Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BATCH - Supplemental - 0625 Hinesburg Road
City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 May 30, 1995 Mr. Ralph Goodrich P.O. Box 2123 South Burlington, Vermont Re: Zoning Appeal Dear Mr. Goodrich: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Be advised that the South Burlington Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, on Monday, June 12, 1995 at 7:00 P.M. to consider your application for a conditional use. Please plan to attend this meeting and be prepared to address the enclosed review criteria. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp Encl LAND8CAFNNO Doi1gn and Inata Rmtkm LANDSCAPE MANAGF-MENT Piant Hvafth Progr4mis Wwln9 and F>aAUtation UONSULTAIION V&1V* EnglnWnp Ineurant>a Appra4aia 670 Rod&evett Highway Colchester. VT 0646 TEL: (802) 883.6194 FAX: (802) 893-6196 FAX COVER SHEET COMPANY: Weimann-Lamph>al;e Architects ATTENTION: Dennis Webster FAX NUMBER: (802) 655-6567 SENT BY: Ja ARSORTECH, INC. COLCHESTM VT FAX NUMBER 602-893-6196 MRSSAGEs RE: ,,1=t125 HINESBURG RD Existing Trees EROSION CON` Hydros4, Slope Stabilii ECOLOGICAL SERV Wetland M4,� Wildlife Enhar,,ca DATE: June 2, 1995 1 30" White Pine - 5 6" @ $400.00 $2,000.00 1 24" White Pine 4 6" r;+?' $400.00 $1,600.00 5 18" White Pine = 15 6" 6 $400.00 $6,000.00 12 6" White Pine +` 12 6" @ $400.00 $4,800.00 1 18" Oak 3 6" @ $4002-00 $1,200.00 4 18" Hemlock = 12 fa" @ $400.00 $4,800,00 30 20' White Cedar = 60 10' $ $100.00 $6,000.00 1 24" Maple = 4 6" @ $400.00 $1,600.00 2 18" Maple = 6 6" @ $800.00 $4,800.00 2 10" Maple = 3 61 @ $400.00 $1#4Q0.00 1000.00 Thank Youi Number of pages, including cover sheet:: Please Contact us if you don't receive all pagest a SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoninngg Board of Adjustment W hold a public head at the South Burlington Mu- niclpal Offices, Confer- ence Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, June 12, 19% at 7:00 P.M. to consider the fol- [owing: #1 Appeal of Ralph Goodrich seeking appro- val from Section 10.20 conditional uses, subsec- tion 10.204 Business and medical offices of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to con - Continued Next Column struct a three (3) story, general office building, containing 24,000 square feet on a lot containingg 1.4 acres, located at 625 Hinesburg Road. #2 Appeal of Ken Smith seeking approval from Section 26.65 Multiple uses and structures of the South Burlington Regula- tions. Request is permis- sion to construct a 25,000 square foot multiple use building tenants to in- clude light manufacturing, warehousing, storage and distribution facilities, gen- eral contractors, equip- ment service & repairs, on a lot containing 2.5 acres. Continued Next Column located on lots 25 - 26 at the Ethan Allen Farms In- dustrial Park. Plans are on file with the South Burlington Planning and Zoning Office, lo- cated at City Hall, 575 Dorset Street, South Bur- lington, Vermont. Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Of- ficer May 27, 1995 City of South Burlington Application to Board of Adjustment Official Use APPLICATION # Date 5/15/95 Applicant Wiemann-Lamphere Arch., INC. Owner, leasee, agent HEARING DATE FILING DATE FEE AMOUNO SC)y/�✓d Address 30 So. Pk. Dr. Telephone # o c ester, VT 05446 A09 6555090 Landowner Ann & Ralph Goodrich Address Spear St., So. Burl. Location and description of property 625 Hinesburg Road SW corner lot at intersection of Hinesburg Rd. & Kennedy Dr. Type of application check one ( ) appeal from decision of Administrative Officer( xx)request for a conditional use ( ) request for a variance. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month (second and fourth Mondays). That a legal advertisement must appeal a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Provisions of zoning ordinance in question General office use in R-7 zone Reason for appeal The owner or applicant should submit along with this application (8 copies) plans, elevations, landscaping diagrams (drawn to scale) traffic data and any other additional information which' ill serve s_support evidence to the Board. games A. amph Pre Wiemann-Lamphere Arch.' _ S H arin Date Signat e Appellant Do n write bel this line SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on "' " ,-1t141 Day of We k t at 7/0 ® to consider the following: Month and Date Time Appeal of seeking a from Section of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to ����,.c-�°' Q. �,��1�/zu.�C.3J �� �- � �i-►-�..�.+ ne...� A.e.�► 710, LEGAL NOTICES 1 SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Reggulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Mu- nicipal Offices, Confer- ence Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, May 24, 1993 at 7:00 P.M. to consider the following: #1. Appeal of David Flagg seeking approval from Section 13.20 Conditional uses and Section 19.65 Multiple uses of the South Burlington Zoning Regula- tions. Request is for per- mission to construct a 36'x128' building occupy- ing said building for auto- mobile sales and repairs. Also requiring a variance from Section 19.104 land- scaping requirements, reuest to use thirty-nine (39) percent of the front yard for parking and cir- culation, on a lot con- taining 2.29 acres, lot #4 Gregory Drive. #2. Appeal of Charles and Donna Poulin seeking a variance from Section 18.00 Dimensional re- quirements of the South Burlington Zoning Regula- tions. Request is for per- mission to construct a 6'x16' addition and en- close an existing 5'x9' porch located to within eleven (11) feet of the required front yard, lo- cated at 126 Hinesburg Road. #3. Appeal of John Ken- nedy seeking approval from Section 19.65 Mul- tiple uses of the South Burlington Zoning Regula- tions. Request is for per- mission to operate a tanning salon in conjunc- tion with two existing re- tail uses, d.b.a. Dorset Street Beverage and Ice Cream Shoppe on a lot containing 15,500 square feet, located at 364 Dor- set Street. #4. Appeal of Mary Pro- vencher seeking a vari- ance from Section 18.00 Area, density and dimen- sional requirements of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to set-off a lot with 25. feet of front- age (minimum 80 feet re- quired) with a lot containing 1461 square feet (minimum 7500 square feet) with a build- ing coverage exceeding the maximum allowed by 19.4 % and the lot cover- age of 40 % , located at 443 Central Avenue, Q.C.P. #5. Appeal of Ralph Goodrich seeking appro- val from Section 10.20 Conditional uses subsec- tion 10.204 of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to construct a four (4) story, general office build- ing, containing approxi- mately 26,000 square feet which include a parking Continued Next Column LEGAL NOTICES 1 ggarage on a lot contp'-°ng 1 A acres; located � Hinesburg Road. Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer May 8, 1993 Cr�'rr nr vrn Ynu� r I rY. I re7l t a' 000, I a I City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 July 20, 1993 Fred Blais, Chairman Zoning Board of Adjustment 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Proposed Office Building, 625 Hinesburg Road Dear Fred: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 This letter attempts to explain the thought process which the Commission went through in interpreting the Traffic Overlay District and how it applies to the above referenced property. It is the Commission's determination that the above referenced property falls within Traffic Overlay Zone 1 which allows this property to generate a maximum of 23 vehicle trip ends during the P.M. peak hour. The Traffic Overlay Map indicates that all properties with access to Hinesburg Road within 300 feet of the Hinesburg Road/Kennedy Drive intersection are in Traffic Overlay Zone 1. Section 22.105(b) of the zoning regulations requires that the 300 foot dimensional approach described above be measured from "the near edge of intersecting pavement". Sketch A illustrates how the Commission determined the point which defines the near edge of intersecting pavement. This point was determined by extending the existing curb lines of both Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive in a straight line until they intersect. As is shown in Sketch A, the near edge of the proposed access is only 283 feet from the point of intersecting pavement. Since the proposed access is within 300 feet, the provisions of Traffic Overlay Zone 1 apply to the property. The near edge of the proposed access is the appropriate point at which to measure since the intent of the ordinance is to locate access points as far away as possible from major intersections in order to reduce potential conflict points caused by turning vehicles and through vehicles. Section 22.00 of the zoning regulations provides that in situations where uncertainty exists as to the boundaries of a particular district, the Planning Commission shall determine the location. As stated above, it is the Commission's determination that the property is within Traffic Overlay Zone 1. Since the location of Fred Blais July 20, 1993 Page 2 the access serving the property is the determining factor of which traffic overlay zone applies, the Commission recommends that the applicant try to obtain an easement from the property owner to the south so that the access to 625 Hinesburg Road can be placed at a point beyond 300 feet from the intersection (i.e., the near edge of intersecting pavement). I hope this letter is helpful to the Board. Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional information. Sincerely, Mary -Barbara Maher, Vice Chair South Burlington Planning Commission ,w i RE 11lE® IUty 11 1993 lltff Fl ITF�H�-ii r Z � Ity of Burling ' * c 'law iv� o , r 1A f I I I I I I r TX µ,ueaeVI NE S N SEGTt tj Ct wrt �jd Ff�ih } 2G 4,! - q & w-t 4ee411C�LE rr'.N falNr - i? ' cef I RZ" IWor ✓ Y,7- laj` �iz- 'e � e" �. r�aq. 7wV:•n se?uNwevl+{holsrz( P. Ba>.+tz• ww m - (6215, (�N, wlst.SeDoG iv t% ' use. 5wm uw w ;taw- rAo - 4 Qr� a 4 =w A•Vr. jtil NYL (ATi • �� eF Y,'Y�Z S./. p � m Wb - WIEA4WN - LAMPHERE �CH(fECfS, INC. J ?. �i '6P-'Xi4 ►�'�c W oM+�P- ws.rtsc.. vc*+wr �fOpLbfa ttAe m1'I�i . oub 4.� a 19.R o+N[ c !I NaoN+ols lo( rasc . !mx •�- Mtkc,p, L G ''r.Juu;ocP- top F J�NI PU6 QiW:.�J4( !Wr4 . yf.017 9 fi. N• •.z ! M'Ire aaR-(/s.gWl w�.c 1 oww�.c �o. ; I%kR/I`.' f�0 p14�M{ �1�; �•�"F p %fJ LZGIrZ4f.L5• fi dlb Dnww w' R• N+ � �vauf �ar !i,'tG es E ¢eD ryN>; p' o o eco®n Pj01•� (� Y� rRref. lhoaot..r-u.: q,IVL rae:�t � ..oxR I rmwur' rrro •lot vrwNR �su> I.v res xe n.rara �D2 AAxr� curs y:.ue ov Wc^b oEGIN �I BIKE ROUTE / W 1 ' fE� Mr. Richard Ward Zoning Administrator City Offices 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Mr. Ward, CHITTENDEN COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION P.O. Box 108, 66 Pearl Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05453 (802) 658-3004 August 30, 1993 I have reviewed the traffic impact analysis and offer the following comments by section: 1. Existing Conditions: appears to represent an adequate description of the area and roadway system. 2. Trip Generation and Design Hourly Volume: appear accurate and represent accepted practice. 3. Traffic Overlay District: As we discussed, this section may be in error since the district is defined as extending from the "near edge of the intersecting pavement" --not the center line. Depending on the customary interpretation of the relevant location of the access drive (i.e., whether all of it, the center line, or any portion of it constitutes inclusion in the district) the allowable trip generation may be dramatically affected. 4. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment: Although the entering/leaving distribution agrees with the data, I can find no basis for the subsequent directional assignment (83% nb, 17% sb). That said, any changes in this distribution are likely to reduce the impact on the Hinesburg Rd/Kennedy Dr intersection. 5. Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes: Appear correctly done given the comments above. 6. Capacity Analyses: Appear correctly evaluated. ... Composed of ... Burlington Colchester Essex Essex Junction Milton Shelburne Vermont Agency of Transportation So. Burlington Williston Winooski s printed on recycled paper 7. Conclusions: Although the conclusion that this project will generate a relatively small effect on the key intersection is essentially correct, it is not negligible given a los of "E" in the design year. An exploration of mitigation would be appropriate here including, at least, alternative signal phasing. I hope these comments have been helpful. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very tr ly yours, Michael F. Oman Transportation Director � I General Office, Buildin ' 3009000 SF GFA (710 Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: 208 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 203 Directional Distribution: - 17% entering, 83% exiting Trin Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate - Range of Rates Standard Deviation See Table 4 N/A N/A Data Plot and Eauation 700 600 500 C W a i- m 400 U L � 300 Q u 200 i 100 (Subset of Data Plotted on Page 955) x. ----•---•- ............ ............ ........................... ............ x .x X ........... X......- ............. ........ x X X x x X X x X ...........:...X------•.---•--._.._..:._._x....... :............... x. X.x... X xx X x x X x XX X• X X • X .......... x...................... X Xx . •X X X XX ; X x ........X.... �_Sx X....... X.X.'.X.................. XX X X X x XX :X X X x XX X. x X ._...Xxx . ..?CX---X..._.X._.._......•.............•_............ .._.......... x x 0 O 50`: 100 150 200 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.737 Ln(X) + 1.831 LDu ------ Average Rate R2 = 0.78 300 Trip Generation, January 1991 Fy. I Institute of Transportation Engineers 1<eN&ez) Y -4 4 WAY TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARY CHART TURN NR: _ Q� Ll oto fd TOWN: - Q• eCtYI. _PM peak kou r 76 66 257 ---► 4 140 REMARKS: N r. "awE. �� MCS6K1'9 Rd. Al b z s 4 WAY TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMAR` 'ART �NAMG- ,J,nes6urg Rd. � � N TURN NR: _' 9* B 111L LJ TOWN: SO. 89Plt D.; Pm 0 !&k hour 7(; -C1 a� NAME. 111 e s boo" Rol ray.—r 4 WAY TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMAR' ART 4 WAY TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARY ART Appenol 1x 1TG5 HCH: i_)NSIGt•ALI Eg INTERSECTIONS # •i• aE• :�. •?¢ # •?f-'=• -=r •= •?4 •�r �•'y' :f' •s �c # r �• ?4' �• �c � 4 = = # i• .�' .;�• #. =_ •;;r �.:,�. e• •?Q• .i .ir'=i .�. •?E •;�• •� •�• • •if• .s• •=• .-..•.• .s' :�i #• t; Y �' �:- s i :t.:Qr. �4 =�' •;.c •ic •�' •�i• Z C' ITJENTIF YING INFORMATION AVERAGE GrAGE RUNNING NI k SPEED, SEED, I .— _R STREET.. rrEE .0 i_ PEAK HOUR FACTOR o u v u u v u e- u C= 5 AREA POPULATION . . . . v . . . . . . v . u . . . u . . . 15000 NAME OF [-- EAST/WEST STREET TrEEl......... Office fci_e Ei d g „ ; ' i v NAME 1 I4 , r- THE r- NORTH/SOUTH r'. 1 � .-• -: _ r r, �•"' Hinesburg _ r. s�:;AME O THE s iORTH/S PITH s r.s::.ET ....... H i nest++_ r g s-� d. NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. P I NKi-•SA M EP•aG G . -R . A 1 *-= x s s e.- DATE_ OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd /yy) ...... S/ 13/93 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. PM peak hour ' ?4 OTHER INFrRMATION.... RBG Office Bldg. South Burlingto-n INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE : T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ES WD i,a SB l HRU o -- 370 413 RIGH1- to 1(i ES WR ia$ SB LANES 2 . > ) A ADJUSTMENT FACTORS _____________________________________________________________________ page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN � CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE _______ __________ FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR ________________ RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 _________________ 20 N WESTBOUND ----- ---- NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ' _____________________________________________________________________ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S ___________ VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES --------------- EASTBOUND 1 0 0 WESTBOUND --- --- --- NORTHBOUND 3 1 0 SOUTHBOUND 3 CNITICAL GAPS _____________________________________________________________________ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS ____________ EB 5.70 5.70 v..() 5.70 MAJOR LEFTS NB 5.10' 5.10 0.00 5.10 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.80 6.80 0.00 6.80 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... Office Bldg.Drive NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... Hinesburg Rd. DATE AND TIME OF T�E ANALYSIS..... 8/13/93 ; PM peak hour '94 OTHER INFORMATION.... RBG Office Bldg. South Burlington Apdx. CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE ----------------------------------------------------------------- page-3 VOTEN- ACTUAL FLOi-)- TIAL r1 ar rl _�•���{- i' rt�,��.-G; _�r i-n-,E�:� SHARED �-,IW _�c_1,.•JE RESERVE RATE C8 ',-=ITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT w(pcp h) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pc_pI'i) c == c - v L_OS p i1 SH n SH --- MINOR STREET E B LEFT 56 233 233- 233 177 D MAJOR STREET NB LEFT 2 ?7 65? r 677 6?5 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST :STREET...... Office Bldg D Xve NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... Hinesburg Rd. DATE -AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... .S/13/i3 : PM peak hour '94 OTHER INFOF"MATION.... RBG Office Bldg. South Burlington } ) ' J� 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... .85 AREA POPULATION...................... 15000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... Office Bldg.Drive NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... Hinesburg Rd. NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. PINKHAM ENGRG.-R.Alexander DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 8/13/93 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. PM peak hour `99 OTHER INFORMATION.... RBG Office Bldg. South Burlington INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL _____________________________________________________________________ INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ___________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB S8 LEFT 47 -- 2 0 THRU 0 -- 403 450 RIGHT 10 -- 0 10 NUMBER OF LANES EB WB NB SB LANES 2 ) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS _____________________________________________________________________ Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT ________________ TURNS FOR _________________ RIGHT TURNS _______ __________ EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND ----- --- --- - NORTHBOUUD 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ___________________________________________________________ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES _____________ % MOTORCYCLES ___________ EASTBOUND 1 0 0 WESTBOUND ---- NORTHBOUND 3 1 0 SOUTHBOUND 3 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS _____________________________________________________________________ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP ______________ MINOR RIGHTS ________ EB 5.70 5.70 0.00 5.70 MAJOR LEFTS NB 5.10 5.10 0.00 5.10 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.80 6.80 0.00 6.80 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _______________ ...... _ --------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... Office Bldg.Drive NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... Hinesburg Rd. ' DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 8/13/93 ; PM peak hour 99 OTHER INFORMATION.... RBG Office ' Bldg. South Burlington � ) CAPACITY AND _____________________________________________________________________ LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS _______ p ________ M _________ SH ____________ R SH ____________ ___ MINCR STREET EB LEFT 56 203 202 202 147 D RIGHT 12 571 571 571 559 A MAJOR STREET NB LEFT 2 662 662 662 660 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... Office Bldg.Drive NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... Hinesburg Rd. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 8/13/93 ; PM peak hour `99 OTHER INFORMATION.... RBG Office Bldg. South Burlington \ � � 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZEd INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ' INTERSECTION -Kennedy ' Drive/Hinesburg Rd. AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PINKHAM ENGRG. - R.Alexander DATE ^^^^^^^^^^ 8/11/94 TIME ........... 94 PM peak hour COMMENT ....... RBG Office Bldg. South Burlington __________________________________________________________________________ VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 257 66 122 49 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 451 454 211 206 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RT 140 76 37 173 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 28 16 8 34 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 AD3USTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ P K G BUSES PHF PEDS RED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14"5 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 __________________________________________________________________________ SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 86.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 P1-1-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X X TH X X RT X X RT X X PD PD WB LT X SB LT X TH X X TH X X RT X X RT X X PD PD GREEN 17.0 5.0 15.0 0.0 GREEN 8.0 4.0 11.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 __________________________________________________________________________ LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.806 0.209 33.3 D 22.6 C TR 0.819 0.442 17.7 C WB L 0.621 0.070 36.1 D 63.6 F TR 1.078 0.302 67.2 F �B L 0.765 0.105 40.4 E 25.0 D TR 0.524 0.291 17.2 C SB L 0.553 0.058 34.8 D 38.0 D TR 0.937 0.244 38.5 D __________________________________________________________________________ INTERSECTION: Delay = 36.9 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.934 LOS = D / 14��C�^��� V� 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS S��MARY REPORT � INTERSECTION..Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Rd. AREA TYPE.....OTHER . ANALYST ....... PINKHAM ENGRG. - R.Alexander DATE.......... 8/11/94 TIME. . . . . . . . . . 194 PM peak o h ur ��/����� �����"~�� COMMENT ....... __________________________________________________________________________ RBG Office Bldg. South Burlington VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SD : EB WB NB SB LT 257 69 142 49 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 451 454 223 209 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RT 144 76 52 173 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 28 16 8 34 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 __________________________________________________________________________ : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 AD3USTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N in T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 4 N 14.5 =� 3_' ~ SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 86.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 pH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X X TH X X RT X X RT X X PD PD WB LT X SD LT X TH X X TH X X RT X X RT X X PD PD GREEN 17.0 5.0 15.0 0.0 GREEN 8.0 4.0 11.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 __________________________________________________________________________ 4.0 5.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LAME GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS vAPP. DELAY 'APP. LOS EB L 0.806 0.209 33.3 D 22.8 C TR 0.826 0.442 18.0 C WB L 0.649 0.070 37.5 D 63.7 F TR 1.078 0.202 67.2 F NB L 0.891 0.105 55.6 E 31.0 D TR 0.587 0.291 18.0 C SB L 0.553 0 . 058 . 34 8 D 39. 0 D TR 0.945 0.244 39.6 D INTERSECTION: Delay = 38.0 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.951 LOS = D 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS � SUMMARY REPORT ' INTERSECTION -Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Rd. ' AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PINKHAM ENGRG. - R.Alexander DATE ^^^^^^^^^^ 8/11/94 NO - TIME ..........'99 PM peak hour COMMENT ....... __________________________________________________________________________ RBS Office Bldg. South Burlington VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : 'EB WB NB SB LT 280 72 133 53 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 492 495 230 225 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RT 153 83 40 189 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 28 16 8 34 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 . ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV A D J PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.,N 0 ' N 14.5 , 3 ' SB 0.O0 2.00 N 0 0' 0.90- 0 N 14.5 3 ^ SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 86.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X X TH X X RT X X RT X X PD PD WB LT X SB LT X TH X X TH X X RT X X RT X X PD PD GREEN 17.0 5.0 15.0 0.0 GREEN - 8.0 4.0 11.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.978 0.209 39.9 D 28.0 D TR 0.898 0.442 22.5 C WB L 0.677 0.070 39.2 D 103.0 F TR 1.180 0.302 111.1 F ` NB L 0.834 0.105 47.3 E 27.7 D TR 0.572 0.291 17.8 C �B L 0.598 0.058 26.7 D 55.7 E TR 1.033 0.244 58.4' E ` __________________________________________________________________________ INTERSECTION: Delay = 53.2 (sec/veh) V/C = 1.023 LOS = E ^ l J� > 1� ���� � [y^�~�� , ' // 19G5 HEM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION -Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Rd. AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ' ANALYST ....... PINKHAM ENGRG. - R.Alexander DATE.......... 8/11/94 TIME.........., 99 PM pesk hour /��� �� ����^^,�-�^ - COMMENT ....... RBG Office Bldg. South Burlington ______-__________-________________________-_______-__-____________________ VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB . WB NB SB LT 2B0 75 153 53 : L '12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 492 495 242 228 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RT 157 83 55 189 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 28 16 8 34 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 SB 0100 2.00 N' 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 __________________________________________________________________________ SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 86.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X x TH X X RT X X RT X X PD' PD WB LT X SB LT X TH X X TH X X RT X X RT X X PD PD GREEN 17.0 5.0 15.0 0.0 GREEN 8.0 4.0 11.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 __________________________________________________________________________ 4.0 5.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE ' LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.878 0.209 39.9 D 28.3 D TR 0.905 0.442 23.1 C AB L 0.706 0.070 41.2 E 102.9 F TR 1.180 0.302 111.1 F NB L 0.960 0.105 70.0 F 36.5 D TR 0.635 0.291 18.7 C SB L 0.598 0.058 36.7 D 57.6 E TR 1.041 0.244 60.5 F ' INTERSECTION:, Delqy = 54.8 (sec/veh) V/C = 1.040 LOS = E, PINKHAM ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Engineers S• Planners 4 Landscape Architects SurveYors TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT R.B.G. OFFICE BUILDING SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT August 17, 1993 The purpose of this report is to identify traffic impacts of a proposed office building on Hinesburg Road (VT Route 116) near its junction with Kennedy Drive. This development would include +/- 26,000 square feet of floor area in a 4 story building, with the detailed location shown on the project plans. 1. Existing Conditions Hinesburg Road serves as a major land -service arterial between Williston Road (US- 2) and Hinesburg and other towns to the south. The road width is in transition approaching the project form the south, operating with two 12 foot lanes and +/- 6 foot shoulders on the south, widening to a 38 foot paved width (two approaching lanes, one departing lane) at the Kennedy Drive intersection. The alignment is straight along the project frontage, and grades are nearly flat in this area. The surrounding area is mixed commercial and residential, with some agricultural use further south. 2. Trip Generation and Design Hourly Volume Traffic which can be expected from the office development is estimated by utilizing trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). In the 1991 5th Edition ITE manual, many studies of existing office buildings (Land Use: 710) are summarized for a weekday P.M. peak hour with a Data Plot and Equation on page 956 (see Figure 1). Utilizing the Fitted Curve Equation, this yields 69 trip ends in the afternoon peak hour, which is the basis for analysis for the possible 1994 opening; Figure 2 shows the generated traffic. This assumes full build - out and occupancy, and the same generated traffic volume is used for the recommended five-year planning period (1999). The Maltex Building •:• 431 Pine St., Burlington, VT 05401 .• Bus. (802) 658-5588 ❖ Fax (802) 658-3629 3. Traffic Overlay District Our review of Article XVII finds this project to be within Zone 5, allowing 45 trips per 40,000 square feet lot, or 69 trips in the peak hour. The Traffic Overlay map indicates 300 Feet north and/or south of Kennedy Drive as being the extent of Zone 1, as shown by the black dot legend (versus a solid black line for Zone 5). The project driveway z scales 319 feet from the Hinesburg Kennedy Z intersection, substantially beyond the 300 foot noted for the change of zones. 4. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment A directional distribution of 17% entering and 83% exiting is noted for the office building on Hinesburg Road. The site -generated traffic volumes are assigned as 83% to -and -from the north and 17% south, utilizing expected employee and client orientation as derived from Hinesburg/Kennedy intersection traffic counts. Distribution of new office building trips in the P.M. peak hour are shown on Figure two. 5. Existing and Projected Traffic volumes Traffic volume data for this section of Hinesburg Road was available from Chittenden Regional Planning Commission in the form of manual turning movement counts taken June 18, 1992, at the Kennedy Drive intersection. These volumes were seasonally adjusted by a monthly factor of 0.95 (Group III Urban), and up -dated to 1994 by a factor of 1.04. A projection factor of 1.09 (5-year planning period) is applied to obtain the 1999 volumes. The 1994 volumes, including trips generated by the office building, are shown on Figure 4. The 1999 volumes, No -Build are shown on Figure 5; 1999 volumes with office building are shown on Figure 6. 6. Capacity Analysis The effects of the proposed office building are evaluated based on projected traffic volumes and the capacity of the nearby roadway network to accommodate these volumes. Typically, roadway intersections govern the capacity of the roadway network. This traffic study analyzes the level of service on Hinesburg Road at the driveway, and at Kennedy Drive to identify the potential impact, and is based on the 1985 edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. RB.G. OFFICE BUILDING August 17, 1993 Traffic Impact Assessment page 2 Level of Service (L.O.S.) is a qualitative measure of how a motorist perceives traffic conditions. Delays experienced at intersections by motorists are the criteria used to define L.O.S. The following table defines L.O.S. in general terms for intersections. Level of Service Definition Table Signals: Stopped Delay per Vehicle (in seconds) Level of Service Stop/Yield Sign Expected Delay to Minor Street Traffic up to 5 A Little or no delay 5 to 15 B Short traffic delays 15 to 25 C Average traffic delays 25 to 40 D Long traffic delays 40 to 60 E Very long delays over 60 F * When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays may be encountered which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements through the intersections. This condition, if substantial numbers of vehicles are affected, usually warrants improvement to the intersection. The capacity analysis for 1994 and 1999 for the P.M. peak hour follows: TABLE I Level of Service at two intersections: Intersection Traffic Movement 1994 1994 1999 1999 No Build Build No Build Build Access drive on Rt. Turn, drive N/A A N/A A Hinesburg Road Lt. Turn, drive N/A D N/A D Lt. From from N/A A N/A A Hinesburg Road Hinesburg Road Signals D D E E and Kennedy Drive See Appendix A and B for driveway L.O.S.; Appendix C,D,E, and F for Hinesburg/Kennedy. R.B.G. OFFICE BUILDING August 17, 1993 Traffic Impact Assessment Page 3 7. Conclusions The proposed office building could generate approximately 69 trips (one-way) during the 1994 P.M. peak hour, assuming full occupancy, and hence the same trip generation for the 1999 planning year. The A.M. peak hour is not as high, and the intersection volumes are considerably less during the A.M., so this scenario was not examined in detail. The development -generated traffic can be absorbed into the present and near future traffic stream without a significant reduction in level of service. The modest increment (2%) of added traffic should cause no undue adverse impact on current or future traffic conditions. Prepared by Robert M. Alexander Traffic Engineer 7102\trfass.rma RB.G. OFFICE BUILDING August 17, 1993 Traffic Impact Assessment Page 4 STEVEN F. STITZEL PATTI R. PAGE* DIANNE L. KENNEY (*ALSO ADMirrED IN N.Y.) STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE./TDD) FAX (802) 660-2552 OF COUNSEL ARTHUR W.CERNOSIA August 2, 1993 Mr. Richard Ward City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Interpretation of Zoning Regulations Dear Dick: At your request, I have reviewed Section 22.00 and the corresponding subsections of the City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations to determine whether a conflict exists. Specifically, you have asked for an opinion regarding whether Section 22.00 and Section 22.105 are conflicting. Section 22.00 of the Zoning Regulations states: Interpretation of District Boundaries: Where uncertainty exists as to the boundaries of districts as shown on the Official Zoning Map, the Planning Commission shall determine the location, aided by the rules set forth in this section. The purpose of this section is to set forth aids 'Section 22.00 22.007) upon which the Planning Commission may rely, where necessary, to determine a district boundary. Section 22.10 of the Zoning Regulations and its accompanying subsections (Sections 22.101 - 22.105) specifically describe certain districts. Section 22.105 and its subsections clearly delineate traffic overlay district boundaries. This section is controlling in the determination of traffic overlay district boundaries and in no way conflicts with the boundary descriptions set forth in Section 22.00 and its related subsections. Moreover, the boundary determinations specified in Section 22.00 and its related subsections should not be applied to the determination of traffic overlay district boundaries unless a traffic overlay district boundary cannot be determined by the Planning Commission after an attempt to resolve any confusion by Mr. Richard Ward August 2, 1993 Page 2 identifying boundaries on the basis of that provided in Section 22.105(a), (b) and (c). Please note that the above opinion is based upon the literal interpretation of the Zoning Regulations and is not rendered on the basis of any factual situation. In the event that you would like me to apply the above interpretation to a specific fact pattern, such as the one you mentioned at 625 Hinesburg Road, please send me a map of the area in question and point out where the confusion req_arding boundaries lies and I will be happy to provide you with a more detailed analysis. I hope this is responsive to your inquiry. Sincerely, Dianne L. Kenney DLK/cr L:\SON1179.cor #1916 S'V rl�zma & Pi'�aj!,, P.C. ATTORNEYS ATLAW HIJ1111iWI ON, VI IIiVOVI't))4ol 1021060-2-555 {voic,`HITIM) r,rNt:It w, CIGIINOSiA VVI"N It. 1"WE, I>1�1tifrD� L. KL1;�NI7Y August 2, 1993 Po, A-W' brand tax. trarizrnit!al met -no 7671 # of Qngos ► Mr. Richard Ward City of South Bur 1 ington $75 Dorset Street � r'�1�'� ��i�'..i��..�..�'�>�,,� Phot,a���,,a South Burlington, VT 05403 o� �� Re: Interpretation of Zoning Regufataans Dear pick: At your request, I have reviewed Scct:ion 22.00 and the corresponding subsections of the City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations to determine whether a conflict exists. Specifically, you have asked for an opinion regarding whether Section 22.00 and Section 22,105 are conflicting. Section 22.00 of the Zoning Regulations states: Interpretation of District. Boundaries; Where uncertainty exists as to the boundaries of districts as showil on the Official Zoning Map, the Planning Commission shall determine the Location, aided by the rules set forth in this section. The purpose of this section is to sot; Lorth aids (Section 22.00 - 22.007) upon which the Planning Commission may rely, where necessary, to determine a district boundary. Section 22.10 of the Zoning Regulations and its accompanying subsections (Sections 22.101 -- 22.105) specifically describe certain districts. Section 22.105 and, its subsections clearly delineate traffic overlay district boundaries. This section is controlling in the determination of traffic overlay district boundaries and in no way conflicts with the boundary descriptions set: forth in Section 22.00 and its relatwe.d subsections. Moreover, the boundary detexminat~ions specified in Section 22.00 and its related subsections should not be applied to the determination of traffic overlay district boundaries unless a traffic overlay district boundary cannot he determined by the Planning Commission after an attempt to any confusion by Mr. Richard Ward August 2, 1993 Page 2 identifying boundaries on the basks of that provided in Section 22. 1.05 (a) , (b) and (c) . Please note that the above opinion is b(Ised upon the literal interpretation of the Zoning Regulations and is not rendered on the basis of any factual situation. In the event that you would Like me to apply tt�e above interpretation to a Specific fact pattern, such as the one you mentioned at 625 Hinesburg Road, please send me a snap of the area :in question and point out where the Confusion roga.rding boundaries lies and I will be happy to provide you with a more detailed analysis. I hope this is responsive to your inquiry, Sincerely, ,4�A ' V--� - / a Dianne: L. Kenney Drix/cr L:\SON1179.cor �'191� YN"Nk'N I. Mtn R f*Al till CAti, i, S,ri,vul, & Nor, P.C. ATTORNEYS ATLAW 171 rIATI*EiZY $110011 JWJflJN(;T0N, (80VI P'N X August 2e 1993 OV COUNSU A 4TH tilt W. CPIANOSIA PO*t-lt" Vind tay. tra%alit!al memo 7671 of P4903 r To T _74/ Mr. Richard Ward CO CO.1�3 CAY Of South Burlington -'2'! �1-1 575 Dorset Street /V, South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Interpretation of Zoning boar Dick: At your requezt, I have revieqed Section 22.00 and the corresponding subsections Of the city Of South Burlington Zoning R'"gulatiOns to datormine whether a conflict exists. Specifically' you have asked fir an 0000n regarding whether SOC"On 22-00 and Section 22.103 are conflicting. Section 22.00 of the Zoning Regulations states: Interpretation of District houndaries: where uncertainty exists as to the boundaries Of districts as Show" On the Official Zoning Map, the Planning COAMASion shall determine the-jo,atj.., a1d0d by the rules set forth in this section. The purpose of this seotion j$ to set forth aids (Section 22.00 - 22.007) upon which the Pla4lninq Cor,issjon may rely, whore n0ceGnary, to determine a dist;jot boundary. Section 22.10 of the ZOning Regulations and its accompanying subsections (SeftiOns 22,101 - 22.105) sifecifically describe Certain districts, Section 22-105 and its oubsections clearly delinOate traffic oveelay distrjot bOundaries. This section is controlling in the determination of traffic OvOrlay district boundaries and " " waY 0010flicts with the boondary descriptions set forth in Section 22.00 and its related sabsoctions. MOreOvet, the boundary detezminatlons speciflod iO Sootion 22.00 and its relatod sQbsectiony should nOt be NOW to the determination Of traffio overlay district boundaries unless a traffic OVOrlay disttict boundary cannot he d0tornined by the Planning Commiss" after an ""A Q re`Olve any confusion by Mr. Richard Ward August 2, 1993 Page 2 identifying bounoaries on thy hhsjs Of that provided in Section 22.105(a), Q and (c). , Please note that the above opinion is bazod upon tho literal interpretation of the ZOAng Regulations and is not rendered on the basis of any factual 'ituation. In the event that you would like rye to apply the above interpretation to a specific fact Atternf such as thQ One you mentioned at 625 Hinesburg Road, please send we a tap of the area in qu08tion and point out where the confusion regarding boundaries lies and I will be happy to provide you with a more detaijej analysis. I bope this is responsive to your inquiry. Sincerely, "fed'a'4' xv Dianne L. Xenney DLY/Cr L:\SON1179.cor 01916 i' o♦ I WAR ■! City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 July 1, 1993 Mr. Dennis B. Wester Wiemann-Lamphere Architects 30 South Park Drive Colchester, Vermont 05446 Re: 625 Hinesburg Road ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Dear Dennis: I am in receipt of your June 30, 1993 letter in which you are seeking a ruling pertaining to how one determines the boundaries of the Traffic Overlay District. The City's most official map is the tax mapping system. A reading of the Traffic Overlayquestion District from the tax map indicates that the property is located entirely within Zone 1. A reading from the Traffic Overlay District map (which establishes the point of beginning as the centerline of the intersection) locates approximately thirty five (35) feet of the property in question within Zone 5 and the balance of the lot within Zone 1. the Section 22.105b of the Zoning thegedgelofsthefintersecting point of beginning as measuredpoint where the pavement pavement. After taking a reaionfrom alocated entirely within intersects, the property in quest Zone 1. All interpretations made by this office have been from the written test of the Zoning Regulations. Therefore, Section 22.105 would prevail. As you are aware, we have an action taken by the Planning Commission which also relies language chargediwithcthen 22.105. Since the Planning Commission establishments of zoning by-laws and they have review Section 22.105. I am of the opinion that the property in question is Zone 1. located within the Traffic Overlay District, Mr. Dennis Webster Re: 625 Hinesburg Road July 1, 1993 Page 2 If you have any questions regarding this matter please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer 1 Encl RW/mcp 'WIEMANN*LAMPHEI_ rillP a Mr. Richard Ward Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: 625 Hinesburg Road / R.B. Goodrich Property Dear Mr. Ward: S • E N G I N E E R S I N T E R 1 0 R S This letter is a request for a decision regarding which "Traffic Overlay District" the above project falls within. A site plan was submitted to you as part of the application for a conditional use permit. The development potential for this lot is very significantly impacted by this decision. My understanding is that the proposed access drive is by any definition extremely close to the line which separates "Traffic Overlay District 1" from "Traffic Overlay District 5". The City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations are quite vague. The Traffic Overlay Map shows District 1 extending 300' in the southerly direction along Hinesburg Road from a point at the intersection of the centerlines of Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive. Section 17.201 refers to "access to a point within a specified distance from a major intersection". This "specified distance" is not defined therefore it is assumed that the mapped distance prevails. The confusion, however, seems to originate from Article XXIII. Section 22.001 states that "where uncertainty exists as to the boundaries of districts" then "the center lines of streets" shall be used. However, Section 22.105b states that "any dimensional approach shall be measured from the near edge of the intersecting pavement at the major intersection". The weakness with this latter section is that no actual dimension exists. Again one could assume that the map prevails. Also, "the near edge of the intersecting pavement" is nebulous and not readily determined. In addition, there is no reference back to the lot "access" per 17.201 and no definition as to whether the "lot access" is measured to its center line or near edge. I seriously question the applicabilitX of 11.504 C "(measured between the near edges of the driveway and intersection) . This clearly refers to signalized entrances to PCD's in the Commercial 1 District. If future alterations are considered to the ordinance for clarification it would seem advisable to base measurements from street center lines because this base line cannot readily charge as pavement edge can change. It is quite difficult to alter the geometry of a road and the geometry of roads are typically engineered from center line. Thank you for your consideration and your willingness to meet my client and me on June 29, 1993. ce y, Z-4nis B. W DBW/cde COLCHESTER BUSINESS PARK • 30 SOUTH PARK DRIVE • COLCHESTER, VERMONT 05446 • 802-655-5020 9 FAX 802-655-6567 WIEMANN•LAMPHERE A, C H I T E C T S • E N G I N E E R S P L A N N E R S I N T E R 1 O R S July 7, 1993 Mr. Richard Ward Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: 625 Hinesburg Road / R.B. Goodrich Property Dear Mr. Ward: Thank you for your response to my letter of June 30, 1993 regarding the above referenced project. Your letter of July 1, 1993 would seem to indicate that your decision was not an easy one. On behalf of my client, Ralph B. Goodrich, we would like to appeal your (administrative) decision. The last sentence of the first paragraph of your July 1, 1993 letter is the element which we feel most clearly establishes this lot as being developable in Traffic Overlay Zone 5 provided. That access to the site is located within the thirty five (35) feet which the Traffic Overlay Map indicates is within Zone 5. Also, since the map and 22.105b are in conflict, then 22.001 should prevail since the above conflict or confusion creates a condition "where uncertainty exists", which is the test for applicability of 22.001. As I stated in my June 30, 1993 letter, the development potential for this lot is significantly impacted by the decision as to which Traffic Overlay Zone this development lies within. Mr. Goodrich feels that the Zone 1 decision creates a severe hardship. His land, according to Mr. Goodrich, was originally zoned industrial then changed to R-7. Also other lots at this intersection have not been reviewed based on Traffic Overlay criteria when in fact the Traffic Overlay Zones were in force at the time those lots were being permitted. Again, thank you for your nnis B. Webster, DBW/cde COLCHESTER BUSINESS PARK • 30 SOUTH PARK DRIVE • COLCHESTER, VERMONT, 05446 • 802-655-5020 • FAX 802-655-6567 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 TEL. (802) 658-7953 FAX (802) 658-4748 July 15, 1993 Ralph Goodrich Goodrich Construction Company 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Ralph: Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street on Monday, July 26, 1993 at 7:00 P.M. to consider your appeal of a decision from the Administrative Officer. Please plan to attend this meeting. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer 1 Encl RW/mcp i S TD14 AA TIMt7�t�L,�N� i Mcya gas�1� Y> GkIJ .44 WA T Fl T 1 X0,14F A + c 1 I / , �� Nb ►`� i �% ` -0 µlb e 1 t — ' vJµd- ,er.►ec�e,�u I •fin ` i e� 40 lyll PA. 1XI wvv Gb �` otYallua 4Z \1 ¢ I {J a t7 012 i r k4PW�, fi Z004c;, Ids . uulrlr V• 1 �( NxMe z6 M - pr cNrx ALLC W /jai; . 4,9 QjeP•[aX WF6A.14, ° la COVpi s f`j/ 4W 15h"rZ �i�. t7 "NYmw Yw"ti1Ks dv / FW01Ev U4W L PV- s 410v y.r q✓ m4 . juW4taIE Lo( CW61L • W/. mt- mim*4, `_ G r r( �uut►�ij lye N Go✓✓n • yj 011 9�• Lf� �5h- �/y. JUN! Z GijING1Ya1Gi W411'lE G>iGJ'o2(�llJf�l r �Oy�L�iJpJ�.0 * • ��/ y� E (A'.17 �INF. ty 16 BARS _ -ram 14 - i I I G•'F•9b r1�.0 aMe+�s1o1K Fe: -- - NO: DATE REVISION I. �x.•p. w: re�,luen{ rs � k�aulw to �� ['j, G. G�i �� itoM g(ir(t � WFstio►.►7 A.a 7• - !O1� Itd.1�iJKG t�� � CxJ1�1.1N1(/(G�� f'( i �to�rl!(M 51 ' LCI) S.J►- GNOGT ?L t{ A? - WIEMANN — LAMPHERE. ARCHITECTS. INC. 1• E:� (,'i.•� I�ITO1�i1%Vi7 b{ OWp16I7� - 30 SOUTH PARK DRrVE - COLCHESTER. VERMONT • SCALE I + DRAWING NO. DATE /�• i DRAWN BY CHECKED BY j PROJECT I I SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Re ggulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Mu- nicipal Offices, Confer- ence Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, July 26, 1993 at 7:00 p.M. to i consider the following: 0 1 Appeal of Sherry I Swett and Nina Lumbra i seeking approval from i Section 9.20 Conditional i uses sub section 9.202 day care centers and Sec_ tion 19.05 of the .South Burlington Zoning Regula- lIons. Request is for per- mission to extend hours Of operation to an existing day care center d.b.a. Ca- rousel Child Care located at 1600 Williston Road. Goodrich seeking an aof p- peal from a decision of the zoning administrative officer. Request is for a review of Section 22.105 Boundries of the Traffic Overlay District, for a property located at 625 Hinesburg Road. Richard Ward Zoning Administrative Of- ficer July 10, 1993 Official Use City of South Burlington Application to Board of Adjustment Date Applicant Owner, leasee, agent Address Telephone # Landowner Location and description of property APPLICATION # HEARING DATE FILING DATE FEE AMOUNT Address Type of application check one ( ) appeal from decision of Administrative Officer( )request for a conditional use ( ) request for a variance. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month (second and fourth Mondays). That a legal advertisement must appeal a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Provisions of zoning ordinance in question Reason for appeal The owner or applicant should submit along with this application (8 copies) plans, elevations, landscaping diagrams (drawn to scale)�traffic data and any other additional information which will serve as support evidence to the Board. Hearing Date Signature of Appellant Do not write below this line ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Day of Week at to consider the following: Month and Date Date Time Appeal of seeking E ' f rom ef-#-he---- south Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for sae i-onf_ I ® I✓ LLLJ . N Cj a cn L A.) v / I 880cam L I a70�y 970 00110C 01125R am PROJECT 9 00930 L 1720 ',PARCEL' 00040 C II OW50C aB0 \S), 00635so C I � I ` TAX MAP PLAN SCALE: P = SOB NUMBER RECORD OWNER ADDRESS 1720 OW50 C TIMBERLANE MEDICAL CENTER 50 TIMBRELANE S. BURLINGTON, VT. 05403 1720 LESLIE BELL 40 TIMBER LANE 00040C JEFFREY CRANDALL S. BURLINGTON, VT. 05403 WO 001 f0 C CAIRNS CD IRREVOCABLE TRUST P.O. BOX212e S. BURLINGTON. VT. OS4O7 Ba0 00(120 L 620 HINESBURG ROAD 340 MALLETS BAY CIO PARK PLACE MANAGEMENT COLCHESTER, VT. 05446 970 00125R CAROL GAMSBY PROPERTY MOT. P.O.BOX2121 GEORGETOWN APARMENTS S. BURLINGTON, VT. 05407 WELLSLEY GROVE 00 30L CONDOMIMUMSAS$OCAITION P.O. BOX 1207 1 01 CIO MS. CAROL BARNARD �wSTX 05488 , 960 CPA PARTNERSHIP 1855 WILLISTON ROAD 00635 C 0/0 DANIEL OBRIEN S. BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LIST OF ABUTTERS LEGEND — — �� PROPERTY LINE ADJOINING PROPERTY LINE LEASE LIMITS ----------- EASEMENT LINE — SETBACK LINE EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT/ CURB EDGE OF EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE EXISTING UTILITY POLE 'd PROPOSED UTILITY POLE - OHW EXISTING OVERHEAD WARES G1W PROPOSED OVERHEAD WIRES UG EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES UO UNDERGROUND UTUTES PT POWER AND TELCO CONDUIT AND W RING 302 -- - - - EXISTING CONTOUR — —300— — EXISTING INDEX CONTOUR 0 IRON ROD P— v — x —o CHAINLINK FENCE BUSHES Vl FREE LINE LIMIT OF CLEARING ® GATE VALVE 0 TOWER G CONCRETE MONUMENT -0CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. � P.O. BO%4ee SHELBURNE, VT 05482 e4ZOO&2B2a FAX: MWISe 2271 small: ces®alls wAia RING TECTONIC CONSU T"T CONSULTANTS P.C. STAiE 5 SUIT£ MOMPELIER, V< O BOI (a02) ]23-0658 B -EXISTNG CHAIN LINK FENCE c\ \ EXISTING I BLOCK SA 16K LINE � �- ! w� _320— OVERHEAD UTILITY UNES may' g4 -TELEPHO BY UTILITY COMPANY EM51MG SEWER MANHOLE , TELEPHONE BOX —UT— C C _ — — MhBy— 69' UTKJTY COMPANY ; // NiOE EASEMEIg£#\ LIMIT OF CLEARING SENaOE�EA=MENRTISI UG POWER k IFLCO \ G EXISITWO SIGNIi XI / \eE VED // L GVTED U E I- ELEV.- 333331 \..4' WIDE :„ Inm,poralM - Cmatrucl-m .Dreal0 a ey teelo/n/k/EngNemNg Caeullonle ay 18, 200T �OV T� 7 IE MANHOLE /" 6 2-01W ELEV.- 345 I-CHW OF.V• 340 9NHP;{,7;(rJI:PZILFI• U T EXISTING OV �lOCATEO aY UTILITY PINE R.T. LOCATION MAP EAD WIRES TO VE NEW GUY WIRES / PANY) �S�tr -EXISTING 24' PINE TO BE REMOVED `NEEWP UYZANCHOR FOUNDATION O�O F-UKW ELEV\337 TIBIA - FlRST FLOOR SILL ELD EALESV . 3 2.3 NO \ L l R_09n G UV'IflRES- �—` MW ELEV.. 33B OF REPLACEMENT TOWER SITE F LONG: 73' 09' 53.0' �- BASE ELEV.- 341.T E,WBTING- !/PAVEMENT \ _ - a• EwSRNC OVERHEAD WIRES RES TO BE \ i - RELOCATED ABOVE NEW GUY WIRES \ (BY UTILITY COMPANY) \ \ I Ulp)MM11TY POLE WITH UGH ELEV.343 \ \ / GRAVEL ! NIF \ / ?LANE MEDICAL CENTER 1720 00050 C—�— per FEMA, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel # 500217 0050, Dated March 16, 1901. TOTAL LOT AREA = 61301 SF = 1.41 ACRES FRONT YARD AREA = 18197 SF 0.42 ACRES 6. The proposed facility L3 unmanned, therefore sewer service, water Service and handicap accessibility are unnecessary. BUILDING FOOTPRINT = 8955 SF = 15% BUILDING COVERAGE LOT COVERAGE = 15107 SF = 25% LOT \ / Z The tower will not be artlflcally lighted except to assure public safety FRONT YARD COVERAGE = 2123 SF 12% FRONT YARD as required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other governing authority. �P 8. This site plan was prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. for Independent Wireless One and Tectonic Engineering Consultants, P.C. 2' IP GOODRICH INCORPORATED %#NyIRELENDENE Sprint PCS Sprin t „a�NPAw„� 625 HINESBURG ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 CHITTENDEN COUNTY SITE NO. NE43XC443A NO. DATE REVISIONS SCALE: I" a 20' DESIGNED BY: _. N/F LESLIE BELL & JEFFOREY CRANDALL 1720 00040 C GENERAL NOTES 1. Utilities shown do not purport to constitute or represent all / utilities located upon or adjacent to the surveyed premises. Existing utility locations are approximate only The Contractor shall Held ve* all uti!!ty conflicts. All discrepancies shall be / reported to the Engineer. The Contractor shall contact Dig Safe (888-344-7233) prior to any construction. 2. The project datum was established using a Trimble 4700 total station TIMBEI based on National GeodeRlc Survey Monumentatlon ABO665 and PG1982. Horizontal., NAD 83 U.S. State Plane 1983, Vermont State Grid Vertical., NAVD 88 3. This plan is not a boundary survey and is not Intended to be used as one. 4. Property line inhumation was abstracted from the City of South Burlington Land Records. 6. This project does not lie Within the 100 year Rood plain boundary as e4' ' N/F y! CPA PARTNERSHIP y C/O DANIEL O'BRIEN 860 00635 C / PROPERTYOWNER: RALPHANDANNGOODRICH �. P.O. BOX 2123 / S. BURLINGTON VT. 05" / APPLICANTAND INDEPENDENT WIRELESS ONE TOWER OWNER: TAX MAP PARCEL NUMBER: Boo 00625 C. ZONING DISTRICT: RESIDENTIAL 7 I^ BY: AWY/DSM GRAPHIC SCALE tia m .a ( W FEET ) I inoh • 20 ft. GOODRIC11 INCORPORATED TEC W0: 2916.443A SITE PLAN FOR PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATION LEASE 625 HINESBURG ROAD SP-1 i VJLfBM FAD w ee ,.aH w0XV4 PHCE U, b sus t:1 TIMBERLANE --: M�Yld 9LDL WATER — — — — / 0061 W.7 C.s. / — I--- 7_ IZD. — E105TI Jq 5AWI AKY 5EN� — �j 97 SD. —7 PLANNING & ZONING DATA LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE MANG - R-7 KEY NAME SIZE 04. REMARKS VALUE A RM 2 LAZ B & 9 $1400 LOT SIZE = 62964 SF. PEAK NR PTRIP ENDS ALLOWED - 62.964l40." x 45 = 7053 QBCREAIIAS ALLOWABLE BIA.DW COVER 2% CR 15.741 S.F $ � OLRNN ma IT D. 26+A CONTAWER $40C PRCPC6W MADHO COVER = 7.940 5F. OR YL.0% EUONYMS YEDOQJS C SAFGE T AMPER RCN rZ D. 80�l- CONT $T/62 ALLONlABLE LOT COVER 6OZ OR 37.778 S.F. E RED PHE 8' 7 8 6 9 $525 PRCPOSW LOT COVER . 69.66L CR 37.W4 5F. RESNWA AREA OF RWV FRONT YARD: HeeSdRG RDP13`,SOS 5F. KFNjEDY W_$47M SF. F. TRANSPLANTED WME W 7 TREE $700 ALLOWABLE FRONT YARD COVER 30% OR 39,1 5F. AND 4412 SF. RESFEC 7YELY CEDARS $PAVE FRCPOSED FRONT YARD COVER = 3865 5F. CR 29Rn AND O SF. RE5PEOTWEI.Y NOTE aMER SEWS VALLE OF EJ05TWG GRC66 AREA PRO106ED = 23AW 5F. (3 RJ401 ?AR REGIA = 963 PARKWG PRWOSFD = 99 PRCPCSFD PEAK HOUR TRF ENDS - 65 / B JA11 aa, r,.-KKEIVED em FLM OM HNSWURD RD.JUN p 2 1995 SCUT-H 0UMR4GPTM VOM"M wt7 mm - I JWiPf m AIECtiT6CT �:.. '0 90U,H r�ac owrE canr8mc. ,anq+t City of So. Burlington 8f•+a 20.A0 or-, owre a vm wcnw.+ er one CHM= 9Y am rw A= aeon NORfN ORtApifOwlNNNLNnOi A&ZHWOT.. wC CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 July 26, zooI Mr. John Ponsetto Gravel & Shea P.O. Box 369 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0369 Re: Site Plan and Conditional Use Application 625 Hinesburg Road 870 Williston Road Dear Mr. Ponsetto: Enclosed please find a copy of the Finding of Facts of the Development Review Board meeting on July Io, zooi (effective date July 24, 2,001). Please note the conditions of approval, including that a zoning permit be obtained within six (6) months or this approval will be null and void. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Sarah MacCallum Associate Planner Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET sour" BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 July 6, 2001 Mr.. 1c"1 n 'r�ar_setto Gravei Tea P.O. Flax 369 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0369 Re: Si[t P'lan and Conditional Use Applications 63255 : Hinesburg Road 9 70 'Williston Road Dear Mr. Ponsetto: Enclosed is dne agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Board meeting and my comments. Please be sure that someone is at the meeting on Tuesday, July 10, 20,01 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. Sincerely, Raymond J. Belair Administrative Officer SM/td Encls. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEMO JITLY 10, 2001 MEETING The applicant has proposed adding 22 Austrian Pine trees, 8 American Cranberry bushes, and 8 Lilac trees to comply with conditions imposed by Act 250 approval. The majority of the plantings are proposed along the edge of the property that borders the Interstate within the Conservation & Open Space District. Staff does not have a problem with the proposed plantings. No changes are proposed to access, circulation, or coverages. 12 & 13) INDEPENDENT WIRELESS ONE — SITE PLAN & CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATIONS — TONER REPLACEMENT, 625 HINESBURG ROAD This project consists of a conditional use and site plan application to: 1) replace a 110 foot tower, and 2) install three (3) panel antennas on the new tower, 625 Hinesburg Road. The Planning Commission approved this site plan on June 13, 1995 (minutes enclosed). This property is bounded on the north by Kennedy Drive, on the east by Hinesburg Road, and on the south by condominiums, and on the west by medical offices. Site Plan Criteria: Coverage/Setbacks: No effect expected. Conditional Use Criteria: The proposed project complies with the stated purpose of the Residential Seven District which states "Offices and specified other commercial uses may be permitted within the district in locations that have direct access to arterial and collector streets and that will not adversely affect residential properties." The proposed use will not adversely affect: a) the capacity of existing or planned community facilities. No effect expected. b) the character of the area affected. No adverse effect is expected. c) traffic on roads or highways in the vicinity. The proposed use is not expected to affect traffic. d) bylaws in effect. The proposal is in conformance with the zoning regulations. e) utilization of renewable energy resources. There is no utilization of renewable energy resources to be affected. f) general public health and welfare. No adverse effect expected. 14 & 15) INDEPENDENT WIRELESS ONE — SITE PLAN & CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATIONS — ANTENNA INSTALATION, 870 WILLISTON ROAD This project consists of a conditional use and site plan application to amend a site plan for a hotel. The amendment consists of installing three (3) antennas on cupola and roof of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION 13 June 1995 page 10 4. The a licant shall construct a sidewalk along the property's frontage in a location approved by the City En ineer prior to the issuance of a zonin ermit for lots #1 and 2. Prior to construction of the sidewalk,_the-.applicant shall post a bond in an amount approved by the City Engineer. 5. Prior to final plat submittal the a licant shall either: 1) reduce the size of the accessor structure on lot #3 to meet the rear setback requirement, 2) relocate the property line between lots #2 and 3 in order to meet setback re uirements and still meet the minimum lot size requirement, or 3) obtain a variance from the ZBA to allow the accessor structure on lot #3 to project two feet into the rear yard setback. Theportion of the accessory structure and drivewa shown on at to be eliminated shall be so eliminated and seeded prior to recording the final plat plan 7. The finalplat shall be submitted within six months or this approval is null and void. Mr. Crow seconded. Motion asked unanimously. The applicant noted heynight take the roof from the existing building to use on a new house. Mr. Weith suggested setting a date certain when it would be removed. This can be done before final plat. 9. Site plan application of Wiemann-Lamphere Architects to construct a 23,838 sq. ft., 3-story general office building and displace a contractor's yard, an office/maintenance building and an accessory building, 625 Hinesburg Rd: Mr. Lamphere said they will remove all present structures. He showed existing landscaping. They will move the entrance to the south end of the property. They are asking for $4,000 in additional landscaping. Present landscaping is valueg at $30,000. Mr. Sheahan asked if the hedgerow on Kennedy Drive will remain. Mr. Lamphere said it would and it would be reinforced. They will screen the building from Kennedy Drive. Mr. Lamphere said they got a conditional use permit from the ZBA. Mr. Sheahan asked if the driveway interferes with stacking lanes for northbound traffic. Mr. Weith said there may occasionally be problems, but this is an improvement. PLANNING COMMISSION 13 June 1995 page. 11 Mr. Lamphere showed the circulation of the parking lot. Mr. Weith felt the landscaping was acceptable as there isn't much room on site for more olantinQs_ Mr. Sheahan moved the Planning Commission approve the site plan application of Wiemann-Lam here Architects to construct a 23 83 s . ft. 3-storyeneral office building and displace a contrac- tor's ard, an office -maintenance buildin and an accessor buildin , 625 Hinesbur Road as depicted on a plan entitled "Site Plan, 625 Hinesburg Rd South Burlington, Vermont," re - pared by Wiemann-Lamphere, Architects, Inc, dated 6/1/95, with the following stipulations: 1. Allrevious approvals and sti ulations which are not super- seded b this a royal shall remain in effect. 2. The applicant shall post a $17,5.00 landscape bond prior to is- suance of a zoning permit. The bond shall remain in effect for three years to assure that new landscapingtakes root and has a food chance of surviving_and that existinq landscaping to remain survives. 3. The Planning Commission approv $13,536 for the existina trees on s a landscaping credit of he property. 4. For the purpose of calculatin re uired road impact fees under the South Burlin ton Im act Fee Ordinance, the Plannin Comm- ission estimates that the proposedoffice buildin willgenerate 64.6 additional vehicle tri ends durin the P.M. eak hour. 5. A sewer allocation of 1440 d is approved. The applicant shall.pay the per gallon feeprior to issuance of a zonin permit. 6. All new exterior liqhtinq shall consist of downcastin shielded fixtures so as not to cast li ht beyond the propert line. An chap e in li htin shall be a roved b the City Planner prior to installation. 7. The a licant shall obtain a zonLng permit for the buildin within twelve months or this a roval is null and void. 8. The 2piDlicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy/Compli- ance from the Administrative Officerprior to occupancy of the buildin 9. An chan e to the site 2an shall require approval by the South Burlington Plannin Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION 13 June 1995 page 12 Mr. Crow seconded. Motion assed unanimousl . As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Clerk NORTH ORIENTATION_ .oD01 DaaMTMgN tn.aus�m n cor..ac Destwwmo.. + KnwrloD oarw,rn rnou w,mwa ccnvDrs,cu are Cr>rrcw � Dlnwe r,[ I,arrn/ a ,Dawn, Tq, low EcEl\j? hL; arsno Coia11T[ Tnnea to.wmT[ 2 9 280f � I1 MAY 4-\of So. Burfi �'�. -SUIYM, I COKACD VJOL IftDOU \ _ 1 i pfK1.,0 DOOT Ir11/SS K10w µrp�.µ U„ i t, M r7tRrwC I CO�LMD CMS rM GVT 'I EMT" 11 1 MM AT ['I,SIM OW 0161MD aODI 10 K DPIKq� MJO• T Cda'OIIo �OQAM % T// aMKO ..1a j �— AD \\ UDIL EDOG[ % � OaSrao DII NOOa A K K)AMD I,or P� ODf1W I11Cpl( KDAO 'VL NO O�aO rnbQ [YfSIINa l00I � oos,.c DWI CYSTMG Pn ..1p A a[ nW[TD 104q 110% t // lb OK MDC1W � [ uR N to TO ( % PWP TO aC KfD - ,.O MIrDDM C3., l6ID1S-Ih1 {I (TI Or ]) To.o tta r'-a" , V:• to.c>t us r.'O r/ . V� �1 ` IF OWN " i \\ Twa tO c J.IT, LION IP'm ArI 1'1 oamla vrun )OIL -A)" /J F mMT1 DO$ TO TK EO V p .T ID ac aprD.iD nIw qTD OOS r.T„ +HTTMN OaSOMT�O, [IOSTM 10.01 IUrt1L[M IO.Q aVIID< DDl No .< O WIM IT, -,X ANTENNA ORIENTATION TOWER DETAIL COOOMCl WORFORATM Tic wo: �ale.cc-U GOODRICH INCORPORATED • "-_- --W------- ------ -'-- DEPENDEM' � Sprint -..,.._........._.._------------------- -•----�._. --- p ®; ,/:VDT rD, cawTr '" i LEASE EXHIBIT TECTONIC v,nR ssONF ., CONSMTANTS P.a p a,; T/=aro, r0. cn..orr .� cr�rc crnccr, swc pou, »rmz. 625 HINESBURG ROAD Sprint P ..e. .D - _........... �_..._... _ _..........._.. ®; •r/,a/DI roe W—(W , T a DI,a. M� SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERA�ONT 05403 - +-- — - - - — — - -' SITE NO. NE43XC443A "°' ~ oa seat• u DDrm EDcvo�m ar. r„, afta n PUBLIC HEARlN SOUTH BURLlPFGiXJFi' DEVELOPMENT `AgF 5. Final plat applica of VIEYY�tx' - tion #SD-0I Homestead- Design, The South 8uriiri ' Development,' Inc. to amend a planned residential BoarI$ will, hokf := , development. consM3 I i c heating a " tiny of 296 residential South 'Burfin units and an 18 bola` Hail,-C4netrtlos golf course,' Dorset Roam, 57lr street. The amend - Street.: South -AB ` ment consistsoe -mi-' ton, Vermont on - nor modifications to day, July ` 10, 2001`,; ,; 7.30P.M, to decks; grading,. build,- ings, etc. for the Glen thetoNow - Eagles project,... Park:; Road. -; f. Appl Oingd` `ifil-? 25 of inbirt $ p 6. Application #CU-01- i Wang seekingg ap 23 of the Independent proval under Seftion Wireless One Leased: 26.05, Conditioest Realty Corp.: $asking Uses, and Secttofr- approval under Sec- 26.75; Accessory Reiff-`` tion 2 6.0 5, C o ndl- idential' Unit;, of the tional Uses, _ of ttte: South Bu South Burt'' d _ ing Reguf Re, ' ing Regulations Re- quest is;.ipF f quest is for-perm►s- sion to; 1} replace t <8 sion' to ' havil 71 612: foot tower, arid. 21tit'° ' square foot sores- stall three 131 paroeF ' sort' residentia! -unit, antennas on the nevi'' 72 East Terrace tower, 625 Hines"M Road. 2. Pre. Iimmary�� �playy application #Si� f 34' 7, Final plat applica-,r" to of O'Brien, :DBAitrestc tion #S041-32 amend a ' previously Park Really C ana approval planned unit The O'BTr»m fq*tfp- development consis- Limited Partnersht0 ' for tu* Ling of 11 an 0$ room: bwlding, 21a TT, room ' a 101- 01"ad - hotel budding:"�3} �0 residential developp- ment and a silt: [61 ,lot a 275 seat restaurant, subdivision, Hines- The amendment corn : burg Road and. - Ken- sists of ad in adds► nedyDrive. tional landscapgg as in250, required by AiX 1 3. Application #CU41- - Dorset Street. 21 of Crag arxf "Gael ,I 'cOndi- 8. Application #CU flfii Spain seeking tional use appraisal 22 of Indepen(tent -; under . Section 26.05, Wireless One Lensed Conditfohsl Uaes 3 + Realtlr Corp_ seektng__ Section 26.75, Acbea= conditional use ap-:: sory Residenfiat i proval from . Secttpn. Units, of. the..,Se'ftih : 26.05 of the South Burlington Zoning I Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request :j Regufahons. Request - is for permission. to : is for permission to construct a . - 512 i square foot accas- Instal three [3} anten- nas 1. on cupola And sort' residential unit, I roof of Sheraton Inn, 1 Woo�ide Drive 870 WIMston Road. 4. Final tat appgca- �f ` tion #SD4F1-01 of An- , bons are available for, tonio - Pomerieau ` to• public inspection at amend a planned unit' the South Burlington.. Development consis- City Hall: Ling of three L [3] bUffd-: ings on 6.8 acre ; par- John Dinklage; Chair- cel, 1519 Shelburne: mart Road. The #Trend= South. Burlington L De-, merit consists- of cot= velop,nent _Review;__ strutting a 129 Board „ square foot mectfafri= cal room for exf6t(ng June 23, 2001" light manuf$cturfrfg use. City of South Burlington Application to Development Review Board Official Use APPLICATION # ff0-0! ?3 HEARING DATE FILING DATE FEE AMOUNT Nameofaphe nt8s) Independent Wireless One Leased RealtyCorporation Si Greer Oaks Boulevard Address Albany, NY 12203 Telephone# (518) 862-6003 Representedby John Ponsetto, Esq. c/o Gravel and Shea 658-0220 Landowner Ralph B. Goodrich, Trustee u/t/a dated June 19, 2000. Location and description of property 625 Hinesburg Road, Goodrich Construction Company Adjacent property owner(s) & Address See attached Type of application check one: ( ) appeal from decision of Administrator Officer (includes appeals from Notice of Violation) ()o request for a conditional use ( ) request for a variance I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month (second and fourth Mondays). That a legal advertisement must 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. Provision of zoning ordinance in question Reasonforappeal In -kind replacement of existing struc, rall unsound 110' tower and installation of 3 panel antennas 9._: x`h x 3 ) Other documentation Site Plans Lease Exhibits and V' &.es e Eva uat-ion May; `/ , 2001 Date Signature In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24 V.S.A. the South Burlington Development Review Board will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, , at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: Application of seeking a from Section of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to Permit Number SP- t � 1 CITY OF SOUTH BUF LINGTON APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. 1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) Ralph B. Goodrich, Trustee u/t/a dated June 19. 2000 (802) 862-6431 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) Book 484, pp. 499-500 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) Independent Wireless One Leased Realty Corporation 319 Great Oaks Blvd-. Albany, NY 12201 4) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) John R. Ponsetto, Esq. Gravel and Shea, P.O. Box 369, Burlington, VT 05402 658-0220 658-1456 (fax) 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 635 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, VT 6) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION a) Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use) Off; op,gqrqg,.r equipment storage, existing telecommunications tower b) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain) In -Kind replacement of tower and installation of 3 panel antennas (69" x 6" x 311) c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) 8,955 Sq. ft. No change. d) Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine) 19.4' , 1 floor e) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain) N/A f) Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees): N/A -- g) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): N/A 8) LOT COVERAGE a) Building: Existing 15 % Proposed No �ha Xo b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing 25 % ProposecFo change % c) Front yard (along each street) Existing 12 % Proposed No change % 9) COST ESTIMATES a) Building (including interior renovations): $ 80, 000.00 b) Landscaping: $ None c) Other site improvements (please list with cost): 10) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC N/A a) Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out) b) A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out) c) P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): 11) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: N/A 12) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: N/A N/A N/A N/A 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: September 1, 2001 14) SITE PLAN AND FEE See attached fee of $60.00 included A site plan shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (I I" x 17") of the site plan must be submitted. A site plan application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the site plan application (see Exhibit A). 2 I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: REVIEW AUTHORITY: Development Review Board Director, Planning & Zoning I have reviewed this site plan application and find it to be: Complete Incomplete Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date El GRAVEL AND SHEA Attorneys at Law 76 St. Paul Street Post Office Box 369 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0369 Telepbone 802.658.0220 Faceirnile 802.658.1456 www.gravelshea.com Writer's E-Mail: iponsetto@gravelshea.com HAND DELIVERED Mr. Ray Belair, Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 May 29, 2001 Stewart H. McConaughy Robert B. Hemley William G. Post, Jr. Craig Weatherly James E. Knapp John R. Ponsetto Peter S. Erly Robert F. O'Neill Margaret L. Montgomery Stephen P. Magowan Heather Briggs Robert H. Rushford Clarke A. Gravel Charles I Shea Stephen R. Crampton Of Cnuu"l Norman Williams Christina Reiss Speria! Cnuaeel Johan WE. Maitland Michelle N. Farkas Rebecca C. Raskin Andrew D. Manitsky Re: Application of Independent Wireless One Leased Realty Comoration 166TIl 1 Dear Ray: Enclosed is IWO's application to the Development Review Board for permission to replace, in -kind, the Goodrich tower located at 625 Hinesburg Road and to install 3 antennas on the replacement tower, with exhibits and fees attached. Very truly yours, JRP:kjm Enclosures cc: Ms. Kelly Springer (w/o enclosures) `� FCEI � E� MAY 2 9 20 Ley. of So. Burlington 4, rG NORTH ORIENTATION .oRm oRon.mY L,iH1,9CD N COIi t, URS[,M —. + aawmY OW.Wo f'— TIC R.mYll CCa'l11'W4 ar. Cp 4 ouRRTc ,K uaTrtY a Aww,T, too, fxR,PC OVT M.GR11, P— ., EX.— nK,.m c«v M //-- txrsnlc cons m waOl 10 .[ • / w.R/1 ro R[WN bi TDu+•1.0rr City of So [.m ve.[r C - ro.ca CAML R..occ sl.-PO.„ POST I C%TSTMD I . I ORSI.10 OW .MplY OMB M co�,Arn unit nu \ Lb. ROOD PPC r.T R/ 1f,TR Yar,rn , }I,.ORI RDS. dr• - \-orsn.o rwn QRDItl .00I WIT US,M' OVr .R.O A a RTR.Cm mm m p11M0 OK .IIOdI wanlo R.0 uo Y)\KTD !P OYRM NtO.P, Cx,S,N, i TO u ro iQsascm RI* oT ,I -} ,/••. twa to �1f ROIKI,OR TD.0 % I Y �.• 11dM OR .PPTIdm LDtMI CIOSI.l9 V ff PQL N/ItpR 1JCY(t, CON DCMR TO llf. CM[ fiAtl At ro P RO[J•[D 0 ROM DaS RrTY YODRM OCSOY,bT Ga,[n IORU ,owsuOrt roRo, PLAN � "a .[ M (RO.1 t,91 aouo .iota ANTENNA ORIENTATION TOWER DETAIL 0000MCH [KORPOIATM TLC wo: 7914.443A GOODRICH INCORPORATED ...... a�cn+[rRRro EPENDENT �- SprintTECTONIC WD IRELEssoNii �► ®/ ro LEASE EXHIBIT CbN TAMT P.G ., [TAT[ M. Du,[ , (—) ........ 625 HINESBURG ROAD Sprint PCS .t..Y ... �; ,/,[,,, TOR cn.ort n SOUTH BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05403 ®`'/t[/01 TO c["OA P ' 1 t DR9. 1Q SITE N0. NE43XC443A "0.' °"�" ~ d[ t • `A'�b sCAll: A, „MM ;06T0-M R. PII :M.RY M. J], OItWYa.L .,t[ .r ,1K>•Cl L_� I WIEMANN LAMPHERE, ARCHITECTS COLCHESTER BUSINESS PARK • 30 SOUTH PARK DRIVE • COLCHESTER, VERMONT 05446 PHONE (802) 655-5020 • FAX (802) 655-6567 Date Project No. Project Gentlemen: We are sending you the following items herewith under separate cover Items transmitted as follows: ❑ Approved ❑ Approved as noted Not approved ❑ Resubmit for approval Furnish corrected copies For your files Items nt by: Our messenger Your messenger By: class mail 2M SETS QCP 992 BOLT OR CADWEID GRD: WIRE TO POLE 1' X 45' CHAMFER 3/4' CONDUIT FOR 16 BARE Cu GRD. WIRE CADWEID CONECTION 3/4' X 1If Cu. WELD'' GROUND ROD 4#4 VERT. REBAR" " f 21 - 4• DIA I POLE BASE DETAIL FINSHED GRADE OR N PAVEMENT SURFACE F4-24 X -11 _Q ANCHOR BOLTS z SCH. 40 PVC FROM POLE o TO POLE_W/_SEPARATE ;1 GROUND WWIIKRtE GALVANIZED STEEL TO PVC CONDUIT CONNECTOR. REINFORCING RODS 12, ON CENTER N.T.S 125 250 500 Feet Traffic Overlay District TRAFFIC BALANCE l-- - _ HIGH MAJOR WIEMANN LAMPHERE, ARCHITECTS COLCHESTER BUSINESS PARK • 30 SOUTH PARK DRIVE • COLCHESTER, VERMONT 05446 PHONE (802) 655-5020 • FAX (802) 655-6567 Gentlemen: We are sending you the following items herewith under separate cover No. Description Remarks 4AMA, 00')nV) 1 Q! Liurtington Items transmitted as follows: ❑ Approved Approved as noted Not approved Resubmit for approval Furnish corrected copies For your files Items ent by: Our messenger Your messenger By: class mail 2M SETS QCP 992 IWO-GOODRICH ABUTTERS Timberlane Medical Center 50 Timber Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 Timberlane Medical Center -Phase II 51 Timber Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 CPA Partnership c/o Daniel J. O'Brien 1855 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 C.D. Cairns Irrevocable Trusts (Michael and Bryan Cairns) Partnership 45 San Remo Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Georgetown Homeowners Association c/o Thomas Crowley 35 Georgetown South Burlington, VT 05403 Kennedy Drive Professional Center Condominium Association 620 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Wellesley Grove Condominium Association c/o Property Management Associates P.O. Box 1201 Williston, VT 05495 rn O/G.. ii hAbuuoN132201/2%0901!.WPD/RHR> MAY 2 9 tow G'ty cat So. Burlington 1 -Ii5putb ±13urfington irr Department f 575 +Bnrset --*trect t- vutb �S Urlili tun, Vermunt 05403 1 FAX: (802) 658-4748 (802) 658-7960 M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Jim Goddette, South Burlington Fire Chief Re: June 22, 1993 agenda items Date: June 11, 1993 3) MARY M.PROVENCHER PROPERTY - 2-LOT SUBDIVISION - QUEEN CITY_ PARK At this time I do not see a problem with the 2-lot subdivision which would change our service. 4) O'DELL PARKWAY PROPERTY Plan has been reviewed and at this time all corrections have been made for emergency protection. 5) R.B.G. OFFICE BUILDING - 625 HINESBURG ROAD After reviewing plans a second time, there is no problem with parking and the building. There is a problem with the roadway being too close to the building which would endanger emergency equipment if the building collapsed and another problem is that the road is too close to allow us to operate the tower. 6) JUDGE DEVELOPMENT - 100 DORSET STREET Plan reviewed by this department and the following changes are needed: a) Hydrant on south end of property on Dorset Street must be relocated in a location approved by this department. Preliminary Memo - City Engineer June 22, 1993 agenda items June 1, 1993 Page 2 R.B.G. OFFICE BUILDING, 625 HINESBURG ROAD 1. A pedestrian access to Timberlane should be provided. 2. In closing the existing driveway, the asphalt sidewalk shall be removed and a new concrete sidewalk poured. the Japanese poop) presenlaiives in the � 1;111 secure Iol mm llic Japnnesr nlalivas in lliC it .—.�—_— t � � 1 ir�''�� �:r 'ai?'i4'� J:�h !�%i f�Y1 •� -—��`�`!c'i lj-Ylj, c"�F �'�r?.ycy}.�,/�?:1r�Gt � +x- ;,y f��t r_ � � ',ii=t �M Q r+�.: •�-+5�-1.d rr d7tl � t ! �! �•�.;�Ni<<�� �.�t r—ram— t?.: -�' •�Y ��p1>� a �a,�� GYr.�J� lr1o�'� Gr���•'�i 1 �??� $ ? ld.h�� L �� :N� Gl'tii 3 ��ay �a� �s0 ;�'•� % �t'��'I-Z7 Cr_!'l�l �.."4?'!:a y'�..��s'P+'d-��• �o�� � H!�? S1��N�+�> ft�i - _�"�? �'dr'G`�✓ � G��+ �-i�/,f 11�,�ri'.e;� .?l '�a�t'� — — --- -----_ y � �� -�-� : => l so .� - .�, ���c►� .tart u�3<.��}.�:�1 Z'�Lt �rafI.'i� 4l G?-I i �%�iT\ Af 1t(�f cj�2�b%�irih�" ,J .�';,.;,�'ot'�'� � °,, �'% - �''•^•�07 ,�r?'I �'1=:ac:R'�`t'1'i a------ ---- -- — l- � •.T 11 rcr�� •S '% � '� � � -•�� ,r' � ay�:.� �-�-!�XI �s�Hr� ;: �a2'k(i'r�c� ���. � .'�:''+�'�"1.� % d���; '"7l�'i `•�% � rrai�Nii�ifll� a.7._ 'i i i�ii fit(% ��� � �; �I�!'J '�u� �7���%"Il� J �7 = ra b '1: �,'1v"rP; mac+= d r31- -+,rl at s�xt N ---------------- . . ......... City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 June 18, 1993 Dennis Webster Wiemann-Lamphere, Architects 30 South Park Drive Colchester, Vermont 05446 Re: Office Building, 625 Hinesburg Road Dear Mr.Webster: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and comments from Fire Chief Jim Goddette and myself. Comments from City Engineer, Bill Szymanski were sent to you at an earlier date. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, June 22, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. S' erely, Ye Weith, City Planner Encls JW/mcp cc: Ralph Goodrich City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 June 11 1993 Dennis Webster Wiemann-Lamphere, Architects 30 South Park Drive Colchester, Vermont 05446 Re: Office Building, 625 Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Webster: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find some preliminary comments on the above referenced project from City Engineer Bill Szymanski, Fire Chief Jim Goddette and myself. Please respond to these comments with additional information and/or revised plans no later than Friday, June 11, 1993. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely,, Raymto� nd Jll. Bell/air, Zoning and Planning Assistant Encls RJB/mcp cc: Ralph Goodrich TO; FROM: DATE� RE; 1 2. 3. � m SO. BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION CHIEF GODDETTE WEDNESDAY MAY 26,199-A 8 TUESDAY JUNE 22,1993 AGENDA ITEMS MARY M. PREVENCHER PROPERTY LOT #41 & # 43 2-LOT SUB -DIVISION QUEEN CITY PARK AT THIS TIME I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM WITH THE 2-LOT SUB -DIVISION WHICH WOULD CHANGE OUR SERVICE' A. MARCELINO CO. INC. 4050 WILLISTON RD. PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED ON THE PARKING AREA AND DO NOT FEEL IT WILL CHANGE EMERGENCY SERVICE' AS FAR AS THE CHANGES INSIDE THE BUILDING MR. MARCELINO IS REQUIRED TO FILE PLANS WITH THE DEPT. OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY TO MAKE SURE THE CHANGES MEET STATE CODE FOR SAFETY, R.B.G. OFFICE BUILDING 625 HINESBURG ROAD THE PLANS WERE REVIEWED BY THIS OFFICE AND THE FOLLOWING MUST BE CORRECTED FOR EMERGENCY PROTECTION; A. ONE HYDRANT TO BE ADDED AT A LOCATION APPROVED BY THIS OFFICE' B. THE BUILDING OVER PARKING AREA MUST BE 14 FOOT HIGH TO ALLOW EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT UNDER IF NEEDED TO GET AROUND BUILDING- O'DELL PKAAY PROPERTY PROJECT # 9310B PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND AT THIS TIME ALL CORRECTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR EMERGENCY PROTECTION. 5. 100 DORSET STREET JUDGE DEVELOPMENT CORP' PLAN REVIEWED BY THIS DEPARTMENT AND THE FOLLO141111-7 CHANGES ARE NEEDED; A. HYDRANT ON SOUTH END OF PROPERTY ON DORE-ET STREET MUST BE RELOCATED IN A LOCATION APPROVED BY THIS DEPARTMENT. B, A HYDRANT lB TO BE INSTALLED THE BACI,"' SIDE OF THE PROPERTY BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS AT A LOCATION APPROVED BY THIS OFFICE. THE PLAN FOR THE OFFICE BUILDING ON CORPORATE WAY WHICH IS rHH| Ut- |Hlb HHUrILH|v iljA/ nf-�v= A HYUHANT "/iiL_'|+ IS PART OF BOTH PROJECTS' Preliminary Memo - Planning June 22, 1993 agenda items June 3, 1993 Page 2 A. MARCELINO - SITE(REVISIONS/OFFICE EXPANSION SITE PLAN --- front yard coverage must not exceed 30%. Staff calculates front yard coverage to be 53%. Plan must be revised to comply with this requirement. --- the applicant needs to demonstrate that there has been a change in conditions to justify the requested changes and to justify the Planning Commission's reconsideration of the site changes. This issue should be addressed in writing and submitted to staff. --- provide exterior lighting details. --- plans should indicate that project is located at 20 Palmer Court not 4050 Williston Road. --- staff calculates existing and proposed landscaping to be $800 short of the $3600 required. Additional plantings should be proposed to meet the minimum requirement. RALPH GOODRICH- OFFICE BUILDING - SITE PLAN --- applicant should provide building elevations for ali four (4) sides showing both pre -construction and post -construction grades. --- it is staff's position that the access to the project is within 300 feet of the Hinesburg Road/Kennedy Drive intersection. The property is therefore subject to the traffic limitations of Traffic Overlay Zone 1 which limits P.M. peak hour trip ends to 23. The proposed 26,000 square foot office building is estimated to generate 68.9 trip ends. Since the number of proposed trip ends far exceeds the number permitted, staff recommends that this project not be approved by the Planning Commission. --- staff suggests that the project be scaled back to not exceed the trip end limit, relocate the access at least 13 feet further away from the intersection to then be in Traffic Overlay Zone 5 or change the proposed use to one that doesn't generate so much traffic such as residential. FARRELL - DRIVE -UP BANK - O'DELL PARKWAY - FINAL PLAT --- submit catalog cuts on the replacement building mounted lighting. --- pavement marking placement detail on sheet C-7 does not take into account the bike lane. 1rE J� --ro bbc)l av S �'is5��- i�'igy I N ATERIALS NEEDED O.:e materiel (rheck with local supplier) should be y. or 'b" gravel including particle sizes down to fine d,. tl. I" depth of compacted base weight approxl- nitely 1200 Ibs ,x!r 100 sq ft. (9.3 sq meters). Always add 5.10% for a ,)es and miscellaneous areas. Snnd (coarse concrete sand or other suitable bedding m iterial) I" depl,, approximately 900 Ibs. per 100 sq, ft figure extra 5' for Jointing sand. f' hers P, VE EDGE Si el Spikes 10" length x 3, r' diamelvrr) 1. INSTALLAT ON First measure area you Intend to pave. Determine squ, a footage by n ultiplying (length x width " square footgo), add 5% I, • breakage and cutting. Measure line; feel of open edges, those not up against a perr anent structut. such as a house, etc. This will Ind„ ate lineal foots to of PAVE EDGE required. Draw a p� n on a piece of paper stowing all Important dim, nslons. Take I is pan to your supplier so that he t an help you t ctermine the proper amount of matt rials needed to complete your project. Usin ) the 3-4-5 b tangle method to determine a perpndlcular Ike, measure parallel lines from the perp mdicular line 1c establish a boundary. Place stakes ever.- 4 feet to 6 ket and at corners. These stakes Sho, ld be 8" outside of the planned edge of the pavers. NOT :: You can che,.k to make sure an a, as Is Square by making sure both Sett of cross corners mea ure the exact sam, distance. 2 TOOLS NEEDED • Wooden stakes • Wlde blade masons chisel • Masons string (twine) • Stirs bristle street broom • 3.5 pound hammer • Herd tooth garden rake • Chalklme • 25 ftmeasure tape •1"diameter sand . " ft, 2" x 4" or 2" x 6" screed guides . Small pry bar (pipe, wood, etc.) • 4 ft. Level • Wheelbarrow . Flat shovel Rental: (Look In Yellow pages or local rents . 3hp to5hp plate compactor (not a jump' g lack) . Mason diamond saw . Block/Paver spliticr (Try spreading material with the rake turned upside down). When finished with the base it should he very smooth and flat. It you were to put a straight edge flat on the surface there should be no more than V." (6mm) (maximum) gap anywhere along the straight edge and the base. Slop* and Grade are Important to ensure proper run- off. It is best to plan at bast a '%- (6mm) per tool drop, but try not to exceed 'A' (12mm) per ,-r^ \ foot. (- .'� ) 2. EXCAVATION NOTE: Before any digg ft call your local utility companies to orate anyianderground lines. Using a flat shovel eVervenly to remove sod/dlrt to a depth of at least 5 4"" (13cm) to allow room for 214 (6cm) paver, W (llimm) compacted land, minima of 2" (5cm) oomafaClad crushed ston* base (mo(o f - adl 4 wry Wit). 11 the house Is of new construct Ihefv might )'% potential for settling next to /he Ioundation, ylQe suggest you Increase lase !nick r�ss o 6" (t or a total excavation of it (23om) thin 2 feet N ter) of new foundation. Excavation a ould 3. Tl�fs Is very Important. The more time and effort you rInto the preparation of the base, the better file ro)ect and the longer ft will last. Use either 1/"1(19mm) or 'A* (13mm) graded base material that Includes sizes down to fine dust. This material is easier to dompact and will give a tight close knit surface. Method of Compsdlon. First, run y%d. compactor over the excaya(Make sure no soil gets stu bottom of the plate tamper). Each pass should overlap the previous one by about 4". Now spread your gravel base material out evenly In about 2" layers. If material Is dry and duty use a garden hose to thoroughly wet k down. I lit helps make the gravel aster Io c„mpoct and easier Io rake. Starr,g aroun] the outer perimeter start with the plate corn )actor and again overlap each pP;s about 4- wooing towards the center. You sho, Id make at bast two complete passes for each layer. Use yesur hard tooth g,uden rake to rake out any unevene,•s. I 4. SAND SETTING BED NOTE It is Important to keep your %and dry. Always keep your nand covered In case of rain. Do not attempt to level any area or surface Irregularities with the sand. This will result In an uneven surface and unwanted settling. lr/ your screed guies (I- (25mm) electrical conduit, 1- strips of wood or otter suitable rtgld 1" guide) 4' to 8' apart and parallel. Work from side to side with your screed guides, echoed a 10' section of send. You will use your 6 ft. to 8 tit. 2" x 6" to loosely spread the sand and to strike off any excess. DO NOT walk on or work from your screeded sand. Do not worry about molds that screed guides have left af1w you have removed them. You will lightly fill them with Sand and trowel them smooth as you are trying the (avers, 5. LAYING THE PAVERS (Instructions for Small Areas Only) Starting from a perrnanertt edge Much as a hou1M, driveway, or even a piece of PAVE EDGE, toy your first paver, starting from either Side. (Ace you start rig pavers, work from night to left. Ten left o right and so on, one row of paves at a Urns.) Set t!e pavan lightly ono the sand, never press them o hammer them In. Be surta .� allow 6" (15am) to kntaIt PAVE EDGE on the open sloes later, it you are starting with PAVE EDGE as a starting point (read s7 now), every 4 bet or so run a suing Ins across across front of the bying edge. It there are some Pavers fagging behind go back about 3 rovn of Pavan a using a small pry tar, between the Panes pry the Pavers to unlit they an In line aln. Do not worry much about a..k n.... go this point, they I\ I avers out during tamping Inter. Many different laying patt- *me an possible, but herringbone provlCet the beet ti1O*w sea �) > surface Inter- ` �. lock hand tSghtCebQ NOT use a hammer to adJust the paves or Set them If you t,• , e,, are doing Ihe prolem over a couple of days, cover the entire area with plastic overnight M rain is expected. DO not Iry pavers ovgr the 8' (15cm) extended bees are. where PAVE EDGE Is-tobe set later. t 7T-73 4Iq 6 �Dj 5a Form Ten H Arm Mount Form Ten H: Simplicity of form combined with sophisticated design concepts achieve great strength to weight ratios resulting in a family of luminaires with aesthetic appeal and unusual durability. Luminaires are arm mounted and are available in one-way, two-way and four-way configurations in three sizes with HID lamps from 70 to 1000 watts. Configurations j 10, 2 � 4 U Distribution Patterns Type I Type FM Type III,, TypeVS' Ii f Type VS is not available � In 14' or 1000W HPS. TypeVO Supplied with sag lens, see product details Pg.17. Ordering Information Prefix Configuration Reflector Volts Lamp (-,- Finish H 4" 1 4 1 3 0 FM VS 120 08 2 277 480 Refer to Lamp Selector BRP BLP NA* BRA* BLA* H IV2 H 2 * Anodized finish \ailable on In 26" housing. Lamp Selecto 14" housings 19" housings 26" ousings 70W HPS S OkM 1000 PS•* 100W HPS 2 1000W 100WMV 250 1000W MH 150W HPS* 400 175W MV 400W MV �) 175W MH 400W MH *Supplied with ballast to operate 55 It lamp unless specified otherwise. **Not available in VS. Top Den interlocks with sides to provide a weatherof seal A __ rz Pole bolster vil plate with strain -rebel EasflZ removable Silicone hinged door and Iield gaskets c rotatable reflector Flat tempered glassware One piece multi -formed aluminum sides with an integral reinforcing spine and a single concealed joint provides a veryy B rigid lightweigFtl housing Example Reflector Type Primary Ballast Voltage figuration Lamp Size Finish Prefi. Options 1H 19 2 3 12& 400MH BRP I Finish: NA = Natural Anodize (26" only) BRA = Bronze Anodize (26" only) LA = Black Anodize (26" only) RP = Bronze Painted LP = Black Painted Lamp Abbreviations: MV = Mercury Vapor HPS = High Pressure Sodium MH = Metal Halide Options: F = Fusing MA = Mast Arm Fitter (14" & 19 ") PC = Photocell (on 480 volt, receptacle only) POLY = Polycarbonate Lens Note: 1. VS reflector available in -19 "-250M H, 400MH, 250HPS, 400HPS, 26"-1000 MH. Dimensional Data H14 H19 H26 A 14" 19" 26" B 7" 10" 12" C Arm Length 6" 9" 12" D Arm Height 5" 1 5" 1 8" I HINESBURG ROAD TRAFFIC IMPACT POLICY CONTRIBUTION FORMULA Proposed # Peak Hour Trips/816 = x $135,00 = "` VJ-q 09iG �, s�,,� se9 �91jv h�)IyPllrq CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON SITE PLAN APPLICATION 1) OWNER OF RECORD (name, address, phone # ) 2 ► APPLICANT (name, address, phone # ) 3) CONTACT PERSON (name, address, phone #)�� 4,n A, ` 4) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: , 5) LOT NUMBER (if applicable) _ 6) PROPOSED USE(S) AVIA •i/PA/' A/1/1 7) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e. total building square footage, # units, maximum height and #/loors, square feet per loo ) 8) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 1 9) LOT COVERAGE: building ws.tx; landscaped areas% building, par"' outside storageo"% 10) COST ESTIMATES: Buildings $ Landscaping $ Other Site Improvements (please lis with cost) $ 11) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 12) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in and out) Estimated trip ends (in and out) during the following hours: Monday through Friday 11-12 noon 12-1p.m. 1-2 P.M. 2-3 m. 3-4 p.m. 4-5 p.m. - 5-6� P.M.p.m. 6-7 p.m. 13) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATInu- 14) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATIO DATE OF SUBMISSION DATE OF HEARING PLEASE SUBMIT FIVE COPIES AND ONE REDUCED COPY (11 X 17) OF THE SITE PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: Lot drawn to scale (20 foot scale if possible.) Location of streets, abutting properties, fire hydrants, existing buildings, existing landscaping. Existing and proposed curb cuts pavement, walkways. Proposed landscaping plan (number, variety and size) equal to of greater than the required amount in the Zoning Regulations. Number and location of Parking Spaces: (9' X. 18') with 22 or 24 foot aisles as required. Number and location of compact car spaces. (This requires sepa- rate Planning Commission approval). Number and location of handicapped spaces as required. (13 feet by 20 feet in size, one per every fifty spaces). Location of septic tanks (if applicable). Location of any easements. Lot coverage information: Building footprint, building, parking and outside storage, and landscaped areas. Location of site (Street # and lot #). North arrow Name of person or firm preparing site plan and date. 2 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 July 13 , 1995 Dennis Webster Wiemann-Lamphere Architects 30 South Park Drive Colchester, Vermont 05446 Re: Office Building, 625 Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Webster: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is a copy of the June 13, 1995 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please note the conditions of approval including the requirement that a zoning permit be obtained within six (6) months or this approval is null and void. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Joe Weith,od City Planner JW/mcp 1 Encl cc: Ralph Goodrich r�. U « + STATE of VERMONT Environmental Board District #4 Environmental Commission 111 West Street • Essex Junction • Vermont • 05452 T/ 802.879.5614 • F/ 802.879.3871 http://www.state.vt.us/envboard April 23, 2001 John Ponsetto, Esq. Gravel and Shea P.O. Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402-0369 RE: Jurisdictional Opinion #4-173 — Replacement of Radio Tower at 625 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington Dear Mr. Ponsetto: This jurisdictional opinion is in response to your letter dated March 27, 2001 and the site plan titled "Lease Exhibit," Sheet L-1 dated last revision 3/21/01. You have requested an opinion as to whether the installation of a new tower to replace an existing tower requires a Land Use Permit. For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that the installation of the new tower does not trigger Act 250 jurisdiction. Consequently, a Land Use Permit is not required for the proposed installation. I. FACTS Ralph Goodrich owns 1.2 acres ("Goodrich property") that contains a commercial building used for his construction company, which is located at 625 Hinesburg Road in South Burlington. South Burlington has zoning and subdivision regulations. Therefore, for Act 250 purposes, it is a 10-acre town. The Goodrich property is not presently subject to Act 250 jurisdiction. 2. An existing 110-foot tall radio tower is mounted on the roof of the commercial building. It has a coordinate location of latitude 44°27'13" North and longitude 73°9'52" West. The information provided indicates that the tower was constructed many years ago, certainly prior to July 1, 1997. 3. The tower consists of 1-inch diameter leg tubes and lattice construction supported by guy wires located at 35, 69 and 107 feet intervals along the tower itself. All guy wire anchors are fixed to the roof top. A 20-foot whip antenna is located at the top of the tower and a GPS antenna is mounted 10 feet above the tower base. There are no other antennae nor any lights mounted on the tower at this time. Jurisdictional Opinion #4-173 April 23, 2001 Page 2 of 5 4. Independent Wireless One Leased Realty Corporation ("IWO"), the network licensee for Sprint PCS, has entered into a lease agreement with the property owner for installation of panel antennas on the tower. 5. IWO hired an independent consultant to conduct a structural analysis of the existing tower. The analysis indicates that the existing tower is in extremely poor rusted condition and posed a significant risk of falling, even without the addition of the new panel antennas. 6. Because of structural deficiencies in the existing tower, IWO has proposed to replace it with a new Rohn 25G tower. The new tower is similar in height, width, size, materials and loading strength. The primary difference between the new and existing towers is that the new tower will be constructed with 1.25-inch tubular legs and 3/16-inch support lattice. In addition, two of the roof mounted guy wires will be relocated and anchored to the ground instead of the roof top. Besides these changes, all other structural aspects of the new tower will remain the same as the existing tower. 7. Three panel antennas will be mounted in a tripod arrangement at the 100-foot elevation of the new tower. Each panel has the following dimensions: 69-inch height; 6-inch width; and 3-inch thickness. 8. The site plans also show some minor alterations directly adjacent to the building that involve the installation of three cabinets (battery, power and modular cell), power meter and cable bridge within a 20 by 20 foot fenced enclosure. 9. The Applicant represents that the emissions from the three panel antennas will be below the FCC threshold for review. II. ISSUES Whether the installation of the new tower is a development pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6001(3); 2. If the answer to number 1 above is answered in the negative, whether the installation of the new tower is a development pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6001c; and 3. Whether the installation of the new tower constitutes a substantial change to the tower being replaced, or is exempt pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6081(m). III. CONCLUSIONS The Goodrich property comprises a commercial building on a parcel of land less than ten acres. The Act 250 definition of development, in part, is: the construction of improvements on a tract or tracts of land, owned or Jurisdictional Opinion #4-173 April 23, 2001 Page 3 of 5 controlled by a person, involving more than 10 acres of land within a radius of five miles of any point on any involved land, for commercial or industrial purposes. 10 V.S.A. § 6001(3). Since the Goodrich property is a commercial use located upon a parcel of land that is less than ten acres, it is not presently subject to Act 250 jurisdiction. However, 10 V.S.A. § 6001c provides, in part: In addition to other applicable law, any support structure proposed for construction, which is primarily for communication or broadcast purposes and which will extend vertically 20 feet, or more, in order to transmit or receive communication signals for commercial, industrial, municipal, county or state purposes, shall be a development under this chapter, independent of the acreage involved. In this case, the new Rohn 25G tower will extend 110 feet vertically for the purpose of transmitting or receiving telecommunication signals for a commercial purpose. Accordingly, the tower would be a development under 10 V.S.A. § 6001c, but not under § 6001(3). On July 1, 2000, the Act 250 statute was revised with respect to replacement tower structures. The new provision reads as follows: No permit is required for the replacement of a preexisting telecommunications facility, in existence prior to July 1, 1997, provided the facility is not a development as defined in subdivision 6001(3) of this title, unless the replacement would constitute a substantial change to the telecommunications facility being replaced, or to improvements ancillary to the telecommunications facility, or both. No permit is required for repair or routine maintenance of a preexisting telecommunications facility or of those ancillary improvements associated with the telecommunications facility. 10 V.S.A. § 6081(m). Having determined that the replacement tower is not a development as defined by subdivision 6001(3), and that the existing tower was constructed prior to July 1, 1997, the issue now becomes whether the installation of the new tower, panel antennae and other associated ancillary improvements constitute a substantial change to the preexisting tower facility. Environmental Board Rule 2(G) defines substantial change as: any change in a development or subdivision which may result in significant impact with respect to any of the criteria specified in 10 V.S.A. § 6086 (a)(1) through (a)(10). Jurisdictional Opinion #4-173 April 23, 2001 Page 4 of 5 The Environmental Board uses a two-part test to determine whether a substantial change will occur to a preexisting development. First, an evaluation is made as to whether a cognizable change will occur to the pre-existing development. Re: Norwich Associates, Inc., Declaratory Ruling #275, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order at 12 (Vt. Env. Bd., Apr. 3, 1996) and Re: Sugarbush Resort Holdings, Inc., Declaratory Ruling #328, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order at 22 (Vt. Env. Bd., Feb. 27, 1997). It is my opinion that the new Rohn 25G replacement tower will not be a cognizable change as viewed by the passerby because the proposed replacement tower will be similar in height, width, size and materials. However, the addition of the three panel antennas at the 100- foot elevation of the tower and the installation of ancillary equipment cabinets and a new fenced area adjacent to the building, does result in a cognizable physical change. The second part of the substantial change analysis is to determine whether the proposed - changes have the potential for significant impact with respect to one or more of the Act 250 criteria. Re: Robert and Barbara Barlow, Declaratory Ruling #234, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order at 11 (Vt. Env. Bd., Sept. 20, 1991). The two Act 250 criteria most likely to be implicated by this project are Criterion 1(air) and Criterion 8 (aesthetics). In order to make a showing of no potential for significant impact, an applicant must submit evidence showing that the strength of the transmissions from the project will be lower than the FCC standard. For future collocation projects at this site, applicants will need to provide transmission strength information for the new equipment so that the individual and cumulative effect of the collocation(s) may be assessed. Based on the information provided by the Applicant in this regard, I conclude that the project will not have the potential for significant impact with respect to Criterion 1(air). As for Criterion 8 (aesthetics), an applicant must also provide evidence that the project will not have the potential for significant impact. To satisfy this inquiry, an applicant must provide adequate information regarding the existing conditions, including the context of the site, and must provide a description of the proposed improvements that is specific enough for a determination to be made that the project will not be out of harmony with the existing landscape. In this case, the replacement tower will be the same height as the existing tower and the only visible difference on the tower itself will be the three relatively small panel antennas. There are no lights proposed for the tower. The 20' x 20' fenced enclosure is located close to the existing building, which is located in a commercial area. Thus, it is my opinion that the proposed changes will not result in any significant impacts to one or more of the Act 250 criteria. Accordingly, the proposed tower does not constitute a substantial change to a preexisting tower facility. I conclude that the installation of the new Rohn 25G tower to replace an existing tower at the Goodrich property is not development pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6001(3). Further, because the replacement tower does not constitute a substantial change to a preexisting tower facility, it is exempt from Act 250 pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6081(m). However, any future proposed modifications (e.g., new antennas or other ancillary equipment) to the tower facility should be forwarded to the attention of the District Coordinator for review as to Jurisdictional Opinion #4-173 April 23, 2001 Page 5 of 5 whether they may be substantial changes pursuant to EBR 2(G) and 10 V.S.A. § 6081(m). V. NOTICE and APPEAL If the person who requested the opinion wants it to be a final determination regarding jurisdiction, the district coordinator, at the expense of the requestor, shall serve the opinion on all persons identified in writing by the requestor, or known to the coordinator, as either qualifying as parties under Rule 14(A) or who may be affected by the outcome of the opinion. EBR 3(C)(1). As of the date of this opinion, a request for a final determination pursuant to EBR 3(C)(1) has not been made. Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6007(c) and Environmental Board Rule 3(C), this jurisdictional opinion may be reconsidered by the District Coordinator or it may be appealed directly to the Environmental Board by the applicant, by individuals or entities that may be affected by the outcome of the opinion, or by parties that would normally be entitled to notice under 10 V.S.A. § 6084 and Environmental Board Rule 14(A). Any appeal must be filed directly with the General Counsel, Environmental Board, National Life Records Center Building, Drawer 20, Montpelier, Vermont 05620-3201, within 30 days of the mailing of the opinion to the person appealing. Failure to appeal within the prescribed period shall render the jurisdictional opinion a final determination with respect to jurisdiction under this chapter, unless the opinion has not been properly served on parties that would normally be entitled to notice under 10 V.S.A. § 6084 and Environmental Board Rule 14(A), and on persons and entities who may be affected by the outcome of the decision, according to the Rules of the Environmental Board. Appeals shall be by means of a petition for a declaratory ruling pursuant to Environmental Board Rule 3(D) and must be accompanied by a $100.00 filing fee. In addition, the petitioner must include the original and ten copies of the petition and the jurisdictional opinion appealed from, and a certificate of service showing that the following persons have been served with the petition: all statutory parties under 10 V.S.A. § 6084 and EBR 14(A). Please call me at 879-5658 if you have any questions regarding this jurisdictional determination or if I can be of further assistance. Very truly yours, Mary B. rottier Environmental Board District #4 Coordinator cc: Service List W:\ACT250\JO\4-173.JO I hereby certify on this � 3 day of April 2001, a copy of the fo, going Jurisdictional Opinion #4-173 to John Ponsetto, Esq., Gravel and Shea, was sent first class mail, postage prepaid to: PARTIES: John Ponsetto, Esq. Gravel and Shea PO Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402-0369 Stephen R. Crampton Gravel and Shea PO Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402-0369 Ralph Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Chair, Selectboard/Chair, Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Michael Crane, Exec. Dir./CCRPC PO Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05453 Warren Coleman, Environmental Litigation Attorney/ANR 103 South Main St. - Center Bldg., 3rd Floor Waterbury, VT 05671-0301 FOR YOUR INFORMATION District #4 Environmental Commission 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Michael Zahner, Executive Director Environmental Board National Life Records Center Building, Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-3201 Lou Borie, Chief Coordinator Environmental Board National Life Records Center Building, Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-3201 Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont, this 01day of April, 2001. w:CSJO#4-173/cc C nstine Commo, Distric O �icehief Clerk 879-5670 GRAVEL AND SHEA Attorneys at Law 76 St. Paul Street Post Office Box 369 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0369 Telephone 802.658.0220 Faceimile 802.658.1456 www. gravelshea.com Writer's E-Mail: iponsetto@gravelshea.com Mr. Ray Belair, Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 March 27, 2001 Stewart H. McConaughy Robert B. Hemley William G. Post, Jr. Craig Weatherly James E. Knapp John R. Ponsetto Peter S. Erly Robert F. O'Neill Margaret L. Montgomery Stephen P. Magowan Heather Briggs Robert H. Rushford Clarke A. Gravel Charles T Shea Stephen R. Crampton Of Coandel Norman Williams Special Coandel Johan W.E. Maitland Michelle N. Farkas Rebecca C. Raskin Andrew D. Manitsky Re: Replacement of Radio Tower at 625 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington Dear Ray: This firm represents Independent Wireless One Leased Realty Corporation ("IWO"), the network licensee for Sprint PCS. IWO has entered into a lease agreement with Ralph Goodrich, the owner of a commercial property on 1.2 acres of land for the installation of panel antennas on an existing radio tower. The existing radio tower was built many years ago. In connection with its lease, IWO hired an independent consultant to perform a structural analysis of the existing tower. The structural analysis indicated that the existing tower was in extremely poor rusted condition and posed a significant risk of falling (even without the addition of new antennas). Because the existing tower is in poor condition and may fall down in the near future, IWO has reached an agreement with the owner to replace the existing tower with a new Rohn 25G tower. The Rohn 25G is nearly identical to the existing tower in terms of its height, widths, size and loading strength. We have enclosed a before and after engineering drawing which shows the layout, dimensions and configuration of the existing tower and the layout, dimensions and configuration of the new Rohn 25G tower. One slight modification will be the relocation of two wire anchors from the roof of the building to the ground. The Goodrich Tower is located in the Residential 7 District of the City's zoning ordinance. As such, it is considered a non -complying structure. According to the zoning ordinance, a non -complying structure may be altered, provided the alteration does not exceed GRAVEL AND SHEA Mr. Ray Belair, Zoning Administrator March 27, 2001 Page 2 25% of the fair market value of the structure. §26.002. Assuming that replacement is an alteration of an existing structure, and is therefore subject to the provisions of §26.002, the replacement tower here will certainly exceed 25% of the fair market value of the old Goodrich Tower. You have recently advised me that because the City's ordinance makes no provisions for towers, they are prohibited. That prohibition is contrary to the Federal Telecommunications Act, and therefore the City must permit towers anywhere within the City, subject to review and approval by the Development Review Board's application of the ordinances' conditional use and site plan criteria. While §26.002 theoretically allows replacement of a tower that is a non -complying structure, as a practical matter the 25% of fair market value limitation is a prohibition. That being the case, I would like your advise as to whether the proper action here is to apply to the Development Review Board for a conditional use/site plan permit to construct the replacement tower. Please call if you have any questions. We look forward to your early response. Very truly yours, VEL AND SHEA P&, ;: JRP:kjm Enclosure cc: Michael Cusack, Esq. (w/o enclosure) Ms. Kelly Springer (w/o enclosure) NORTH ORIENTATION v D. NORM ORIENTATION ESTABLISHED BY COMPASS OBSERVATXTN. s} DECVNeT10N OBTAINED FROM THE NATIONAL GEOPHTSK:AL DATA CENTER 1, DURING THE MONTH OF ,WNUNRY. 2001 PPpi ROOT ` IXISnNG ROOF TRUSS BELOW IX5nNG GUY ANCHOR - IXISTING ROOF VENT I PENT AT EXISTING ROOF DaSnNG GU" wvm TO BE REPLACED y I EXISTING 1 GUY ANCHOR COSTING UTILITY POLE W/UGHT----gl TECTONIC EC CONSULONSULRANTANTS P.C. MSTATE STR[R. SUDS 3 (902) Z2}-DSSB ONTPELIER, - O5-1 EXISTING CONCRETE BARRIER TO BE EXISTING CONCRETE BARRIER TO REMAIN REMOVED—, {• WIDE GATE Iwo EQUIPMENT PT PT- CABINS s POWER CABLE BRIDGE CABINET SUPPORT POST COVERED CABLE LADDERS J% J ANTENNA CABLES IN COVERED CABLE TRAY EXLSTIJG GUY LOWER TO BE REPLACED L-' SCALE: ,•_3• MODULAR CELL CABINET `CABLE BRIDGE IXISTINC WEATHERHEAO— EX1sTNG ROOF VENT dl- �OAEIR R00` \ GPS ANTENNA �. PPG MINI W/ METER NIFD TO SUPPORT POSE — 20"0" FENCE COMPOUND W/ BARBED WOE okm —\—EXISTING TMEEUNE EXISTING ROOF VENT GOODRICH INCORPORATED 625 HINESBURG ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 EXISTING GUY WARES TO BE REPLACED ER W� GO Ed NO GUT ANCIgR TO BE REMOVED FROM BUILDING WALL AND REPME, BY GROUND ANCHOR T/ 20' casnNG m'__ L-' SCALE: 1L10' TWO ANTENNA P CSA CSX06 OF 3) 3-18-2 OF (TYP J) JL ,� �4 1 1/4'0 TOWER LEG V� REPLACEMENT TOWER TL BY ROIHN OR MPROVED EQUAL v� Y z 9 CONTRACTOR TO TAG COAX CABIE AT BOTH ENDS WITH ANTENNA DESIGNATION AS DIRECTED BY NO. ANTENNA ORIENTATION L-' SCALE- NONE is I DEPENDENT -"k- Sprint WIRELESS ONE —V Sprint pCS N, AXM PNR RR SITE NO. NE43XC443A EXISTING GUY ANCHOR TO BE REMOVED FROM BURRING WALL AND REPLACED BY GROUND ANCHOR ®3/21/Ol j FOR COM.IEMY 2/26/01 1 FOR COMMENT ------------ 1/26/01 I FOR COMMENT ____________________________ NO.; DATE REVISIONS SCALE: AS NOTED •,DESIGNED BY: PR BY: AKR rFN� ERAL NOTES ME PROJECT IS THE COMM.ACMK "S'N1 TDM OF AM UNWWNED WIRELESS OMMUNCXDON FACILITY AND PCs ANTENNAS HE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS UOEWNED AND DOES NOT REOUIRE A FANS OF WATER SUPPLY OR SEWAGE VSPOSA. NE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS MHIWL AND "ALL CREATE NEGLIGIBLE DOffIONAL STORM WATER RtaYOPT AND W61 THEREFORE NOT IMPACT THE USTING STORM WATER ORNNAGE SYSTEM. HERE ARE NO NEW STREETS. CURBS. SOEWMXS OR WALNNAYS PROPOSED. NE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT NQUDE OUTDOOR STORAGE OR ANY OLD WASTE RECEPTALTES HERE ME NO COMMERCIAL SGNS PROPOSED FOR THIS INSTALLATION. ORTH SHOWN IS IPPRONMAIE (SEE NOTE NORTH ORIENTAMOM MOLE) DOF PLAN WAS DEVELOPED FROM A TAPE SURVEY PROVIDED BY ECTONIC ENGINEERING ON 1/23/01. IXGTING CONDITIONS ARE PPRGAMATE AND DO NOT REFLECT AN ACTUAL SURYET. LEGEND QIW OV[TaHEAD WIRE NOFNA CABLES i TELCO CABLES P POWER, CARFs T/ LOWER ROOF PEAL 12'-4'3 AGL 1'1 MOWER LEG 1-O. 1 1/4'I TOWER LEG 1 -0 1/;• 5/16-0 EXISTING TOWER IEPLACEMENT TOWER (ROAN 2MI) TOWER DETAIL l-I SCALE: 1/2' _ 1'-0' GOODRICH INCORPORATED - TEC WO: 2916.442 LEASE EXHIBIT L-1 I City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 July 17, 1995 Dennis Webster Wiemann-Lamphere Architects 30 South Park Drive Colchester, Vermont 05446 Re: Office Building, 625 Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Webster: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision on the above referenced project approved by the Planning Commission on June 13, 1995. Please note the conditions of approval including the requirement that a zoning permit be obtained within twelve ( 12 ) months or this approval is null and void. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Joe Weith, P/o City Planner JW/mcp 1 Encl P 6/13/95 MOTION OF APPROVAL WIEMANN-LAMPHERE ARCHITECTS I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan application of Wiemann-Lamphere Architects to construct a 23,838 square foot 3-story general office building and displace a contractor's yard, an office/maintenance building and an accessory building, 625 Hinesburg Road, as depicted on a plan entitled "Site Plan, 625 Hinesburg Rd., South Burlington, Vermont", prepared by Wiemann-Lamphere, Architects, Inc. dated 6/l/95, with the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. The applicant shall post a $17,500 landscape bond prior to issuance of a zoning permit. The bond shall remain in effect for three (3) years to assure that new landscaping takes root and has a good chance of surviving and that existing landscaping to remain survives. 3. The Planning Commission approves a landscaping credit of $13,536 for the existing trees on the property. 4. For the purpose of calculating required road impact fees under the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance, the Planning Commission estimates that the proposed office building will generate 64.6 additional vehicle trip ends during the P.M. peak hour. 5. A sewer allocation of 1440 gpd is approved. The applicant shall pay the per gallon fee prior to issuance of a zoning permit. 6. All new exterior lighting shall consist of downcasting shielded fixtures so as not to cast light beyond the property line. Any change in lighting �be approved by the City Planner prior to installation. 7. The applic nt �shalY obtain a zoning permit for the building within C � months or this approval is null and void. 8. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy/Compliance from the Administrative Officer prior to occupancy of the building. 9. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Planning Commission. 1 Memorandum - Planning June 13, 1995 agenda items June 9, 1995 Page 10 Legal documents: The legal documents for the r.o.w. and utility easement should be reviewed by the City Attorney and recorded prior to permit issuance for lots #1 and #2. Impact fees: The applicant should be aware that development of lots #1 and #2 will be subject to school, road and recreation impact fees. a) WIEMANN-LAMPHERE ARCHITECTS - OFFICE BUILDING- SITE PLAN This project consists of the construction of a three (3) story 23,838 square foot general office building. This office building will displace a contractor's yard, an office/maintenance building and an accessory building. The ZBA will hear the applicant's request for a conditional use permit for this office use on 6/12/95. This property located at 625 Hinesburg Road lies within the R7 District. It is bounded on the north by Kennedy Drive, on the east by Hinesburg Road, on the south by Country Park apartments and on the west by Timber Lane Medical Center. Access/circulation: Access will be provided via a new 24 foot curb cut on Hinesburg Road located at the southerly end of the site. An existing 47 foot curb cut on Hinesburg Road will be closed. Circulation is adequate. Coverage/setbacks: Building coverage is 12.6% (maximum allowed is 25%). Overall coverage is 59.7% (maximum allowed is 60%). Front yard coverage along Hinesburg Road is 29.1% and along Kennedy Drive is 0% (maximum allowed is 30%). Parking: A total of 95 parking spaces are required and 95 spaces including four (4) handicapped spaces are being proposed. A bike rack is being provided as required under Section 26.253(b) of the zoning regulations. Sc If � Landscaping: The minimum landscaping requirement for this project is $17,500 which is not being met. The landscaping proposed has an estimated value of $3964 which is a $13,536 shortfall. The applicant is seeking a credit for existing landscaping to make up for the shortfall. The applicant has submitted an estimate from a Memorandum - Planning, June 13, 199D agenda items June 9, 1995 Page 11 landscaping consultant as to the value of the existing trees on the site (see enclosed). This estimate is $34,000. Traffic: This property is located in Traffic Overlay Zone 5 which would allow this property to generate 70.8 vte's during the P.M. v" peak hour. ITE estimates that the proposed building will generate 64.6 vte's. The road impact fee for this project is approximately $13,000. Sewer: The sewer allocation needed for this project is 1440 gpd.� The applicant will be required to pay the per gallon fee prior to permit. Dumpster: The dumpster will be enclosed by a wooden fence. Lighting: Exterior lighting will consist of 11 - 250 watt metal halide lamps with downcasting shielded fixtures mounted on six (6) 18 foot poles and soffit lighting at the building entry. Building height: The building will meet the 40 foot height limitation for a pitched roof structure. 11 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4746 PLANNER 658-7955 June 9, 1995 Dennis Webster Wiemann-Lamphere Architects 30 South Park Drive Colchester, Vermont 05446 Re: Office Building, 625 Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Webster: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Comments from City Engineer Bill Szymanski and Fire Chief Wally Possich were sent to you at an earlier date. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, June 13, 1995 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, JW/mcp Encls cc: Ralph Goodrich please give me a call. S n erelyt Jo Weith, Ci y Planner ORWARD GUT OFF 77. VERTICAL ANGLE MAX. CANDELPOWER 67.50 250 WATT METAL HAL LAMP TYPE 5ET TOP OF FOOTING AD VE FINI5HEG) ORAD[ .r . FOO l INO-- 18" PIA. X 4o, CLA55 5 CONCRETE PROVIDE 3/4" CONDUIT FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE SITE LIGHTING FIXTURE ---- �'oy r � �'�P, `%6 ;� `/�ir� � /s y//e-��ni"' � /vim AWD60AF41HO Cation. and Insialiation L.ANDSOAPE MAHAQEMMI Plant Health Prtigramn wlrt9 and FaAfittztion OONSULTATWN Value Emolniarinp Inauranoa Appragaae 670 Roosevelt Highway Colchester, VT 05446 TEL: (802) 8$3-6494 FAX: (802) 893-6196 FAX COVER SHEET PHAE Al EROSION CONTRA Nydroseed; Slope StabiliZAt ECOLOGICAL SERVIC W$t{and m6gat *JdWa Enhancer, - COMPANY: Weimann-Lamphere Architectp DATE: June 2, 1995 ATTENTION; Dtannis Webatar FAX NUMBER: (802) 655-6567 BENS' BY: Ja ARSORTECH, INC. COLCHEBTER, VT FAX NUMBER 802--893-R619€ MNSSAGE: RE: A5 HINESBURG RD Existing Trees 1 30" White Pine = 5 6" @ $400.00 $2,000.00 1 24" White Pine 4 6" C $400.00 $11600.00 5 18" White Pine = 15 6" 0 $400.00 $6,000.00 12 6" White Pine c 1.2 6" C $400.00 $4, 800.00 1 18" Oak 3 6" @ $400:00 $1,200.00 4 18" Hemlock = 12 6" 0 $400:00 $4,800.00 30 201 White Cedar = 60 1.0' 1 $100.00 $6,000.00 1 24" Maple = 4 611 @ $400.00 $1,600.00 2 la" Maple = 6 6" @ $800.00 $4,800.00 2 10" Maple 3 6" @ $400.00 $1_14PO.00 1000.00 Thank You! Number of pages, including cover sheet: Please contact u5 if you don't receive all pagesi WIEMANN LAMPHERE, ARCHITECTS COLCHESTER BUSINESS PARK • 30 SOUTH PARK DRIVE • COLCHESTER, VERMONT 05446 PHONE (802) 655-5020 • FAX (802) 655-6567 gk4 Date j , J Project No - Project T o: f i r 1 -I., - V—t Gentlemen: We are sendina You the following items herewith under separate cover No. Description Remarks RECEIVED � y o o. ur Ong o Items transmitted as follows: Approved F1Approved as noted Not approved ❑ Resubmit for approval F1Furnish corrected copies For your files Items sent by: 1 Our messenger ❑ Your messenger class mail WIEMANN LAMPHERE By: 3M SETS QCP 1089 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 May 26, 1995 Dennis Webster Wieman-Lamphere Architects 30 South Park Drive Colchester, Vermont 05446 Re: Office Building, 625 Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Webster: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are preliminary comments on the above referenced project from City Engineer Bill Szymanski, Fire Chief Wally Possich and myself. Please respond to these comments with additional information and/or revised plans, if appropriate, no later than 'Friday, June 2, 1995. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely,, Raymond J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant RJB/mcp Encls cc: Ralph Goodrich XT M E M O R A N D U M To: Project Files From: Raymond J. Belair Zoning and Planning Assistant Re: Preliminary Comments, June 13, 1995 agenda items Date: May 26, 1995 WIEMANN-LAMPHERE ARCHITECTS - OFFICE BUILDING - SITE PLAN --- provide separate front yard coverage information for each of the front yards. --- landscaping proposed has an estimated value of $3770 which is $13,730 short of the $17,500 minimum landscaping requirement. --- 96 parking spaces proposed and only 95 spaces proposed. --- plan should be revised to provide a minimum 5 foot snow storage area along southerly and easterly boundaries between parking area and property line. --- provide locations and details of all building mounted lighting. --- show location of any ground mounted HVAC equipment. --- building envelope depicted on plan is not correct along southerly boundary, this is a side yard not a rear yard (see Exhibit 28A of the zoning regulations). --- a conditional use permit must be obtained from the ZBA for this office building. --- applicant should be aware that the road impact fee will be approximately $13,000. --- roofed dumpster building must meet setback requirements, a fenced dumpster area would not need to meet setbacks. KENNETH SMITH - INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL BUILDING - SITE PLAN --- site plan application indicates that Kenneth Smith is the owner of record of this property. City records indicate that John Belter is the owner. Application should be corrected. --- the minimum landscaping requirement of $15,000 is not being met. Landscaping proposed is $3500 short of the requirement. Landscaping plan should be revised to meet the minimum requirement. --- wetland boundary should be delineated by wetland expert to accurately determine the location of the C.O. District. The plan should show the boundaries of the C.O. District determined from the wetland delineation. 0 M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, South Burlington City Engineer Re: June 13, 1995 agenda items Date: May 19, 1995 KEN SMITH PROPERTY LOTS 25 & 26 (BELTER DEVELOPMENT) COMMERCE STREET 1. Site plan dated April 1995 prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn, Inc., is acceptable. GOODRICH PROPERTY - HINESBURG ROAD - KENNEDY DRIVE 1. Water and sewer services to new building should be shown. 2. A pedestrian walkway to Timber Lane should be considered. GRAINGER INC. EXPANSION - GREEN TREE PARK - GREGORY DRIVE Site plan prepared by Trudell Engineering with latest revision dated 5/16/95 is acceptable. SPENCER BAKER & SHEILA BOWES - SHUNPIKE ROAD Survey plan defining new lot lines prepared by Button Associates dated 4/20/95 is acceptable. SICOTTE - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION - HINESBURG ROAD Sewer and water services for lot 2 should be shown on the site plan. GERMAINE LECLAIR (3 LOT SUBDIVISION) PATCHEN ROAD Sewer and water services serving lot 1 & 2 will be private lines maintained jointly by the owners of these lots. M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Wallace Possich, South Burlington Fire Chief Re: Plans Reviewed for June 13, 1995 Meeting Date: May 24, 1995 I have reviewed the following site plans and my comments are as follows: 1. W.W. Grainger, Inc. Dated 5/16/95 Lot 13 Green Tree Park Project No. 88155 Acceptable 2. Ken Smith Property Dated 4/28/95 Commerce Avenue Project No. 95039 The plan is acceptable with one (1) requirement. Due to the length of the building and the location of the nearest hydrant, one (1) additional hydrant is needed to be located at or near the south end of the parking lot. I would prefer that the hydrant be installed on the east side of unit 5. 3. Lionel Sicotte Dated 5/6/95 Project No. 2519 Acceptable 4. 625 Hinesburg Road Acceptable 5. Germaine LeClair 185 Patchen Road Acceptable 6. Baker and Bowes Property 123 & 251 Shunpike Road Acceptable 7. Olde Dorset 1001 Dorset Street Acceptable Dated 5/8/95 Project No. 95017 Dated 5/15/95 Project No. 9520 Dated 5/15/95 Project No. 947002 Dated 5/15/95 /Li/I� cZ7; oS a m o p/ � �- �: -�' � �/ __�� .� / � w v FORM NR-1 COMPUTATION OF TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES PROJECT DATA: (1) "EFFECTIVE DATE" G FOR TAX CREDITS: (2) ESTIMATED PEAK HOUR VEHICLE TRIP ENDS vph (3) ESTIMATED PRE -CONSTRUCTION VALUE IN UNITS OF $1,000 (From current tax d� assessment) units (4) TOTAL FLOOR AREA AFTER CONSTRUCTIONs . f . (5) TYPE OF USE (6) TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION����r( IMPACT FEES: (7) TOTAL ROAD IMPACT FEE (From Form NR-2) L_j_,___��� lob FORM NR-2 COMPUTATION OF ROAD IMPACT FEES (1) BASE ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE PER PEAK HOUR VEHICLE TRIP END $ 221.72 / vte (2) ESTIMATED PEAK HOUR VEHICLE TRIP ENDS / ( From form NR-1) vte (3) IMPACT FEE „l (1)ExROAD (2) �// (4) PRE -CONSTRUCTION VALUE IN UNITS OF $1,000 $1,000 (from line (3) of Form NR-1) UII ?% units (5) CREDIT PER $1,000 OF PRE - CONSTRUCTION VALUE (From Table ST-3) $ / unit ( 6 ) CREDIT FOR PAST TAX PAYMENTS (4) x (5) $ (7) POST -CONSTRUCTION VALUE IN UNITS OF $1,000 (From line (8) on Form NR-3) (8) CREDIT PER $1,000 OF POST - CONSTRUCTION VALUE (From Table ST-4) (9) CREDIT FOR FUTURE TAX PAYMENTS (7) X (8) (10) TOTAL ROAD IMPACT FEE (3) - (6) - (9) LYA2 units unit $ `1 nw/ 6 ( 0 FORM NR-3 ESTIMATION OF POSTCONSTRUCTION VALUE (1) TYPE OF USE (From line (5) on form NR-1) (2) TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION (from line (6) on Form NR-1 (3) TOTAL FLOOR AREA (From line (4) on Form NR-1) (4) ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT VALUE PER SQUARE FOOT (From Table ST-5) (5) ESTIMATED VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS (3) x (4) (6) LAND VALUE (From current tax records) (7) ESTIMATED POST -CONSTRUCTION VALUE (5) + (6) (8) ESTIMATED POST -CONSTRUCTION VALUE IN UNITS OF $1,000 (7) / $1,000 C) � /CC-_ C 2p ✓� s.f. �a units 6tJ_X # SITE PLAN CHECK LIST -y- Lot drawn to scale --- Survey data (distances and lot size) v --- Contours (existing and finished). -=� Existing vegetation and natural features. -`�- Proposed landscaping (number, variety and size) equal or greater than the required amount in section 19.104 of the Zoning Regulations. --- Location of streets, abutting properties, fire hydrants, existing buildings. --- Existing and proposed curb cuts, pavement, walkways. - Zoning boundaries --- Number and location of parking spaces. (RV parking for multi- family projects over 25 units). --- Number and location of handicapped spaces as required. --- Location of septic tanks (if applicable). --- Location of any easements. --- Lot coverage information: Building, overall and front yard. --- Location of site (Street # and lot #). --- North arrow -- Name of person or firm preparing site plan and date. c/ - ✓ Exterior lighting details (must be downcasting and shielded). --- Dumpster locations (dumpsters must be screened). --- Existing and proposed sidewalks (public). --- Sewer calculation --- Height of new construction. - v Setbacks (residential district, planned r.o.w., Interstate). C.O. Zone v --- Bike racks --- Traffic generation --- Traffic Impact fees- --- PUD/PCD standards --- Airport Approach cone --- Outside storage/display --- F.A.R. ---,,,,.Lot merger agreement --- Setback from planned r.o.w. --- If boundary line adjustment, need subdivision? --- Nonresidential use setback from Residential District 13 PLANNING COMMISSION 14 September 1993 page 10 or engineer who will stake out and supervise the work. 14. In accordance with section 301.5 of the subdivision regula- tions, within 14 days of completion of requiredimprovements (e.g, streets, water mains, sanitary sewers, storm drains, etc) the developer shall submit to the Cit En ineer "as -built" con- structiion drawin s certified by a registered engineer. 15. The final plat plans,including surve plat, shall be submitted within 12 months or this approval is null and void. Mrs. Maher seconded. Motion passed 3-1, Ms. Peacock voting a a..inst• - - ---- - Mr. Austin and Mr. Sheahan rejoined the Commission. 8. Site plan application of Ralph Goodrich for construction of a 26,000 sq. ft. buidling for general office use, 625 Hinesburg Rd: Mr. Burgess stepped down during this discussion due to a potential conflict of interest. Mrs. Maher presided. Mr. Weith reviewed the history of the application. The Planning Commission has determined the property lies in Traffic Overlay Zone 1 which limits the number of trip ends for a development. The proposed project exceeds this number. The applicant then withdrew the application and went to the Zoning Administrator who agreed with the Commission as to the overlay zone. The applicant then appealed to the Zoning Board to try to get them to say the project is in zone 5. The Zoning Board has not made a decision and has requested a traffic study which the applicant has given them. The City Attorney's opinion is that Section 22.105 is the ruling section, which upholds what the Planning Commission has stated. Mrs. Maher asked why the Zoning Board postponed action again. Mr. Weith said they want the Commission to look at new evidence to see if that changes their minds. Mr. Craig questioned why the Zoning Board wanted a traffic study if they were asked only which overlay zone the project falls in. Mr. Webster said the Traffic Study was reviewed by Regional Planning. The Zoning Board fOlt it should be looked at to see what the "intent" of the ordinance was since the "letter" couldn't be determined. They also felt the Planning Commission should look at "intent." Mrs. Maher read the applicable language from the Ordinance. Mr. Trudell said new evidence shows it doesn't matter where you mneasure from. The intent is what traffic does to the inter- section. He said it doesn't matter if you're in zone 1 or 5. PLANNING COMMISSION 14 September 1993 page 11 Mrs. Maher noted the city is very concerned about that inter- section as it is not functioning as it should. Mr. Austin said the Planning Commission is authorized to interpret the Ordinance and he felt the Commission's interpre- tation was reasonable and that the project falls in zone 1. Mr. Sheahan, Mr. Craig and Ms. Peacock agreed. Mrs. Maher said the applicant had two options: to withdraw or to have the Commission deny the application. Mr. Goodrich expressed his frustration with the situation and felt he could not use his property. Planning Commission members said that is not true. He could just not put so large a building on the property. Mr. Goodrich withdrew the application. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 pm. Clerk Memorandum - Planning September 14, 1993 agenda items September 10, 1993 Page 11 Staff previously recommended a maximum of 20 foot poles for all lighting. At the last meeting, the Commission agreed to 20 foot maximum poles in locations east of Fayette Road and a 30 foot maximum height in locations west of Fayette Road. Staff feels this approach is reasonable. Dumpsters: Dumpsters will be screened with a six (6) foot wooden fence. Dumpsters for buildings E, F and G will be located internally. Other: --- sheet 6 of the FitzPatrick-Llewellyn plans is incorrectly labeled sheet 7. --- the correct name for the north -south road is Fayette Road not Fayette Drive. --- plans do not show all finished contours, i.e. the area behind Building B does not show the finished contours. --- applicant submited a written report addressing the PUD criteria contained in Section 19.151 (see enclosed). --- legal documents (i.e., irrevocable offer of dedication) for proposed streets and easements should be submitted for review by the City Attorney prior to issuance of any permits. 8) RALPH GOODRICH - OFFICE BUILDING - SITE PLAN The applicant withdrew this same application at the 6/22/93 meeting (minutes enclosed) pending a determination by the Zoning Board (ZBA) as to whether this property is in Traffic Overlay Zone 1 or 5. The ZBA will be meeting on Monday, September 13, 1993 to make this determination. If the ZBA agrees with the Zoning Administrator's decision that the property lies within Traffic Overlay Zone 1 then this application must be modified to not exceed the trip end limit, withdrawn or denied. If on the other hand the ZBA disagrees with the Zoning Administrator's decision, then this application can proceed as requested. The following information is based on this premise. This project consists of the construction of a four (4) story 26,000 square foot general office building. This office building will displace a contractor's yard, an office/maintenance building and an accessory building. The Zoning Board of Adjustment on 11 Memorandum - Planning September 14, 1993 agenda items September 10, 1993 Page 12 5/24/93 granted the applicant a conditional use permit for this proposed office building. This property located at 625 Hinesburg Road lies within the R7 District. It is bounded on the north by Kennedy Drive, on the east by Hinesburg Road, on the south by Country Park apartments and on the west by Timberlane Medical Center. Traffic: If the Zoning Board determines that this property is located in Traffic Overlay Zone 5 it would allow this property to generate 69.1 vehicle trip ends (vte's) during the P.M. peak hour. I.T.E. estimates the proposed general office building to generate 68.9 vte's. The current use of the property is estimated to generate 3.7 vte's. This project will therefore generate 65.4 additional vte's. The applicant will be required to contribute $10,820 to the Hinesburg Road Traffic Impact Fund based on the 65.4 additional trip ends to be generated. Access/circulation: Access will be provided via a new 30 foot curb cut on Hinesburg Road located at the extreme southerly end of the site. An existing 47 foot curb cut on Hinesburg Road will be closed. Circulation is adequate. Coverage/setbacks: Building coverage is 13.4% (maximum allowed is 25%). Overall coverage is 55.4% (maximum allowed is 60%). Front yard coverage is 26.2% (maximum allowed is 30%). Setback requirements will be met. Parking: A total of 104 parking spaces are required and only 100 spaces including four (4) handicapped spaces are being proposed. This is a four (4) space shortfall or 3.8%. The Commission has granted similar waivers based on the reasoning that significant space is taken up by elevators and not usable office space. Landscaping: The minimum landscaping requirement for this project is $20,500 which is not being met. The landscaping proposed has estimated value of $6400 which is a $14,100 shortfall. The applicant is seeking a credit for existing landscaping to make up for the shortfall. 12 Memorandum - Planning September 14, 1993 agenda items September 10, 1993 Page 13 Sewer: The sewer allocation needed for this project is 1418 gpd. The applicant will be required to pay the per gallon fee prior to permit. Dumpster: The dumpster will be enclosed by a three (3) sided roofed shelter. Lighting: Exterior lighting will consist of nine (9) 175 watt metal halide lamps with cut off luminaries on 18 foot poles. Building height: The building has a pitched roof and will have a maximum height of 45 feet. The maximum height allowed is 40 feet unless the Planning Commission determines that a taller structure, up to a maximum of 45 feet, will comply with the criteria in Section 18.112b (i) - (iii). The building meets the additional setback requirements required for the additional height as required under Section 18.112c. 13 9/14/93 MOTION OF APPROVAL nnnnRTru I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan application of Ralph Goodrich for construction of a 26,000 square foot building for general office use as depicted on a plan entitled "R.B.G. Office Building, 625 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vermont", prepared by Wiemann - Lamphere, Architects, Inc. and dated 4/27/93, last revised 6/4/93, with the following stipulations: 1. The Planning Commission grants a $14,100 credit for existing landscaping to be preserved. The applicant shall post a $10,000 landscaping bond prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit. The bond shall remain in effect for three ( 3 ) years to assure that the new planted landscaping and relocated landscaping takes root and has a good chance of surviving. 3. A sewer allocation of 1,418 g.p.d. is granted. The applicant shall pay the required sewer allocation fee prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit. 4. All exterior lighting shall be downcasting and shielded and shall not cast light beyond the property line. Any change in existing lighting or new lighting shall be approved by the City Planner prior to installation. 4. The Commission approves 100 parking spaces for the development. This represents a waiver of four (4) required spaces, or 3.8%. It is the Commission's opinion that 100 spaces will adequately serve the development since a significant amount of square footage in the building will be devoted to typically non -parking generating uses such as elevator and stairwell space. 5. The Commission approves a maximum pitched roof building height of 45 feet. It is the Commission's opinion that the requirements of Section 18.112(b)(i) - (iii) are adequately met. 6. Prior to issuancer-t3- f a building/zoning pe;rrmit, the applicant shall contribute 4-r&4 to the Hine Road Intersection Improvement Fund based on the GSA9-vte's estimated to be generated by the development during the peak hour. 7. The applicant shall obtain a zoning/building permit within six (6) months or this approval is null and void. 8. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to occupancy of the building. g. Any changes to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Planning Commission. (mo-rbgl) Eat �". .A CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON SITE PLAN APPLICATION 1) OWNER OF RECORD (name, address, phone #), Ralph & Ann Goodrich; 1269 Spear St., So. Burl, VT 05403 (802) 862-4518 2) APPLICANT (name, address, phone # ) Wiemann-Lamphere Architects 30 So. Park Dr., Colchester, VT 05446 (802) 655-5020 3) CONTACT PERSON (name, address, phone #) (802) 655-5020 4) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 5) LOT NUMBER (if applicable) 6) PROPOSED USE(S) r Dennis Webster 625 Hinesburg Road office use 7) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e. total building square footage, # units, maximum height and # floors, square feet per floor) 24,000 sf; 3 stories; 40' to pitched room; 8,000 sf/floor 8) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES S. 9) LOT COVERAGE: building 12.8 %; landscaped areas .40.34 % building, parking, outside storage59.66% 10) COST ESTIMATES: Buildings $ 1,000,000 Landscaping $see plan Other Site Improvements (please list with cost') $ 100,000 Demolition and parking lots 11) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 1996 12) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in and out) sQe plan Estimated trip ends (in and out) during the following hours: Monday through Friday 11-12 noon ; 12-lp.m. ; 1-2 p.m. ; 2-3 p.m.-- 3-4 p.m. 4-5 p.m. ; 5-6 p.m. 65 ; 6-7 p.m. 13) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM 14 ) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION:— nday thru F iday DATE OF SUBMISSION DATE OF HEARING , SIGNATU)2$ OF APPLICANT PLEASE SUBMIT FIVE COPIES AND ONE REDUCED COPY (11 X 17 ) OF THE SITE PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: Lot drawn to scale (20 foot scale if possible). Location of streets, abutting properties, fire hydrants, existing buildings, existing landscaping. Existing and proposed curb cuts, pavement, walkways. Proposed landscaping plan (number, variety and size) equal to or greater than the required amount in the Zoning Regulations. Number and location of Parking Spaces: (9' x 18') with 22 or 24 foot aisles as required. Number and location of handicapped spaces as required. (see Table 26-1 of zoning regulations). Location of septic tanks (if applicable). Location of any easements. Lot coverage information: Building footprint, building, parking, and outside storage, landscaped areas and front yard. Location of site (street # and lot #). North arrow Name of person or firm preparing site plan and date. C:C — PRODUCT D.1TA SHEET Moduleril "A New Series of Optically j Efficient, Sharp Cutoff �III�IIIII Id`��, Luminaires Designed in the Quality Tradition of Moldcast" Selection Chart Single Luminaire with Pole Luminaire Only . The catalog number for "Single Luminaire With Pole" Standard "luminaire only" is equipped to fit horizontal designates an extruded aluminum pole, extended arm tenon size indicated without mounting hardware. For and luminaire. (See Dimensional Drawings and mounting hardware for poles by others, see Optional Mounting Details, Page 69). For additional luminaires, Ordering Information, Page 67, and Dimensional see MountingPlan below. Anchorage Luminaire Drawings, Page 69. Maximum Detail Size Catalog Standard Pol�' Pole IRe(er to Dimensional Luminaire Number Wattage Size and Height Height' Drawing, Page b9) Size in (Refer to Tenon Size Tenon Mercury Vapor Catalog Dimensional (Horizontal) Minimum y por Number Wattage Orawing) O.O. Length 4000 100W MV 4" sq. x 10' 16' X Small 4001 175W MV 4" sq. x 10' 16' X Small Mercury Vapor 4002 25OW MV 5- sq. x 18' 22' Y Medium 4020 10OW MV Small 1 Y6--2Ys- 5" 4003 400W MV 65/s- sq. x 28' 30' Z Medium 4021 175W MV Small 1S/.--2%- 5" 4004 1000W MV 6s/"sq. x 28' 30' Z Large 4022 250W MV Medium 1s/e"-2r/e 6" 4039 25OW MV 4',sq. x10' 16' X Small 4023 40OW MV Medium 15/--2r/c" 6" 4040 25OW MV 5" sq. x 18' 22' Y Small 4024 1000W MV Large 2-Ya" 71/ 4041 400W MV 5" sq. x 18' "' Y Medium 4033 25OW MV Small 13L"'-2%- 5" Metal Halide Metal Halide •'4005 175W MH 4" sq. x 10' 16' X Small *4025 175W MH Small 13b".2Y " 5" 4045 25OW MH 4" sq. x 10' 16, X Small 4035 25OW MH Small 1V.--2Y6- 5" 4006 25OW MH S-sq. x18' 22' Y Medium 4026 250W MH Medium 15/a--2V.- 6" "4007 40OW MH 6%- sq. x 28' 30' Z Medium "4027 40OW MH Medium 1%"-23/'e''� 6" 4008 1000W MH 6%" sq. x 28' 30' Z Large 4028 1000W MH Large 2 Na" 7'/," ••4042 40OW MH 5" sq. x 18' "' Y Medium High Pressure Sodium High Pressure Sodium 4029 150W HPS Small 1Y. "-21'a" S" 4009 150W HPS 4" sq. x 10' 16' X Small 4030 25OW HPS Medium 11/6--2 Y " 6" 4910 - 250W HPS 5" sq.x 18' 22' Y Medium t4031 40OW HPS Medium l5/s"-24'e" 6" t 4011 40OW HPS 61/6- sq. x 28' 30' Z Medium 4032 1000W HPS Large 21." 7'/�" 4012 1000W HPS 6%" sq. x 28' 30' Z Large 4034 10OW HPS Small t 4043 400W HPS 5" sq. x 18' "' Y Medium 4044 10OW HPS 4" sq. x 10' 16' X Small Mounting Plan For additional luminaires on pole, add suffix as illustrated below. % DR0 One Luminaire Two Luminaires Two Luminaires Three Luminaires Four Luminaires Standard 180' Twin, Suffix "A" 90° Twin, Suffix "B" 90° Apart, Suffix "C" Suffix "D" NOTE: Primary voltage must be specified as suffix to catalog number. *POLES: Standard extruded aluminum poles are supplied in the sizes indicated. Maximum pole height suitable for four luminaires. For square straight steel poles, see Optional Ordering Information. "Metal Halide 175W and 40OW supplied with oriented socket to accept standard or super metal halide lamps. —Maximum pole height for one Luminaire and two Luminaires (180` and 90°) is 22'. For three and four Luminaires, maximum pole height is 20 ft. tType III distribution furnished standard. For Type II distribution, add suffix "Type 11" to catalog number. M-6 Optional Ordering Infor -ration pecifications Bronze Enamel Standard finish is black polyesterpowder enamel. For bronze polyester powder enamel, add "BZP" to catalog number as suffix. (i.e., 4000-120V-BZP). Photocell Receptacle For EEI -NEMA twist -lock photocell re- ceptacle only, specify "LR" as suffix to catalog number. (Photo control not avail- able). Each luminaire provided with indi- vidual receptacle. Lezan® Shield For vandal resistant, clear polycarbonate shield under standard glass lens, add "LE" as suffix to catalog number. Duranodic Finish For medium, dark bronze or black Duranodic or Kalcolor finish, specify as suffix to catalog number. (i.e., 4000-120V-Duranodic Black). Duplex Weatherproof Receptacle For Duplex weatherproof receptacle pro- vided in hand hole cover (65/a" square aluminum and steel poles only), specify "WPR" as suffix to catalog number. Mounting Hardware (Poles by Others or Optional Poles) Vertical Mount ("Luminaire Only") Vertical Slipfitter With Close Up Mount (VTMC) Designed to fit 23/e" dia. by 4" long pole top tenon. Suitable for one luminaire or two (180') lu mi nai res..Specify "VTMC" as suffix to catalog number We., 4032-A-VTMC). See Dimensional Drawings and Mounting Details,Page 69. Vertical Slipfitter With Extended Arm Mount (VTMD) Designed to fit 23/s" dia. by 4" long pole top tenon. Suitable for one through four luminaires. Specify "VTMD" as suffix to catalog number (i.e., 4032-D-VTMD). See Dimensional Drawings and Mounting Details, Page 69. Horizontal Mount ("Luminaire Only") Horizontal Tenon For Close Up Mount (HTMC) Designed to bolt to flat side of pole. Minimum width 31/2". Suitable for one luminaire or two (180°) luminaires. Specify "HTMC" as suffix to catalog number (i.e., 4032-A-HTMC). See Dimensional Drawings and Mounting Details, Page 69. Horizontal Tenon for Extended Arm Mount (HTMD) Designed to bolt to flat side of pole. Minimum width 3'/z". Suitable for one through four luminaires. Specify "HTMD" as suffix to catalog number (i.e., 4032-D-HTMD). See Dimensional Drawings and Mounting Details,Page 69 Mounting Hardware (Moldcast Poles) Close Up Mount Luminaires with Moldcast pole can be mounted close up for one luminaire or two (180°) luminaires. Specify "HTMC" as suffix to catalog number (i.e., 4003-A-HTMC). See Dimensional Drawings and Mounting Details, Page 69. Flush Hinge Base (4" Square Aluminum Pole only). See Dimension Drawing and specify "FHB" as suffix to catalog number. Wood Poles Standard wall -mounted units are suitable for bolting to wood poles by others. See Wall Mounted Options and Wall Mounting Details. HTMC (close up), HTMD (arm mount) also suitable. Steel Poles Straight square steel poles are available for 35' and 39' overall heights. Poles are supplied in prime paint finish. Steel poles are to be painted with thefinished coat in the field by others. Paint recommenda- tions available upon request. Consult fac- tory for anchorage details. Mast Arms Round tapered, straight mast arms available to 22' in length with provisions for singleor multiple signal mount. Avail- able for steel poles only. Consult factory for details. Wall Mounted All "luminaire only" units are available for flat wall and extended arm wall mount. Select the "luminaire only" catalog number and specify as follows: Flat Wall Specify "FWM" as suffix to catalog num- ber. See Dimensional Drawing and Mounting Details, Page 69. Wall Extended Specify "WE" as suffix to catalog num- ber. See Dimensional Drawing and Mounting Details, Page 69. Poles Standard poles shall be straight square extruded aluminum in the dimension shown and supplied complete with an- chor bolt assemblies, templates and base cover plates. On all non -hinged poles, a hand hole shall be provided. A grounding lug is provided on all poles. Wiring Standard aluminum poles supplied with factory installed integral wiring for con- nection to supply. Luminaires The housing is of extruded aluminum construction reinforced for strength and rigidity with support members. The standard luminaire accepts a horizontal tenon from 15/e" to 23/8" O.D. (See Selec- tion Chart). Quick release type latches allow the extruded aluminum doorframe to drop on hinges and allow easy access for relamping. Door is removable for maintenance and cleaning. The ballast compartment door is removable by con- venient quick release devices for ready access to ballast. Finish Standard finish shall be Black Polyester Powder Enamt l on pole, luminaire and arm. For Bronze Paint or Duranodic or Kalcolor finishes, see Optional Ordering Information. (Steel poles prime paint only). Ballast A low temperature (-20° F) ballast is supplied mounted on a removable rack for easy service and maintenance. Dis- connect type plugs are used for line and lamp connections to ballast, and an in - line fuse is provided on all units. All elec- trical components are U.L. listed. Ballast shall be of the following types: Mercury Vapor and Metal Halide shall be CWA or CW. High Pressure Sodium shall be CWA or Reactor Type. Lens Shall be single piece, thermally tempered glass, secured and gasketed in the ex- truded aluminum door frame. Wind Load Standard units are designed to withstand 80 MPH winds -104 MPH gusts. For un- usual area wind and gust conditions, consult factory. For effective projected area for luminaire only, See Effective Projected Area on page 69. Use in wind load calculations where poles by others ) l are being considered. J Moldcast Lighting Photometric Data LAMP: 40OW HPS, L, : 40OW HPS LAMP: 40OW MV (D^, LAMP: 40OW SUPER METAL ARC Rated 50,000 Lumens Rated 50,000 Lumens Rated 21,500 Lumens Rated 40,000 Lumens Mounting Height: 30' Mounting Height: 30' Mounting Height: 30' Mounting Height: 30' Based on ITL #20773 Based on ITL #20774 Based on ITL #20775 Based on ITL #20777 Type II Medium Cutoff Type III Medium Cutoff Type II Cutoff Type II Medium Cutoff 2 aw - 2 1 FAWY 1 N Y oMAINE a N 5 2 2 cc 1 C .O cc 1 _V 0) C 2 � c = t 1 .2 .5 .5 CU rn 2 N C :° rn y C 2 .2 1 n p .OS .1 OS o 3 so 0 3 0702 .02 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Longitudinal Distance in Units of Mounting Heights Longitudinal Distance in Units of Mounting Heights F-r conversion from 400W HPS to 250W HPS, multiply reading by 0.5 LAMP: 1000W MV (DX) LAMP: 1000W METAL HALIDE LAMP: 25OW MV (DX) LAMP: 175W SUPER METAL ARC Rated 60,000 Lumens Rated 98,000 Lumens Rated 11,500 Lumens Rated 15,000 Lumens Mounting Height: 30' Mounting Height: 30' Mounting Height: 16' Mounting Height: '16' Based on ITL #20778 Based on ITL #20779 Based on ITL #20852 Based on ITL #20850 Type III Cutoff Type II Medium Cutoff Type III Cutoff Type III Short Cutoff 2 2 �►�\fir �"'i'J.%>ORO 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Longitudinal Distance in Units of Mounting Heights Longitudinal Distance in Units of Mounting Heights For conversion from 25OW MV (DX) to 175W MV (DX), multiply reading by 0.71 For conversion from 25OW MV (DX) to 10OW MV (DX), multiply reading by 0.36 LAMP: 1000W HPS LAMP: 15OW HPS (55 ARC VOLT) Rated 140,000 Lumens Rated 16,000 Lumens Mounting Height: 30' Mounting Height: 16' Based on ITL #20780 Based on ITL #20848 hype II Short Cutoff Type III Short Cutoff 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Longitudinal Distance in Units of Mounting Heights Longitudinal Distance in Units of Mounting Heights For conversion from 150W HPS to 100W HPS, multiply reading by 0.59. Mounting Height Conversion Factors Use this chart Use this chart for isolux curves for isolux curves #20850, 20FA8, #20773, 20774, and 20852. 20775, 20777, 20778,20779 20780. Multiply Multiply by by 10'-2.56 18'-2J7 From: 12' - 1.77 From: 20' - 2.25 16' 14' - 1.3 30r 22' - 1.86 18' - 0.79 24' - 1.56 t0 20' - 0.64 to 26' - 1.33 22' - 0.53 28' - 1.15 35' - 0.73 40' - 0.56 M-7 ,Dimensional Drawing. and Mounting Details Effective Projected Area For Single Luminaires onlywithout arms' (Use when poles by others are considered). Luminaire E.P.A. Size (See Selection Chart) Small 1.4 sq. ft. Medium 2.3 sq. ft Large 2.6 sq. ft. X e►1-1 L Luminaire Dimensions Pole Mounting Details VTMC (Close Up) Finer Fits 2%" x 4" long vertical tenon. �{�' Mounting Plate 0 8I and Tenon 'h lY/ H1igh 5" Square Suitable for 1 or 2 (1W) luminaires VTMD (Arm Mount) Fits 2%" x 4" long Fitter vertical tenon Mounting Plate and "Jenon O 8v,"A ° High Arm Suitable for 1 5" Square through 4luminaires L Luminaire Length H Height W Width X-Arm Length Small 24" 6%" 16" 7" Medium 28" 92i4" 20" 81/21, Large 32" 92/4 22" 81/2" ` r0 Base Details 4" and 5" Square Pole Surface Hinged Base (Standard) t r ❑ � e 9 a t 4" and 5" Square Pole Only Anchor Bolt Details Pole Anchor Bolts ' HTMC (Close Up) For flat side of pole oniv, minimum width 31h" Mounting Plate D;nd Tenon Suitable for t or -' (180) luminaires HTMD (Arm Mount) For flat side of pole only. minimum width 31,' Mounting Piate and nA� Arm Suitable for 1 through 4luminaires 65/8" Square Pole Hand Hole Surface (4"x5" oval) Fixed Base Iixc10 —� 14" ❑ n r 65/e" Square Pole Only Bolt A B C Circle (X) 4" Sq, 1/2" dia.02" Long x 2" Hook 1 %" -1 Y4" 31/:" 10" Sq. 7" (Y) 5" Sq. %" dia. x 30" Long x 3" Hook 21/,+" - 21/2" 41/2" 11" Sq. 8" (Z) 6%" Sq. 1" dia. x 36" Long x 4" Hook 21/2" - 3Y2" 6" 14" Sq. 14" 'All anchor bolts are hot dip galvanized and furnished complete with nuts, washers & shims. Hinged Base Details Hinged Bases: Affords on the ground convenience for installation and relamping. Hinge design permits access to wiring splice without hand hole. Base is constructed of cast aluminum members hinged with stainless steel hardware. Cover plate completely hides welds, anchor bolts and security bolts. Poles hinge in this direction �`rr---�t���-yy��yyrr''--11�� LJ ' t—� 13" sq. Flush Hinged Base tOptionaq 14" Pole Onlyl One Light Twin Light Corner Twin Three Light Mounting Plate Detail 1/° 2.� '/e -�_ O O 2„f,° + 5' I 1'/z" dia. 0 Four ! dia. holes Arm Dimensions Luminaire A Small 7" Medium B'A ' Large 8v," Wall Mounting Details Wall -Mounted Units are Suitable for Bolting to Wood Poles. Flat Wall Mounted Wall Plate Detail Four 7116" dia. holey 3h" V Height 0 0—t— f_ba Length 6" 71h" (by others) 0 0 ,Y" dia. I-- 41:•'--I Housing Height Length Width Small 6%11 25Y2" 16" Medium 93'4 291/2" 20" Large 9-3/1, 331/2 22" Extended Wall Mounted Wall Plate Detail 'r. Four'Aa" dia, holes Ir_ Length 0 o I -fox ' Len 8 (br others) V 7'h" 0 0 t h" die. If- 4i:" `-i Housing Height Length Width Small 6%11 31" 16" Medium 9-Y." 361/2 201, Large 91+" 401/2" 22" MOLDCAST 1251 Doolittle Dr. San Leandro, CA 94577 ) Telephone: (415) 562-3500 -.f In Canada: Moldcast, 2070 Trans -Canada Highway Dorval, Que., Canada H9P 2N4 Tel.: (514) 683-4210 Revised 5/89 PRESCOLITE WIEMANN LAMPHERE COLCHESTER BUSINESS PARK • 30 SOUTH PARK DRIVE �A�CH • RECTS , VERMONT PHONE (802) 655-5020 • FAX (802) 655-6567 05446 To:" / ' �� ` OL� Date Project No. Project r" Gentlemen: We are sending you the following items herewith under separate cover Items transmitted as follows: 11 Approved ❑ Approved as noted Not approved ❑ Resubmit for approval Furnish corrected copies For your files 1-1 Items dent by: 20ur messenger 11 Your messenger class mail 1-1 WIEMANN AMPHERE By. /1 1 2M SETS QCP 992 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 October 12, 1993 Dennis Webster Wiemann-Lamphere, Architects 30 South Park Drive Colchester, Vermont 05446 Re: Office Building, 625 Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Webster: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find a copy of the September 14, 1993 Planning Commission meeting minutes. If you have any questions, please give me a call. S e ely, J Weith, Ci y Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp cc: Ralph Goodrich 911 12 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 July 20, 1993 Fred Blais, Chairman Zoning Board of Adjustment 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Proposed Office Building, 625 Hinesburg Road Dear Fred: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 This letter attempts to explain the thought process which the Commission went through in interpreting the Traffic Overlay District and how it applies to the above referenced property. It is the Commission's determination that the above referenced property falls within Traffic Overlay Zone 1 which allows this property to generate a maximum of 23 vehicle trip ends during the P.M. peak hour. The Traffic Overlay Map indicates that all properties with access to Hinesburg Road within 300 feet of the Hinesburg Road/Kennedy Drive intersection are in Traffic Overlay Zone 1. Section 22.105(b) of the zoning regulations requires that the 300 foot dimensional approach described above be measured from , the near edge of intersecting pavement". Sketch A illustrateshow the Commission determined the point which defines the near edge of intersecting pavement. This point was determined by extending the existing curb lines of both Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive in a straight line until they intersect. As is shown in Sketch A, the near edge of the proposed access is only 283 feet from the point of intersecting pavement. Since the proposed access is within 300 feet, the provisions of Traffic Overlay Zone 1 apply to the property. The near edge of the proposed access is the appropriate point at which to measure since the intent of the ordinance is to locate access points as far away as possible from major intersections in order to reduce potential conflict points caused by turning vehicles and through vehicles. Section 22.00 of the zoning regulations provides that in situations where uncertainty exists as to the boundaries of a particular district, the Planning Commission shall determine the location. As stated above, it is the Commission's determination that the property is within Traffic Overlay Zone 1. Since the location of Fred Blais July 20, 1993 Page 2 the access serving the property is the determining factor of which traffic overlay zone applies, the Commission recommends that the applicant try to obtain an easement from the property owner to the south so that the access to 625 Hinesburg Road can be placed at a point beyond 300 feet from the intersection (i.e., the near edge of intersecting pavement). I hope this letter is helpful to the Board. Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional information. Sincerely, h'� - Mary -Barbara Maher, Vice Chair South Burlington Planning Commission MW lell r .:...:..... ate..../N....J..... '1' J 'END PAP Dvi..w..o.111.NN.....�•aV i1. p� i RE IVIVED s JUty 1 1 i993 ity of, . Burlingt 6y�p KNLc Al -iTi•r .`Il v�-,S GI:Y— \ G4 _ .. __---�---- I I N Gr 1vf cce . �f,bt 6.p. !cv o.: l . sn •sCt) et- c�.st z•. c{ t7 - f'f' kwvxilr6 Ka a evr..nya+ ff eKU% L9�/�-Ifs �' 'D�eWIEIA:WN - LNAPHERE, /RCHffECfS. INC. PF+✓ rr l"P woc auoxro • 6�,�7rnb c �9 h � . Xw M,yli 4 p WHy NN W:11 y`p i. �i'EC-?TA rFO.hGfD M' � ac so.n. r.w. uM [o.c �"" 1 �41 " GATT •fjj� o('- / CLL'AJINf+% tCYF'D��+ L u�U*� �I. IiC! ✓� sc.c I •• Dv.nwc w. '. pGawoti to( lAro4 . GcY a- �iOayf. �uIrInH�4. awir.�� �oyw6n LO( GN/i . 9t.o11 9{. sr •i6 tX MAID ave.4"w L %uN+ �� b.M �W • �{ A �w 5f Pao fjnD b p' p 1 �trpruO tia+f y..0 twci� •lnob0i.w-L.>' .�� Gcr.G�} ffN sry[L iFG. 1�Rti� •'d/�A�N4� �� {!TONNE RQD IOF D.•'D�D 1'�I ' RK xi e.1M , Y6 MND AA+er ceu< A:� er 1 MOTION OF DENIAL GOODRICH Ai,3 I move the South Burlington Planning Commission deny the site plan application of Ralph Goodrich for construction of a 26,000 square foot building for general office use as depicted on a plan entitled "R.B.G. Office Building, 625 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vermont", prepared by Wiemann - Lamphere, Architects, Inc. and dated 4/27/93, last revised 6/4/93, for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is located in Traffic Overlay Zone 1 as provided in Article XVII and Section 22.105 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Traffic Overlay Zone 1 limits the subject property to a generation of 23 vehicle trip ends (vte's) during the P.M. peak hour. Based on trip generation rates contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition, it is estimated that the proposed building and use will generate 68.9 vte's during the P.M. peak hour. This represents 45.9 vte's more than permitted or 199% above allowable limits. It is the Commission's determination that the proposed use does not comply with the provisions of Article XVII of the zoning regulations and therefore denies the application. (mo-rbg) LEGAL NOTICES SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONll:c NOTICE In accordance with tf SOL.n Burlington Zonir Regyulations wd Chapti 1 17, Title Y S.A. tt South Burlington Zonir Board of Adjustment w hold a public hearing i the h Burlirgten Mi mcipal u Offices, Conte ence Room, 575 Dorsi Street, South Burlingtoi Vermont on Monday, Ma 24, 1993 at 7:00 P.M. t consider the following: #1. Appeal of David Flag seeking approval fror Section 13.20 Condition; uses and Section 19.6 Multiple uses of the Sout Burlington Zoning Regula tions. Request Is for per mission to construct 36'xl28' building occupy ing said building for auto mobile sales and repairs Also requiring a variant, from Section 19.104 land soaping requirements reuest to use thirty-nin, (39) percent of the fron yard for parking and cir culation, on a lot con taining 2.29 acres, lot # Gregory Drive. #2. Appeal of Charle! and Donna Poulin seeking a variance from Sectior 18.00 Dimensional re qufrements of the Soutt Burlington of Regula tions. Request is for per mission to construct < 6'x16' addition and an close an existing 5'x9 porch located to withir eleven (11) feet of the required front yard, lo- cated at 126 Hinesburc, Road. #3. Appeal of John Ken- nedy seeking approval from Section 19.65 Mul- tiple uses of the South Burlington Zoning Regula- tions. Request is for per- mission to operate a tanning) salon in conjunc- tion with two existing re- tail uses, d.b.a. Dorset Street Beverage and Ice Cream Shoppe on a lot containing 15,500 square feet, located at 364 Dor- set Street. #4. Appeal of Mary Pro- vencher seeking a vari- ance from Section 18.00 Area, density and dimen- sional requirements of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to set-off a lot with 25. feet of front- age (minimum 80 feet re- quired) with a lot containing 1461 square feet (minimum 7500 square feet) with a build- ing coverage exceeding the maximum allowed by 19.4% and the lot cover- age of 40%, located at 443 Central Avenue, Q.C.P. #5. Appeal of Ralph Goodrich seeking appro- val from Section 10.20 Conditional uses subsec- tion 10.204 of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to construct a four (4) story, general office build- ing, containing approxi- mately 26,000 square feet which include a parking Continued Next Column LEGAL NOTICES I garage on a lot c Wing 1 A acres; Iocat, 1625 Hinesburg Road. Richard Ward, Zoning ;administrative Officer 1,1- 9, 1993 QtTA ^! VC- City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 May 10, 1993 Mr. Ralph Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Goodrich: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the City Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street on Monday, May 24, 1993 at 7:00 P.M. to consider your request for a conditional use. Please plan to attend this meeting. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer 1 Encl RW/mcp City of Sc ^'i Burlington Application to board of Adjustment Date 6 -62 -00;� Applicant f2 AwYrA,17easee, agent Address `(" Telephone # Landowner Official Use APPL TION # _ HEARING DATE FILING DATE FEE AMOUNT Address Location d descripti of property a Type of I applacatioij check one ( ) appeal from decision of Administrative Officer( )request for a conditional use ( ) request for a variance. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month (second and fourth Mondays). That a legal advertisement must appeal a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Provisions of zoning ordinance in question /'�/►G�1�ltilti �/ Reason for appeal The owner or applicant should submit along with this application (8 copies) plans, elevations, landscaping diagrams (drawn toyle) traffic data and any other additional information wh� ill servesupport evidence to the Board. 1, Hearing Date /vSignature %cX01Appellant Do not write below this line SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Day of Week at to consider the following: Month and Date Time Appeal of _ ' seeking #r from Section of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to el �- 7 ,� ��- � .� �--� ��oU � /° �` � ��� �- PINKHAM ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Engineers v Planners Landscape Architects :• Sun eyors TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT R.B.G. OFFICE BUILDING SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT August 17, 1993 The purpose of this report is to identify traffic impacts of a proposed office building on Hinesburg Road (VT Route 116) near its junction with Kennedy Drive. This development would include +/- 26,000 square feet of floor area in a 4 story building, with the detailed location shown on the project plans. 1. Existing? Conditions Hinesburg Road serves as a major land -service arterial between Williston Road (US- 2) and Hinesburg and other towns to the south. The road width is in transition approaching the project form the south, operating with two 12 foot lanes and +/- 6 foot shoulders on the south, widening to a 38 foot paved width (two approaching lanes, one departing lane) at the Kennedy Drive intersection. The alignment is straight along the project frontage, and grades are nearly flat in this area. The surrounding area is mixed commercial and residential, with some agricultural use further south. 2. Trip Generation and Design Hourly Volume Traffic which can be expected from the office development is estimated by utilizing trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). In the 1991 5th Edition ITE manual, many studies of existing office buildings (Land Use: 710) are summarized for a weekday P.M. peak hour with a Data Plot and Equation on page 956 (see Figure 1). Utilizing the Fitted Curve Equation, this yields 69 trip ends in the afternoon peak hour, which is the basis for analysis for the possible 1994 opening; Figure 2 shows the generated traffic. This assumes full build - out and occupancy, and the same generated traffic volume is used for the recommended five-year planning period (1999). The Maltex Building > 431 Pine St., Burlington, VT 05401 + Bus. (802) 658-5588 f. Fax (802) 658-3629 3. Traffic Overlay District Our review of Article XVII finds this project to be within Zone 5, allowing 45 trips per 40,000 square feet lot, or 69 trips in the peak hour. The Traffic Overlay map indicates 300 Feet north and/or south of Kennedy Drive as being the extent of Zone 1, as shown by the black dot legend (versus a solid black line for Zone 5). The project driveway !;� scales 319 feet from the Hinesburg Kennedy Z intersection, substantially beyond the 300 foot noted for the change of zones. 4. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment A directional distribution of 17% entering and 83% exiting is noted for the office building on Hinesburg Road. The site -generated traffic volumes are assigned as 83% to -and -from the north and 17% south, utilizing expected employee and client orientation as derived from Hinesburg/Kennedy intersection traffic counts. Distribution of new office building trips in the P.M. peak hour are shown on Figure two. 5. Existing and Projected Traffic volumes Traffic volume data for this section of Hinesburg Road was available from Chittenden Regional Planning Commission in the form of manual turning movement counts taken June 18, 1992, at the Kennedy Drive intersection. These volumes were seasonally adjusted by a monthly factor of 0.95 (Group III Urban), and up -dated to 1994 by a factor of 1.04. A projection factor of 1.09 (5-year planning period) is applied to obtain the 1999 volumes. The 1994 volumes, including trips generated by the office building, are shown on Figure 4. The 1999 volumes, No -Build are shown on Figure 5; 1999 volumes with office building are shown on Figure 6. 6. Capacity Anal The effects of the proposed office building are evaluated based on projected traffic volumes and the capacity of the nearby roadway network to accommodate these volumes. Typically, roadway intersections govern the capacity of the roadway network. This traffic study analyzes the level of service on Hinesburg Road at the driveway, and at Kennedy Drive to identify the potential impact, and is based on the 1985 edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. RB.G. OFFICE BUILDING August 17, 1993 Traffic Impact Assessment page 2 Level of Service (L.O.S.) is a qualitative measure of how a motorist perceives traffic conditions. Delays experienced at intersections by motorists are the criteria used to define L.O.S. The following table defines L.O.S. in general terms for intersections. Level of Service Definition Table Signals: Stopped Delay per Vehicle (in seconds) Level of Service Stop/Yield Sign Expected Delay to Minor Street Traffic up to 5 A Little or no delay 5 to 15 B Short traffic delays 15 to 25 C Average traffic delays 25 to 40 D Long traffic delays 40 to 60 E Very long delays over 60 F * * When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays may be encountered which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements through the intersections. This condition, if substantial numbers of vehicles are affected, usually warrants improvement to the intersection. The capacity analysis for 1994 and 1999 for the P.M. peak hour follows: TABLE I Level of Service at two intersections: Intersection Traffic Movement 1994 1994 1999 1999 No Build Build No Build Build Access drive on Rt. Turn, drive N/A A N/A A Hinesburg Road Lt. Turn, drive N/A D N/A D Lt. From from N/A A N/A A Hinesburg Road Hinesburg Road Signals D D E E and Kennedy Drive See Appendix A and B for driveway L.O.S.; Appendix C,D,E, and F for Hinesburg/Kennedy. R.B.G. OFFICE BUILDING August 17, 1993 Traffic Impact Assessment Page 3 7. Conclusions The proposed office building could generate approximately 69 trips (one-way) during the 1994 P.M. peak hour, assuming full occupancy, and hence the same trip generation for the 1999 planning year. The A.M. peak hour is not as high, and the intersection volumes are considerably less during the A.M., so this scenario was not examined in detail. The development -generated traffic can be absorbed into the present and near future traffic stream without a significant reduction in level of service. The modest increment (2%) of added traffic should cause no undue adverse impact on current or future traffic conditions. Prepared by Robert M. Alexander Traffic Engineer 71=rfass.rma RB.G. OFFICE BUILDING August 17, 1993 TraJj9c Impact Assessment Page 4 CHITTENDEN COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION P.O. Box 108, 66 Pearl Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05453 (802)658-3004 August 30, 1993 Mr. Richard Ward Zoning Administrator City Offices 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Mr. Ward, I have reviewed the traffic impact analysis and offer the following comments by section: 1. Existing Conditions: appears to represent an adequate description of the area and roadway system. 2. Trip Generation and Design Hourly Volume: appear accurate and represent accepted practice. 3. Traffic Overlay District: As we discussed, this section may be in error since the district is defined as extending from the "near edge of the intersecting pavement" --not the center line. Depending on the customary interpretation of the relevant location of the access drive (i.e., whether all of it, the center line, or any portion of it constitutes inclusion in the district) the allowable trip generation may be dramatically affected. 4. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment: Although the entering/leaving distribution agrees with the data, I can find no basis for the subsequent directional assignment (83% nb, 17% sb). That said, any changes in this distribution are likely to reduce the impact on the Hinesburg Rd/Kennedy Dr intersection. 5. Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes: Appear correctly done given the comments above. 6. Capacity Analyses: Appear correctly evaluated. ... Composed of ... Burlington Colchester Essex Essex Junction Milton Shelburne Vermont Agency of Transportation So. Burlington Williston Winooski 0. printed on recycled paper 7. Conclusions: Although the conclusion that this project will generate a relatively small effect on the key intersection is essentially correct, it is not negligible given a los of "E" in the design year. An exploration of mitigation would be appropriate here including, at least, alternative signal phasing. I hope these comments have been helpful. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, Michael F. Oman Transportation Director General Off ice'= Building < 300,000 SF GFA (710) Average Vehicle ehicle Trip Ends vs:' 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: 208 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 203 Directional Distribution: - 17% entering, 83% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation See Table 4 N/A N/A Data Plot and Eauation 700 600 500 C w L 400 0) (D 300 03 200 z M (Subset of Data Plotted on Page 955) x .................... ......................-------------- . ............ x ------ x x X . ............ ...... x ...................... .... x .................. x x X x x x x X :. � .............. X..Xx. .............. ............... ............... X ........ x X: XX x x X X. x X X XX x XX ... ;. .......------- x ..... ... ------------ X YX x x x x xx x X x )X xxx X x XXX — x X..:-x ..X ..... XX x X ........ ............... ...... ix- - x - x x x xx x x x x x x xx X:x x x . x >�< ........... ........................... ......X.... . :xX-.x ---- O.............. X x Xx 0 1 - '-1 . 2�O 0 56 100 150 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.737 Ln(X) + 1.831 Trip Generation, January 1991 I eou - ------ Average Rate R2 = 0.78 300 Institute of Transportation Engineers .�...,..... _.._ ---- -- or 3°� Ia y t A 1 4 WAY TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARY CHART TURN NR: TOWN: 514r/. .f'M !eak h©u►- 7'6 66 A s s 4 WAY TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARY ART 11 4 WAY TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARY NAME: LA M ART TURN NR: ' ( GfIJUI TOWN: SD. 9;!�L4 PM t k hog k- A 4 WAY TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARY "R T 1 """ HimeS&urq Rol. AME. TURN NR: TOWN: N i' R S s �°��� A~� 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED lNTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ ' - - AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, rAjOR STREET.. - 35 - - PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... .85 ' AREA POPULATION...................... 15000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... Office Bldg.Drive ' NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... Hinesburg Rd. NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. PINKHAM ENGRG.-R.Alexander DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 8/13/93 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. PM peak hour `94 OTHER INFORMATION.... RBG Office Bldg. ` South Burlington INTERSECTION TYPE AND COWTROL _____________________________________________________________________ ' INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB ____ ____ ____ LEFT 47 -- 2 0 THRU 0 -- 370 413 RIGHT 10 -- 0 10 NUMBER OF LANES ---------------------------------------------- _----------------------- I :- Eq WB NB SB LANES 2 ,4pdx. A ADJUSTMENT --------------------------------------------------------------------- FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 2Q N WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHSOI ND 0.! 0 7(_) 20 VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS COMBINATION AND RV ' S VEHICLES :o MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 1 o rl WESTBOUND ---- i-- •I-HL,0 U .!D 31 ) SOUTHBOUND 31 t ) WITICAL SAPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. (Table 10 -- 2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT MINOR RIGHTS MAjOR LEFTS 5.10 5.10 {: c) MINOR LEFTS F= I PSI i A L.. CRITICAL GAF ------------ F_D 6.8o 6 . 830 0.00 6.80 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------------------------------------------------------ k i r'\ t..a 7-• , THE � _ i^ ': (-• � r �..i �- r. - STREET f-.1—. .... Office T'1 {jl1—I�• E �)i= f E EAST/WEST / .•:l_S S � Rc: E I ...... O i f i ce Bldg . Dr' i v NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... Hinesburg Rd. DATE AND TIME OF THE Ai;ALYSIS..... 8/10/ri0 ; PM oeak dour ' F OTHER Ih;FORMIATION.... RBG Office Bldg. 'South Burlington ) / ) � CAPACITY AND _____________________________________________________________________ LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 ATEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CaPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS ' _______ p ' ________ M _________ ____________ SH R SH _________--- ' MINOR STREET EB LEFT 56 233 233 233 177 D RIGHT 12 602 ' 602 602 591 A MAJOR STREET NB LEFT 2 697 697 697 695 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... Office Bldg.Drive NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... Hinesburg Rd. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 8/13/93 ; PM peak hour '94 OTHER INFORMATION.... RBG Office Bldg. South Burlington B 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS /' Page-t ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ ' AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR...............~..... .85 AREA POPULATION...................... 15000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... Office Bldg.Drive NAME OF THENORTH/SOUTH STREET....... Hinesburg Rd. NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. PINKHAM ENGRG.-R.Alexander DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 8/13/93 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. PM peak hour `99 OTHER INFORMATION.... RBG Office Bldg. South Burlington INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL _____________________________________________________________________ INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB S8 ____ ____ ____ ---- LEFT 47 -- 2 0 THRU 0 -- 403 450 RIGHT 10 -- 0 10 NUMBER OF LANES ------------------------------------------------------------- -------- EB WB NB SB LANES 2 . ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 _____________________________________________________________________ PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE _______ ANGLE __________ FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 ________________ 20 _________________ N WESTBOUND ----- --- --- - NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION L............................................................. % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ___________ _____________ ---------------- EASTBOUND 1 0 0 WESTBOUND --- --- --- NORTHBOUND 3 1 0 SOUTHBOUND 3 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS _____________________________________________________________________ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT ______________ ________ ___________ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.70 5.70 0.00 MAJOR LEFTS NB 5.10 5.10 0.00 MINOR LEFTS FINAL CRITICAL GAP ____________ 5.70 5.10 EB 6.80 ' 6.80 0.00 6.80 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... Office Bldg.Drive NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... Hinesburg Rd. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 8/13/93 ; PM peak hour '99 OTHER INFORMATION.... RBG Office Bldg. South Burlington CAPACITY AND _____________________________________________________________________ LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p ________ M _________ ____________ SH R SH ------------------- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 56 203 202 202 147 D RIGHT 12 571 571 571 559 A MAJOR STREET NB LEFT 2 662 662 662 660 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... Office Bldg.Drive NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... Hinesburg Rd. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 8/13/93 ; PM peak hour '99 OTHER INFORMATION.... RBG Office Bldg. South Burlington ' 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZES INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ' ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION..Kenned. Drive/Hinesburg Rd. AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PINKHAM ENGRG. - R.Alexander DATE.......... 8/11/94 - TIME ........... 94 PM peak hour COMMENT ....... __________________________________________________________________________ RBG Office Bldg. South Burlington VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB 8B : ' EB WB NO SB LT 257 66 122 49 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 451 454 211 206 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RT 140 76 37 173 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 28 16 8 34 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 __________________________________________________________________________ : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 3 __________________________________________________________________________ SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 86.0 PH-1 PH-2 P1 1-3 PH-4 PH-1 1:::'H-2 PH-3 1-1-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X X TH X X RT X X RT X X PD PD WB LT X SB LT X TH X X TH X X RT X X RT X X PD PD GREEN 17.0 5.0 15.0 0.0 GREEN 8.0 4.0 11.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 __________________________________________________________________________ 4.0 5.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.806 0.209 33.3 D 22.6 C TR 0.819 0.442 17.7 C WB L 0.621 0.070 36.1 D 63.6 F TR 1.078 0.302 67.2 F NB L 0.765 0.105 40.4 E 25.0 D TR 0.524 0.291 17.2 C SB L 0.553 0.058 34.8 D 38.0 D TR ---------------------- 0.937 0.244 38.5 D INTERSECTION: Delay _------------------------------------------- = 36.9 (sec/veh) V/C = ________ 0.934 LOS = D 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS S�MMARY REPORT � INTERSECTION -Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Rd. AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ' ANALYST ....... PINKHAM ENGRG. - R.Alexander DATE.......... 8/11/94 ' TIME. . . . . . . . . . '94 PM peak hour COMMENT.......RBG Office Bldg, South Burlington __________________________________________________________________________ VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 257 69 142 49 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 451 454 223 209 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RT 144 76 52 173 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 28 16 8 34 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 _------------------------------------------------------- ------------- _____ ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3_, __________________________________________________________________________ SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 86.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 pH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X X TH X X RT X X RT X X PD PD WB LT X SB LT X TH X X TH X X RT X X RT X X PD PD GREEN 17.0 5.0 15.0 0.0 GREEN 8.0 4.0 11.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 __________________________________________________________________________ LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS *APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.806 0.209 33.3 D 22.8 C TR 0.826 0.442 18.0 C WB L 0.649 0.070 37.5 D 63.7 F TR 1.073 0.202 67.2 F NB L 0.891 0.105 55.6 E 31.0 D TR 0.587 0.291 18.0 C SB L 0.553 0.058 34.8 D 39.0 D ' TR 0.945 0.244 39.6 D ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------��� INTERSECTION: Delay = 38.0 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.951 LOS = D 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS � SUMMARY REPORT ' INTERSECTION -Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Rd. ' AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PINKHAM ENGRG. - R.Alexander DATE .......... 8/11/94 �y/�� �� .�~� TIME ........... 99 PM peak hour �"��~-��&��,c� COMMENT.......RBS __________________________________________________________________________ Office Bldg. South Burlington VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : 'E8 WB NB SB LT 280 72 133 53 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 492 495 230 225 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RT 153 83 40 189 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 28 16 8 34 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 __________________________________________________________________________ : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 . ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00" `N 0 0 0.90� 0 N 14.5 3 SB 0.00 __________________________________________________________________________ 2.00 N O 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 ^ SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 86.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NO LT X TH X X TH X X RT X X RT X X PD PD WB LT X SB LT X TH X X TH X X RT X X RT X X PD PD GREEN 17.0 5.0 15.0 0.0 GREEN - 8.0 4.0 11.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4.0 5.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.878 0.209 39.9 D 28.0 D TR 0.898 0.442 22.5 C WB L 677 0.070 39.2 D 103.0 F TR 1.180 0.302 111.1 F NB L 0.834 0.105 47.3 E 27.7 D TR 0.572 0.291 17.8 C ` SB L 0.598 0.058 36.7 D 55.7 E TR 1.033 0.244 58.4 ' E ' ` --------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay _____________________________________________________ = 53.2 (sec/veh) ' V/C = 1.023 LOS = E 19G5 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ^ ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION -Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Rd. AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PINKHAM ENGRG. - R.Alexander DATE.......... 8/11/94 TIME ........... 99 PM peak hour COMMENT ....... _________________-__________-_--__________________________________________ RBG Office Bldg. South Burlington VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB . WB NB SB LT 280 75 153 53 : L '12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 492 495 242 228 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RT 157 83 55 189 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 28 16 8 34 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 _________________________________________________________________________ : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 AD3USTMENTFACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 SB 0.00 __________________________________________________________________________ 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 86.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X X TH X X RT X X RT X X PD PD WB LT X SB LT X TH X X TH X X RT X X RT X X PD PD GREEN 17.0 5.0 15.0 0.0 GREEN 8.0 4.0 11.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 ----------------------------------------------------------- 4.0 5.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE ' _______________ LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.878 0.209 39.9 D 28.3 D TR 0.905 0.442 23.1 C WB L 0.706 0.070 41.2 E 102.9 F TR 1.180 0.302 111.1 F NB L 0.960 0.105 70.0 F 36.5 D TR 0.635 0.291 18.7 C ` SB L 0.598 0.058 36.7 D 57.6 E TR 1.041 0.244 60.5 F . __________________________________________________________________________ INTERSECTION: ,. ` DelAy _ = 54.8 (sec/veh) V/C = 1.040 LOS = E . CHITTENDEN COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION P.O. Box 108, 66 Pearl Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05453 (802)658-3004 - o. August 30, 1993 Mr. Richard Ward Zoning Administrator City Offices 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Mr. Ward, I have reviewed the traffic impact analysis and offer the following comments by section: 1. Existing Conditions: appears to represent an adequate description of the area and roadway system. 2. Trip Generation and Design Hourly Volume: appear accurate and represent accepted practice. 3. Traffic Overlay District: As we discussed, this section may be in error since the district is defined as extending from the "near edge of the intersecting pavement" --not the center line. Depending on the customary interpretation of the relevant location of the access drive (i.e., whether all of it, the center line, or any portion of it constitutes inclusion in the district) the allowable trip generation may be dramatically affected. 4. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment: Although the entering/leaving distribution agrees with the data, I can find no basis for the subsequent directional assignment (83% nb, 17% sb). That said, any changes in this distribution are likely to reduce the impact on the Hinesburg Rd/Kennedy Dr intersection. 5. Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes: Appear correctly done given the comments above. 6. Capacity Analyses: Appear correctly evaluated. ... Composed of ... Burlington Colchester Essex Essex Junction Milton Shelburne Vermont Agency of Transportation So. Burlington Williston Winooski 0 printed on recycled paper 7. Conclusions: Although the conclusion that this project will generate a relatively small effect on the key intersection is essentially correct, it is not negligible given a los of "E" in the design year. An exploration of mitigation would be appropriate here including, at least, alternative signal phasing. I hope these comments have been helpful. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, 1 IYiichael F. Oman Transportation Director �j N MOTION OF APPROVAL'' GOODRICH 2/9 I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan application of Ralph Goodrich for construction of a 26,000 square foot building for general office use as depicted on a plan entitled "R.B.G. Office Building, 625 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vermont", prepared by Wiemann - Lamphere, Architects, Inc. and dated 4/27/93, last revised 6/4/93, with the following stipulations: 1. The Planning Commission grants a $14,100 credit for existing landscaping to be preserved. The applicant shall post a $10,000 landscaping bond prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit. The bond shall remain in effect for three ( 3 ) years to assure that the new planted landscaping and relocated landscaping takes root and has a good chance of surviving. 2. A sewer allocation of 1,418 g.p.d. is granted. The applicant shall pay the required sewer allocation fee prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit. 3. All exterior lighting shall be downcasting and shielded and shall not cast light beyond the property line. Any change in existing lighting or new lighting shall be approved by the City Planner prior to installation. 4. The Commission approves 100 parking spaces for the development. This represents a waiver of four (4) required spaces, or 3.8%. It is the Commission's opinion that 100 spaces will adequately serve the development since a significant amount of square footage in the building will be devoted to typically non -parking generating uses such as elevator and stairwell space. 5. The Commission approves a maximum pitched roof building height of 45 feet. It is the Commission's opinion that the requirements of Section 18.112(b)(i) - (iii) are adequately met. 6. Prior to issuance of a building/zoning permit, the applicant shall contribute $11,399 to the Hinesburg Road Intersection Improvement Fund based on the 68.9 vte's estimated to be generated by the development during the peak hour. 7. The applicant shall obtain a zoning/building permit within six (6) months or this approval is null and void. 8. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to occupancy of the building. 8. Any changes to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Planning Commission. (mo-rbgl) A Nknv eTL A�v 6 Pec, DAJ5z✓ MOTION OF DENIAL GOODRICH i I move the South Burlington Planning Commission deny the site plan application of Ralph Goodrich for construction of a 26,000 square foot building for general office use as depicted on a plan entitled "R.B.G. Office Building, 625 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vermont", prepared by Wiemann - Lamphere, Architects, Inc. and dated 4/27/93, last revised 6/4/93, for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is located in Traffic Overlay Zone 1 as provided in Article XVII and Section 22.105 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Traffic Overlay Zone 1 limits the subject property to a generation of 23 vehicle trip ends (vte's) during the P.M. peak hour. Based on trip generation rates contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition, it is estimated that the proposed building and use will generate 68.9 vte's during the P.M. peak hour. This represents 45.9 vte's more than permitted or 199% above allowable limits. It is the Commission's determination that the proposed use does not comply with the provisions of Article XVII of the zoning regulations and therefore denies the application. (mo-rbg) STEVEN F. STITZF.I. PA'C'PI R. PAGE - DIANNE L. KENNEY (*AUSO A1/M1'1"I'I•:11 IN N.Y.) STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) FAX (902) 660-2552 OF COUNSEL AR'I'RUR W. CERNOSIA August 2, 1993 Mr. Richard Ward City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Interpretation of Zoning Regulations Dear Dick: At your request, I have reviewed Section 22.00 and the corresponding subsections of the City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations to determine whether a conflict exists. Specifically, you have asked for an opinion regarding whether Section 22.00 and Section 22.105 are conflicting. Section 22.00 of the Zoning Regulations states: Interpretation of District Boundaries: Where uncertainty exists as to the boundaries of districts as shown on the Official Zoning Map, the Planning Commission shall determine the location, aided by the rules set forth in this section. The purpose of this section is to set forth aids (Section 22.00 - 22.007) upon which the Planning Commission may rely, where necessary, to determine a district boundary. Section 22.10 of the Zoning Regulations and its accompanying subsections (Sections 22.101 - 22.105) specifically describe certain districts. Section 22.105 and its subsections clearly delineate traffic overlay istrict boundaries. This ..,,section is controllin in the determination of traffic ov�ay district b. oun�ries an in no way conflicts with tie boundary descriptions ,. set forth in Section 22.00 and its related subsections. Moreover, t-Fe boundary determinations specified in Section 22.00 and its related subsections should not be applied to the determination of traffic overlay district boundaries unless a traffic overlay district boundary cannot be determined by the Planning Commission after an attempt to resolve any confusion by Mr. Richard Ward August 2, 1993 Page 2 identifying boundaries on the basis of that provided in Section 22 . 105 (a) , (b) and (c) . Please note that the above opinion is based upon the literal interpretation of the Zoning Regulations and is not rendered on the basis of any factual situation. In the event that you would like me to apply the above interpretation to a specific fact pattern, such as the one you mentioned at 625 Hinesburg Road, please send me a map of the area in question and point out where the confusion regarding boundaries lies and I will be happy to provide you with a more detailed analysis. I hope this is responsive to your inquiry. Sincerely, Dianne L. Kenney DLK/cr L:\SON1179.cor #1916 CHITTENDEN COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION P.O. Box 108, 66 Pearl Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05453 (802)658-3004 August 30, 1993 Mr. Richard Ward Zoning Administrator City Offices 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Mr. Ward, I have reviewed the traffic impact analysis and offer the following comments by section: 1. Existing Conditions: appears to represent an adequate description of the area and roadway system. 2. Trip Generation and Design Hourly Volume: appear accurate and represent accepted practice. 3. Traffic Overlay District: As we discussed, this section may be in error since the district is defined as extending from the "near edge of the intersecting pavement" --not the center line. Depending on the customary interpretation of the relevant location of the access drive (i.e., whether all of it, the center line, or any portion of it constitutes inclusion in the district) the allowable trip generation may be dramatically affected. 4. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment: Although the entering/leaving distribution agrees with the data, I can find no basis for the subsequent directional assignment (83% nb, 17% sb). That said, any changes in this distribution are likely to reduce the impact on the Hinesburg Rd/Kennedy Dr intersection. 5. Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes: Appear correctly done given the comments above. 6. Capacity Analyses: Appear correctly evaluated. ... Composed of ... Burlington Colchester Essex Essex Junction Milton Shelburne Vermont Agency of Transportation So. Burlington Williston Winooski 0 printed on recycled paper 7. Conclusions: Although the conclusion that this project will generate a relatively small effect on the key intersection is essentially correct, it is not negligible given a los of "E" in the design year. An exploration of mitigation would be appropriate here including, at least, alternative signal phasing. I hope these comments have been helpful. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very tr ly yours, Michael F. Oman Transportation Director M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer Re: Preliminary Comments September 14, 1993 agenda items Date: August 17, 1993 FARM FAMILY CENTER - WILLISTON ROAD (FORMER PLYWOOD RANCH 1. The addition to the southerly part of the building will cut into the slope of the land at the south-east corner, a retaining wall may be necessary. Plan should show finish grade contours in that area. 2. New parking area to the west should be graded so that runoff is toward Williston Road and the rear. Plantings in the grassed strip will after a time block runoff. L&M PARK - SHELBURNE ROAD Plan dated June 1990 with latest revision dated 7/19/93 prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn is acceptable. R.B. GOODRICH - OFFICE BUILDING - HINESBURG ROAD Site should have a pedestrian path to Timberlane to the west. DAVIS PROPERTY - 10 FARRELL STREET Plan depicting proposed loading dock is acceptable. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 September 10, 1993 Dennis Webster Weimann-Lamphere, Architects 30 South Park Drive Colchester, Vermont 05446 Re: Office Building, 625 Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Webster: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Comments from City Engineer Bill Szymanski and Fire Chief Jim Goddette were sent to you at an earlier date. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, September 14, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. 7S' erely, e Weith, ity Planner Encls JW/mcp cc: Ralph Goodrich PLANNIN GCOMMISSION 22 June 1993 page 4 with the height of the berm and plantings in relation to residences. Mr. Craig said he would like to see some evergreens and other species. Mr. Teeson said he liked the traffic plan but felt the applicant had left out concern for the residences. He said they should be given the same attention that was given to other businesses. Mr. Webster said they would like to get approval at this meeting and then work out differences with Staff. Members said they could not do that without seeing a specific landscaping and the final parking plans. Mr. Carroll asked that approval be given so work can be done in July and August. Members agreed to start the 29 June meeting at 7 PM and to limit discussion to the reconfigured parking and landscaping. He asked the City Planner to propose a landscaping scheme and if all else fails to consider this to be the landscaping proposal. Mr. Crai then moved to continue the hearin until 29 June. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion asked unanimousl 6. Site Plan application of Ralph Goodrich 'for construction of a 26,000 s ft. buildin for enera1 office use 625 Hinesbur. Rd- Mr. Burgess stepped down during this hearing due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Austin presided. Mr. Webster said the plan proposes to come to the furthest southern point for access to the site. There would be 21 parking spaces under the building (on grade, with the second floor above them). The land is zoned R-7 and a conditional use permit has been granted. Lot coverage would be 55%. All setbacks are met. The building would be 4 stories and 45 ft. high. Mr. Weith said they meet the additional setsback for that'height. Mr. Webster said they are trying to keep as many mature trees as possible and will augment with new landscaping. r The main issue is what traffic overlay zone the property is in. It is a borderline situation. They,are 338 ft. from the intersection of the 2 centerlines (Hinesburg Rd./Kennedy Drive) to the end of the property line. There is the question of a curve which comes in on an angle. Mr. Weith said the issue is addressed in Article XVII and Sect. 22.105. Zone 1 would require a 300 ft. setback from the rear edge of intersecting navemeni-_ ThPrP iG nnly a ?A7 f+- cAtY,a.-ir for this property, so they don't meet the requirement. Mr. Craig noted the curb cut is on the lot line with no setback. There is also the question of an appropriate width of the driveway. 20 feet are proposed, but Mr. Craig felt that it should be 30 ft. PLANNING COMMISSION 22 June 1993 page 5 The precedent was set for measuring from the near edge of the driveway. This is also seen as a setback requirement. The worst case scenario is always used. Mr. Austin said he didn't see how the language in the Ordinance would allow the applicant to do what is proposed. Mr. Sheahan agreed. Mr.Teeson said he didn't see how the building across the road was done. Mr. Weith said there was no mention of traffic generation or traffic overlay districts in the file. Mr. Lamphere said if you cut the building back to 13,000 sq. ft. you are underusing the property. Mr. Craig said the Commission couldn't approve the project under the existing law. Mr. Lamphere asked to table the application so they can appeal the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the ordinance. Mr. Craig suggested they withdraw. The applicant agreed to do this. Mr. Burgess rejoined the Commission. 7. Site plan application of Judge Development Corporation for construction of a 400 sq. ft. addition for storage use, a 207 sq. ft. canopy and a 225 sq. ft. tower structure, and 27 additional outdoor seats for the restaurant/deli, 100 Dorset St: Mr. Judge said they will make modifications to the former Net Result building. This will result in the loss of 2 parking spaces. The Cork and Board is requesting seating on the patio. Mr. Burgess said there is a question of whether additional parking is required for the additional seats as it is a busy lunch place. Members felt the seating would only be used a short time of the year. Mr. Weith noted the Fire Chief has requested a new hydrant and the moving of another existing hydrant. Mr. Judge had no objection to the new hydrant but felt moving the old one would be very expensive. Members agreed. Mr.Austin moved the Plannin Commission approve the site flan a_p- lication of Judge Development Corporation for construction of a i2LSqddition for stora e uses a 207 sq. ft. canopy and a 225 sq ft tower structure, and�27 additional outdoor seats for the restaurant deli as depicted on a two- a e set of plans,page one entitled "100 Dorset Street�� South Burlington, Vermont,___ prepared by Dunn Associates and_ dated_ M_ar__ch__,__ 1992,1ast revised 6/ 9/93, with the followin stipulations: � 1 All previous approvals and stipulations _which_ are_ not super- seded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. The Plannin Commission approves 255 spaces to serve_ this de- velopment. As indicated on the plan, 180 spaces shall be located on the 100 Dorset Street property. The remaining 75 spaces shall be located �IIAC-2PwF--,&N0 F� 71 10 flAA c t I 71�7 - F E --- � z Y NEh1 Gp� $ 1 f rW cr., I rm..)7.5` I%,v =�tNro It1 rho mn � 1 t l� ' Iv(IN,� iNtN'C<b +14 I r — —�74>11 `Yl ...fir Yn4rallun 4Z � �'".. 07 al - a- B,ctsbpN(s G!5 I � 1 , ltrf 444 M,4677 S.F• ��d'' Hr' 1N►' rMt� sLurNri9 � /�gc71 f�13 s (6f �` (,djt:6ClX L�C+%�L16 �J • 6 t � 1 %a•I.Or1/•�lZ d.t7i COWS afyj%,l0{Z� 15°l°.+ZGi. .pj UJI�NIN(� E1Xn,(Ft' ly�b CGNTkING(4 ' I t'�'flI'a'� Gt1� q�✓tsja s 4200 5•(' GY-I 14.h� EilG1.11�MU� TU,i�G'4'SNI�J �11 oWhnt a Io( co✓�stz Gv% eF- YiW4, G (<WNtI Ii'n N .luN�i ?� AtlNcl.�l� I pvo�c+�n cvr cor�.� . yl;oly e,F. a� �5.�/, vattre czr�la�r��t r LI.gJP.d1•e IleiYl AN�IP� • Oi (f1t�i5.f IZ12 FINE; q�p� ry:Gut '� cwa� � �slol�n.�/ours E �Iu�rr�nrr�� � n41a P'WDA' •!off GAMev- W*F - 0-wir tr wl 6 i I t i VED Jilty 1 1 1993 Burlin—at ' E N w I I , i I I t D�t•9b rIP.I.1:J trrene+.is+o�4 LE: NO: -ATE REVISION rr,4N ,may t• orp• op': 4.00aOLx sz y I�t+Or+l g(AIt ap Ve MN7 A.o 7• �o1h ltW tJFG t� C�11w�YsfG►� V( {�YO�!/(w y1 • ZLt) 4,.+s- GIeGT ?(/ � R? i WIEMANN - LAMPHERE, ARCHITECTS, INC. �••�In AIL fl�•b �'1 �N6Iy - JO SOUTH PARK DRIVE - COLCHESTER, VERMONT SCALE t + DRAWING NO. DATE a'• •9 .DRAWN 9Y I CHECKED BY j PROJECT. j City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 August 30, 1993 Dennis Webster Wiemann-Lamphere, Architects 30 South Park Drive Colchester, Vermont 05446 Re: Office Building, 625 Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Webster: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find some comments on the above referenced project from Fire Chief Jim Goddette. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sinc ely, c� Raymond J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant 1 Encl RJB/mcp cc: Ralph Goodrich Autb T,6urfiugtou Yirc 1-13E, Artment 575 Bartict street ` -*uutb -Nurtington, Vermont 05403 FAX: (802) 6580748 (802) 658-7960 REI TLESDAY SEPTENSER 14.19% AGENDA TTEN!'].; OPTEg TKUFADAY AUTUS7 K CENTRAL ORACTCR FARM 4 PAM:LY CENTE-,-_-;� 1971 WILUTST... N RGAD OLD PLYWOOD CITY EUILOTNI: AZAN HAS 13EEN REVIEWED AND AT 1 H13 TIME 1 DO NOT SEE A FRCBL.EM WITH THE PRO:ECF AND GIVEN EMERGENC',' SERVICE. E. TEN FARRELL STREET FOAN KPE BEEN PEV=WEE, =0 14T THIS TIME THE 0bL'- PRO61EM 1 SEE !S THA7 THE ROAD WAY ON !`HE EA111% THE BUILDING TN TO NARRCW F3R EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT TO GE'l* TO SEABLE TO TE- UP FOR AN EMERSENC'., OPERATION, R.8.2. CFFICE EKILEING -DATED 412?i93 121 HINESBURG R=:, %AW HAS BEE FEVZEWED aND AT THIS TIME 7KE 3NL'-e'' TPOBLEM FEE !I THE RCCO A&V ARGUID THE SU!LDING PUT-7, HNERGEN&V TO CLDSE TO 7HE BUT�DING AND WGULD EFFE01'' EVIRSENCY F7FE FIGHTINU OPEPATION AND RESCUE PORV Fll:::, THE 0FE; FLOORS: PROjECT 4 FPIETTE POK'.,` oy rwjF TypE I Do N17 SEE A PPORLEN WITH THE: XROIEC7 46174 WOOLT NOT FAVELE UT 11 SEVE EYER%N0, PROTEC-7N 17 NaECED., City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 August 31, 1993 Dennis Webster Wiemann-Lamphere, Architects 30 South Park Drive Colchester, Vermont 05446 Re: Office Building, 625 Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Webster: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is a copy of the June 22, 1993 Planning Commission meeting minutes. If you have any questions, ase give me a call. inc rel Jo Weith, Ci y Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp cc: Ralph Goodrich Memorandum - Planning June 22, 1993 agenda items June 18, 1993 Page 5 Notice of Condition: Prior to recording the final plat plans, a "Notice of Condition" should be recorded in the land records which identifies this entire development as a planned commercial development (PCD) and which legally ties all the lots in this development into one PCD for all planning, zoning and subdivision purposes. Other: --- the most easterly row of parking in the future parking area consists of 14 spaces not 19 as indicated on sheet C2. --- see enclosed letter from the Hadley Road neighbors. 5) RALPH GOODRICH - OFFICE BUILDING - SITE PLAN This project consists of the construction of a four (4) story 26,000 square foot general office building. This office building will displace a contractor's yard, an office/maintenance building and an accessory building. The Zoning Board of Adjustment on 5/24/93 granted the applicant a conditional use permit for this proposed office building. This property located at 625 Hinesburg Road lies within the R7 District. It is bounded on the north by Kennedy Drive, on the east by Hinesburg Road, on the south by Country Park apartments and on the west by Timberlane Medical Center. Traffic: This property is located in Traffic Overlay Zone 1 which limits this property to 23 vehicle trip ends (vte's) during the P.M. peak hour. The proposed building is estimated to generate 68.9 vte's. This represents 45.9 vte's more than permitted or 199% above allowable limits. Since the number of proposed trip ends far exceeds the number permitted, staff recommends that this project not be approved by the Planning Commission. Staff suggests that the project either be scaled back to not exceed the trip end limit, relocate the access at least 17 feet further away from the intersection to then be in Traffic Overlay Zone 5 or change the proposed use to one that doesn't generate so much traffic such as residential. The applicant uveS ito-L. agree with Stclll'S lnterpretdtlOn that the site's access is less than 300 feet from the Kennedy Memorandum - Planning June 22, 1993 agenda items June 18, 1993 Page 6 Drive/Hinesburg Road intersection and hence is located in Traffic Overlay Zone 1 (see enclosed diagrams submitted by applicant). Section 22.105b. of the zoning regulations describes how to measure the 300 foot distance. It states that the distance "be measured from the near edge of the intersecting pavement at the major intersection". Since Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road intersect along an arc, staff interprets this section to mean that the edge of pavement for both streets be continued in a straight line to where they meet to form an intersection. This would be the intersection from which the measurement would be taken (see sketch A). Taking a measurement from this point results in the applicant's access being 17 feet too close to the intersection to be classified as beingin Traffic Overlay Zone 5. If approved, the applicant would be required to contribute $11,399 to the Hinesburg Road Traffic Impact Fund based on 68.9 P.M. peak hour trip ends. Access/circulation: Access will be provided via a new 20 foot curb cut on Hinesburg Road`located at the extreme southerly end of the site. An existing 47 foot curb cut on Hinesburg Road will be closed. Staff is concerned that a 20 foot curb cut is too narrow on such a high volume roadway. A minimum 30 foot wide curb cut should be provided. However, this would move the curb cut even closer to the Hinesburg Road/Kennedy Drive intersection. Circulation is adequate. Coverage/setbacks: Building coverage is 13.4% (maximum allowed is 25%). Overall coverage is 55.4% (maximum allowed is 60%). Front yard coverage is 26.2% (maximum allowed is 30%). � 1, Setback requirements will be met. Parking: A total of 104 parking spaces are required and only 100'04 spaces including four'(4) handicapped spaces are being proposed. This is a four (4) space shortfall or 3.8%. Landscaping: The minimum landscaping requirement for this project is $20,500 which is not being met. The landscaping proposed has an estimated value of $6400 which is a $14,100 shortfall. The vl ... 7 aapplicant-,4. 1S seekinga l.:rCUlt LUr ex15t1i1g lailubcap.iilg tU I[lcilCe up for the shortfall. .. Lo Memorandum - Planning June 22, 1993 agenda items June 18, 1993 Page 7 Sewer: The sewer allocation needed for this project is 1418 gpd. ` The applicant will be required to pay the per gallon fee prior to permit. Dumpster: The dumpster will be enclosed by a three (3) sided roofed shelter. Lighting: Exterior lighting, will consist of nine (9) 175 watt metal halide lamps with cut off luminaries on 18 foot poles. Building height: The building has a pitched roof and will have a maximum height of 45 feet. The maximum height allowed is 40 feet unless the Planning Commission determines that a taller structure, up to a maximum of 45 feet;, will comply with the criteria in Section 18.112b (i) - (iii). The building meets the additional setback requirements required for the additional height as required under Section 18.112c. 6) JUDGE DEVELOPMENT - ADDITIONAL SEATING AND ADDITION - SITE PLAN This project consists of the construction of a 400 square foot addition for storage use, a 207 square foot canopy, a 225 square foot tower with a height of 39.5 feet and 27 additional seats for seasonal outdoor restaurant/deli use to the 100 Dorset Street development. The Planning Commission approved a 3,200 square foot expansion to the development on 4/28/92 (minutes enclosed). This property located at 100 Dorset Street is located in the Cl District. It is bounded on the north,by Mills & Greer, on the east by the Ramada Inn, on the south by Anchorage Motor Inn and on the west by Dorset Street. Access/circulation: The main access will be via a new 30 foot curb cut located opposite the new Chittenden Bank access drive. This new access will replace the current access now located 100 feet to the north. This main access will be signalized. This property will also have two (2) secondary access drives to the adjacent Mills and Greer property. As part of the most recent approval a "Notice of Conditions" was recorded which requires the applicant to provide an access easement' to the Greer property when Greers provide the applicant with a similar access easement. Circulation is adequate. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION 20 JULY 1993 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, 20 July 1993, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: William Burgess, Chairman; Mary -Barbara Maher, Catherine Peacock, William Craig, Terrence Sheahan Also Present: Joe Weith, City Planner; George Khouri, Frederick McGibney, Rick Davis, Charles Wood 1. Other Business: a. Mr. Weith noted the applicant for the Goodrich office building on Hinesburg Rd/Kennedy Dr. is appealing the ruling of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission that the project falls in Traffic Overlay Zone #1. He asked for a Commission member to attend the Zoning Board meeting next MOnday. Mrs. Maher volunteered to attend. Mr. Craig noted that in addition to the Traffic Overlay question, the Commission required that the access drive be 30 ft. instead of the proposed 20 ft. and that there be at least 5 ft. between the access drive and the adjoining Country Park property (a zero lot line is now proposed). b. Mr. Weith reminded the Commission that they wanted to make a site visit to the Pillsbury Manor project before it comes up on 10 August. Members agreed to view the site at 6:30 pm on 10 August, before the meeting. c. Mr. Sheahan asked about the Dunkin' Donuts concession at Simon's. Mr. Weith said he didn't see it as any different from a deli. Mr. Burgess raised the question of when you begin to consider it a fast food restaurant as opposed to a variety store. Members agreed to discuss this at a later meeting. 2. Review proposal of University -Mall Realty Trust for 1) boundary line adjustment involving two existing parcels of 46.01 acres (U Mall) and 7.73 acres (Howard Johnson's) which will result in two new parcels of 49.32 acres (U Mall) and 4.42 acres (Howard Johnson's); 2) construction of a surface parking facility on the newly acquired land north of U Mall; 3) a minor change to the north Univeristy Mall entrance and 4) temporary parking on a portion of the U Mall property previously approved for a 5,000 sq. ft. retail building: �K�T � 9� �j,4cye tqa t.7-7 +Iu I F j7- 4Y' 12"v IQ 4;� FF o 41, _-A I H 1 1 �� 11fED JtJh 1 '993 Burlingt> // / I I I w + Hill Ju ProV K- I If.' rl? I. .1. "DAIT'El�ll I R—S— rw- 47 � LOT 444 o M,401 aw- 44 I"f:l r44t;r ;g�.' F*wFe' Mw frP ALWWW jw�A* 'op -gay- WIEMANN - LAMPHERE, ARCHITECTS, INC. AURNAVLE bLXZ� 400P op rpav;oo W'c 30 SOUTH PARK DRIVE COLCHESTER. VERMONT CIA SCALE DRAWING NO. "):7 DATE DRAWN BY mw CHECKED BY PROJECT L City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 August 19, 1993 Dennis Webster Wiemann-Lamphere, Architects 30 South Park Drive Colchester, Vermont 05446 Re: Office Building, 625 Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Webster: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are some preliminary comments from City Engineer Bill Szymanski and myself on the above referenced project. Comments from Fire Chief Jim Goddette will be forwarded to you as soon as they are available. If applicable, please submit additional information and/or revised plans addressing these comments no later than Friday, September 3, 1993. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, &_._ Raymond J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant Encls RJB/mcp cc: Ralph Goodrich M E M O R A N D U M To: Project Files 0 From: Raymond J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant Re: September 14, 1993 agenda items Date: August 17, 1993 RALPH GOODRICH - OFFICE BUILDING - SITE PLAN applicant must resolve the issue currently before the Zoning Board of Adjustment in his favor as to whether the access is located in Traffic Overlay Zone 1 or 5 before site plan review. The review will not be placed on a Planning Commission agenda until this issue is resolved. 104 parking spaces are required and only 100 spaces are being provided. the minimum landscaping requirement of $20,500 is not being met. Proposed plantings are 14,100 short of this requirement. Applicant is seeking a credit for existing landscaping and should provide documentation of the value of trees to be saved and transplanted. building exceeds maximum height limit of 40 feet by five (5) feet. The Planning Commission may allow a 45 foot structure if it determines that a taller structure, up to 45 feet, will comply with the criteria in Section 18.112b (i)-(iii). The applicant should submit a written statement explaining why these criteria will be met. 10 FARRELL STREET - INDOOR RECREATION - SITE PLAN --- plan submitted is acceptable. CENTRAL TRACTOR - RETAIL SALES & ADDITION - SITE PLAN --- 84 parking spaces required and only 65 spaces are being provided. --- ADA Accessibility Guidelines requires a parking area of 65 spaces to provide three (3) handicapped spaces and only two (2) are shown on the plan. --- provide the number of employees under previous tenant. --- the minimum landscaping requirement for this project' is $5400 which is not being met since no additional landscaping is proposed. Applicant is seeking a credit for existing landscaping. --- plan does not accurately depict wooded area at rear of ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 26, 1993 The South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment held a meeting on Monday, July 26, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall room, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Maureen O'Brien, Dennis Johnson, Stephen Kramer, Dan King and Joe Randazzo. Members Absent Fred Blais and Dan King. Others Present Richard Ward, Mary -Barbara Maher, Ralph Goodrich, Mark Goodrich and Dennis Webster. Maureen O'Brien informed everyone that the Board consisted only of five members and state statutes require that for an appeal to be granted it has to receive at least four affirmative votes of the majority of the Board regardless if they are present or not. If anyone feels that their appeal is being prejudiced and not being heard adequately with only five of the seven members present, they can have their appeal postponed until the next meeting. 0 Apbeal #1. Sherry Swett Appeal of Sherry Swett and Nina Lumbra seeking approval from Section 9.20 Conditional uses, sub -section 9.202 day care centers and Section 19.05. Request is for permission to extend hours of operation to an existing day care center d.b.a. Carousel Child Care located at 1600 Williston Road. Mr. Ward informed the Board that the applicant requested to continue her appeal to the August 9th meeting. Dennis Johnson made .a motion to table this appeal to the next meeting. This was seconded by Dan King and was unanimously tabled. P Appeal #2, Ralph Goodrich Appeal of Ralph Goodrich seeking an appeal from a decision of the zoning administrative officer. Request is for a review of Section 22.105 Boundaries of the Traffic Overlay District for a property located at 625 Hinesburg Road. Mr. Ward informed the Board that the Zoning Board approved a conditional use for an office building at 625 Hinesburg Road. The applicant proceeded to site plan review by the Planning Commission and they didn't know which zone they were in as to the Traffic Overlay District. The applicant withdrew his appeal to the Planning Commission. Under Traffic Overlay Zone 1 they would not be allowed to construct a 26,000 square foot building because of the traffic that would be generated as a result of that use. If they are outside of Zone 1, they would be able to construct fit. The Zone 1 boundary in the Traffic Overlay District is defined in the written text as being 300 feet in the southerly direction. The term that came into question was Section 22 .105 (b) which defines a point of start where the two intersections meet. Mr. Johnson read Section 22.105(b) as follows: "Any dimensional approach shall be measured from the near edge of the intersecting pavement at the major intersection." Mr. Ward stated that if you take a strict interpretation of this Section, this is all within Zone 1. There is a map in the back of the Zoning Regulations and that defines it as 300 feet. The Traffic Overlay District define the amount of traffic that can be generated at the peak hour from a given use. The intersections that are Zone 1 are the critical intersections and the Planning Commission, the Highway Department and the State Highway Department state these intersections without improvements are at a level of service C. Mr. Ward stated the issue is defining a point of beginning. Mr. Johnson asked when the other properties came before the Planning Commission regarding that intersection, was this criteria applied to them. Mary -Barbara Maher, Vice -Chairman of the Planning Commission, stated the Traffic Overlay Zone was not applied to the medical office building on that corner in 1987. The Planning Commission feels the decision back in 1987 should not be compounded by what happens on this project. They feel the Traffic Overlay Zone is very important to this intersection. This intersection has the third highest volume on accidents. The developer measures from the beginning of his driveway but they are only calculating a 20 foot driveway. The City regulations require a 30 foot driveway. They would have to subtract out another 10 feet and it would be closer to the intersection. The Planning Commission wants a 5 foot setback from the property line from the abutting residential property owner for a buffer and for snow removal. Dennis Webster stated that from an engineering point of view you design and you build roads based on centerline because that geometry cannot change. It is the fixed geometry of a road. They 2 are concerned that the criteria as it is being interpreted is on a moving target. If they are in compliance today, they might not be in compliance tomorrow. They measured from the intersection of the centerline based on the State Highway engineering, they were 338.5 feet from the intersection to the southern most property line. They are not contending the issue of the 5 foot buffer and 30 foot driveway as requested by the Planning Commission. This would make them 303 feet from the centerline. He reiterated the centerline is the only thing that cannot move. Mr. Webster stated if you look at the definitions of Section 17, it talks about Traffic Overlay Zone, it doesn't mention any numbers and it doesn't state carefully how you measure from what to what. There is an unknown number you are dealing with. If you go to the map, it is 300 feet in three directions and 400 feet in another direction. He stated in Section 22.001 it states that if there is uncertainty, you measure from the centerline. Mr. Randazzo stated he is concerned with the extra traffic for that intersection. Mr. Kramer asked if they 'can move the entrance to Kennedy Drive. Mr. Webster stated the staff stated it is not a good place because there is an island there and it is only 240 feet. Mr. Ward asked if a traffic engineer did any work for them. Mr. Webster stated no. Mr. Randazzo asked what the difference is in the tripends for the Overlay District. Mr. Johnson stated Zone 5 is allowed 45 and Zone 1 is allowed 15 per acre. Mr. Webster stated it is 69 vs. 23. It is a one-third difference. Mr. Johnson stated it states in Section 17.304 the Planning Commission makes the final determination of where the zone is. Based on Section 22.105, it states from the near edge. Mr. Ward states this is the problem. All of the sections and maps have a different definition and meaning. There is a definite conflict. Mr. King stated this is one of '`the most critical traffic areas in the City. He cannot vote on this until he sees more thorough information. Mr. Johnson,agreed with Mr. King. Ralph Goodrich stated that he talked with Bill Szymanski and he wouldn't measure from the edge. Mr. Johnson recommended the Zoning Board sit down with the Planning Commission and find out what their intent is in the Traffic Overlay Zone reaardina the measur_ ina from the r_enterl i nP or from the Pdcre _ Mary -Barbara stated she would welcome the joint meeting. 3 Mr. King asked Mary -Barbara if the Planning Commission has talked about reviewing the Traffic Overlay Zone. She replied yes. Mr. Johnson stated he would like to see a specific statement that says you will make all measurements from the centerline of the road and not use the curb edges. Mary -Barbara stated that statutorily the power to render an opinion is the Zoning Administrator, not the City Engineer. The state statute states the Zoning Administrator shall interpret the law. If we need an interpretation, we should not ask the City Engineer we should ask the City Attorney. Mr. Ward stated the applicant would need to submit an argument for Bill Szymanski to look at. They should hire a traffic engineer to look at this and make his recommendations. Mr. Johnson asked if all you need is another 32 feet to satisfy the Planning Commission, what is the difference of going 32 feet and picking up the centerline of the intersection or going 32 feet and picking up property on the other end. This is why we need to meet with the Planning Commission. Mr. Randazzo stated the question is where do you define the starting point. Is it the center or is it the edge? What do we do to end the confusion? Maureen O'Brien stated that if there is confusion, you go with the centerline. Dennis Johnson agreed that if there is confusion, you go with the centerline. Mr. Ward stated 'he doesn't see how the Planning Commission and Zoning Board can sit down and come to a conclusion. He feels the applicant needs a traffic engineer to put together a traffic study. Mr. King asked how long it would take to get a traffic study. Mr. Webster stated not long. Mary -Barbara requested the traffic study be delivered in sufficient time to be examined by the Chittenden Regional Planning Commission and that it emphasize on left-hand turns. Mr. Ward stated that the Traffic Overlay Zone is not a district. Mr. Johnson stated it is defined in Section 22.105 as a district. Mr. Ward stated it is an overlay map, not a district. Dennis Johnson made a motion to table this appeal pending a comprehensive traffic study done by the applicant and a legal opinion by the City Attorney on Sections 22.001 and 22.105(b) and which one has precedence. This was seconded by Joe Randazzo. Stephen Kramer stated he feels this will not work. Our attorney is going to interpret our law. Mr. Webster stated that Mr. Stitzel will tell the Board what they want. 4 Stephen Kramer made an amendment to the motion that the traffic study include the following: (1) tripends; (2) left-hand turns• and (3) traffic flow from the existing property. Mr. Randazzo stated that a traffic study will not help the intersection. Mary -Barbara asked if the amendment woult3 ask the City Planning Officer to draw up what criteria and what questions they want addressed in a traffic report. Maureen O'Brien replied this would be asking to do your work. Mr. Ward stated they only need to have a traffic study done and draw the attention to these sections. We shouldn't tell them what we are looking for. They should go out and do their own study. We will take that document and submit it to another outside agency, and see if that traffic engineer concurs with the information submitted by the applicant. Stephen Kramer withdrew his amendment to the motion. There was no further discussion on the motion. The Board unanimously voted to table the appeal until they receive the traffic study and hear from the City Attorney. Dennis Johnson moved to accept the findings of fact and the minutes of July 12, 1993. This was seconded by,Stephen Kramer and all voted aye. Dennis Johnson moved for adjournment. This was seconded by Joe Randazzo and the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. CamN 5 0 Z A:ctl W4 c WVVIIaT p , Coe, �- - ►=`ate 20,E c 17.20 Traffic Overlay Zones The following zones are established based on the Location and type of access for any use on any lot. The location and dimensions of major intersections, high -volume roadway segments, and the balance of restricted roadway segments, as described in this section are shown on the Traffic Overlay Map. 17.201 Zone 1 shall consist of all lots with access to a point within a specified distance from a major intersection. �cv1 17.202 Zone 2 shall consist of all lots with access via a private driveway to a high -volume roadway segment. 17.203 Zone 3 shall consist of all lots with access via an unsignalized public road to a high -volume roadway segment. 17.204 Zone 4 shall consist of all lots with access via a signalized public road to a high -volume roadway segment and also shall include any lot in a C-1 district that is not included in Zones 1-3. 17.205 Zone 5 shall consist of all lots with access via a private driveway to the balance of Shelburne Road, Williston Road, Dorset Street (north of I-89), Hinesburg Road (between White Street and I-89 and Kennedy Drive. 22.105 Traffic Overlay District a. The boundaries of high -volume roadway segments and the balance of restricted roadways segments within the Traffic Overlay shall include the entire right-of-way of all delineated roadway segments. Cross -streets are not included. b. The boundaries of major intersections within the Traffic Overlay District shall include all approaches to the intersection. Any dimensional approach shall be measured from the near edge of the intersecting pavement at the major intersection. The first 50 feet of undimensioned minor cross -streets shall be included within the boundaries of the major intersection. i ` 1 (ply ��F1 Ems' �✓ m wi L ,iq CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON SITE PLAN APPLICATION 1) OWNER OF RECORD (name, address, phone #) iC/V to r I 2) APPLICANT (name, address, phone # )�--���� 3) CONTACT PERSON (name, address, phone #) , a� dAi 4) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 5) LOT NUMBER (if applicable) 6) PROPOSED USES) 7) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e. total building square footage, # units, I/maximum height and # floors. square feet per floor) 8) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES I )AkAnrJ A'11 A 9) LOT COVERAGE: building 1�4 o %; landscaped areas ,�j � building, parking, outside storag 10) COST ESTIMATES: Buildings $ 1 Other Site Improvements (please list with cost) Landscaping $ 11) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: Ig2�1 12) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in and out) Estimated trip ends (in and out) during the following hours: Monday through Friday 11-12 noon 12-1p.m. - 1-2 p.m. 2-3 p.m. 3-4 p.m. 4-5 p.m. 5-6 p.m. 6-7 p.m. 13) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATI 14) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATIC DATE OF SU MISSION DATE OF HEARING PLEASE SUBMIT FIVE COPIES AND ONE REDUCED COPY (11 X 17) OF THE SITE PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: Lot drawn to scale (20 foot scale if possible.) Location of streets-,- abutting properties, fire hydrants, existing buildings, existing landscaping. Existing and proposed curb cuts, pavement, walkways. Proposed landscaping plan (number, variety and size),equal to of greater than the required amount in the Zoning Regulations. Number and location of'Parking Spaces: (9' X. 18') with 22 or 24 foot aisles as required. Number and location of compact•ear spaces.• (This requires sepa- rate Planning Commission approval). Number and location of handicapped spaces as required. (13 feet by 20 feet in size, one per every fifty spaces). Location of septic tanks (if applicable). y .,Location of 'any easements. Lot coverage information: Building footprint, building, parking and outside storage, and landscaped areas. Location of site (Street # and lot #). North arrow Name of person or firm preparing site plan and date. 2 VISUAL RESOURCE EVALUATION Tectonic Engineering Consultants, P.C., was contracted by Independent Wireless One to create computer simulated photographs depicting the proposed addition of their antennas on the replacement 110 foot tall guyed tower located at 625 Hinesburg Road in the Town of South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont. Setting: The surrounding land use is Residential. Within the study area, the topography ranges in elevation from approximately 290' AMSL (Above Mean Sea Level) to approximately 410' AMSL. Methodology: On April 10, 2001 Tectonic Engineering Consultants, P.C. conducted a field investigation for the purpose of evaluating the views associated with the proposed co - location installation. Conditions were cloudy -overcast, approximately 401, with 5-10 mph winds. The study area consisted of a one (1) mile radius from the project site. Photographs were taken from various vantage points within the study area to document the actual view towards the existing structure, as well as the general character of the viewshed. Each photograph attached, includes a brief description of the location and orientation from which it was taken, as summarized below: 1. View from the intersection of Hayes Avenue and Hinesburg Road, looking northwest towards the existing structure from approximately 1400' away. 2. View from Hinesburg Road (1-89 overpass), looking northwest towards the existing structure from approximately 2700' away. 3. View from the intersection of Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive, looking south towards the existing structure from approximately 400' away. 4. View from the intersection of Kennedy Drive and Kimball Avenue, looking southwest towards the existing structure from approximately 3550' away. 5. View from the intersection of Hayes Avenue and Timber Lane, looking northeast towards the existing structure from approximately 900' away. 6. View from the intersection of Kennedy Drive and West Twin Oaks Terrace, looking east towards the existing structure from approximately 2350' away. 7. View from the intersection of Winding Brook Drive and Hinesburg Road, looking southeast towards the existing structure from approximately 800' away. Site Number: NE43XC443 Page 1 of 2 April 26, 2001 8. View from the intersection of Woodland Place and Beechwood Lane, looking south towards the existing structure from approximately 1500' away. 9. View from the intersection of Hopkins Street and Barrett Street, looking southeast towards the existing structure from approximately 3900' away. 10. View from #160 Hinesburg Road (St. John Vianney Catholic Church), looking southeast towards the existing structure from approximately 3750' away. These photo locations are presented on the "Photographic Log Map" attached. Process: Photographs of the existing structure from the view points noted were taken with a 35mm Canon EOS camera using a 55mm focal length lens. Photographs that contain simulated views (#1, 3 and 5) of the proposed installation were produced by first photographing the existing tower and then scanning the photos into digital images on a computer. Digital images of the site photos and the proposed equipment were then merged and manipulated through the use of the image editing software, "Adobe PhotoShop 6". With this process the installation is scaled to the correct size. The composite is printed out directly on a color printer, producing the final image. The simulations depicted in this report utilized white colored antennas. This is done strictly for illustration purposes. Conclusion: The proposed addition of Independent Wireless One's equipment on the replacement 110' tall guyed tower at 625 Hinesburg Road, will not have a significant impact on the existing views of this structure. Sincerely, TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, P.C. B 25X--40J-M( Sara A. LethVidge Tar M. Sickels Visual Technician Proj ct Manage W:\2916-IWO-Vermont\443A - Goodrich Incorporated\VISUAL\sim-Colo-rept.doc Site Number: NE43XC443 Page 2 of 2 April 26, 2001 PHOTO LOCATION 1 HAYES AVENUE & HINESBURG ROAD 2 HINESBURG ROAD (1-89 OVERPASS) 3 HINESBURG ROAD AND KENNEDY DRIVE 4 KENNEDY DRIVE AND KIMBALL AVENUE 5 HAYES AVENUE & TIMBER LANE 6 KENNEDY DRIVE & WEST TWIN OAKS TERRACE % WINDING BROOK DRIVE & HINESBURG ROAD 8 WOODLAND PLACE & BEECHWOOD LANE 9 HOPKINS STREET & BARRETT STREET 10 1160 HINESBURG RD (ST JOHN AMNEY CATHOLIC CHURCH) (j) VISIBLE PHOTOGRAPHS TECTONIC W.O.: 2916.443A PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG MAP SCALE: 1 "=1000' IWO - NE43XC443 SOUTH BURLINGTON GOODRICH INCORPORATED 625 HINESBURG ROAD TOWN OF SOUTH BURLINGTON CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT LWGINNG TECTONICCONSULTANTS P.C. 43 State Street, Suite 3 (802)223-0558 Montpelier, VT 05601 A LOOKING NORTHWEST FROM THE INTERSECTION OF HAYES AVENUE & HINESBURG ROAD P-1 PROPOSED EQUIPMENT WILL BE VISIBLE FROM THIS LOCATION DISTANCE FROM THE PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION TO THE PROPOSED SITE IS 1400't NE43XC443 Y LOOKING NORTHWEST FROM THE INTERSECTION OF clT HAYES AVENUE & HINESBURG ROAD S-1 a"A PROPOSED EQUIPMENT IS VISIBLE FROM THIS LOCATION DISTANCE FROM THE PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION TO THE PROPOSED SITE IS 1400'± NE43XC443 r w LOOKING NORTHWEST FROM HINESBURG ROAD (1-89 OVERPASS) PROPOSED EQUIPMENT WILL BE VISIBLE FROM THIS LOCATION DISTANCE FROM THE PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION TO THE PROPOSED SITE IS 2700'# P -2 NE43XC443 1 No Text :+. J 4�W all.- -.t.. DISTANCE FROM THE PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION TO THE PROPOSED SITE IS 4001± 0 r T 'm LOOKING SOUTH FROM THE INTERSECTION OF HINESBURG ROAD AND KENNEDY DRIVE S-3 PROPOSED EQUIPMENT IS VISIBLE �7 FROM THIS LOCATION NE43XC443 No Text M191, -, -A-' � - A./ i r IMF �_�� ,gym®� n� .s...•.z g s� �• :•:ice+` TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C. t No Text � a 7 �tw 4 i- wNNW TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C. t +ram low LOOKING SOUTH FROM THE INTERSECTION OF WOODLAND PLACE AND BEECHWOOD LANE P _8 PROPOSED EQUIPMENT WILL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THIS LOCATION DISTANCE FROM THE PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION TO THE PROPOSED SITE IS 1500't NE43XC443 No Text J�HN VIANN i l ILIA.- i CATHOLIC CHURCH SAT 430 PM-- �SUM 800, 930, 1130 AM _ �rl1■...•ram -.. s TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C. " g Ohl -7 '`14 jr- � --4 NIA R wool ,.TIC 4 V 74t JOHN T. EWING RICHARD A. SPOKES LAW OFFICES OF JOHN T_ EWING 86 ST. PAUL STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 February 18, 1970 Mr. Richard R. Ward South Burlington Town Offices 555 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Dick: AREA CODE 802 863-2877 RECEN D � F B 18 1970 -VOW, MAC' >GFOS OFFICE Re: Application of Goodrich for Use Variance The question has arisen in connection with the above application. I understand that the appli- cation is essentially for a residence district C use. The principal question is whether this is an appropriate instance for the granting of a use variance. This question is for determination by the Zoning Board. However, variances are permitted, under the statutes and the South Burlington Zoning Ordinance, only under special and somewhat unique circumstances. These circumstances are set forth in Section 13.60 (B) of the South Burlington Ordinance, requiring that the Board find that the strict application of the provisions of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land, that there are special circumstances or conditions which are peculiar to such land and do not generally apply to other land in the vicinity, and that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose of the Ordinance. In view of the above restrictions, and because the policy represented by these rules is to discourage the granting of variances except in unusual cases, a more appropriate route would be action by the Planning Commission and the Board of Selectmen to create residence district C for this area of land, if those Boards felt so advised. JTE/p Very truly yours, �fJohn T. Ewing JOHN T. EWING RICHARD A. SPOKES LAW OFFICES OF JOHN T. EWING 86 ST. PAUL STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT OS401 February 18, 1970 Mr. Richard R. Ward South Burlington Town Offices 555 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Dick: AREA CODE 802 863-2877 REC ��;u?LI+vTOP�d fviA`�I,'�G�F'S OFFRC:� Re: Application of Goodrich for Use Variance The question has arisen in connection with the above application. I understand that the appli- cation is essentially for a residence district C use. The principal question is whether this is an appropriate instance for the granting of a use variance. This question is for determination by the Zoning Board, However, variances are permitted, under the statutes and the South Burlington Zoning Ordinance, only under special and somewhat unique circumstances. These circumstances are set forth in Section 13.60 (B) of the South Burlington Ordinance, requiring that the Board find that the strict application of the provisions of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land, that there are special circumstances or conditions which are peculiar to such land and do not generally apply to other land in the vicinity, and that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose of the Ordinance. In view of the above restrictions, and because the policy represented by these rules is to discourage the granting of variances except in unusual cases, a more appropriate route would be action by the Planning Commission and the Board of Selectmen to create residence district C for this area of land, if those Boards felt so advised. JTE/p Very truly yours, '`John T. Ewing February 16, 1970 Mr. Albert Reynolds Chairman of Zoning Board South Burlington, Vermont Re: Ralph Goodrich Use Variance on Hinesburg Road. Dear Al, In this particular case some of my friends are for it and some of my friends are against it, an I'm for my friends. My objection is to the zoning administrators use of the `"use variance". The original intent was for commercial use only: we made a change and added residential because of the problems we had in the planned (unplanned) areas and stepping up to resident- ial. For example, the nursing hore heMnd the Bolton block from — merc 4-1 to residentL_ial �WALUU�- A. %.&.".L -_ J_ " L �L L. I feel the intent should be to use the "use variance" only when there is no alternative. Some consideration should be given to the length: 1 year, 5 years, 20 years? Again, the "use var- iance` should be used with good judgement. The above request should be a zoning change from Residential B to C so that some consideration should be given to the use of the land around it. Thank you. Very truly yours, Vincent J. OlAcuti VJD/bg CC: C. Harry Behney Richard Ward Ralph Goodrich 07ey 'al yinuldoq ebloayek Mod!A MOE PaWas 10 aSM11SN'', isovinv 'wipailluE AMC,, 00 angslizv "au ASANOOV dqiz5 !01-1 Ozop psudesahl f A aw"l bin A 101 ewB K"a!71 YM 10 000a wso 10101jazq Adl al .W5111 YM 101 M11 b1z 'A J'al5pz Own amsM , adz nnon, 091 10 gam anossilelaimss vallos Odj 01 Q soljowtdo 'YZ"'T ;YIvO sau 151011MMOW 101 esw jasial 1511"110 14T ."'VaNIZV 5au'' sw smsfdolq SKI 10 seunowd 1511gebtall bqbbs 51L 09WO s DOSM xv -jashtanj of qu psiqqeja ban asnuz (Lqajsjqnuj boaqAq N! al bul moil A001d aosIOE qdj bal"ll 500A palanyl SAJ 'sign=0 vol An! .161jasblaol Oj YfqO "nowNsv laz" sdi eau 04 ed QUOV JasJot 914 feel I lovip 9d bluoda OM02 .9viiwasils Oa si OMSAJ asew -1sv Sam" 011 'ASPA 'Tanzey 0, ninny & '1zey I Njpawl wjj 01 .Jaemopbst 300P RAW sow ed Moaa "Olazi IsOnablagh 0011 qpasAo palaos n ed bluMe 18SUP91 wv0dz 012 10 ga. IJJ Oi navip ed bluoma smos juej Oc 0 Chia Al baumb bazl OW 'aIS07 YASI.Yiev WnAlo v InInAv .UOY Q64'1: pd\UM! ysnequ Y11M 0 M bisW oizdolg dolibcov dqlz,*.t February 16, 1970 Nr. Ralph lcodrich 625 Anosburg hoad South lurlington, Vermont C1401 Dear 0. Ooodrich: This is to inform you that the `'outh 7urlington :onin,,.� , Poaril of Adjustment will MY a public mentinj at tip:, South !?urlin-,-ton High School, Cafeteria II on Wednesday, Tebruary 18, 1970 at 7:30 P.M. to consider your request for a variance. Very truly, Richa& aard Code Officer Pebruary 16, 1970 Mr. ilbert I. Beynolds 126 Spear Street South lurlinrton, VT 05401 Dear Mr. leynolds: This is to notify you that the South Turlington Zoning Poard of Adjustment will hold a pul3ic hearing at the South Purlinyton High "chool, Cafeteriu II on "Unesday, Pebruary IF, 1Q7O at 7:30 P-7. to consider the appeal of: halph 1. boodrich seeking a variance fro" W ,:south Burlington Zoning Ordinance. Request is for permission to construct two (?) four-plex apartment units, as a variance from the use provisions, on lots located or, 1,right Court and Hinesburg Road, Ploase plan to attcn&. Very truly, Richard ; Ard Code Officer cc 01 mombers of Zoning Board "ra. "A Guil7ord '9 "llsl7o Goodrich Appeal Location: Wright Court and Hinesburg Road Parcel #1 Lot requirements: In Residential B & C, 7,500 square feet per family. Lot size 1101 x 110' or 12,100 square feet Building 50' x 33' or 1,650 square feet Each unit 825 square feet Yard requirements in Residential B: Front yard 30 feet Corner side yard 25 feet Rear yard 30 feet Yard requirements in Residential C: Front yard 30 feet Rear yard 30 feet Side yard 30 feet Dwelling standards: More than one story: not less than 850 square feet Parcel #2 Lot size 1251 x 110' or 13,750 square feet Building 751 x 241 or 3,304 square feet Each unit 826 square feet Hearing T; ��%� � � �. :ti._ � u� _ ��/L� % ) e 6 Says prior to meetingo South Burlington Zoning Board of Ad justrn.en c South Purlington 7 Vermont Gentlemen: I hereby appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the following variance. I understand 'that regular mer�ta_ng daces are the first and third Wednesdays of the month at 7:30 p.m. at the'South Burlington High School. The legal advertisement shall appear as below, and I agree to pay, either now or before the ad appears, a fee of 1f130,00, which fee is to offset costs of holding said searing Date SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE '!'he South .0 arl 1_Iag'Gvn Zoo-.ng Doard o nudJus menu, wil-I iays.0 a Nuv ter... hearing, at the South Burlington high ;school. Cafeteria II, Dorset Street. South Burli.ngtonl Vermont on,��.�...._..,�, 1 _.�� g e 4f7� da of wee month a d date) at . ; _3 o to consider the following: (time) Appeal of4x , seeking a variance from In (number) Soiith. Pi).rlington 7or,ing, �Ordinance. ?Request is for permisSion No Text . ...... .... Ito, V* A n74 J al 7 A4 '777' PJt 626 B ;.,,I viii(ir.- feet t,4/,216-A W11h0:01' 0SPAtNT 831 DFsi( PLANS WITH OR Wh-HOUT BASbkAENF Workinn drrjv.101;,, �,^,r PoO) type (ire seporole Mid contain ciflier two units with busement of :'No 1jr1j, With. th no pions call for trawl sp(ice coil traction, Whir.11 rw:�vy, ! Ili (ill roolli" 111dividmil t1;uI1Iq(1 provide otil'Amidillij-privilcy and hollivi-I (lit 111(illoll (11)(I ilimmill (J -Ammil, mo'I my illm-mill I , A j It .011- (11 11c1 M,, 144 `I 'I • q v I I� f n'1 ;Ivr.v,tl,•, 11 �..•Kn,� cl. I 6 F svw usy vies.+.u.vD'R i � � � ��<.+.p..M � 1� }Yr,;r '."'.." mil' •r Et Z • L r, I',Ill 1 4 jEl' 1 1 1 �1 1, I, i � 111 1 1 r'I a M-626-i;' I 631 srfuore feet M626-A WI11•IUlll 13MPOLNl' Bat sriullrr tr'et i I 'li,' Cttktic trfi 15,373 cubic feet 4✓ L S Y Y `I OFFERS C,if 1 V `�.. L (', g � f p �'y �y ` �, 3 g � fA ,f N , TH 13 i , ' with basement (�r�tit�t,dji1!j'(1(n(h Sphn(t(1 CldthCtWIll w n! 11o1,u11 on1lrrr11116ol 1►(1sellwill, will) no 1u1,t11, or tWu jes lmj which means wrjod floors In GII. fO0f71S. In({IVIIIUUI.ntlr +mount Of(Istor(i(e at!V eo (11CUnU;Ual. perfect sound barrier. Circulation a specify desinn A or B when orderin.i !r. l I • a, Al 5 t1 Z e t 13EDn00IT1 m .8joom x90.0 III•G x9'-G KIT- Din IT•Din 9'•8x91•O T or ' UAW 12'•OxIno 11'�IOxrZ.G LIn B CJ' - cl cL. 0 --1 30 a { at C"J CL IL - GL GL LIvInc, BFDa00M JJ _L CL Lin I�� X121.0 9.8xi2�•3 �f0 LI VInG JJ _�conoom. Z�I� l�' It1•Cx10�.6 , _�. —_ 5 -��1d I_� /,I � y 44 a --- ocnGn • rn-46i design M-487 CLEVER DESIGN CREATES APPEARANCE Of PRIVATE HOME Beneath its roof this income design conceals two modern apartments for living comfort. The single front vestibule and stair are a smart economy move that still allows maximum privacy to each unit. The chim- ney by the stair is centrally located if one heating plant is desired. 1,653 square feet 30,580 cubic feet 2ebruary 26, 1970 Mr. Albert I. TLeynolds 126 :.,Pear Strect South Burlin,-,ton, VT 051+01 Dear Mir. '.-,,,eynolds: This is to inform you that the South Burlington Zoning T.�oard 0 of -,�Idjustment will hold a meetim- at the 'South Ilurlinl-,,ton High Sckllool on �,'ednesdayj "arch 4, 1970 ut 7:30 P. to consider the followinig': ;Ippeal of '.,,.,alph L. Goodrich seekin, a variance from Section 6.FO, Lot area requirements of the South '.13urlington 17 oning nance. "''oquest is for permission to construct t,v.,o (2) .',uplex units, on lots located at Hinesbur,-, T,'oad and ldri7ht Court. lote: Lot size required 7,500 square feet per family* ljot; involvc,:d (1) 12,100 squaiie feet 1101 x 1101 (2) 3.3,750 square, feet 1101 -,, 1-251 Var,, tri.jly, Y `,,ichard ',,.lard Code Officer RW/j cc All Board members Mrs. Vi'm Guilford February ebruary 26, 1970 Ralph D. �Ioodrich ,525 Hine-s-burg 'Road South. Purlin-ton, VT 05401 '.'-.,ear ',Ir. loodrich: This is to notify ycu that the South 11w-lington ,"oning Board of .,.djustment will hol(l, a public hcarin,'on ..+'odnesday, TIarch 4, 1970 at 7:30.P.". at the youth IL'urlington High ia II to consider your request for a variance. Very truly, Richard ",Tard Code Officer Ii I I , , , / j Elearing Date�V� Acd v t _Advortise 6 days -orior to nieeting. .1 South Burlington ZonIng Board of Adjustmen-16. L Soi.ith 'Purlinr,,aton vlermo-.'at I Gentlemen: I hereby appeal t-lo the Zoning - ca.,-i,d of Adjustment for -the following variance. ' understand that regular dates are the firsll- antuhird d We,dnesdays of -11-he rnonth at 7:30 pom. at the South Burlington High School. The le -al advertisement shall. aDi)ear as below? aiid I agree to pay, 0 �ieither -now or bofore the ad appears, a fee of 1b30,00, which fee is to offset costs of holding said 'o-baring,, SOUTH B1311LINGTON ZON114G NOTICE T.'V' n Q ^ I'l 4- In 'P I ti -o -1 -1 V-1 r? e- -n 7 n i i -' ? -n cr P, n n " r j n A r' i -, i Q i-rn nn 1,TJ I 'I I-) n I rl n nll�ll j n hearing at the South Burlington High School, Cafeteria I!, Dorset z et I C, 'e Street 13outh Burlington Vermon'�, on- z 0, -dla& _Y0 0 Wee (month and date) at 3, to consider the following: t 4 m(, Appeal. of seeking a variance from (na-.me Section of the -affit-fe of 7 South Burlingtoll foning Ordinance. Request -is for permission to 17 ZONING D0111"LD OF ADJUSTM1,.',XT TO1,,Rl OF S)OUTH BURLINGTON, VZRMOXT 555 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT Dear Citizen: Attached to this sheet is a copy of a legal notice that is to appear in the Burlington Free Press. The Board of Selectmen has instructed that this form be sont-, to adjacent property owners as a method W advising them of a public hearing that could or could not affect their property. This is not intended to mean that they are either in favor of on against the Yequest, at: is merely furnished for your Of optational purposes,, Very truly yours, ZoAng Administrator RW/j • Culvert Pipe Sales Contract or Hourly Rate INESBURG ROAD — ZIP 0540 --�—— DIAL 862-6431 • Well Point System • Gradall • Dozers • Shovels Town of South BurlingtoN Town Manager Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermnnt Dear Sir: We are requesting a variance in the zoning ordinance to allow us to construct a 32' addition to existing warehouse. The existing building is one foot from side lot line. This addi- tion will continue parallel to side lot line. Very truly yours, RALPH B. GOODRICH, INC. RALPH B. GOODRICH •: May 4, 1967 Incl: te �LI L -Cl _ y(,i ��-�'-G c-✓iLC�e%r/L.i '" I S� $KILL •I!'CNSl.11 ly INTEGRITY stioy ?dr/�J� Ile i-L r r>d 7t .9N i "Ir. Albert 1. Reynolds, Zoning Board of Adjustme 126 Spear Street Sontli iiiirlingtoii, Vermor Dear F`.nyriolds: This is to notify you ti, of Adjustment will I- zlr-L- ing, vorset Stjr3at--' P.M. Lo consider th.e fol Appeal of Ralph 0 Croodr variaxice from. sedtion S. Burlix'W,ton ZQj.j.ijjg Ordinw, add r,, 6r1 to existizag visxel�e IBU 'ington, Vermovit. may 8, 1967 ng Board Office Build- 7: 30 for a t at 625 Hinesburg Road, Souttla A PKetcli of the roposed addition is enclosed for your cohVenience. Pleaso ;?-4!!" -t attend *,le meeting. Very truly yours, I �eery LeClair, Town Yana ger cc: George A. DeForge Robert T.T. Partlneau Richard A. Myette A. Sheldon .Jacobs "x. halph B. Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road 30U,6h 13,arlin4tonl Vermont Dear Yr. Goodr Ich: This is to notify you that the 3 Adjustment at their meeting held requcot for a variance ai el office, tK 23A M&Y 31a 1967 �Wgton Zoning ljoard of I .0 1967 approved your file in Town Ranager's Very trul-11 your sip H4nry LeClair Town mam�ger May 8v 1967 Mr. Ralph B. Goodrich, Pres. Ralph B. Goodrich, Inc. 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Goodrich: This Is to notify you that the South Burlington Zoning Board of AudJust-c-nent will hold a public hearing at the Town Office Building,, 555 Dorse-G Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Wednesday, May 17, 1967 at 7:30 P-%- to consider your appeal q variance. ?I .T1 . 1/h end the meeting. Very truly yours, Henry LeClair Town Manager March 6,1970 Ralph R. Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Bur ling ton, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Goodrich: This is to notify you that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment approved your request for a variance. This office will request that you file plans for a building permit. Very truly: Richard Ward Code Officer Ovoyt3 AnTSM AMCrats X AVAi Orch gludsOAH ro"O 4 gsuar,3, WOMOCU IN TGA.", 10 LT"WA pninaL noUnlyms AME Sol Add .LSD' V !U can of a! aln2 ,snnsfimv a w! lasupnT e"mfoy fv,-3vwqqa &-mlauth;'I Almor Worlud n 101 arall sill U0% Jsd* lasupol 111V SWIM e!A :%full %w9v blew MdAh "901M sbo",