delays from our only station on Dorset Street. 2) PAPPAS, SHELBURNE ROAD This expansion requires a water supply of 1750 gallons per minute. One hydrant must be placed either on Shelburne Road or Baldwin Avenue 3) BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT I do not have adequate information on water mains, water supply i and hydrant locations. At the very least this needs 3750 gallons per minute, and 4 hydrants that are of National Standard Thread. �4) O'BRIEN-MILOT OFFICE CONDOS There is no problem giving proper fire protection to this building. 5) PIZZAGALLI This building requires 2000 gallons per minute. One hydrant is needed on this property in addition to the one on Joy Drive. 6) TEMPLE SINAI, SWIFT STREET This building requires 1750 gallons per minute. Two hydrants are needed in this area. (2WINDING BROOK I met with John Hausner and came to the following agreement: a) A hydrant was left off this plan by units G. & F. It will be added. b) The roadway by building G should be connected to 150 Kennedy Drive for emergency use. The roadways between parking spaces and garages will be 30 feet wide. c) The roadway between the parking lot and the garage will be 30 feet wide by building H. The distance from the ridge to the paved Barking arc -a will be 47 feet. 0110 11OUr fire rated wl-i.1.1s from the f lo()r t(,) t}ie roof will be het.wc,en ovei y 4 tin i t-!; . RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT U) K'NO,i ALL YXN, BY THESE PRESENTS, that Gerald C. milot, of ss,"Ix, in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont "Grantor") for good and valuable consideration, the :-,ccipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does give, grant and cpnvey unto the City of South Burlington, a %yermont municipal corporation (the "Grantee") and its successors and assigns a right of way ease-ment, having a frontage of So feet on the northerly side of Kennedy Drive and a uniform width of 50 feet, and westerly and easterly sidelines of 100 feet; all as shown and depicted on a survey entitled Sugar Tree Condominiums Final Plat dated January 18, 1980, revised February 12, 1980, March 6, 1980 and May 5, 1980, to be recorded in Volume /513 , Page 9Ll"Of the Land Records of the City of South Burlington, tieing a portion of the lands and premises conveyed to Gerald C. Milot 2ursucint to a warranty deed, dated A 44, wsr nri , 19 7.3evf"- retorded in Vilume I Y P,� Page Y,5p9of the Land Recoids of the City of South burlington, Said right of way is gubject to the limitati,on that the GranLee shall make no alLte,4 improvements requirl.riq removal of any trees on that portion of the right of way located at a depth of 60 feet or greater from the northerly side of Kennedy Drive- kiritil zjcjj tijjje as the, Planniag Com-mission determiner that Puctx site improve lit it nec4ssary to occomr*date road access to neighbori"q parcels of land on the northerly side of Fenitledy prive. TO HAVE A14.j TO HOLD unto the Grantee, itb saccessors and assigns foi�-_,vpr, and the Grantor covenants t,11at he has good right and title to convey said p,­,-nnIscs in the manner aforesaid, free and clear of -ill enc. omb ra rice, s, and the Grantor engages to warrant and defend the same against all lawful claims whatsoever. I�4-WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned ha* cau"d this instr I n t-, I �o be executed this day of Auq'ust, 1980. IN PRESEIIC_:, Or: 'Gerald C. 14ilot 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - SKETCH PLAN 1) Name, address, and phone number of; a. Owner of record Robert Ryan, Donald Ryan, Ursula Beauvis and Margaret Ryan Old Farm Road, So. Burlington, Vt. 862-7090 (Robert Ryan) b. Applicant Same as above C. Contact person Robert C. Krebs Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc. Shelburne Road, Shelburne, Vt. 2) Purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development, including number of lots, units, or parcels involved as well as proposed use(s). A planned unit development of 84 units on 12.02 acres off Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive 3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple, option, etc) Fee Simple 4) Namesof owners of record of all contiguous properties City of South Burlington, Dumont Construction Co., R. Goodrich, Inc., Reilly Tire Corp., San Remo Realty, Church of God 5) Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on property such as easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc. None ... ` - 2- 6) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of municipal facilities such as sewerage, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc. Water and sewer lines will be extended from Hinesburg Road. Storm drainage will be collected and treated on site and discharged into existing drainage ways. 7) Describe any actions taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment, or previous actions by the South Burlington Planning COM-nission, which affect the proposed subdivision anyinclude dates: Sugar Tree Condominiums 7/22/80 8) Att,7ch items 2 a sketch through plan 7 on showing all information -Subdivision required under p. 5 of the Regulations. signature) app ant or contact person FOR OFFICE USE -3 .50 8/ d e submission of application and sketch plan to administrativeate officer this proposal is classified as a M-3jor or minor subdivisio:1 - application deemed complete - proposal tentatively scheduled for first Planning CO:T'lission i:►eetinc on Confirmed For M CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - FINAL PLAT I Name of Applicant Robert Ryan, Donald Ryan, Margaret Ryan, Ursula Beauvis II Name of Subdivision Winding Brook III Indicate any changes to name, address, or phone number of owner of record, applicant, contact person, engineer, sur- veyor, attorney or plat designer since preliminary plat application: None IV Indicate any changes to.the subdivision, such as number of lots or units, property lines, applicant's legal interest in the property, developmental timetable, since preliminary plat application The proposed project has been reduced to 72 units of 2-bedroom housing with detached garages for each unit. V Attach a final plat drawing (originals not needed) showing the following information: (1) Proposed subdivision name or identifying title, the name and address of the record owner and subdivider, the name, license number and seal of the licensed land surveyor, the boundaries of the subdivision and its general location in relation to existing streets or other land marks, scale (numerical and graphic), date and true north arrow. (2) Street names and lines, pedestrial ways, lots, reservations, easements, and areas to be dedicated to public use. (3) Sufficient data acceptable to the City Engineer to determine readily the location, bearing and length of every street line, lot line, boudary line and to reproduce such lines upon the ground. Where applicable these should be tied to reference points previously established by the city. 1-lictlr r�' -,I 1_ ctrriight linos, the c,rifl :cti.on anrl.^s, r.,Cii, 1.1:1L-e,t11 Of cu--v-�s and ccntr-1 nngl::-s of ,nll curvets, t.-.nr •nt e: ist- nc.:s and tangent hearings for eac;i strc<:t. (�) J�' :siCinitio`1 on such i l,t, all publ;c splce .:or of c,: ,_,ion nr(. n-jd-: In- th3 sul divid.jr titl^ to which is r^servr�d ba him. (�) hots ;ithili th<: :;u'x?ivision in blou:,o, cnc. ,-].oc'_s lettered in alphab3tic,­1 ore ar. (7) Tl. loc,ti�:z cf 1.1 0' th,3 k.iprov-�-:a-�nts referr,--•(' to in Section 301. 74 - nC in n6eit-t.0a tlrar(>to tho loc .tion of all u .�_'.iLono] s0:-,c1-_ Cisposal s•?st.•:,�s, �.�cter su.pnly ,'stD,as rrl� �ourli grnCing zinc. other ccvices <.nd m--thous o affecting the sulAivision. +=4 t,0017 c llc :xnn•-ant sho-In thus: ",'V' anC lot co-i:,31: tllus: 11011. ( Construction Cr- inns o:,. a li. ;T.Tuirce improv-:ri-nt s . VI (1) Cr. >i o" _. c _ :('-s, c-rc;.:l�nts or o l ('c, silo,._l,c tl; :.::.__ in �•rhich op-2n spac'a, inclur]i;lgu :nts �"' pa rl; nC: :'�:Cr .'-t onnl Orecs : ne school site areas, cirri to 1-)3 (-.!Ficnt-e, r nurvcO rnd rz.-:iritnin^d and a ccrtific:;te of :.h Cit- '.ttor,l :.- that these cocum-.?nts are satisfnctor,,,,,. of the Cit., zis to tho satisLnctor,•,� co:�-�] .cioli c ;�1]. iri�rov,�:a ��its rc•nuir.:r' b-, th%! Co:fission, or, lj.<:u o" •.ri•, i:,rnrov<�..i !nts not so co..r.,l �•ted, a ).)on(. to ,s 'cure co; i„l,�tion of sucli i:,r.)rovemcnte :u. th,.Ar foz a period of two years, cac ;mitten vic!,- rnce ::h:;t the Cit•► Council is satisficd citl:�r frith tho '_,o.ieina or surety company or with security furnished by the subdivider. (3) y cony of such covenants or dead restrictions as are in- tend -ad to cover all or part of the tract. (4) A Ixospectus de:;cribing the management organization if one is reauir,2e. (5) In the c-3sQ of a subdivision or development served by a privately owned and/or maintained street: (a) a copy of all proposed deeds, agreements, or other documents which convey or relate to the use of a privately owned street or right-of-way, and a certi- fic-,te of the City Attorney that these documents are satisfactory. -3-. (b) a completed contract between the lancowner and the city regorcing the number of lots or dwelling units to be serve6 by th yronoser right-of-way or Private street and the responsibility for the roadway maint- enance, along with a certificate of the CO- Attorney that tho contract is satisfactory. _ (oN _ (si,nature) date applicznt or contact person .`+4 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - PRELIMINARY PLAT 1) Name .'-bf Applicant Robert Ryan, Donald Ryan, Margaret Ryan, Ursula Beauvis 2) NJame of Subdivision Winding Brook 3) Describe Subdivision (i.e. total acreaoe, number of lots or units, type of lard use, include gross floor area if comm- ercial.) The proposed subdivision is for 84 units of 2-bedroom housing. The land is, in the Residential 7 District and the total acreage is 12.02 acres. 4) Indicate any changes to name, address, or phone nu„fiber of owner of record,applicant, or contact person since sketch plan application: None 5. Name, address, and phone number of: a. Engineer TKrebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc., Shelburne Road, Shelburne, Vermont 05482 985-2827 b. Surveyor Robert C. Krebs, Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc. Shelburne Road, Shelburne, Vermont c. Attorney _Jim McNamara, McNamara & Fitzpatrick 192 College Street, Burlington, Vermont 05401 H. Plat Desioner Robert C. Krebs, Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc. Shelburne Road, Shelburne, Vermont -2- 6) Indicate any changes to the subdivision such as number of lots or units, property lines, applicant's legal interest in the property, etc., since this proposal was last before the Commission • Units were Tlit into smaller clusters to allow for more green space. 7) List names and mailing addresses of o�vners of record of all cont- igous properties: Kennedy Professional Associates, Kennedy Drive Church of God, Hinesburg Road Ralph B. Goodrich, Hinesburg Road City of South Burlington 8) State title, drawing number, date of origi-ial plus any revisions, and designer (s) of the preliminary map W ' acbo,-spanying this appli- cation.* Site Plan, Drainage Plan and Details 9) Attach a preliminary map showing the following information: 1) Proposed subdivision name or identifying title and the name of the city. .27 Name and address of owner of record, subdivider and designer of Preliminary Plat. 3) Number of acres within the proposed subdivision, location of property lines, structures, watercourses, wooded areas, and other essential existing physical features. 4) The names of all subdivisions immediately adjacent and the names of owners of record of adjacent acreage. 5) The location and size of any existing severs and rater mains, culverts and rains on the property or serving the property to be subdivided. 6) Location, names and widths of existing, and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts, paths, easements, parks -3- ) and other public or privately maintained open spaces as well as similar facts regarding adjacent property. 7) Contour lines at intervals of five feet, based on United States Geological Survey datum of existing grades and also of'proposed finished grades where change of existing ground elevation will be five feet or more. 8) Complete survey of subdivision tract by a licensed land surveyor. 9) Numerical and graphic scale, Cate and true north arrow. 10) Details of proposed connection with existing water supply or alternative means of providing water supply to the proposed subdivision. 11) Details of proposed connection with the existing sanitary sewage disposal system or adequate provision for on -site disposal of septic wastes. 12) If on -site sewage disposal system is proposedlocation and results of tests to ascertain subsurface toil, rock � and ground water conditions, depth to ground water unless pits are dry at depth of five feet; location and results of percolation tests. 13) Provisions for collecting and discharging storm drainage in the form of drainage plan. 14) Preliminary designs of any bridges or culverts which may be required. 15) The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the Commission to locate readily and appraise the basic lay- out in the field. Unless an existing street intersection is shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall be shown. 16) All parcels of land proposed to be dedicated or reserved for public use and the conditions of such dedication or reservation. 10) Developmental timetable (including number of phases, and start and completion dates) Start project when all permits are obtained. Completion is approximately two years. 11) List the waivers applicant desires from the requirements of these regulations: -4- ) 12) Attach a'vicinity map showing the rollowing: 1) All existing subdivisions, approximate tract lines and acreage of adjacent parcels, together with the names of the record owners of all adjacent parcels of land, namely, those directly abutting or directly across any street ad- joining the proposed subdivision. 2) Locations, widths and names of existing filed or proposed streets, curb cuts, easements, building lines and alleys pertaining to the proposed subdivision and to the adjacent properties as designated in paragraph 1 above. 3) An outline of the platted area together with its street system and an indication of the future probable street system of the remaining portion of the tract, if the Preliminary Plat suhmitted covers only part of the sub - divider's entire holding. (signature) a cant or contact person 0ate CITY OF SOUTH BURLIidGTON Subdivision Application - PRLLI?-';INABY PLAT/F(w' 1) �� Name of Applicant Homestead Design, Inc. N/ 2) Name of Subdivision: Winding Brook 3) Describe Subdivision (i.e. total acreage, number of lots or units, type of land use, include gross floor area if comm- ercial.) 14.12(±) acres, 84 condominium units - 36 (Phase I) + 48 (Phase II). 4) Indicate any changes to name, address, or phone number of owner of record,applicant, or contact person since sketch plan application: _ None 5. Name, address, and phone number of: _a. engineer b. Surveyor.. C. Attorney _ d. P1nt Designer -- 2 - 6) Indicate any changes to the subdivision such as number of lots or units, property lines, applicant's legal interest in the property, etc., since this proposal was last before the Commission: Submission is the same as_sketch _p_l.an —submiss;en_ 7) List names and mailing addresses of owners of record of all coat igous properties: Same as original applicationsmir�us Church �f- GQd. 8) State title, drawing number, date of origi-.;71 plus any revisions, and designer (s) of the eddg%UuxM map (s) accompanying this appliA cation: Winding Brook horizantal layout ` Utili ies Plan -& profile__ , Drainage Plan, erosion.Control & Grading Plan, Lighting Plan- 9) Attach a preliminary map showing the following information: 1) Proposed subdivision name or identifying title and the name of the city. 2) Name and address of owner of record, subdivider and designer of Preliminary Plat. 3) Number of' acres within the proposed subdivision, location of property lines, structures, watercourses, wooded areas, and other essential existing physicGl features. 4) The names of all subdivisions immediately adjacent and the names of owners of recore of adjacent acreage. 5) . The location and size of any existing se,;inrs and eater mains, culverts and roins on the property or serving the property to be subdivided. 6) Location, names and widths of existing, and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts, paths, easements, parks -3- and other public or privately maintained open. spaces as well as similar facts regarding adjacent property. 7) Contour lines at intervals of five feet, based on Unites States Geological Survey datum of existing grades and also of proposed finished grades where change of existing ground lo elevation will be five feet or more. 8) Complete survey of subdivision trE.ct by a licensed land surveyor. 9) Numerical and graphic scala, crate and true north arrow. 10) Details of proposed connection with existing water sups-!-., or alternative means of providing water suplly to the proposed subdivision. 11) Details of proposed connection with the existing sanitary sewage disposal system or adequate provision for on -site disposal of septic wastes. 12) If on -site sewage disposal system is proposed, location and results of tests to ascertain subsurface foil, rock i and ground water conditions, depth to ground water unl==ss pits are dry at depth of five feet; location and results of percolation tests. 13) Provisions for collecting and discharging storm drainage in the form of drainage plan. s 14) Preliminary designs of any bridges or culverts which may be required. , 15) The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the Comaission to locate readily and appraise the basic lay- out in the field. Unless an existing street intersection is shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall be shown. 16) All parcels of land proposed to be dedicated or reserved for public use and the conditions of such dedication or reservation. 10) Developmental..timetable (including number of phases, and start and completion dates) Phase I completion April '85, Phase II start-up April '85, completion June 186. AT 16Y\� � 11) List the aaivers applicant desires from the requirements of these regulations: None -4- 12) ,attach a vicinity map showing the following: _ 1) All existing subdivisions, approximate tract lines and acreage of adjacent parcels, together with the names of the record ot-m ers of all adjacent parcels of land, name, ly, those directly abutting or directly across any street joining the propos-d subdivision. 2) Locations, widths and names of existing filed or proposed streets, curb cuts, easements, buildiga lines and alleys pertaining to the proposed subdivision and to the adjacent properties as designated in paragraph 1 above. 3) An outline of the platted area together with its street system and an indication of the future probable street system of the remaining portion of the tract, if the Preliminary Plat submitted covers only part of the sub - ,divider's entire holding. {signature), applicant or contact person November 28, 1984 date 4 I CITY OF SOUFH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - SKETCH PLAN 1) Name, address, and phone number of: a. Owner of record Church of God b. Applicant Homestead Design, Inc. 12 Pearl Street Essex Junction, Vt. 05452 c. Contact person John Hausner Homestead Design. I 78-3303 2) Purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development, including number of lots, units, or parcels and proposed use(s). Continuation of Phase II of Winding Brook Condominium, with the addition of twelve units incorporating the present Church of God property into Winding Brook Phase II. `{ actic �c l,w 5C --'AN WND& V1C. t01 a l� �Lcrli 3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple, option, etc) Purchase contract with the Church o 4) Names of owners of record of all contiguous properties Rielly Tire Corp . , San Remo Reality Kennedy Professional Assoc Sugar Tree, City of So Burlington Dumont Constr., R. Goodrich Inc. 5) Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on property such as easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc. Covenants for Winding Brook Phase I and Phase II will apply. 6) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of municipal facilities such as sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc. Municipal sewage for twelve additional units 7) Describe any previous actions taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or by the South Burlington Planning Commission which affect the proposed sub- division, and include the dates of such actions: Refer to previous Winding Brook approvals - 4/10/84 8) Submit four copies of a sketch plan showing the following information: 1) Name of owners of record of contiguous properties. 2) Boundaries and area of: (a) all contiguous land belonging to owner of record and (b) proposed subdivision. 3) fisting and proposed layout of property lines; type and location of existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and cove- nants. 4) Type of, location, and approximate size of existing and proposed streets, utilities, and open space. 5) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic). 6) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. (Signature) applicant or contact person da to 363 Williston Road • Williston, Vermont 05495 (802) 878-3303 October 21, 1986 Mr. Bill Scymanski City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vt. 05401 Dear Bill: It has been about five weeks since I spoke with you regarding the sidewalk situation at Reilly Tire on Hinesburg Road and Winding Brook Condominiums. At that time I spoke with you about the difficulty we have encountered in completing the last section of sidewalk which crosses the entrance to Reilly Tire from Hinesburg Road. Lee Marshall of Reilly Tire is very unhappy with the requirement that the sidewalk maintain grade across his road cut. He would like to see a sidewalk ramp down and back up again at the other side of the road cut in order to avoid a'steep grade into his lot. I spoke with Sonny Audette in early June of this year at which . time he indicated that the City would not waive the requirement. I wrote to Mr. Audette shortly thereafter, but have not received any response. Homestead Design, Inc. is in a very difficult position in that we are caught between the desires of the property owner and the requirements of the City. Although I have made several efforts to get the situation resolved, no one from the city has ever responded. It is now too late in the season to schedule any additional concrete work to complete this sidewalk. The present incomplete sidewalk represents a hazardous condition to all pedestrians, one which we staked and flagged with safety tape shortly after the initial work was completed,'but which no one, either Reilly Tire or the City has bothered to maintain. Should anyone be injured as a result of the existing condition, the liability might be 'substantial; a liability which Homestead Design has no intention of assuming in as much as the City has not responded to any of our attempts to resolve this situation. Mr. Bill Scymanski October 21, 1986 Page 2. If I do not hear from you by the end of October 1986, I will assume that the City has taken it upon itself to complete the sidewalk work at this location. Sin erely, f e eussner Project Manager cc: Dick Ward /attachment June 13, 1986 Mr. Sonny Audette Street Superintendent City of South Burlington 500 Patchen Road South Burlington, Vt. 05401 Dear Mr. Audette: I am writing to you at this time regarding the sidewalk on the east side of Route 116, between Kennedy Drive and the entrance to Winding Brook Condominiums. As the developer of Winding Brook Condominiums, Homestead Design was required to install a concrete walk to connect the existing asphalt walk at Kennedy Drive with our new road cut on Hinesburg Road. As you know, the majority of this sidewalk has been completed with the exception of the cut across the entrance to Reilly Tire. Your insistence that the sidewalk maintain grade across the entrance to Reilly Tire has caused some consternation for the management of Reilly Tire. I have had some discussion with Lee Marshall at Reilly Tire, and I agree with his assessment that his entry drive would be a sharp grade into the parking lot. We have an obligation to complete the sidewalk and would certainly like to do so in a timely fashion. However, we do not wish to be caught in the middle of what appears to be an uncomfortable and unresolved situation. In any case, we do not feel that it would be our responsibility to provide the asphalt paving that will be necessary to ramp up to a raised sidewalk, and ramp down into the Reilly Tire Lot far enough back to provide adequate drainage. Furthermore, the incomplete sidewalk presents a hazard to pedestrians and constitutes a potential liability which Homestead Design has no interest in assuming. I would suggest that a ramped and pitched sidewalk' is a very workable, and very reasonable, solution which provides a safe, continuous walking surface for all pedestrians and handicapped individuals. I would hope that this situation is resolved in the very near future and that we will be notified of the outcome so that we may complete our work. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely,, tfrey Feussner JF:psr City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 PLANNER 658-7955 November 3, 1986 Mr. Jeffrey Feussner Homestead Design, Inc. 363 Williston Road Williston, Vermont 05495 Dear Jeff: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658.7958 'Phis letter will confirm our conversation regarding the installation of the sidewalk across the Reilly Tire driveway. Having discussed this matter with Sonny Audette and Bill Szymanski they are both requiring that the sidewalk maintain grade across the driveway. The entrance will have a ramp from the road of approximately fifteen (15) inches. I can understand Lee Marshall's concerns, however, the sidewalk is being constructed within the highway- right-of-way. The completion of the sidewalk has been delayed for some time and with cold weather just days away, we would hope that Homestead Design will finish the work as soon as possible. I. must remind you that; this office is hold.in- a performance bond for completion of the entire sidewalk. Ver. tru1.v, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp cc: Mr. William Szymanski, City Manager Mr. Sonny Audet:t,e, Street Superintendent Mr. Lee Marshall , April 17, 1986 Ernest Christiansen AEC 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Rea Winding Brook, 12 units Dear Ernie: The City of South Burlington has adequate capacity at the Airport Parkway Sewage Treatment Plant for the final 12 units at Winding Brook. An allocation of 3900 gallons per day is available for two 3-bedroom units and 10 2 bedroom units. Sincerely, Jane B. Lafleur, City Planner JBL/mcp cc: Bob Marcellino William J. Szymanski YITTI-Tsw q cc; POP WgLCZ�TTTVO qBr \wcb di r-T47 bj'SUUGL 'JS' U.3 1-1, T li c. .3 T. G " A' gAgTTgP�G ;COL rpc-. ;;-pGq-zooui mq4s- TO 5 poqr-oouj MlTrv- 21'r Vu 97TOC:94TOU OZ 3000 2i T 2 SLOOK ag-i TOva ��3GX 7 9 �s nu, 4:2 VT3J)OL; BOLYMS;A 2GIAgaG ILG9;WGU; BTlu� ;OT r-!Ig ajf--,l� ' c. Xlji; CT49, CITE FOrl4:IJ 13nLT'-'fJa;07J Pg�,' qadi7cccjTY-1 T �;i ,r LK,;9L EXUTG9 YG, mTu<,Tja PLOOK' T3 nUT4:0 Er?2E,7f qrluc�TOU' AGT.UJ0ui': OZ?425 TTT MGPf 2fLGG.f VEC E.T-U,-,ar G!jLT8fTguaGu Sawa ' /�a, ip���? r !/"may fin. �, }$���ay� [e��;5'� � ro ttt�y {pq�a , y:ny! `� �P peg (rrw_•y� E[�" "�f' ,�''` r� i"�� {!?�■ �_' "•1y, �h fti eN 1J2Y ( N.y.e� Si �i.'" �i "" l- 'E�ac�' iF �i ' "�`.3 '�'N.f�Y k 1 `SaJN P, 1 D Z' `�w4 1 i `w �� N�' 1 ti vS 11,2%, C dSSb IJ It N.a:J i� :7 �w •a%' fa 199 MAIN STREET, WINOOSKI, VERMONT 05404 655.3640 April 16, 1985 Mr. Chris Wagner Permits Section Department of Water Resources State of Vermont Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Re: Winding Brook Condominiums So. Burlington, Vermont 4C0512-1 (Your file No. 04-14-037) Dear Mr. Wagner: Please find attached sheets 3, 4 referenced project. The project units from 72 units to 84 units, of amending the Act 250 permit. has requested that we inform you your input. & 5, and 6 for the above is being enlarged by 12 and we are in the process The District Coordinator of this change and receive All drainage systems are remaining essentially unchanged. Parking and road stormwater will discharge to the previously designed (and installed) filter and detention basin. Please call if there are any questions. Any increase in discharge is not significant enough to warrant any changes. Very truly yours, Robert C. Krebs RCK:snk enclosures CC: Homestead Design ;i.ii and :unitary Engineering Surveying Land C ,u +lopre-tr nt rind Subdivisions SOUTH BURLINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 Richard G. Carter, Chief 7 Telephone (802) 658-1050 April 11, 1985 Richard A. Marcellino Homestead Design Incorporated 12 Pearl Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Dear Mr. Marcellino: Concerning the addition of 12 units to the Winding Brook project, I have no objection to this change at this time. The proposed increase would not create an undue burden of the city services rendered by this department. Sincerely, Richard G. Carter, Chief RGC:mc *out4 Nurlington fire Department 575 Dorset *treet *out4 igurtington, Ilermont 054111 April 4,1985 Homestead Design 12 Pearl Street Essex Jct. , Vermont 05452 Dear John, r OFFICE OF JAMES W. GODDETTE, SR. CHIEF 863-6455 Plans have been reviewed by the fire department on the changes for the Winding Brook Development under construction off Kennedy Drive. At this time I feel all problems have been corrected and if needed we should beable to give the protection required. If you have any questions please feel free to call me. Sincerely _ ...?James W, Goddette Sr. Chief City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 PLANNER 658-7955 April 1, 1985 John Hausner Homestead Design 12 Pearl Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Re: Winding Brook Revision Dear John: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting at which your Revised Final Plat was approved. Please be sure to file re- vised plans with me within 30 days and a final mylar with the City Clerk within 90 days. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner JSB/mcg 1 Encl cc: Bob Krebs Ucr�&-44rDC)/,- April 1, 1985 South Burlington Planning Commission South Burlington City Hall 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 AT=ION : Sidney B . Poger, , Chairman Dear Sid: I am in receipt today of a notification of the revised final plat application of Homestead Design, Inc to add twelve additional units on the Chuch of God site. As an abutting property owner at Sugartree Condominiums, I would like to say that I'm in favor of the expansion of this project as I feel that the developers have taken a somewhat adverse site and through their efforts created a credit to the community. In addition to doing a fine job on the project, the developers have been good neighbors during the construction period and were sensitive to the concerns of the residents at Sugartree. GCM/rb Sinc rely, Gerald C. Milot 600 FINANCIAL PLAZA • BURLINGTON, VFRMON 1 05401 • 802 658-2000 April 1, 1985 John Hausner Homestead Design 12 Pearl Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Re: winding Brook Revision Dear John: Enclosed are the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting at which your Revised Final Plat was approved. Please be sure to file re- vis�ed plans with me within 30 days and a final mylar with the City Clerk within 90 days. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner JSB/mcg 1 Encl. cc: Bob Krebs PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, March 26 1985, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: Revised Final Plat application of Homestead Desiqn, Inc., for the .revision of Phase II of Winding Brook with 12 additional units on the present Church of God property. Property is bounded by Reilly Tire Corporation, San Remo Realty, Kennedy Drive Professional Association, Sugar Tree, Dumont Construction Company, R. Goodrich Inc., and the City of South Burlington and is located on north of Kennedy Drive on Hinesburg Road. Copies of the application are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. Sidney B. Poger Chairman,' South Burlington Planning Commission March 9, 1985 Memorandum March 26, 1985 Agenda items March 23, 1985 Page 4 6) TEMPLE SINAI, SWIFT STREET The applicant proposes to construct a 7400 square foot synogogue on a 4.05 acre lot. The facility will have classrooms, a social hall for 150 and a sanctuary for 150. These will not be used simultaneously except once a year. Parking: 54 spaces are shown with 2 handicapped spaces. The synagogue has made arrangements to share parking lots with the Church of Latter Day Saints to the west. They will be connected by a walkway. The two facilities have services and functions on different days so this is a reasonable arrangement. Circulation: A 22 foot driveway enters the lot from Swift Street. Twenty-two foot aisles are shown. The double rows of parking should have 24 foot aisles. Sewer: 300 gallons per day were reserved at subdivision approval. Other: If legal documents have not been filed for the dedication of 7 feet for future street widening, they should be. 7) WINDING BROOK II� FINAL PLAT REVISION This is the Final Plat to the Sketch plan application entertained by the Commission in November, 1984. Winding Brook I and II received Final approval in November, 1983 for 72 units on approximately 12 acres. Each phase was approved at 36 units. This is a re- vision of Winding Brook II that proposes to include the 2 acres of the Church of God lot. The R7 zoning allows 7 units per acre; the applicant proposes 12 additional units by replacing one 8 unit building with 2 ten unit buildings. Phase I will have 36 units; Phase II will have 48 units for a total of 84 units. Landscaping: Additional landscaping is required and should be shown as a revised plan for all of Phase II. Parking: These 48 units require 2 spaces per dwelling plus one guest space per 6 dwelling units, or 104 total spaces. Eighty three are shown, including carport spaces. Street: The through street must be completed prior to the 51st unit and must be named. Memorandum March 26, 1985 Agenda items March 23, 1985 Page 5 Recreation Fee: A $2400 recreation fee ($200/unit is required). Sidewalk: The sidewalk along Hinesburg Road is still under the original stipulations and should be constructed in conjunction with our Street Department. A bond is required? Sewer: An additional sewer allocation is required. These units will be placed on the waiting list until the treatment plant is expanded. (5400 gpd are required). Other: All buildings must conform to the 150 foot setback re- quirement from Potash Brook. See Bill Szymanski'�s memo, especially regarding drainage. March 22, 1985 John Hausner Homestead Design 1.2 Pearl Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Re: Winding Brook Expansion Dear John: Enclosed are the meeting. Please application. agenda and my memo to the Commission for Tuesday's be sure someone is present to represent your Sincerely, Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner JSB/mcg Encls cc: Krebs & Lansing PUBLIC 11EAIZI NG SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING CU,/MISS1ON The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, December 18 1984, at 7:Qp P.M. to consider the following: Revised Final Plat application of Homestead Design Inc for the revision of Winding Brook, Phase II with 12 additional units on the present Church of God property. Property is located on Hinesburg Road and is bounded by Reilly Tire Corp., San Remo Realty, ;;ennedy Drive Professional Association, Sugar Tree, Dumont Construction Company, R. Goodrich Inc., and the City of South ` Copies of the application are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. Sidney B. Poger Chairman, South Burlington Planning Commission December 1, 1984 M E M O R 11 N D U h9 To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner \ C - J u Re: December 18, 1984 agenda items Date: 12/14/84 2) CARDINAL WOODS, Continued Public Hearing Enclosed are comments from Bill Szymanski, City Engineer, and Jim Goddette, Fire Chief on the width of the private streets. Mr. Fitzpatrick would like to discuss this issue further. Also enclosed is the letter dated 12/5/84 from Sylvia Smith of Natural Resources Committee regarding the location of the pedestrian easement. Mr. Lawrence Chetti notified me by telephone that he is not interested in the trail on his property now. The trail would have been located between I-89 and his house which is within the CO zone. No further information or plans have been received since the applicant prefers to settle the street width issue first. 3) PETE'S TRAILER MART, 4016 Williston Road The applicant has submitted a Revised Plan to meet the concerns expressed by the Commission. The plan designates the parking areas for trailers. These include 3 areas located to the north, east and west of the building for sales storage, service storage and off- season storage. The automobile parking spaces will be paved and striped. A portion of the paved area in the front yard will be removed to bring the front yard coverage requirements into conformance. The northern part of this area will remain paved for overflow parking, it will be striped. 4) WINDING BROOK Public Hearin This application has been withdrawn and will be resubmitted at a later date. 5) REZONING OF TILLEY FARM The Commission indicated its interest in rezoning approximately eight acres of the Tilley Farm located north of I-89, and east of Hinesburg November 30, 1984 John Hausner Homestead Design, Inc. 12 Pearl Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05401 Dear John: Enclosed are the minutes from the November 27, 1984 Planning Commission meeting. I have scheduled your Final Plat Public Hearing for December 18, 1984. Please be sure I have plans and your fee by December 3, 1984. Sincerely, Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner JSB/mcg 1 Encl cc: Church of God 4. PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 1984 trailers in and out. In addition, the owner plans to cut down the hill to the east of the lot where the current house is, and that will give better visibility. Mr. Poger suggested paving and striping the parking areas, so it would be clear where to park. Mrs. Hurd said she had visited the lot and that trailers were parked everywhere. Mr. Zajchowski said there was a lot of off- season storage on this lot. Mr. Poger was not sure that was an appropriate use of the lot. Mr. Dooley felt the plan should be redrawn to show exactly where trailers would be stored and that they would not be allowed to be stored anywhere else on the lot. Mr. Poger said the storage area could be gravel, but he felt the parking areas should be paved and striped. Mr. Dooley moved to continue the public hearing for Pete's Trailer Mart until December 18 at 7:30 pm at City Hall. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all voted for it. Consider sketch plan application of the revision of Winding Brook II, for development of 12 additional units on the two acres of the Church of God lot, Hinesburg Road Mr. John Hausner said they had a contract with the Church of God to buy 2.4 acres of land from them. The existing house and church will be relocated, and Homestead Designs will add 12 units to its Winding Brook project, for a total of 48, Roads and utilities will be unchanged, but the last 12 units cannot be built until a sewer allocation is available. Mr. Hausner noted that, with the sale, his land would abut that of the Kennedy Drive Professional Associates, who may want to expand their parking lot. There could be some kind of connection between the lots, which might allow Homestead to have a narrower road in that area. Mr. Poger said the Fire Chief would have to look at that, and he noted that if a chain were put up, it would have to be plowed up to and under it. He said a written agreement on maintenance of the emergency access would be needed. Review transitional zone language Mr. Poger asked where this zone would apply and was told it would basically be Shelburne and Williston Road areas. Ms. Bechtel explained the last sentence in the wording, and Mr. Dooley suggested that the first part of the sentence be reworded that "If a proposed use of an existing structure would not be allowed under the Traffic Overlay Criteria...". Ms. Bechtel wondered if the first sentence should read that any commercial "use" that abuts or is within 250' of a residential district should fall under this zoning. Now it reads "lot". She felt this would then apply to uses that are in areas by virtue of having received variances. The Commission liked that suggestion. Mr. Dooley felt the list of uses in b) was so arbitrary that it could not be defended. Ms. Bechtel said they were the Cl permitted uses, with some of them removed. Mr. Lowell Krassner objected to some of the uses on the list, such as clothing sales, sales of interior decorating supplies, etc. Mr. Dooley wondered about the first sentence under e). Mr. Poger said the intention was to deny uses which the Commission felt were incompatible with the area. He felt incompatibility also dealt with appearance. Mr. Dooley suggested that it be said directly that the Commission must find a use compatible with the area in order to approve it. He felt there needed to be standards, though. Mr. Dooley also felt there should be wording with regard to allowing uses similar to those in b), and he suggested that compatibility be defined in terms of traffic also. There was also some discussion about removing frozen food lockers from the list of uses. November 21, 1984 John fiausner Homestead Design, Inc. 12 Pearl Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Dear John: 21 Enclosed is the Planning Commission agenda for the November?, 1984 meeting. Please be sure someone is present to represent the Winding Brook II revision. Also enclosed is my memo to the Commission. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner JSB/mca Encls cc: Church of God Memorandum November 27 agenda items 11/21/84 Page 3 5) PETE'S TRAILER MART, 4016 WILLISTON ROAD Terry Shepard, owner of Pete's Trailer Mart, proposes to build a 1500 square foot addition to his building for use as a new show room. The area is zoned Industrial -Commercial. It may be helpful to our discussion i,f Commission members visit the site prior to the meeting. Access: The lot is located at the top of the hill across from the Szymanski farm on Williston Road. The present driveway is 85 feet wide. The applicant claims that this width allows vehicles going east to approach the top of the hill to see on -coming vehicles before turning left into the lot and allows large recreational vehicles to make the turn into the lot at the western edge of the lot. To improve ingress and egress the applicant will install a 4 foot by 10 foot island with a gradual curb that allows large trailers to drive over the curb if necessary. Directional arrows will be painted on the pavement to improve ingress and egress. Next spring Mr. Shepard plans to lower the grade of the hill beyond his business so that visibility is improved as well. Circulation: Circulation on the lot is somewhat hampered by the number of trailers on the lot. I understand that this condition is seasonal only and is cleared out during summer and winter months. Parking: Sixteen parking spaces are provided at the front and to the west of the building, which meets the requirement. These should be striped on the pavement. Landscaping: The applicant has proposed a landscaping plan at a value greater than required. This should improve the appearance of the lot. No vehicles or merchandise should be displayed in the green strip in the front yard. Other: A paved area in the front will be removed to bring the lot into conformance with front yard coverage requirements. 6) WINDING BROOK II REVISION Winding Brook I and II received final approval in November., 1983 for 72 units on approximately 12.0 acres. Each phase was approved Memorandum November 27 agenda meeting 11/21/84 Page 4 at 36 units. This is a revision of Winding Brook II that now includes the additional 2 acres of the Church of God lot. R7 zoning allows 7 units per acre and the -.applicant is proposing 12 additional units by replacing one 8-unit building with two 10-unit buildings. Sewer capacity is not available. These additional 12 units will require additional capacity and will be placed on the waiting list. Additional landscaping will be required and should be shown as a revised plan for all of Phase II. A $2400 recreation fee will also be required ($200/unit). The sidewalk along Hinesburg Road is still under the original stip- ulations and should be constructed in conjunction with our Street Department. The private road through this project between Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive must be completed prior to the 51st unit. 7) THE FOLLOWING IS THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR THE TRANSITIONAL ZONE 19.80 Transitional Zone Any commercial lot that abuts or is within 250 feet of a residential district shall be limited to the following uses: a) Business and professional offices such as real estate, insurance, architect, engineer, lawyer, government, private non- profit, and travel agency. b) The following retail businesses: barber shop, beauty shop, florist, nursery, garden center, greenhouses, sales and service of electrical facilities and cameras and accessories, tailor, laundry, frozen food locker, clothing sales, sales and service of office equipment and supplies, sales of interior decorating supplies, undertaker and memorial sales, pet shop, data processing services, blueprinting and graphic arts services, artists or photographic studios. c) Churches and educational facilities. d) Nursing and convalescent homes. e) State and municipal facilities. The Planning Commission shall review all uses on these lots to determine compatibility with neighboring uses. The Commission 12 Pearl Street • Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 (802) 878-3303 October 31, 1984 Ms. Jane Bechtel City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vt. 05401 Dear Jane: I am writing this letter to follow up our brief meeting yes- terday afternoon. We are purchasing the Church of God property adjacent to our Winding Brook property. This property is just under two acres in size and is zoned R-7, as is the Winding Brook property. Our intent is to incorporate this property into Phase I and Phase II of Winding Brook Condominium. Because, by zoning, we would be able to do thirteen units on this acreage, we're asking that we be able to incorporate twelve additional units into the second phase of Winding Brook. As the sketch plan indicates, we are accomplishing this by removing the eight units, indicated in the existing Winding Brook drawings and identified as Building "G", and replacing that building with two ten unit buildings, labeled in the sketch plan as Building "G" and "I". Our intent would also be to reserve space behind Buildings "E" and "C", as well as the garage serving those units, for future common facilities. The site is quite flat in these areas and the only engineering considerations, relating to the proposed changes, would be to simply re -configure the sewage connections to the existing main line and pump station. The present utility main lines, as designed, are more than adequate to handle the additional capacity. However, as we understand, there now exists a waiting list for sewer hook-ups to the plant which serves the Winding Brook property. Ms. Jane Bechtel - October 31, 1984 - Page 2. Our intent would be to complete the build out of the Winding Brook project within the next two years, which would hopefully coincide with a planned expansion of those sewage facilities in 1986. Dick Ward had also indicated to us the possibility that certain projects, that had been approved for sewage hook- up, but are inactive at this time, could possibly have their alloc- ations shifted to projects who are actively building. At any rate, if adequate capacity does not exist at the time when we are ready to build the last twelve units in Phase II of Winding Brook, we understand that we would have to wait before going forward. Since we are approved for seventy-two units of sewage at this time, we would propose that we would build Building "H" as the final building in Winding Brook --since that building is a twelve unit building. We believe that this would be the cleanest way to handle any complications which may arise if the sewage plan is not completed by 1986, or if we cannot get other sewage allocation from inactive projects. Concurrent with the sketch plan submission, we are also pursuing the possibility of linking the drive in front of "G" Building (on the sketch plan) with the parking lot of the existing abutting medical facility. This connection would be chained. We would hope that if we are able to negotiate such an inter- connection with the owner of that property, that we could reduce the width of the drive, from the thirty feet shown, to twenty-four feet, which would enable us to move Building "E" six feet to the east, there -by gaining more clear area between "G" Building and "I" Building. We are looking forward to reviewing our proposed plans with you and the Planning Commission on November 27th. Should you have any questions or comments prior to that time, please do not hesitate to contact us, here at Homestead Design. Thanks for your prompt response to our re -planning effort. Yours truly, John Hausner JH:psr Memorandum Next week's agenda items 4/6/84 Page 2 Presently three of the commercial lots are developed along Harbor Ridge Road, the uses are more industrial in nature, one lot has been approved as an office complex. Section 12.00 of the zoning regulations encourages a mix of industrial uses along with clustered residential units.. Should the Commission agree with this proposal, amendments to the Zoning regulations are necessary, an can be scheduled by the new Planner. The major concern will be sewer, the Bartlett Bay plant is at capacity. 5) Palmer, lot #3, Muddy Brook Industrial Park No additional comments as of memo's dated 3/9/84 and 2/24/84. Application was continued from March 13, 1984 meeting. 6) Bensen, 65 Patchen Road Zoning Board of Adjustment granted a variance on March 26, 1984. Variance involved waiver to the minimum dimensional requirements. Approximately 2.8 acres is being set-off for sixteen (16) residential units, the density averages about 5.7 units per acre. Application should be reviewed as a Planned Commercial Development (Section 11.50) and the general standards set -forth under Section 19.15. The major concern will be sewer, allocation required is 4000 g.p.d. no capacity is available presently. Planning Commission may wish to consider a temporary on -site system, area has sandy soils. Access is a concern, if possible as second means of access should be provided in the area of the Tower Restaurant. Internal circulation is adequate, a private drive of a minimum twenty (20) feet is proposed. Safety issues, location of buildings and proposed hydrant is being reviewed by the Fire Chief. 7) Winding Brook, Homestead Design, Kennedy Drive Applicant's are requesting to reduce the width of the road from the original thirty (30) feet to twenty four (24) feet. The road way will be curbed in the areas which are developed. No curbs are proposed at either entrances, the travel way will be twenty four (24) feet. Should the Commission agree, a motion allowing for the reduction is necessary. Style of the street lights are being changed. Approval by the Environmental Commission is necessary. Planning Commission was not originally involved with the street light issue. M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington City Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: Next week's agenda itesms Date: 11/4/83 2) Bourdeau/Rye Properties, Hinesburg Road 1. There should be some sub -surface drainage to intercept parking areas. These areas are almost perfectly flat and without drains ponding will result especially during spring thaws with snow piled along the perimeter. 2. The grading around building "A" causes runoff toward the Georgetown apartments. This area must be graded to divert runoff westerly. 3. Parking lots should have curb stops (poured concrete) to control encroachment upon grassed areas and sidewalks. 4. Entrance drive should include a sidewalk to Hinesburg Road. 5. Internal outside lighting including the Hinesburg Road entrance should be planned and included when power is installed to the units. 4) Winding Brook (Homestead Design, Inc.) 1. Reference is made to memo of 11/6/81 (copy attached) especially as it applies to curbs and sidewalks across d. veways. Sketch plan dated ll/1/83 does not take this into account. 2. The sidewalk along the north side of Winding Brook Drive at the Hinesburg Road entrance should be along the south side as original plans show. This side- walk is to be extended along the east side of Hinesburg Road to connect to the Kennedy Drive sidewalk. 3. A modified drainage plan shall be submitted. MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 11/4/83 2) Bourdeau/Rye Properties, O'Brien and Milot Sidewalk along the frontage is still an issue. September 6, 1983 approval, stip- ulation #3, location of sidewalk to be determined by Planning Commission. Connection of this project to Georgetown an issue, Georgetown people opposed. City Engineer has concerns regarding drainage, lighting and sidewalk (see memo). Fire Chief has concerns regarding circulation patterns, travel area restricts maneuvering of fire equipment. Roger Dickinson to meet with Chief on Monday. City Attorney missing a few legal documents. (1) Condominium by-laws and articles of associates. (2) Offer- of dedication for a 7 foot strip of land for roadwidening and utility lines dedication. 3) University Mall, Dorset Street Proposed is the filling of a area easterly of Martin's Food Store. Area (158'. x 200') was originally designed for another building. The parking areas proposed will accommodate 72 vehicles. The circulation pattern is acceptable, proposed 40' travel area, with 10'x20' spaces. Additional spaces are needed, the holiday season last year created a serious parking problem. A 24" willow tree is existing and is to be saved. 4) Winding Brook Revision involves new location for building and a different building foot print. The plan indicates the installation of a storm retention pond. Details of this pond should be submitted to City Engineer for his approval. The revised plan is in two phases, first phase 36 units. Construction will start off Kennedy Drive. City Council has granted the necessary easement over the City parkland. Tem- porary access has been approved by the City in order to avoid using Sugartree Drive. Extension granted by Commission on August 11, 1983 with a stipulation that a building permit be secured by November 24, 1983 with a start of May 24, 1983. This timetable is questionable considering the fact that no legal documents have been submitted to the City Attorney. I see no reason to change any of the stipulations setforth on November 24, 1981 (see minutes). Any revised motion should refer to the revised "site plan of Winding Brook - submitted by Homestead Design, Inc., dated November 1, 1983. September 23, 1983 HaTiestead resign, Inc. 12 Pearl Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Dear Bob: regarding your request for a easement across the so-called DUiont projJerty owned by the City. After ciscussing this with the City Attorney he suggests that your attorney prepare the paper work and forward it to his office for review. If you wish to have the documents signed at the Council meeting of October 3, 1983 I suggest that you hand carry the documents instead of mailing them. As for your temporary entrance off Kennedy Drive. In order to minimize the damage to the area, we will permit the entrance approximately twenty feet woutherly of the entrance to Sugartree. Rerrove two sections of the curb, and replace them at a later date. A bond for restoring the area in the amount of seven hundred dollars plus an amount to be established by a landscape plan to bp prepared by your o'tfice mdst be posted with this office. If you have anv questions please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcq 12 Pearl Street * Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 (802)878'3303 September 21, 1983 Mr. Dick Ward Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street S. Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Dick, In order for us to proceed with the Winding Brook project, we will need an easement in common from the city in order to tie in with the Milot curb cut as planned and approved by the South Burlington planning commission. It is imperative to us and to our lending partners that this be granted prior to our purchase of the property, which is scheduled for Tuesday, October 4, 1983. It is our understanding that the necessary documents must be signed by the city counsel. Would you please advise us as to who is to draft the documents and arrange to have this item put on the agenda of the city counsel for October 3, 1983. We trust that the city counsel will be advised as to the unanimous decision, made on numerous occasions by the planning commission concerning this issue, and that this agenda item will not become another forum in which Mr. Milot can pursue his own interests. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Robert A. Marcellino August 11, 1983 Robert Marcelino Homestead Design 12 Pearl Street Fssex Junction, Vern►ont 05452 Dear Bob, This letter is to confirm that the South Burlington Planning Coimiission has extended the expiration date for the Winding Brook project on Hinesburg Road and Rennedy Drive until November 24, 1985. However, the extension is contingent upon two conditions. First, you must secure initial building permits prior to November 24, 1983. Second, you must have begun construction prior to May 24, 1984. From the discussion at the meeting, "construction" is interpreted to wan that foundations must be completed or in progress. If either of the above conditions has not been met, then the winding Brook subdivision approval will expire. Please call this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, David H. Spitz, City Planner nxs/mcg 1 Encl 12 PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1983 Mr. Jacob moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission grant site plan approval -for the application of the Lakeview Motel .Mr. John Wyckoff, 1860 Shelburne Road for construction of an additional thirty-three 33 units as depicted on a plan entitled "Site Plans Lakeview Motel". dated September 2.. 19�83 prepared bv.Richard Farnham Associates with the following stipulations: 1. That a landscaping performance bond in the amount of $13,000 be posted Prior to issuance ofa building permit. 2. That the drainage concerns of the City Engineer be addressed and approved prior to the start of construction. 3. That the Fire Chief review the plan for the installation of necessary fire hydrants. 4. That this approval expire in 6 months. Mrs."Maher seconded the motion. Mr. Poger no ed that the bond in #1 should cover 3 seasons. The motion carried unanimously. Site plan review of application by Air Vermont, Burlington International Airport for construction of a 100' x 104' maintenance hangar Mr. Leonard Wing said primary access to the area would be from Williston Road through the building 890 area. As a secondary access, they can use a road through the Muddy -Brook Industrial Park. The airport will keep this access open this winter. The building will be used to fix airplanes. 3 or 4 at a time will fit. Mr. Wing said he would put finish contours on the plan and that excess material will go into the old gravel pit. Seedlings will be planted. Mr. Wing said they presently do their maintenance work in the old alert hangar, about 90, away from this proposed location. Mr. Poger asked that the Commission be shown how the rest of this area will be used (#5 in the City Manager's 9/16 memo on this project). He did not agree that the Muddy Brook access should be the major one. Mr. Ward felt there would be more activity in this corner of airport land, and that later access might be a problem. Mr. Poger suggested that when the airport came in to discuss the future of this area, they should be asked to talk to the Muddy Brook Industrial Park owner to see if an agreement could be made. Noise from the maintenance operation was discussed and Mr. Ward was asked to check the Zoning Ordinance on this point. Mr. Schuele, who is on the city's noise committee, asked that steps be taken to reduce noise before Mr. Wing came back for final approval. Mr. Wing noted that this area was lower than the land around it, and that did help keep the noise lower. It was decided to make a site visit of this area, and Saturday,.September 24 at 10:30 am was chosen. Mrs. Maher moved to continue the site -plan until October 11 at 7:30 pm at City Hall. Mr. Mona seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Other business Discussion with Gerald Milot_of_SUgartree and the Winding Brook developers Mr. Milot said he had built his development deep in the woods to get it away from the road. He was concerned about how Winding Brook's access to Kennedy Drive would affect his development and its private road. He asked that snow fence be put up to show the limits of construction so no more trees than necessary 6. PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1983 are cut down. Mr. Milot said the developers had agreed to share the cost of construction and maintenance of the private road. He said one concern he had was that the developers wanted to make this access a primary one and to start construction from this side. He noted that construction meant noise and dust for the renters of his condominium units, and that the road had been made to allow a flat area at the top of the hill so cars waiting to get onto Kennedy Drive could stack off the hill. More cars coming from the Winding Brook develop- ment may mean cars from his project will stack on the hill. Mr. Milot was told that the Commission had intended Winding Brook to have two accesses - one here and one on Hinesburg Road, and neither was intended to be a secondary access. Mr. Milot objected that Winding Brook could build 50 units off his private road, and then stop building for some reason, and his road would be stuck with all that extra traffic. He suggested that this access be chained and only used for emergencies, but no one on the Commission wanted that done. The Winding Brook developers were asked if they could start construction from the Hinesburg Road side, but they said it would be cheaper to start from this end. They want to build the first building near the Milot project and then rough the rest of the road in and bring construction equipment in that way. If they are allowed to start at the Kennedy Drive end, Mr. Hausner of Winding Brook said they could make a temporary curb cut on that road, about 100' away from Sugartree, so construction equipment could be less bother to Sugartree. The Commission noted that a bond would be needed to insure that the temporary cut were taken care of and reseeded later. A date of August 1 for closing the temporary cut was mentioned. Mr. Hausner said they could put a stop sign on their road before it intersected Mr. Milot's drive, so cars would stack in Winding Brook instead of backing up down Sugartree's hill. Mr. Milot asked that Mr. Hausner's September 20, 1983 letter regarding these items be made part of the record (copy on file with Planner.) He added that the City Council had to convey a right of way to Winding Brook for this access and that has not yet been done. Mr. Ward was asked to check into that. Mr. Ward felt the City Engineer should look at where the temporary curb cut should be. Mrs. Maher moved that the Planning Commission allow, with the approval of the _City Manager/Engineer, a temporary construction access on Kennedy Drive with a bond to close the access, reseed it and replant trees. This access is to be closed and restored by August 1, 1984. All the conditions agreed to by Homestead Design in their September 20, 1983 letter to the Planning Commission shall be considered part of this approval, however, anything in said letter which does not conform to city ordinances shall not be allowed. Mr. Mona seconded the motion. Mr. Hausner was asked to inform Mr. Milot when the City Engineer looked at the access, so all parties would know what was happening. The motion carried with all in favor. Next meeting - Mr. Ward noted that the Commission had gotten off its 2nd and 4th Tuesday meetings. They now meet on the 1st and 3rd, and he wanted to move it back to the 2nd and 4th. The next meeting will thus be the 2nd Tuesday in October, the llth. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 pm. Clerk 13Pearl Street ° Essex Junction, Vermont U5452 (802)878'3303 July 19, 1983 Mr. David Spitz City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street S. Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear David: We have finally reached a meeting of the minds with the Ryan family and hope to purchase the twelve acres together with all of the approvals for the project known as Winding Brook off Kennedy Drive. As you know, the original permit was for a period of two years. That approval ends November 24th of this year. We are quite anvious to pursue this project but naturally we are not willing to spend much more time without knowing if the Planning Commission will grant an extension for this project. We would like to be put on the agenda of the Planning Commission as soon as possible in order to request a two year extension of this permit. The purchase of the land is contingent upon this approval. Thanks for all of your help. 'S i ricyre ly, F/bbert A. Marcellino O O� �gtiSPOR�P.�� STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION 133 State Street, Administration Building Montpelier, Vermont 05602 February 10, 1982 Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers Inc. Shelburne Road Shelburne, Vermont 05482 RE: Winding Brook Development Vt. 116 & Kennedy Drive Dear Mr. Krebs: The Transportation Agency has reviewed this project and finds that the traffic generated will not over load Rt. 116 (Hinesburg Road) nor cause a hazardous condition. The site for access has adequate sight distance in both directions. • We will issue a permit for an access to the proposed development following notification that you have received Act 250 and local zoning approvals. Also, we will require that the intersection be contructed in accordance with A-76 Standard (attached) and we must have additional information as to your plans for construction of the sidewalk along Vt. 116 (typical section and drainage). We suggest you contact Vermont Agency of Transportation District Administrator Mr. John Wood for an acceptable cross-section detail. We also note that you plan to carry out work within the Highway Right -of -Way for the purpose of connecting into the Water and Sewer mains. This work will also have to be in- cluded in the conditions of the permit. We note that you have stated on the plans that pavement cuts on Vt. 116 will be re- stored as required by the City of South Burlington. This should be shown "as required by the Vermont Agency of Trans- portation". SU, cerely, I Ja s H. Hoag Utilities Engineer Attachment LAW OFFICES McNAMARA 8 FITZPATRICK, INC. 192 COLLEGE STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 TELEPHONE 802 863-3494 ADDRESS REPLY TO! P. O. BOX 657 December 14, 1981 Mr. David Spitz City Planner 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Winding Brook Dear Mr. Spitz: Please find enclosed the executed originals of the following documents:. 1. Warranty Deed; ��.2. Administratrix Deeds; 3. License to Sell; oO 4. Offers of Dedication; S. Agreement and Waiver; k M-6. Attorney's Report and Opinion on Title; and 7. Property Transfer Tax Return. Please let me know if there is any additional material which you will require in this matter. Very truly yours, Richard F. Peterson, Jr. RFP/ct enclosure SPOKES, FOLEY & 01BUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 184 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE P. O. BOX 986 BURLINGTON, VERMONT OS402 RICHARD A. SPOKES JAMES D. FOLEY JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI STEVEN F. STITZEL Mr. David Spitz City Plainer 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Dear David: November 30, 1981 Vermont 05401 Winding Brook (SO2) 862-6451 (802) 863-2857 ISAAC N. P. STOKES COUNSEL I have reviewed the revised documents sent to me by letter from Richard Peterson on November 24, 1981. These documents are in appropriate legal form. By copy of this letter I am asking Mr. Peterson to contact you to make arrangements for the filing of the originals. Very truly yours, Richard A. S RAS/gmt cc: Richard F. Peterson, Jr., Esq. RESOLUTION At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South Burlington, the following resolution was unanimously adopted by the Council: RESOLVED: That the City of South Burlington shall cause to be executed a right of way and easement across the easterly most corner of its lands and premises on the northerly side of Kennedy Drive to provide access to lands and premises presently owned by Margaret W. Ryan, Andrew D. Ryan, Thomas W. Ryan and Michael E. Ryan, commonly known as Winding Brook located on the northerly side of Kennedy Drive. Said right of way shall be consistent with the City of South Burlington Planning Commission's approval of said Subdivision and as said right of way easement appears on a Plan entitled "Final Plat, Winding Brook" dated December, 1980, revised November 5, 1981 and November 16, 1981 and recorded in Book on Page of the Land Records of the City of South Burlington. DATED at South Burlington, Vermont, this / 7t�,i day of 1983. Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers Robert Krebs December 2, 1981 AA' Shelburne Road Shelburne, Vermont 05482 / Dear Bbb,� On November 24, 1981 the South Burlington Planning Commission granted final approval to the 72-unit "Winding Brook" development on the Ryan property. The d proposed development is in couplinace with the 1980 South Burlington Comprehensiv Plan. DS/mcg Sincerely, David H. Spitz, City Planner 0'1 December 2, 1981 Krebs & Tansing Consulting Engineers Robert Krebs Shelburne load L Shelburne, Vermont 05482 Dear Bob, This letter is official notification that on November 24, 1981 the South Burlington Planning Commission granted final approval to the 72-unit "Anding ?gook" develorxrent on the Ryan property. A copy of the minutes with stiuplations Dhas already been mailed to you. When all changes to the final plat have been made, please plan to sukxnit two corplete sets of drawings. In addition please submit I milar and 1 blueprint copy of the plan to be recorded (I believe page 1 will be sufficient. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, David H. Spitz, City Planner D5/mcg LAW OFFICES McNAMARA 8 FITZPATRICK, INC. 192 COLLEGE STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 TELEPHONE 802 863-3494 ADDRESS REPLY TO: P.O. BOX 657 December 2, 1981 Mr. David Spitz City Planner 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Winding Brook Dear Mr. Spitz: I have Mr. Spoke's letter of November 30, 1981 and, pursuant thereto, I am contacting you regarding the filing of our original documents. There are two factors which will prevent the immediate execution and filing of our documents. First, one of the landowners lives out of state but has plans to be in the area around holiday -time. Second, another landowner is an estate which must be granted a license to sell its interest by the Chittenden Probate Court. The petition for that license has been prepared and filed but it will be at least a month before we can expect to have our license. I will keep you posted as to our progress in this matter. Very truly yours, pl_,� ad�� Richard F. Peterson, Jr. RFP/ct KREBS & LANSING CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. SHELBURNE ROAD, SHELBURNE, VERMONT 05482 (802) 985-2827 November 20, 1981 Mr. Sidney Poger, Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission City Hall - Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Winding Brook Condominiums (Robert Ryan et al) South Burlington, Vermont Dear Sirs: In an attempt to organize the application's position on traffic improvements in relation to the above project, we offer the following comments. A traffic consultant was engaged by the applicant at the request of the Planning Commission. A report was filed with the City Planner and shows that the impact from this project is minimal. The anticipated left turns from Hinesburg southbound traffic is seven trips during the peak hour. The report also shows 24 trips on the average passing through the Kennedy Drive -Hinesburg Road intersection at peak hour. Both the City Planner and the City Manager have expressed their opinion that such a bypass is not needed. The following considerations should be reviewed prior to any decisions being made. At present pedestrian traffic on the west side of Hinesburg Road is limited. We feel that an additional lane would encourage pedestrians to use this bypass lane for walking. Any vehicles pulling out to pass left turning traffic would seriously endanger any such pedestrians. On the other hand, because of the projected turning movements, it is doubtful that the lane will ever be used. In the future when intersection improvements are made as a result of the Mitel Application, the bypass lane would create more problems then it would solve. There is proposed an addi- tional right turn lane at the northwest corner of the inter- section. Vehicles bypassing left turning cars into Winding Brook may well wish to turn left onto Kennedy Drive or pass Civil and Sanitary Engineering Surveying Land Development and Subdivisions Mr. Sidney Poger, Chairman November 20, 1981 Page Two straight through. These vehicles would have to return to the main stream of traffic which could be hazardous. This condi- tion would exist whether or not the bypass lane was extended all the way to the intersection. In conclusion, we feel that a bypass lane should not be constructed in any length. This, of course, does not warrant that there would not be any prob- lems with the left turning traffic, only that a little patience from drivers in waiting for turning traffic would be less costly and safer. Many states prohibit passing on the right for good reasons. We offer the following in response to the memo dated November 6, 1981, from the City Planner, Mr. David Spitz, con- cerning the policy for determining the applicant's responsi- bility for offsite street and intersection improvements. The applicant realizes the obligation for contributing to the up- grading of offsite street and intersection improvements, but object to what appears to be the first and unbalanced assess- ment. Many developments have been approved since the applicant submitted the application and they have not been assessed any fees for any offsite improvements (except Mitel). Many of these have an impact not only on this intersection, but others in the City of South Burlington. Apparently, the Mitel Corporation has been assessed approximately $7,500 for improvements to the Kennedy Drive - Hinesburg Road intersection. This represents approximately 15 percent of the proposed upgrading costs of $50,000. We have calculated Mitel's percentage based on traffic as approximately 30 percent or twice their assessment. The rough cost of a bypass lane for the Winding Brook development is $10,000 and the cost is estimated at $14,000 to complete the gap between the bypass lane and the proposed Mitel. improvements. If all improvements were consructed, the cost would approach $74,000. Based on this, the applicant's share would be $74,000 X 6.7a/2 or $2,500. This, when added to the cost of the traffic study is approximately the same fee proposed in Stipulation 6 in the preliminary motion of approval. Due to the fact that the bypass is not needed, the applicant is prepared to offer $1,675 ($50,000 X 6.7o/2) for the offsite road improvements. Very truly yours, /"- �14 c Y4 Robert C. Krebs RCK/shl MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: David 11. Spitz, City Planner Re: Next Week's agenda items Date: 11/20/81 2) \ Ryan,',Winding Brook The applicant has submitted a letter regarding several traffic issues (enclosed). Please note that the estimated cost for the bypass lane would be $10,000. Because of the very close proximity of the end of this bypass lane to the be- ginning of the Hinesburg/Kennedy intersection improvements (enclosed) it would definitely make sense to connect the two. Estimated cost for the connection would be $14,000. If the Planning Commission requires the bypass lane I would recommend that the applicant be responsible for the entire cost, i.e. $10,000. He should not be responsible for the $14,000 connection. I have no comments on whether he should still be responsible for contributing $3350 towards the Hinesburg/Kennedy intersection improvements in this case. However, my basic recommendation still is that the bypass lane is un- necessary. In this case the applicant should pay the $3350 contribution and no more. 3) ICV, Shunpike Road Application is for two large general storage buildings, one of 48,000 :square feet and one of 42,000 square feet. Layout is arranged so that no further development is likely. Ground coverage for the buidlings is approx- imately 17%, well within the ordinance requirements. No outside storage will be permitted. Applicint estimates traffic of about 20 vehicles per day, with about half of that being trucks. Type of trucks must still be described. The City Manager has several concerns about necessary improvements on the first portion of Shunpike Road to accommodate truck traffic (see other memo). The Fire Chief has several concerns about access, water pressure, and fire hydrants (see enclosed memo). The applicant should plan to obtain a fire rating for the building to allow us to properly evaluate water pressure needs. The landscaping amount appears to be insufficient according to our standard formula. Additional information must be provided on building height, building materials, lighting, and an anticipated construction schedule. SPOKES, FOLEY & ®BUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW RICHARO A. SPOKES JAMES D. FOLEY JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI STEVEN F. STITZEL Richard F. Peterson, P. O. Box 657 Burlington, Vermont Re: Winding Brook Dear Richard: 184 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE P. 0. BOX 986 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 Jr., Esq. 05402 November 17, 1981 (802) 862-64S1 (802) 863-28S7 ISAAC N. P. STOKES COUNSEL. I have reviewed the proposed documents you submitted to South Burlington, and have the following recommendations: 1. Pedestrian Easement Deeds. These are fine as drafted but I would like the addition of the following paragraph: "The within grantors, their heirs and assigns, shall have the right to make use of the surface of the land subject to this right of way easement such as shall not be inconsistent with the use of said right of way, but specifically shall place no structures, landscaping or other improvements within said easement and right of way which shall prevent or interfere with the within grantee's ability to use, repair, replace and/or maintain said pedestrian easement" The final plat should also clearly depict the pedestrian easement and identify it accordingly. Just a general comment - I note your reference clauses refer to lands being conveyed to Donald Ryan, Robert Ryan and Ursula Beauvais, yet you also have administratrix deeds in connection with the estate of William Ryan. Where does William Ryan fit into your title picture? 2. Easement Deeds for Water and Sewer Lines. I would like these paragraphs added to each deed: Richard F. Peterson, Jr., Esq. November 17, 1981 Page 2 "The within grantors, their heirs and assigns, shall have the right to make use of the surface of the land subject to this right of way easement such as shall not be inconcsistent with the use of the easement by the within grantee, but specifically shall place no structures, land- scaping or other improvements within said right of way easement which shall prevent or interfere with the within grantee's ability to exercise its rights granted hereunder. This right of way easement shall act as a bill of sale and does hereby convey the pipelines and appurtenances located on, under and through the easement herein conveyed. 3. Agreement and Waiver. This is fine as drafted. 4. Offers of Dedication. These are fine as drafted. If you have no objections, please send me revised drafts. When the executed documents are filed with the City, we will need partial releases from any mortgagee or in lieu of partial releases some sort of a subordination agreement indicating that the City's interest is superior to that of any mortgagee. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Richard,A. o RAS:mil cc: David Spitz, City Planner PUBLIC IIrARI% SOLMi BURLINGPON PLANNING MWISSION The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Raom, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, Novemtx-r 10 1981, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1) Application by I,71 h.,�;ociate:, for preliminary plat approval (-)f an 11-lot division. entitled Rebecca Square, on Williston Road, Victory Drive, and Helen a Avenue. Pror-rty is hounded on the north by Ploof, Gadecki, Grimes and Helen Avenue; on the east by Desranleau, Watson, Bishop, Navin, Norton. Racine and Victory Drive; on the south by Perry and Schmucker, NCR Corporation, Lawrence, Merriam Graves and Williston Road; and on the west by Collins, St Dennis, Slack, Corey and Billings. 2) !Application by Rohert Ryan et al for final plat approval of a 72 unit sub- division on Ilineshurq Road and Kennedy Drive. Pro x-rty is bounded on the north h� Dumont develojw-nt; on the east by City park land; on the south by Reilly Tire Cbmpany, San Remo Realty, Church of God and Kennedy Drive; and on the west by Goodrich and Hinesburg Road. Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. Sidney B. Poger, Chairman, South Burlington Planning C mmission Octoher 24, 1981 PLAN'JIN(; COMMI:�SION Finnl pint apol'icntion b tobe t--41,y an et nl for a 72 unit development entitledl Winding Brook",on Hinesburg Road an 4. NOVEXBER 10, 1981 planned residents, .Kennedy Drive Mr. Spitz said almost everything had been resolved except that the legal documents had not come into his office until today and he felt he should have time to look them over before final plat approval was given. Mr. Krebs said two buildings had been reoriented. Mr. Poger asked about through traffic and was told that there was a 9% slope on one end and 8%) on the other and that would probably deter through traffic. Mr. Poger asked about the school bus. He felt it should not use private roads. Mr. Mona suggested some kind of stairway going up the hill to Kennedy Drive behind cluster 1. Kids could then wait on the sidewalk on Kennedy Dr. Mr. Krebs said the sidewalk would go from the entrance of the develop- ment up to the Kennedy Drive intersection. Mr. Spitz said that because of the traffic figures, the request for a bypass lane had been dropped. The report indicates only 8 left -turning care on Hinesburg Road at the peak hour, so it did not seem the lane was needed. Sight -distance is also good along there.. He did not feel the expense was justified by the number of cars. Mr. Stoddard, of the Church of God, said that in the 6 years he had lived there he had had several near muses and his wife had been rear -ended, so he felt widening the road was a good idea. Mr. Jacob suggested a warning sign. Mr. Mona felt that cars wishing to pass a left -turning car should have an escape lane.Mr.Poger noted that with many units in the area, people would begin to expect turning cars. Now Mr. Stoddard is the only one who lives in the area. Mr. Stoddard suggested widening the shoulder, but Mr. Spitz said the fill and sub -base were the expensive pests. Mr. Mona felt that with new housing units in there, people might be more conditioned to expecting left turns, but he felt that would not make them more patient, and the chances of a pedestrian being hit in that area would increase. Mr. Spitz felt that if there were no room for the cars to pass, they would not be that close to pedestrians and he said that if a part of the road were widened, it should be widened all the way to Kennedy Drive. Mr. `foolery noted that Mitel's traffic improvements included adding a new lane to this section of road. If that came 112 way to this area, this developer could perhaps put in the rest. Mr. Poger felt that since the city had already agreed to upgrade it, he did not mind asking them6to go farther and extend the additional lane to this entrance. Mr. Jacob said the traffic experts did not feel another lane was needed here and he agreed with them. Mr. Mona moved that a passing; lane be provided southbound on Hinesburg Road so cars can pass left-turnini- vehicles p;oinfT into this development. Mr. ::wing seconded the motion. Mr. Ryan felt cars on Hinesburg Road at this point were already slowing down bemuse of the hill and the traffic light, and he felt that if people pulled out to the right to pass, cars which did not pull out could prevent them from getting back into the correct lane. He also noted that cars which did pull out might find themseves behind a car turning left into Reilly Tire. Mr. Krebs felt that about 50' would be needed before the entrance and about 100' after it and he did not think the number of turning movements justified that. Mr. Poger said it would be temporary until Hinesburg Road is the major corridor it is planned to be, but Mr. Krebs felt this would create more problems than it would solve. Mr. Walsh liked the idea of a passing lane but he wanted it to go the whole way and was uneasy with a temporary solution. He said he would rahter not have it if it could not go PLANNING COMMISSION NOVE: f!'. 'R 10, 1981 all the way. Mr. Poger felt that either the city or the developer should put in a warning sign. Mr. Woolery agreE:d that in this case a temporary fix would cause more problems than it would solve and he felt the city should do the job right. He noted that the Commission had started to ask developers to pay for part of the costs associated with traffic problems their traffic added to, although he noted that no residential developer had yet been asked to do that. He felt the turning movements would probably be greater than the traffic study said, but he did not think this developer should have to come up with the final solution for the road. He mentioned some sort of formula and Mr. Spitz mentioned a figure of 13300 for this applicant's share of the inter- section improvement costs. Mr. Mona mentioned, in place of the motion he had made earlier, that equal money be put in an escrow account and used to widen Hinesburg Road in this area. This would be in addition to the 43300 mentioned by Mr. Spitz. Yr. Ewing said he would of-ree to that replacement motion, but he did not know whether he could vote on the issue now,because he felt he did not have enough information on how far Hinesburg Road would have to be widened. Mr. Spitz said he would get some information on the length and dollars involved. Messrs. Mona and Ewing withdrew the motion and second. The Commission went through Mr. Spitz' suggested motion on this lard. Mr. Poger asked if the Church of God objected to sharing a drive with the development and Mr. Stoddard said they did not. Mr. Poger asked about the water line loop. Mr. spitz said the 12" main would be extended the full frontage of this property, but that it would loop from Kennedy Drive to Hinesburg Road via an 8" main. The water superintendent and !rr. spitz agreed after much discussion that it was not fair to ask this applicant to put in the 12" main there. Mr. Poger asked whether the developer would object to the city using the recreation fee anywhere in the city and after some explanation of that, Mr. Ryan said he did not object to that. Mr. Krebs said the developer was Considering giving the city a triangle of land on Kennedy Drive which could be used for parking to get to the city park in the area. Mr. Poger felt that should be discussed with the planner. Mr. Woolery moved to continue the final plat a;�plication for Winding Brook until two weeks from tonight at City Hall at 7.30 pm Mr. Ewing seconded the motion •and all voted for it. Sketch plan application by LTH Associates for a planned residential and commercial development on the 70 acre Bartlett property on ihelburne Road Mr. Spitz showed slides of the area. He said one major problem would be access to Shelburne Road. If the Southern Connector is built, it will conflict with the entrance to this property no matter where on the frontage the entrance is. The pror>erty also has no direct access to Allen Road and Mr. Spitz did not see a good spot for its eventual access to that road. He noted that the Pheasant 'day public private street case should be heard in court soon, but he did not know how fast a decision would be made. Mr. Krebs said the proposal was for a combination of single family lots and cluster housing on the residential portion of the lot. There will be some large lots next to the Meadowood at Spear development. The zoning line between residential and commercial zones has been scaled of from the zoning map, but there is one piece of land which would be excellent for a residential use and if the line goes straight until it hits a gully on City of South Burlington WATER DEPARTMENT 400 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 TEL. 864-4361 November 9, 1981 Mr. Robert C. Krebs Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc. Shelburne Road Shelburne, Vermont 05482 RE: Winding Brook Dear Sir, I have reviewed the plans and specifications for the above referenced project and approved them with a few notes on the plans to clarify approval. I would also like to bring the following to your attention. 1. The existing 12" main on Kennedy Drive must be extended to the western boundry of the project. 2. Prior to making any taps on the existing water mains the appropriate frontage charges must be paid at this office. 3. After the 8" loop has been constructed and has passed the required pressure, leakage and bacteriological tests then it shall be acceptable to the South Burlington Water Department to place the loop in service. One year from the date that the loop passes the required tests then it shall be eligible for acceptance by the City of South Burlington as a part of its distribution system and by such acceptance be responsible for the maintenance of it. However, it should be clearly understood that prior to acceptance into the distribution system full responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the 8" loop and its related appurtenances shall rest with the owner. 4. At least five (5) days prior to any construction of this work I request a preconstruction conference with you and the contractor's representative in attendance. If you have any questions concerning any of the above please call me and I will be glad to discuss them with you. Sincerely, SOUTH BURLINGTON WATER DEPARTMENT Robert L. Gardner Superintendent cc: D. Spitz"" W. Szymanski E. Blake I MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 11/6/81 2) BDP Office Complex This 20 + acre property is located just north of Nordic Ford and currently contains one office building. Five new office buildings are proposed. Layout consists of one lot with buildings served by internal private streets. This commercial complex should be reviewed as a PCD, and traffic data will have to be submitted. In addition to the one existing curb cut on Shelburne Road (shared with Nordic Ford), there will be one additional curb cut. It will be located directly across from Holmes Road and will begin "Holmes Road Extension", a major future street connection that runs along the entire western boundary of the property. An 80 foot r-o-w must be provided on this boundary along with a 60 foot connection to Green Mountain Drive. 3) Rebecca Square The number and layout of lots is very similar to the sketch plan proposal. Various utility lines, including drainage systems, are shown; detailed information must he provided for final plat review. There are still 2 lc,ts with accc�:;f;(Ai to WiIIi ton 14)10. Ono ha,; an exi:;ting dw(,11 inq 1-.cnd will he expanded by the n,irrow strip betw en it and National C.:c:;h IZcclister. The second is a new 40,900 square foot lot and is described on the application as being for "proposed commercial use." I would strongly re- commend that all references to commercial use be removed from this application. These two lots should share the one existing curb cut. Also, if the other existing house in the rear wishes to retain its current access onto Williston Road, I do not see why this should be a problem even though there will now be new access behind the house onto the cul-de-sac. 4) Ryan, Winding Brook Proposed number of units has been reduced to 72 and layout has been modified according to the fire chief's recommendations. The through road has been improved by addition of several gentle curves and by relocation of all but a few parking spaces. Church of God driveway will be relocated so that only one culvert across the drainageway will be needed. The existing culvert will be removed. The applicant should obtain written agreement from the Church or should demon- strate that there are no legal restrictions against relocation of the right- of-way. The sidewalk will be constructed along Hinesburg Road from Kennedy Drive to the new entrance. Total length is more than Ryan's Hinesburg Road front- age and is a sufficient requirement. Merir)randun Next Weeks agenda items 11/6/81 Page 2 The City Council must still approve construction of the private road across City property. Legal documents have not been submitted. Final approval should not be granted until satisfactory progress has been made towards the completion of the legal package. Recreation fee will be $5800. Landscaping bond requirement will be $28,000. Sewer allocation for these 72 units is 18,000 GPD. The one major issue that has not yet been discussed is the applicant's responsibility for off -site road improvements. The applicant has submitted a report which states correctly that the inpact of traffic from this project alone will not cause the level of service of the Ilinesburg/Kennedy inter- section to deteriorate. However, City projections indicate that level of service soon will deteriorate due to a number of potential developments. We have been attempting to develop a policy that will require all relevant developers to pay a portion of the projected cost of improvement, and a first attempt at that policy is described on the enclosed memo. 5) Bartlett Property This 70 acre property has some beautiful overlooks over Lake Champlain and some secluded meadows surrounded by treed ravines. It is well worth a site visit. Approximately half of the property is zoned for commercial development and half for residential. The major questions at the outset of this project all concern access. Commercial access should be from Shelburne Road, but the entire property frontage lies within the proposed intersection with the South Burlington Connector. This matter must be resolved with input from the State. The main commercial road should connect to the residential section. Other residential access was previously planned through Meadowood at Spear. The Court hearing on the status of the Meadowood at Spear streets currently is expected to take place in December or January. Also, a right-of-way should be provided to the adjacent Irish property to the east for future connection to Allen Road. MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 11/6/81 3) Rebecca Square 1. Effects on the existing storm drain system resulting from the develop- ment of this parcel of land must be studied. This includes the Pine Tree Terrace system and the Williston Road system to which a portion of the drainage is be- ing diverted. 2) A 4 inch storm drain connection shall be provided to each lot to accommodate building drains and/or sump pumps. 3) Sanitary sewer manholes shall be constructed within paved areas for quick emergency access. 4) The curb opening on Victory Drive shall be closed. Drain inlet at opening may have to be relocated. 5) Sanitary sewer shall be bedded in crushed stone. ,�-"4) Winding Brook (Ryan Property).* 1) Parking area adjacent to road near cluster #8 should be lengthened so that parked cars do not obstruct sidewalk. 2) Sidewalk adjacent to main road shall be continuous across driveways and also along Hinesburg Road. 3) Concrete curb along main drive shall be continuous and depressed across driveways. 4) At approach'to Hinesburg Road, there shall he sufficient flat tangent road grade to accommodate at least two vehicles. 5) Permit from State Highway Department will be required for access to Hinesburg Road and sidewalk construction along Hinesburg Road. 6) Sanitary sewer shall be constructed on a 3/8 crushed stone base. 7) Sewage pumping station valve pit shall have provisions for draining. 8) Sewage pumping station shall be provided with hoist. 9) Sewage pumping station valve pit connection for emergency pump shall have a valve. This is noted but not illustrated. 10) Project engineer and City shall review and approve shop drawings for pumping station prior to purchase of equipment. 11) Water department to review and approve plans for water service. Water main on Kennedy Drive must be extended across entire frontage. PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 22, 19t,,l The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, September 22, 1961 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Sidney Poger, Chairman; Robert Walsh, Kirk Woolery, James Ewing, Peter Jacob, Ernest Levesque, George Mona Members Absent none Others Present David Spitz, Planner; James Goddette, Fire Chief; Robert Krebs, J.McNamara, L. Palmer, Edwin & Kay Gadecki, Olga & Jane Morton, Thelma & Elliot Lahoue, Omer Chastenay, M. Kallihan, Henrietta Bourgeult, Alice Wheel, Larry & B. Gerlack, E. Watson, Jacqueline & James Thibault, Carol Sanders, Hal & Diane Kemp, Sue Sanders, Linda Elrick, Gregory Sinclair, Ann Cowan, Frank Pavlik, Robert Wilson, Ricardia Wilson, Jane Austin, Ruth Gilbert, Earl Marshall, Tom Gabbeitt, Guy LaFramboise, Gerald Marquis, George Hart, Mrs. J.M. Greenman III, Joseph Jabour, William Black, Edwin Sanborn, Elizabeth Rathbone, Bernadette & Robert Goodrich, Keith Peden, Doug Schner, Jon Eggleston, David Bogue, Pat Burgmeier, The Other Paper; Sarah Posey, Robert Leuang, Charles Shea, Richard Posey, Jr., Carl Lisman, Robert Ryan, Robert Furlong, David Kaufman, Stan Wilbur, John Larkin, Reg Ploof Minutes of September 15, 1981 The September 15, 1981 minutes were approved on a motion by Mr. Levesque, a second by Mr. Ewing and a unanimous vote. Sketch plan application of Robert & Darla Leuang for a 2 lot residential subdivision at 76 :shunpike Road Mr. Spitz said the 'Zoning Board had granted a frontage variance which would allow the proposed lot to be set off. 'The lots will have frontages of 70' and 75', and there are lots in the area with 70' frontages. The lots will meet the area requirements. Mr. Leuang said he planned to sell the lot he was creating. Mr. Poger saw no problems, nor did any other member. Application Robert R an'et al for review, prior to final plat submission of revised building---i ons for a 72 unit Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive oLment Messrs. Woolery and Jacob came in at this point. Mr. Spitz said that the development received preliminary plat approval after the numuer of units was cut from about 84 to 72. Carports were added for every unit, but there was a lot of parking on the main road, which the Commission did not like. Mr. Krebs said they had turned buildings 6 and 7 9U°, so they were able to move a lot of the parking off the main road. He noted that on the north line, there were a few places that the garages were 15' from the property line, and they would like to have buildingt6IA5-20' from the line also. 2. PLANT1ING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 22, 1981 Mr. Krebs said he had put a small curve in the road. He did not know whether it was enough to slow traffic. Mr. Spitz said normally rear yards were 30' and side yards were 151, but in multi -family developments, they tried to have 30' for both. on the north of this development is city property which is treed. Next to this lard is a very narrow piece of land, which may be sold to the office building on Kennedy Drive for more parking. Mr. Spitz did not feel it was usable for residences. Mr. Poger noted that if a residential use did go on that land, it could, in effect, become part of this development. Mr. Krebs said the road had been widened to 301. Mr. Goddette asked whether buildings 6 and 7 had been changed since Ire last met with the developer, and, upon being told that they had not, said he could not give adequate fire protection for those buildings. They each have 8 units in them and his ladder is not long enough. It would be useless in a fire there. He was asked about gravel with grass on top of it, such as was approved recently and he replied that it is better to have the truck on the main road. It is one thing to drive a truck over grass like that and quite another to park there, and put the stabilizers down. Mr. Spitz did not fully agree with the fire chief. He did not think it was necessary to fight a fire from the main road and noted that some developments had been approved recently where that road would not be used. He noted that some developments had gravel roads connecting the parking areas, which gave the chief two ways to get in, and he felt that was desirable. Mr. Levesque agreed with Mr. Goddette. Mr. Goddette said he had only had a chance to look at buildings 6 & 7. He said he would have to look at adding gravel extensions to the rear of the parking lots. Mr. Krebs said he would talk to the chief again. Mr. Krebs brought up the question of the sidewalk. He said he and Mr. Ryan had talked to City ;+tanager Szymanski, and he seemed to agree that it would be a better expenditure of money to put the sidewalk on the east side of the road and run it from their driveway to Kennedy Drive. If it were across the road, it would go nowhere, and it would have to be built right into the bank on that side, which would make it impossible to plow in the winter. Mr. Poger noted that the Commission had wanted it on the rest because it is on that side now and because the senior citizens would be able to use it if it were on that side. The Commission hopes the city will put sidewalks in that area and others in the city. Messrs. Jacob and Ewing felt putting it on the east had merit. Mr. Levesque mentioned taking the linear footage and dividing it in half, with 112 on one side and the other 112 on the other side. Mr. Mona preferred to have the walk on the west, where it will meet the long-term objective of a sidewalk from Kennedy Drive all the way to Williston Road. Mr. Poger said he could not make a decision on this issue. Mr. Woolery agreed the walk on the east would probably be used, but he wondered whether, if the sidewalk was not started on the other side, the city would ever get a sidewalk there. Mr. Poger said he would prefer to have the sidewalk on the west if the whole system were to be built, and on the east if it would not be. He mentioned having the city manager come to a meeting to discuss it. He noted that if the walk were built on the east, it should extend to the Goodrich property and the Commission might ask for money in escrow for the walk on the other side of Goodrich. Mr. iirebs also noted that there was a question on traffic counts. He introduced David Bogue, of Traffic Engineering Associates, who are doing work for this development. Mr. Bogue said that the recent Mitel development 3. PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1981 had used traffic figures TEA did not agree with. Mitel used average daily traffic figures from the report done in 1979 by TEA for the city. Those counts were taken in February. Mr. Spitz said one option would be to apply an adjustment factor to the February counts, but he said he would also be willing to accept the counts Mitel used. Mr. Poger agreed that those counts were accepted 3 months ago and should probably be accepted now as the base numbers. A growth factor will be added to them. Sketch plan application by LTH Associates for 8 new single-family lots and 1 commercial lot on Williston Road, Victory Drive and Helen Avenue Mr. Krebs said that after the last meeting, where opposition to clustered housing was expressed, the developer met with the neighbors and now has a new plan. They will still use the same access point they proposed last time, but will now have a cul-de-sac. Lots 1-9 front on the new road and lot 6 has access to Williston Road now. Mr. Krebs felt that if the Commission allowed lot 10, the developer would be willing to have lot 6 have access on the new road. The developer wants a commercial use on lot 10, but that is a Zoning Board decision. The Commission unanimously agreed that it wanted access for lot 6 to be off the cul-de-sac. Mr. Krebs said the line between 5 and 6 and 10 would probably be moved so that a chunk of land were added to the land with the existing house. Mr. Poger asked about lot 10 sharing access with the lot with the two-story house. Mr. Thibault said the neighbors had objected to apartments or condominiums. They have been told that the use of lot 10 would probably be an office complex, but Mr. Poger said that could not be guaranteed. The Commission discussed having lot 10 exit out of the cul-de-sac also, and asked neighoors how they felt about a multi -family use on lot 10. Mr. Thibault felt that if traffic from that lot exited to Williston Road, there would probably be less objection. 1. Mr. Mona asked about drainage. Mr. Krebs said he, Mr. Szymanski and Dr. :flack had discussed it. A drain in the area goes under a garage and it does not seem to function. He said catch -basins might be put in and the drainage rerouted to Gilbert ::t. hr. keg Ploof asked about sidewalks. Mr. Poger said it would probably be on the opposite side of the street from him. Mr. Ploof asked about drainage going to Williston Road and Mr. Krebs said he would look into it. Ms. Gadecki noted that she lived across the road from Mr. Ploof and that she had seen cars come around the corner at Helen Avenue and Victory Drive and spin around in the winter. She was concerned for children in the area who walk in the road to go to school. Mr. Levesque felt the residents should go to the City Council and request sidewalks. A stop sign was also mentioned by a resident. It was suggested that the developer put a sidewalk on Helen Avenue going toward White St. instead of putting one around the cul-de-sac. Mr. Walsh arrived at this time. The city might finish the sidewalk the developer started in this area. Mr. Poger had no problem with the sketch plan but did not like the idea of a commercial lot in front. He said he would prefer a multi -family use on that lot which would use the current drive to access to Williston Rd. He was afraid that if a commercial use went in, other commercial uses along that side of the road would start to be put in. MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 9/18/81 2) Leuang Proposal is to divide an existing lot with a house into two residential lots. Lot size is sufficient for each lot, however, lot frontage is sub- standard. The Zoning Board recently granted a variance allowing 70 foot front- age on one lot and 75 foot frontage on the other. I see no problems with this application. 3) Ryan Property At preliminary plat approval, the Planning Commission required that the buildings be reoriented to remove parking spaces from the main road. Applicant has been able to move all but a few spaces away from the road and is now bring- ing in the new building arrangement for review prior to the final drawings. Several rear setbacks have been reduced to as low as 15 feet, but this appears necessary to acco modate the new layout. I will be discussing fire access questions with the fire chief prior to Tuesday's meeting. 4) LTH Associates New proposal is for a cul-de-sac road with access to Helen Avenue. All but one of the 9 residential lots will have at least 10,000 square feet. Proposed frontages are as low as 75 feet. One lot is proposed with access onto Williston Road. The applicant has in- dicated his desire for commercial use on that lot, but that issue must be decided by the Zoning Board. The Planning Commission must determine whether access to Williston Road will be permitted. LTH also owns the other previously subdivided Victory lot with frontage on Williston Road. Shared access can be arranged. Also, the narrow strip on the other side of this lot should be consolidated at this time. 5) Corporate Circle This memo will not be available until Monday. DHS 8/10/81 MOTION OF APPROVAL For the Preliminary Plat Application by Robert Ryan et al for a 72 unit multi -family development on Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive as depicted on a plan entitled "Site Plan, Winding Brook", prepared by Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, last revised August 4, 1981. Stipulations: 1) Requirements for drainage improvements in the vicinity of the existing Church of God driveway shall be reviewed during the final plat stage. If necessary, the existing driveway shall be relocated. 2) A sidewalk, approximately 600 feet in length, shall be constructed along the west side of Hinesburg Road in front of this proposed development. 3) All internal walkways shall be shown. They shall be sufficiently separated from parking spaces so that no bumpers shall overhang onto the walkways. 4) The water line shall complete the Kennedy Drive loop. 5) Traffic impacts, including adequacy of the Hinesburg Road access point and the Hinesburg Road/Kennedy Drive intersection, shall be reviewed at the final plat stage. 6) The eastern access over City property shall be submitted to the City Council for right-of-way approval. 7) Landscaping information for final plat shall include the area around the retention pond. 8) Legal documents shall be submitted along with the final plat application. 9) Setbacks for the two 16-unit garages shall be increased. The access drive for the 28-unit garages shall be looped completely around the building. 5. PLANIVING CJMMIS , ION JULY 21, 1981 agreed with them - pave it and no phasing. I71r. Levesque felt it should be paved now. As far as the access to Jpear Street, Mr. Jacob did not object to Mr. ?Iilot's plan and :fir. jioolery agreed. Mr. Poger did not want it in. :•:r. :•:ilot said that when it was built, it would be deeded to the city and they could take it out anytime. There will be a bond for the work. The street will be to city standards. Mr. Mona asked for a draft from the developer of his short-term phasing plans or intentions. Mr. Levesque suggested putting cedar trees across the road section to Pheasant ;lay and Mr. :"Blot said that was not a problem. Mr. Woolery moved to continue the final Plat application of Ray Pecor on ;pear Street, until three weeks from tonight at City Hall at 7.30 pm. I-ir. °.Iona seccnded the motion and all voted aye. Continue warned public hearing on preliminary plat application of Robert '_van et al for an 84 unit subdivision, entitled Winding Brook, on '•iinesburi Mr. Spitz said that drainage did not seem to be as serious a problem as had been thought at the last meeting. The culvert under Hinesburg Road is in bad shape, but it will not affect whether or not these units can be built. Mr. Krebs did not know specifically where the Church of God drive would be located. He said building 8 had been reoriented at the fire chief's request and 4 units had been dropped from the project. The units are 17-18' higher than the brook elevation. M.r. Spitz said the sidewalk should be on the west side of the road and that the developer should put it in along the Goodrich frontage also. A reimbursement provision can be rut in. Mr. Poger felt it should be. 11r. Woolery wanted some boat and trailer storage on the lot. Xr. Krebs showed where the pedestrian trail was now. It will have to be relocated and Er. J'pitz said it should go onto the city land in the area. The applicant can work with the Natural Resources Committee on it. Density was discussed. Ifr. Poger was not comfortable with this density. I•ir. Krebs snid the distance between buildings was no less or greater than others in the area. ".r. Woolery asked about garage space. There are 44 covered parking s;>aces and 131 uncovered. 1r. 'Woolery believed that all recently approved projects had one covered space per unit, with storaE,e behind the cars. He felt this project should have that also, plus one uncovered space per unit. :Ir. Krebs said there would be a storage building for the residents. Mr. Mona agreed with Xr. Woolery, but said his desire for reduced density was not contingent on a covered parking space for everyone. Ar. Walsh liked the density as it was and he liked the planned storage sheds. Kr. Levesque lik-Od the density as it was. Mr. Jacob said the density bothered him a little and he felt there would be problems with snow storage. He said that with storage sheds for the units, he would not object to the density. 'r. Poorer noted that 3 members wanted less den,3ity and 3 felt it was fine. The Commission would rather have 1 covered space per unit, he said, and they like the idea of a storage area: Mr. Krebs asked how many units the Commission would like to see. Mr. Iona mentioned 70 and ','r. Yoe,er felt that was reasonable. Ir. Woolery moved to continue the public hearing on the preliminary plat aitr,lication of _F.obert Ryan for three weeks from toni• ht at City Hall at 7:30 pm. Mr. Jacob seconded and all were in favor. MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 7/17/81 3) Stonehedge Phase II 1. Unobstructed access shall be maintained to sewer manholes that are located off paved areas for emergency access. 2. Sewer easements shall include an easement to Stonehedge Drive to the manhole north -east -of the pool for possible future extension easterly. n Devel 5) Rao ent' Hinesbur Road 1. I have reviewed the site drainage plans with engineer Bob Krebs and they are acceptable. I am also satisfied that if the structure under Hinesburg Road fails the proposed buildings are at an elevation that they will not get flooded. v g) Single-family setbacks and building envelopes must still be reviewed. h) A number of construction details, as per the City Manager's 7/9/81 memo, must be incorporated into the plans. i) The City Council and Recreation Director should be providing input on the desirability of the scenic overlook prior to Tuesday's meeting. j) Pedestrian trail connections to this development should be provided. k) Final survey data must be completed. Following this, final legal documents must be submitted and approved (see letter from City Attorney). 1) Even if Street "G" remains on the final plans, I still recommend that it and the connecting street to Pheasant Way be bonded for rather than built until a specified phase or time period has elapsed. In connection with this, I have enclosed a sketch showing why a "permanent street G" might not produce the best layout. Also, I have been advised that an abutting property owner may be submitting an alternate evaluation of drainage conditions and other items. 5) Ryan, Winding Brook It now appears that the major drainage questions for this application can be resolved (see City Manager's memo). The Planning Commission must still make its own decision on appropriate density for the site. The sidewalk location should be on the west side of Hinesburg Read, across from the Ryan property. The City Administration has mixed opinions on whether the sidewalk should be the applicant's responsibility. I do feel that section 401.1(10) of the subdivision regulations authorizes the Commission to request the sidewalk installation across the street if it so desires. t MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: David H. $pitz, City Planner Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 8/6/81 2) Pecor (Nowland property) Since last meeting the following items have been resolved: a) The water department has approved the water system. b) Multi -family buildings have been reoriented to reduce the distance for fire access. c) Applicant has agreed to bond for the full landscaping amount. d) Building envelopes have been agreed upon. e) The City Council has indicated its willingness to accept and maintain the scenic overlook. f) Pedestrian trail connections will be provided. g) A letter of intent has been submitted (enclosed) explaining the applicant's schedule for bonding and construction of all streets. The following items have not yet been completed: a) Drainage improvements to protect existing Meadowood at Spear properties have not been presented to the City for review. b) Information on downstream drainage impacts has not yet been submitted. Preliminary indications are that retention ponds will keep peak flow at no more than 110'b of existing flow. If this can be verified, the applicant's impact on downstream City drainage facilities will be minimal. c) Final survey data and legal documents have not yet been received. 3 yan� Winding Brook The applicant has agreed to reduce the number of units from 84 to 72. I feel this reduction is quite sufficient to satisfy the Commission's density concerns. The applicant also now is proposing 72 garage spaces and 100 open parking spaces. My only ccuments now are as follows: a) Rear setbacks for several parking garages are insufficient. b) Tne access to the 28 stall garage should probably go completely ar(wnu the building. Also, this nLxi-�xr of stall: in one building may not be an aesthetically pleasing arrangement. Memorandum Next week's agenda items 8/6/81 Page 2 c) The main access road should still be less straight. d) Arrangements must still be made to relocate the Church of God driveway. 4) Dr. Brown A. Streets and Sidewalks The main access on to Williston Read now meets all City design standards. The State is currently reviewing the acceptability of this location plus required bypass and deceleration lanes, and I hope to have their response by Tuesday's meeting. Local accident reports indicate 24 accidents involving property damage and 12 accidents involving injuries (including 1 fatal accident) along this section of Williston Road from January 1972 to June 1981. The Police Department feels that this is not an excessive number of accidents; however, the percentage of accidents with injuries is fairly high and the speed limit would probably have to be lowered. The corner lot plus Dr. Brown's existing buildings will share a common entrance at a separate point on Williston Road. Sufficient details on the design of this entrance must still be submitted. It appears that either a telephone pole must be removed or a large tree taken down. Also, the removal of the second access to Dr. Brown's parking area should be shown on the final plan. Even though a future right of way is being reserved, the cul-de-sac should be designed and constructed for permanent use since the actual extension of the road may not take place. The cul-de-sac location could allow subdivision of lot 4 into 1 or, less likely, 2 more lots. As in recent approvals on this section of Williston Road, a 6 foot wide offer for future road widening and a sidewalk must be provided. Certain drainage im- provements will be necessary along with construction of the sidewalk. B. Drainage. See City Manager William Szymanski's memo for comments on other drainage improvements. C. Water and Fire Reviews. These reviews have not been completed. Apparently there is a question about sufficiency of water pressure for fire flows. D. Other. Legal documents have not yet been submitted. Due to the lateness of several submissions, particularly legal and water data, it will be difficult to complete administrative review by Tuesday's meeting. A continuation probably will be necessary. MEMORANDUM South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 7/9/81 2) Ashbrook Park, Ying Liu 1. It appears entire drive and parking area will drain toward Dorset Street. This is a considerable diversion from the existing condition. Drainage toward Dorset shall be at a minimum and what does drain shall be intercepted with catch basins located along the curb. Drainage shall also be diverted from the existing dwelling. An internal collection system shall be designed. 2. Where sidewalk abuts curbs at parking areas there should be a grassed separation of at least two feet. 3) Ryan„ Winding Brook 1. The drainageway under Hinesburg Road has been a problem on two recent occasions. It is only large boulders and ledge with slabs of stone placed on top to form a bridge. Culverts were added on each side to extend the road width during sewer construction. The last failure did not impede the stream flow but did require Hinesburg Road to be clos&J for several days. A future failure could result in blockage inundating the area to the elevation of Hinesburg Road. Because of the ledge and large boulders in the area, quick release for the area would be difficult with city owned equipment. This is a state problem and the local engineer"has no knoviledge of the timing to correct this problem. 2. Potash Brook should be located so that set backs and flood plain can be verified. 3. The location of sidewalks is not shown on plans. Sidewalks should be separated frcm parking area by a curb and grassed area. 4. Parking areas should include curbs to protect landscaping areas and control drainage toward inlets. This is shown on the illustration but the typical section does not. 5. Sewer lines shall be bedded entirely in 3/8 crushed stone. 6. Sewage pumping station to be reviewed in detail during final plan review. 7. Water Department to review water main layout; however, water main on Kennedy Drive must be extended over the entire frontage. Consideration should bL given to completing the loop on Kennedy Drive. Without this completed loop I question the availability of water for fire protection especially to unit 8 which is served by a long 8" pipe. 8. Hinesburg Road is a narrow two lane road. I would reconriend a passing lane for southbound traffic and larger (25' minimum) entrance road radii to aceomodate right turns. §�uut4 Nurlingtnn ifire Department E 575 13arset *treet *nut4 Nurlingtvn, Vermont 85401 OFFICE OF JAMES W. GODDETTE, SR. CHIEF 863-6455 June 30,1981 Mr. Sidney Poger Chairman South burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Poger, On Monday June 29,1981 Plans were reviewed by this office on the Winding Brook Development off Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road dated December 1980. The following must be corrected if we are to give proper fire protection; A. Building #8 must be relocated so fire equipment can beset up in o location to use, and beable to protect all the building and not just part of it. Under State code ( section 11 ) fire lanes must be provided so the whole building can be protected. B. Building #7 & #8 have too many units. The code reads anything over 12 units an alarm system must be installed and tied into the fire department or a 2 hour fire wall must be built any thing over the 12 units. C. A final approved site plan to be posted with the fire department. If you have any questions please feel free to call me. Sincerely W A-c/ ames W. Goddette Sr. Chief pAj `�h at A / " 31 A n /I _-.4 `4( srcPclb,47(Oi4=5--- �ti w V, ��A arr d -OK 14 6"4r at - u,"'U / 7 F- L. YA Al W2e So✓ a,Wa— I I q ?-Q F & -- 0- e-1150 x 5y, 401�w A 12,30'%7 (q r23 ---"'2-- 2Y � .7 % x -0510 LOO 0 z- 133,50 ITFA 7 I 6 to h io � I No Text ��50� � bt (c4 �_VfbO_�_ li�_._-S�Y�Sec� W 1Clni �� 7 St. Johnsbury St. Johnsbury Tennis Courts 144 L St. Johnsbury Mini Park Development 241 L 8,631.00 72 22087. ;3 76 10,724.53 Saxtons River Saxtons River Nature Area 206 L 524.36 75 Shaftsbury Shaftsbury Acquisition and Development 325-I I 118,595.01 80 Shaftsbury Recreation Area Development 328-U L 26,506.0: 81 � Shaftsbury State Park Development 236 S 25,3 76 Shaftsbury Dam and Outlet Structure 344 S — 55,000..00 81 459,638.34 Shelburne Shelburne Recreation Area Acquisition 218 L i 75 Shelburne Farms Acquisition Shelburne Recreation Area Development 328-H L 56,195.95 230,239.84 30,239.84 1. 81. 333,411.79 Sherburne Sherburne Recreation Area 184 Sherburne Recreation Area Additions 237 L 62,500.00 74 L 56,160.23 76 Killington State Ski Shelter 16 S 80,343.68 66 South Burlington South 199,003.91 Burlington Red Rocks Acquisition 95 L 207,440.00 71 � Red Rocks Development 119 L 106,635.06 72 South Burlington Jaycee Park Dev. Garvey Parkway 134 L 10,124.07 72 South Burlington Tennis Courts 160 161 L 25,000.00 74 Dunmont Property 210 L 8,500.00 74 DeGraf Acquisition 248 L 29,148.60 75 South Burlington Jaycee Park Lighting 271 L L 31,614.00 12,413.43 76 78 Nowland/Stonehedge Potter Property Development 325-T L 137,032.62 80 Potter Continuation 328-L L 21,883.20 81 347-G L 12,028.15 82 601,819.13 Springfield Springfield Commons Park Development 239 L 1.8,812 63 7(, Freedom Park Springfield Riverside Park 251 L 57,480.00 77 Springfield Westview Park Development 286 309 L L 68,792.54 78 Riverside Park Ballfield 328-K 15,616.74 79 L 69,312.30 81 230,014.21 Stamford Stamford Multi -Purpose Court Area 190 L 7,230.00 74 Stannard Orcutt Park Development 296 L c 6,747.)8 78 Stowe Stowe Recreation Area Development 117 L 1,4 7_ , Stowe Rink Facility and Development 250 L .30 185 Skating Rink Improvements 325-M L ,.6 44,93535.6 0 80 Mt. Mansfield State Ski Shelter 19 S 82,863.20 66 Mt. Mansfield Ski Area Stoware Acquisition 51 S 29 ,048. (14 6 8 Gold Brook Acquisition 216 258 S 11.6,594.4(� 7`� Lyons Property Acquisition 325-X S S 5.1,000.00 97,6. 7,. u� . Etna-rr.AN r F, < tos.0 To S kre+ I k K4 t b w1.S iz p VIA 114"t 4n f I 20 h�i 5,c.acl�s a� I Z 7� J � � S c11 f— f J 5 � f J,Q,��,7 ./jam[! 1. �►� � � � I � � , $nn ;Vonhme Rim El. 292.87 Inv. EI, 2SC.E2 T B, M. ,wtneost c,clt tap flange =ter. 299.1- 9 Dumon Goodrich, ti (�t�12(`� 3 Off FLEE f XI -014 PAvf-//Ih r-►T cif PAVF-1AE&JrArJl) K'f5T61?P- Ttm 09I6-AnLIL LON D tTYA - NOVn,-Er r AvS/AF-►J 7" oYF-KlAY AO Kf a UW6A 8Y CITi Or toau to&L" 6 (m 300 _. I,® I�/inci�n9 fro by pgss �nE t-Ipny�r�� "QJt - ?n%1. �'o rI-rZ: t- i Foe Son Rem g c v /nTE - (\ A, r\I GU L4gZ -1 Off 66n OTI a 11rB e /y Tire Corp. ll�- GIN 412I.N-7-1 unLVE pve�� *rq _ ��nT� � n "1LnI►�r-r�I�I F�CI.�T. �\�.�JTE� T LO17SAMCAlu 000, 1000-101 SEE C'"Era�.� eIw1 F I I + \ INv, cv c� Inc �o TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Division of Traffcon Systems, Inc. I �_' BANK STREET BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401 1 11 F PHON F 801 864 -74n } REVIEW OF TRAFFIC OPERATIONS AT PROPOSED WINDING BROOK CONDOMINIUM PROJECT SOUTH BURLINGTON. VERMONT Prepared for: Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers Shelburne Road Shelburne, Vermont October 20, 1981 TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PROCEDURE AND RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 TABLE I ......................... 5 I. SCOPE OF STUDY The purpose of this study is to assess the relative traffic impact of the proposed Winding Brook residential project on adjacent roadways in South Burlington, Vermont. The relative impact is shown by comparing the operating Level of Service with and without the proposed project at the following intersections: 1. Hinesburg Road and proposed Winding Brook Access. 2. Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road. 3. Kennedy Drive and proposed Winding Brook Access. In addition to the Level of Service analysis, a review of the safe siaht distance for exiting vehicles was conducted. This review assures that most motorists will have the opportunity to exit the proposed project with a minimum of hazard and disruption of traffic flow. II. PROCEDURE AND RESULTS The basic procedure used in this study involved the following: 1. Estimating the base year (1986) traffic volumes on adjacent roadways (Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road). 2. Computing the volume of traffic that will most likely be generated by Winding Brook. 3. Distributing the traffic over adjacent roadways. 4. Assigning traffic to appropriate turning movement volumes. 5. Computing intersection Level of Service with and without the proposed project during the A.M. and P.M. Peak hours. 6. Conducting a field inspection of the available safe sight distance for exiting vehicles. - 1 - The base year (1986) traffic values on adjacent roadways including traffic from approved developments (as shown in reports to the South Burlington Planninq Commission) was taken from the traffic impact report prepared for Mitel Corporation by Tudell Associates and dated April 21,1981. These volumes are supposed to represent 1986 traffic under normal growth plus the traffic estimated to be generated by the proposed Mitel Corporation. The volume of traffic that may be generated by Winding Brook was computed using A.M. and P.M. trip generation rates for condominiums. The trip generation rates used were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers publication, "Trip Generation". During the A.M. peak hour of the adjacent roadways, approximately vehicles may exit the project and I fr vehicles may enter. During the P.M. peak hour, approximately X vehicles may exit and -15-may enter the project site. The A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes were distributed between the competing access points and the competing travel directions on adjacent roadways assuminq an equal chance of selecting either access point and an equal chance of turning right or left into or out of each access point. Using the trip distribution information, development traffic was assigned to the appropriate turning movements at each study intersection. The turning movement volumes at each intersection are shown in Figure 1, both with and without the proposed development. Using the critical movement analysis technique for operations and design, the Level of Service at each of the study intersections was com- puted for the A.M. and P.M. traffic volume conditions with and without the proposed development. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 1. 1 -2- An important safety consideration in the location of an access point is the amount of sight distance available to exiting motorists. The Institute of Transportation Engineers in their recommended guidelines for design and location of driveways, suggest that enough sight distance should be available to exiting motorist such that if the exiting motorist cannot see another vehicle approaching on the roadway and the motorist enters the adjacent roadway and accelerates to its operating speed, the vehicle that was out of sight should not have to reduce its operating speed by more than 20 miles per hour. Therefore, if sufficient sight distance is available, motorists can exit the proposed access points with minimum hazard and disruption of traffic flow. For this reason a field inspection of the available sight distance for exiting vehicles at each proposed access locations was conducted. The safe sight distance investigation showed there is sufficient sight distance along both Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road. Our in- vestigation of the 85 percentile of vehicle speeds on Hinesburg Road showed that 85% of the northbound vehicles travel at 34 miles per hour or less and 85% of the southbound vehicles travel at 40 miles per hour or less. The safe sight distance needed for these speeds are 425 feet south and 440 feet north along Hinesburg Road. The sight distance avail- able for exiting vehicles is greater than 600 feet in either direction. The sight distance available to exiting motorists at the proposed Kennedy Drive access is greater than 1100 feet in both directions. This amount of sight distance is sufficient for approach speeds on Kennedy Drive of 60 plus, miles per hour. - 3 - I III SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The intersections and traffic movements included in this study will all operate at Level of Service C or better. Analysis of the operating characteristics of the Kennedy Drive - Hinesburg Road inter- section demonstrated that this intersection will operate at Level of Service B with or without the proposed project during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Movements into and out of the proposed access roads will operate at Level of Service C or better during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hour. Therefore, based on our review of traffic operations at the intersections of Kennedy Drive - Hinesburg Road, Kennedy Drive - Winding Brook Access Road and Hinesburg Road - Winding Brook Access, } we conclude that the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on the quality of traffic flow. - 4 - E INTERSECTION Kennedy Drive - Hinesburg Road Hinesburg Road - Winding Brook Access Right & Left Turn From Winding Brook Left turn from Hinesburg Road Kennedy Drive - Winding Brook Access Right & Left Turn From Winding Brook Left Turn from Kennedy Drive TABLE 1 1986 LEVEL OF SERVICE WITHOUT PROJECT AM/PM WITH PROJECT AM/PM - 5 - A/B A/B - C/B A/A C/A C/A FIGURE I 1986 TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES WITH AND WITHOUT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT �iNESP�t7Lls 12G.I� 1-1,�, �(J� 3c�q �jGW � Nl�y 3 t3 Nlic"Id v to .LAC a 1�1 5t �n LI Ilb�� 40(v ,r,ay 2� �I z3s ^C�t v ��►�► ik�F,�,. 41 9 10( d FORM 204- 1 Available from 6Le_IIs11nc , Groton, Mass. 01450 ELI PM A l X N�+I I_ ZN Y i 4b �= ��. � /U'/ y33 ✓�avG 41`1 43 1 10 I 14 yb f 2, v Y, Yz 1135, y3b1 Y7/• two 0�1 /0 7/ �20 (W god< TO`� N 7, ?; o Oki 113y� �Y G YO JJ w17 3 y3(a, LO( /�J Kj g36V7/ r iJ �z S o 3 000 31,00 3zo,o /,�,jo z yoq (�qvJ 1 s ( � X rizeV-Lt�� K e Y) 3x45,v an hnd - 3rya E