Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BATCH 7 - Supplemental - 1302 1340 1350 1404 1406 Spear Street
�--R SG� � T R:Ai~ tiPLyIt7 tiT_�?": I Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study South Burlington, VT August 2010 DATA ■ ANALYSIS • SOLUTIONS R S GINC. TRANSPORTATION 60 Lake Street, Unit 1E • Burlington, Vermont 05401 TEL802.383.0118 • 1 AX 802.383.0122 • www.rsginc.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..............................................................................1 3.0 SCOPE OFSTUDY......................................................................................2 3.1 Local Highway Network, Traffic & Conditions.......................................................................................... 3 3.2 Other Development Volumes..................................................................................................................4 3.3 Volume Adjustment Factors.................................................................................................................... 6 3.4 Trip Generation........................................................................................................................................6 3.5 Trip Distribution.......................................................................................................................................7 3.6 Scenario Volume Graphics.....................................................................................................................10 4.0 CONGESTION ANALYSIS...........................................................................20 4.1 Level -of -Service Definition.....................................................................................................................20 4.2 Level -of -Service Results......................................................................................................................... 20 5.0 QUEUING ANALYSIS...............................................................................22 6.0 SAFETY ANALYSIS...................................................................................23 6.1 High Crash Locations..............................................................................................................................23 6.2 Crash Histories.......................................................................................................................................24 6.3 Sight Distances.......................................................................................................................................27 7.0 DESIGN REVIEW.....................................................................................30 7.1 Spear Street Southbound Left -Turn Lane.............................................................................................. 30 7.2 Spear Meadows Road Westbound Turn Lanes...................................................................................... 30 8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................................................................31 Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page LIST OF FIGURES Figure1: Proposed Site Plan.................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure2: Study Area............................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Lane Configurations................................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 4: Locations of Other Developments.......................................................................................................... 5 Figure 5: Trip Distribution of AM and PM Site -Generated Traffic and Diverted Trips .......................................... 8 Figure 6: 2011 AM Peak Hour No Build.............................................................................................................. 10 Figure 7: 2011 PM Peak Hour No Build............................................................................................................... 11 Figure8: 2016 AM Peak Hour No Build.............................................................................................................. 12 Figure 9: 2016 PM Peak Hour No Build............................................................................................................... 13 Figure10: 2016 AM Peak Hour Build.................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 11: 2016 PM Peak Hour Build.................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 12: 2021 AM Peak Hour No Build............................................................................................................ 16 Figure 13: 2021 PM Peak Hour No Build............................................................................................................. 17 Figure 14: 2021 AM Peak Hour Build.................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 15: 2021 PM Peak Hour Build.................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 16: Reported Crashes in the Study Area (2003-2007)............................................................................. 25 Figure 17: Summary of Crash Types within Study Area (2003-2007).................................................................. 25 Figure 18: Location of Crashes by Type(2003-2007)........................................................................................... 26 Figure 19: Weather as a Factor in Study Area Crashes........................................................................................ 27 Figure 20: Contributing Factors in Study Area Crashes....................................................................................... 27 Figure 21: Sight Distance Looking North (measured 10' from edge of pavement) Reaches Spear -Swift Intersection................................................................................................................................................. 29 Figure 22: Sight Distance Looking South (measured 10' from edge of pavement) Reaches Approximately to CedarGlen Drive......................................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 23: Sight Distance to the North as Measured from Site Plan................................................................... 30 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Trip Generation - Proposed Land Uses.................................................................................................... 6 Table 2: Trip Distribution Assumptions for Site -Generated Traffic (does not include diverted trips) ................... 7 Table 3: Level -of -Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections ................................................ 20 Table 4: AM Peak Hour LOS Results..................................................................................................................... 21 Table 5: PM Peak Hour LOS Results..................................................................................................................... 21 Table 6: Estimated AM Peak Hour Queues......................................................................................................... 22 Table 7: Estimated PM Peak Hour Queues......................................................................................................... 23 9 August 2010 Page ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION This study evaluates the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Spear Meadows residential development located east of Spear Street between Swift Street and Nowland Farm Road in the Southeast Quadrant of South Burlington, Vermont. The development consists of 69 new residential units: ■ 25 single-family dwellings ■ 29 flats ■ 15 townhouses Two accesses to the site will be provided at Spear Street and at Nowland Farm Road via Vale Drive. The proposed development includes a southbound left -turn lane at the Spear Street access. This study considers impacts at the following intersections: ■ Spear Street -Swift Street ■ Spear Street -Spear Meadows Road (proposed) ■ Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road/Deerfield Drive ■ Nowland Farm Road -Vale Drive This traffic impact study includes the following items: ■ The project description and study scope ■ Traffic volumes in 2011, 2016, and 2021 with and without the project ■ Estimated congestion in 2011, 2016, and 2021 with and without the project ■ Estimated queue lengths in 2011, 2016, and 2021 with and without the project ■ A safety analysis of the adjacent highway network ■ A summary with conclusions and recommendations This study relies upon design standards and analysis procedures documented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual,' Trip Generation,2A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,' Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),4 Traffic Impact Evaluation: Study and Review Guide,5 and the Vermont State Design Standards.6 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 below shows the general layout of the buildings, parking and driveways. Access to the site is to be provided at Spear Street and at Nowland Farm Road via Vale Drive. The proposed development includes a southbound left -turn lane at the Spear Street access. The existing cul-de-sac at the north end of 1 Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2000). z Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 81" Edition (Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008). 3 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 4`h Edition (Washington DC: AASHTO, 2004). "American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA), ITE, and AASHTO, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition (Washington DC: FHWA, 2003). s Vermont Agency of Transportation, Policy and Planning Division, Traffic Research Unit, Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (October 2008). 6 State of Vermont Agency of Transportation, Vermont State Standards (Montpelier: VTrans, 1 July 1997). Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 1 Vale Drive is to remain as a deterrent to cut -through traffic. An existing single family dwelling, located on Spear Street to the south of the proposed Spear Meadow Road, is to remain on the site. The driveway for this residence, which is currently on Spear Street, will be moved to Spear Meadow Road, thereby closing the existing curbcut on Spear Street. The development consists of 69 new residential units: ■ 25 single-family dwellings ■ 29 flats ■ 15 townhouses The proposed development is located in the Southeast Quadrant of South Burlington and as such is zoned for clustered housing at 4 units per acre. As the site acreage is 26.19 acres, this would permit a full build - out of 105 housing units on the site, compared to the 69 units proposed. Figure 1: Proposed Site Plan .. _ - — -- - Vale -- �' Drive _ 0p0 -- - .� `r; �... Access oo a o o.00 O � _sas,ODS24flAoo. i �o � O �'�?C+ nwecr.ww �.c 9452009QA90Q4: 1 v, r� iuscw �Pftoycernn OW"YOanecr -..0 nu" Zma a®wariwy LIACIRt am+ o Spear Street Access AT 3.0 SCOPE OF STUDY This section includes a description of existing network and traffic conditions, other development volumes, volume adjustment factors, trips generated by the proposed development, and scenario volumes within the study area. The extent of the study area includes the two access points to the project site, and the Spear Street -Swift Street and Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road intersections.' 1 VTrans guidelines specify that a traffic study should be considered if the proposed development will generate 75 or more peak hour I trips. The geographic scope of the study should also include the immediate access points and those intersections or highway segments receiving 75 or more project -generated peak hour trips. Vermont Agency of Transportation, Policy and Planning Division, Traffic Research Unit, Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (October 2008). I 9 August 2010 Page 2 I Figure 2 shows the location of the site east of Spear Street between Swift Street and Nowland Farm Road and the study intersections considered in the analysis. Raw turning movement volumes, adjustments, and trip generation calculations are available in Appendix A. Figure 2: Study Area 800 400 0 800 Feet . Study Intersection � s 'aa�• A ti�J��� � Sf 2 Access #1 at Spear Meadows c o Road (new) o I Spear Meadows C R v`fry t)q o Access #2 at Vale Drive o. (existing) g J 1 "0 t n 71 0 c _o -. NOWANU VP JW RD w 0 3.1 Local Highway Network, Traffic & Conditions Within the study area, the functional classification of Spear Street is an Urban Minor Arterial, Swift Street is a Collector, and Nowland Farm Road is a Local road. The 2009 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on Spear Street (north of Swift Street) was 4,900 vehicles/day according to VTrans route logs. Spear Street's speed limit in the study area is 35 mph and Nowland Farm Road's is 25 mph. The Spear Street -Swift Street intersection is signalized and the eastbound and westbound approaches are skewed. The cross- section of Spear Street is two 11' lanes with a 5' bike lane in the southbound direction (on the west side of the road) and a 2' paved shoulder on the east side of the road. According to the South Burlington Town Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 3 Highway Map, Spear Street and Nowland Farm Road are Class 2 and Class 3 Town Highways, respectively. This section of Spear Street is a popular bicycle corridor, with a marked bike lane for much of southbound Spear Street between Swift Street and Nowland Farm Road. The shared use path network also crosses Spear Street at Swift Street and at Nowland Farm Road and includes sidewalks as shown in Figure 3. Although there is not a crosswalk on Vale Drive, the shared use path crosses the southbound approach. Four Sisters Road and Vale Drive connect at the northern ends. The proposed development includes a southbound left -turn lane from Spear Street onto Spear Meadows Road. The existing cul-de-sac at the northern end of Vale Drive will remain as a traffic calming device to discourage cut -through traffic after the proposed development is constructed. Resource Systems Group analyzed the two highest peak hours of traffic at each study intersection: the weekday AM and PM peak hours. It is standard practice in Vermont to analyze traffic conditions in the base year (the year construction is estimated to be complete) and five years in the future. Given the uncertainty of current real estate market conditions, this study considers the year in which construction is expected to begin (2011); assumes full build -out in the year 2016; then analyzes five years in the future (2021). Thus, the following scenarios are evaluated for the AM and PM peak hours: ■ 2011 No Build ■ 2016 No Build ■ 2016 Build, including traffic generated by the proposed development ■ 2021 No Build ■ 2021 Build, including traffic generated by the proposed development All scenarios assume current signal phasing and timings at the Spear Street - Swift Street intersection, as collected from the signal controller with the assistance of the South Burlington Department of Public Works on 8-4-10. 3.2 Other Development Volumes Figure 3: Lane Configurations Spear Street x A A z r 3 191 + Spear Street L crosswalk d Project to k* L__- cc 3 Z Other development volumes (ODVs) represent trips generated by anticipated developments in the study area. Trips generated by ODVs are typically included in every scenario because we assume they are already present on the road network in the analysis years. 9 August 2010 Page 4 We have spoken with the South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department and the Shelburne Town Planner to identify developments that should be included in the background traffic volumes (Figure 4). They are as follows: ■ Cider Mill Phase 1 (approximately 50% built out): 149 single-family detached houses; since this project is already half -complete and trips are reflected in the existing traffic data, we calculated this ODV based on 75 units. (ITE Land Use Code #210) ■ Cider Mill Phase 2: 66 single-family detached houses; 13 carriage houses (estimated as single-family detached houses); 30 townhouses. (ITE Land Use Codes #210 & #230, respectively) ■ South Village: 330 units of mixed residential (single-family detached houses, apartments, townhouses and condominiums) estimated as a Residential Planned Unit Development; build -out schedule is for approximately 45-50 units per year, but full build -out of the 330 units is assumed for this study. (ITE Land Use Code #270) ■ Goldberg: 12 townhouses and 2 single-family detached houses. (ITE Land Use Codes #230 & #210, respectively) ■ Shelburne -O'Brien: 22 single-family detached houses. (ITE Land Use Code #210) Figure 4: Locations of Other Developments nF 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 eet ;"_-�- spear J._ '., '� ' �� Meadows 9F /� \- L `'}:Ijn•2�' mi \�i1j Sar I qJ South Burlingforl � J}��, [ �y , --�^ t, ---'NOWLAND FAAll RM �'' cider Mill r \ _r Village + ; Goldberg Shelburne Shelburne - O'Brien Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 5 3.3 Volume Adjustment Factors Resource Systems Group conducted turning movement counts at the Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road and Nowland Farm Road -Vale Drive intersections on Thursday, 22 July and Friday, 23 July 2010. For the Spear Street -Swift Street intersection, a 2009 count from the CCMPO was used. The peak hour traffic volumes from these counts are adjusted to represent the design hour volume (DHV)1 in 2011, 2016, and 2021 using two adjustment factors: 1. Design hour adjustment factors are based on VTrans short term counters S6D086, located on Spear Street approximately 0.3 miles north of its intersection with Swift Street.z For all intersections, the counts revealed a higher peak hour volume than the DHV prescribed by the VTrans Methodology (that is, the calculated DHV adjustment factor was less than one). To be conservative, the volumes are analyzed without being adjusted to the lower DHV. 2. An annual adjustment factor, which represents general background traffic growth, is based on estimated growth in the area. According to the VTrans Continuous Traffic Counter Grouping Study and Regression Analysis, the annual adjustment factor from 2009 to 2011 for an urban area is 1.00. The future year annual adjustment factor is 1.01 between 2011 and 2016, and between 2016 and 2021 as well. 3.4 Trip Generation Trip generation refers to the number of new vehicle trips originating at or destined for a particular development. Trip generation rates are based on the ITE's Trip Generation3. Due to the mixed residential uses of the proposed development, different ITE Land Use Codes were considered to see which trip generation rates would most accurately and conservatively estimate the number of trips generated by Spear Meadows. The most appropriate Land Use Codes were determined to be: ■ #210 - Single -Family Detached Housing ■ #220 - Apartment ■ #230 - Residential Condominium/Townhouse Table 1 shows the overall trip generation for the proposed development. Table 1: Trip Generation - Proposed Land Uses Weekday AM Weekday PM ITE Code ITE Land Use Name Size Enter Exit Enter Exit 210 Single -Family Detached Housing 220 Apartment 230 Residential Condominium/Townhouse 25 units 7 20 19 11 29 units 4 14 22 12 15 units 2 9 9 4 Subtotal 12 1 44 49 27 56 76 Tota I The net increase in traffic due to this development is 56 trips in the AM Peak Hour and 76 trips in the PM Peak Hour. ' The DHV is the 30th highest hour of traffic for the year and is used as the design standard in Vermont. Z Typically, continuous traffic counters, which collect data year round, are used in calculating the design hour adjustment factors. It was determined that there were no appropriate continuous traffic counters, so VTrans short term counters were used instead, as prescribed in the VTrans Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. 3 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 81h Edition (Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008). 9 August 2010 Page 6 3.5 Trip Distribution New vehicle trips are distributed onto the network according to existing traffic patterns. As shown in Figure 4 above, four of the five Other Developments are on Dorset Street, while only South Village is on Spear Street. Due to the size of these developments and the existing traffic patterns on Dorset Street, particularly at Nowland Farm Road, the impact of these developments on the study intersections is minimal. The influence of South Village is more significant because it is due south of the study area on Spear Street. Traffic generated by Spear Meadows is also distributed to reflect existing traffic patterns. Table 2 and Figure 5 summarize the trip distribution of the site -generated traffic shown in Table 1. Assumptions were made regarding internal circulation, specifically, whether drivers would choose to use the new Spear Meadows Road or Vale Drive. Using the northbound/southbound directional splits on Spear Street for the AM and PM peak hours, we determined how much of the site -generated traffic would be departing for/arriving from points north and south. We then assumed that of Spear Meadows vehicles headed to/coming from points north, 95% would use the northern Spear Street access, while 5% would use Vale Drive. For traffic to/from southern points, we assumed that 60% would use the Spear Street access and 40% would use Vale Drive. It is possible that some traffic may use the connection to Four Sisters Road as well, although this is expected to be minimal. The 2005 Spear Meadows Traffic Study Report study assumes that "some existing traffic from [Vale Drive and Four Sisters Road] that is destined to the north via Spear Street will likely use the new street [Spear Meadows Road] as an alternative to using Nowland Farm Road."' We have assumed that approximately 13 AM trips and 7 PM trips will be diverted to Spear Meadows Road from the Vale Drive and Four Sisters Road neighborhoods. The existing cul-de-sac at the northern end of Vale Drive is to remain as a traffic calming element to discourage cut -through traffic. In addition, the curbing, lower speed limit, number of driveways, sidewalks, and landscaping, and general setting are expected to slow traffic enough that it will not be an attractive option for cut-throughs. The trip distribution also includes one AM exiting and one PM entering trip at Spear Meadows Road to account for the existing single-family home on the site. The existing driveway on Spear Street will be replaced by a new driveway on Spear Meadows Road. Table 2: Trip Distribution Assumptions for Site -Generated Traffic (does not include diverted trips) From north/southbound From south/northbound Spear Street Directional Split* 50% 50% AM Traffic entering Spear Meadows 50% of 12 = 6 50% of 12 = 6 Traffic exiting Spear Meadows 50% of 44 = 22 50% of 44 = 22 Spear Street Directional Split* 30% 70% PM Traffic entering Spear Meadows 30% of 49 = 15 70% of 49 = 34 Traffic exiting Spear Meadows 30% of 27 = 8 70% of 27 = 19 * Per RSG turning movement count at Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road, July 2010. 1 Page 3. Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 7 Figure 5: Trip Distribution of AM and PM Site -Generated Traffic and Diverted Trips Site -Generated Traffic Weekdav AM Spear Street 0 3 0 A? 4 16 0 0 x 0 -► .- 0 x 2 -y ,r z -7Will t 1a u 7 7 SU R ao 3 `m 0 a m o CL N N or o a Ir 8 r Proposed Project Site 5 0 7 1 'J i L 0 I 0 116- 2 a o -r .- o 0 0 2 t 0 1 " I 0 5 1 Spear Street 9 August 2010 Page 8 Vale Drive 5 2 f0 0 1 2 E 0 .0 ♦ 0 m c 3 z° Site -Generated Traffic Weekdav PM Spear Street 0 14 0 Al ♦ i& f 0 R 0 v 0 y ♦ 0 9 5 v3i V1 t r 7 7 3 29 0 R 16 - o -O N C1. v 0C o $ a 15 0 7 4 r i � v � 1 � a 1 �► v 0 m '1 t r 0 14 3 Spear Street osed Project Site Vale Drive 7 R 4cc E 0 r 0 LL v c 3 0 z Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 9 3.6 Scenario Volume Graphics No Build volumes represent the raw volumes' adjusted to the respective scenario year (Section 3.3), plus the Other Development Volumes (Section 3.2). Adding the site -generated traffic (Section 3.4) results in the Build volumes. Figure 6 through Figure 15 show the scenario volumes during the peak hours. Figure 6: 2011 AM Peak Hour No Build Weekdav AM Spear Street 48 111 13 r i L i 45 - R 73 w 58 -0 F 250 a 69 r 87 v3 I 2 � t 1 227 325 116 253 0 i L 10 R D 3 v y 4. M O a N N o: o r 0 t P 669 0 Pro; osed Project Site 12 230 11 Al + L 0 �y Vifi' Vale Drive 15 7 d L 33 -0 R 26 1-0 o R 2 E m n 5 y 4- 1 24 y r 42 LL o � a 21 c 3 e t P z 1 509 16 Spear Street 1 On -street bicycle travel accounts for roughly 5% of the turning movement counts at the Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road intersection. 9 August 2010 Page 10 W I Figure 7: 2011 PM Peak Hour No Build Weekdav PM Spear Street 74 347 78 48 1 34 g 208 ♦ 141 Y 231 0- 131 v3i � 71 t r 255 244 106 644 0 10 ♦ L 0 3 v m 0 Q ra 0 a N v - o t P 604 0 32 577 35 v osed Project Site Vale Drive 4 6 .0 ' 0 M Of 22 19 11 . 6 n 6 ♦ f 9 72 53 � c 42 3 pr 30 i i I z 5 548 38 Spear Street Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 11 Figure 8: 2016 AM Peak Hour No Build Weekdav AM Spear Street 48 112 13 .t ♦ ti `E F 45 74 59 ♦ 253 f .t= mm. 69 Ir 88 v3i `S t IF 229 328 117 255 0 ♦ ti 0 R D 3 m 0 n rho 0 a LA v - o � a Ir 0 t r 675 0 12 232 it AP 0 1 C Prop q 33 -0 26 1 -0 a. 5 ♦ 1 24 -► 0 5 r 21 m 1 513 16 Spear Street 9 August 2010 Page 12 osed Project Site Vale Drive 15 7 J R 2cc E ♦ 43 LL 3 0 Z Figure 9: 2016 PM Peak Hour No Build Weekdav PM Spear Street 75 350 79 d ♦ L LA 48 34 v 210 -► F 142 .�fD. 233 g- 132 n W, t IF 257 246 107 650 0 ♦ '10 t f 610 0 32 582 36 v m 22 m a 6 y v 3 Q � t � 5 553 39 Spear Street R e 3 o a a N -p ro 0 p_ ra O a N o a r 0 19 9 I< 30 osed Project Site Vale Drive Al L 12 6 73 -► 54 LL a c 3 0 Z Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 13 Figure 10: 2016 AM Peak Hour Build Weekdav AM Spear Street 48 115 13 r ♦ L 45 - R 74 v 14 59 ♦ 253 2. 71 90 v3i t 24 IF 349 124 264 7 ♦ L 0 R 40 3 v Q coo O a LA o � 8 t r 717 5 12 239 12 A� v Prop osed Project Site Vale Drive 19 9 IP ' m O m 34 - R 28 2 R 4 n 5 -► f 1 24 43 LL v a m 5 Ir 23 3 `i f r z 1 518 17 Spear Street 9 August 2010 Page 14 Figure 11: 2016 PM Peak Hour Build Weekday PM Spear Street 75 364 79 F 48 - R 34 v x 14 210 -► 142 242 Ir 138 v'i 23 �o n 7 �► v 3 m `I, t r 264 253 110 662 29 ♦ '10 16 3 v L v O a a M to N W 0 j- 8 t r 627 15 33 589 39 As ♦ '. `i t r 5 567 42 Spear Street t 20 ♦ 10 r 31 iosed Project Site Vale Drive 7 10 .0 t 0 cc 19 R 10 E 73 ♦ 4m 54 LL° r c 3 0 z Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 15 Figure 12: 2021 AM Peak Hour No Build Weekday AM Spear Street 49 113 13 Al It IS F 46 R 74 59 ♦ 255 70 or 89 n `i 3 f' 231 31 118 258 0 R6 0 �+ 3 c 0 a ra 0 °a N v o a � 0 t I 681 0 12 234 11 v Prof osed Project Site Vale Drive 15 7 m 0 q 34 J R 26 1 J t 2 n 5 ♦ 4- 1 24 ♦ ♦ 43 i v -o <' 5 21 3 m e t P z° 1 518 16 Spear Street 9 August 2010 Page 16 Figure 13: 2021 PM Peak Hour No Build Weekdav PM Spear Street 75 353 80 d ♦ ti F 49 35 v x 212 ♦ ♦ 144 235 r 134 v3i t IF 259 248 108 656 0 ♦ '10 It- 0 3 L m o o_ M o °- V) y W o � a r 0 t r 616 0 33 588 36 v iosed Project Site Vale Drive 4 6 � V a f0 0 m of 22 19 12 R 6 n 6 9 74 4- 54 LL v � <' 3 r 30 3 m e -1 t IFz 6 559 39 Spear Street Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 17 Figure 14: 2021 AM Peak Hour Build Weekday AM Spear Street 49 116 13 .t ♦ ti 46 R 74 x 59 ♦ ♦ 255 s= 0°+ 72 r 91 n `1 t IF 246 352 125 266 7 ♦ 1.10 R 40 N 3 a L7) ru v v o a o I< 8 t IF 723 5 13 241 12 .f ♦ 16 v Prop osed Project Site Vale Drive 19 9 Al t 0 m cc 34 -0 R 29 2 4 R 4 n 5 -0, 4-1 24 -0 4-43 LL � C 5 'y Ir 23 0 t P 1 522 17 Spear Street 9 August 2010 Page 18 Figure 15: 2021 PM Peak Hour Build Weekdav PM Spear Street 75 367 80 r ♦ L F 49 - 35 v 212 ♦ 144 245 139 V) I t f 267 255 111 668 29 ♦ '10 t 16 3 �, 0 0 n M 0 °a N o � a Ir 8 t IF 633 15 33 595 40 .s ♦ s, 23 J M m a 7 �► 0 <' 3 m le t IF 6 572 42 Spear Street t 21 F 10 r 32 posed Project Site Vale Drive 7 10 0 19 R 10 E 74 -► 4-54 LL c 3 0 Z Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 19 4.0 CONGESTION ANALYSIS 4.1 Level -of -Service Definition Level -of -service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing the operating conditions as perceived by motorists driving in a traffic stream. LOS is estimated using the procedures outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. In addition to traffic volumes, key inputs include the number of lanes at each intersection and the traffic signal timing plans. The LOS results are based on the existing lane configurations and control types (signalized or unsignalized) at each study intersection. The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) defines six qualitative grades to describe the level of service at an intersection. Level -of -Service is based on the average control delay per vehicle. Table 3 shows the various LOS grades and descriptions for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Table 3: level -of -Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections Unsignalized Signalized LOS Characteristics Total Delay (sec) Total Delay (sec) A Little or no delay < 10.0 < 10.0 B Short delays 10.1-15.0 10.1-20.0 C Average delays 15.1-25.0 20.1-35.0 D Long delays 25.1-35.0 35.1-55.0 E Very long delays 35.1-50.0 55.1-80.0 F Extreme delays > 50.0 > 80.0 The delay thresholds for LOS at signalized and unsignalized intersections differ because of the driver's expectations of the operating efficiency for the respective traffic control conditions. According to HCM procedures, an overall LOS cannot be calculated for two-way stop -controlled intersections because not all movements experience delay. In signalized and all -way stop -controlled intersections, all movements experience delay and an overall LOS can be calculated. The Wrans policy on level of service is: ■ Overall LOS C should be maintained for state -maintained highways and other streets accessing the state's facilities ■ Reduced LOS may be acceptable on a case -by -case basis when considering, at minimum, current and future traffic volumes, delays, volume to capacity ratios, crash rates, and negative impacts as a result of improvement necessary to achieve LOS C. ■ LOS D should be maintained for side roads with volumes exceeding 100 vehicles/hour for a single lane approach (150 vehicles/hour for a two-lane approach) at two-way stop - controlled intersections. 4.2 Level -of -Service Results The HCM reports from Synchro (v7), a traffic analysis software package from Trafficware, were used to assess congestion at the study intersections. Table 4 and Table 5 present the LOS results during the weekday AM & PM peak hours, respectively. The volume to capacity ratio (v/c) is also shown, indicating the ratio of the hourly traffic flow rate to the capacity of the given lane group to process vehicles. A ratio of 1.0 (or higher) indicates the facility is at (or over) capacity for the study period. Detailed Synchro LOS worksheets are available in Appendix B. 9 August 2010 Page 20 Table 4: AM Peak Hour LOS Results AM Peak Hour 2011 No Build 2016 No Build 2016 Build 2021 No Build 2021 Build Signalized Intersections LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c a Spear Street -Swift Street Overa B 1 0. B 16 0.65 B 17 0.67 B 16 0.65 B 17 0.6 EB approac 2 C 21 - C 21 - c 21 - WBapproach B 16 B 16 B 16 B 16 B 16 NB approach B 15 B 15 B 17 B 16 B 17 SB approach B 16 B 16 B 16 B 16 B 16 EB LT C 21 0.43 C 21 0.44 C 22 0.47 C 21 0.44 C 22 0.46 EB R B 19 0.04 B 19 0.04 C 20 0.04 B 19 0.04 C 20 0.04 WBL B 14 0.29 B 14 0.30 B 14 0.29 B 14 0.30 B 14 0.29 WBTR B 16 0.53 B 16 0.54 B 16 0.53 B 16 0.54 B 16 0.53 NB L B 11 0.46 B 11 0.47 B 12 0.50 B 11 0.47 B 12 0.50 NB TR B 17 0.66 B 18 0.67 B 19 0.71 B 18 0.67 B 19 0.71 SB L B 14 0.05 B 14 0.06 B 15 0.06 B 14 0.05 B 15 0.06 SB TR B 16 0.26 B 16 0.27 B 16 0.27 B 16 0.27 B 16 0.27 AM Peak Hour 2011 No Build 2016 No Build 2016 Build 2021 No Build 2021 Build Unsignalized Intersections LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c CSpear Street -Spear Meadows Road (proposed( WBL c 19 0.03 c 19 0.03 WBR B 14 0.10 B 14 0.09 SBL A 9 0.01 A 9 0.01 Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road EB LTR C 18 0.13 C 18 0.15 C 19 0.15 C 18 0.14 C 19 0.14 W B LT B 14 0.07 B 15 0.08 B 15 0.09 B 15 0.07 B 15 0.08 NB LTR A <1 0.00 A <1 0.00 A <1 0.00 A <1 0.00 A <1 0.00 SBL A 9 0.01 A 9 0.01 A 9 0.01 A 9 0.01 A 9 0.01 Nowland Farm Road -Vale Drive EB L A <1 0.00 A <1 0.00 A <1 0.00 A <1 0.00 A <1 0.00 SBL A 9 0.02 A 9 0.02 A 9 0.03 A 9 0.02 A 9 0.03 Table 5: PM Peak Hour LOS Results PM Peak Hour 2011 No Build 2016 No Build 2016 Build 2021 No Build 2021 Build Signalized Intersections LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c Spear Street -Swift Street a Overal C 23 0.71 C 23 0.72 C 25 0.75 C 24 0.73 C 25 0.76 EB approach C 26 c 26 - C 27 - C 27 27 WBapproach B 16 B 16 B 17 B 16 B 17 NB approach C 26 C 26 c 29 C 27 C 31 SB approach C 22 c 22 C 22 C 22 C 22 EB LT C 30 0.72 C 31 0.73 C 31 0.74 C 32 0.74 C 32 0.74 EB R C 21 0.18 C 22 0.19 C 22 0.19 C 22 0.19 C 22 0.20 WBL B 17 0.48 B 17 0.49 B 18 0.52 B 18 0.51 B 18 0.53 WBTR B 15 0.26 B 16 0.27 B 16 0.27 B 16 0.27 B 16 0.27 NB L D 36 0.84 D 36 0.85 D 44 0.89 D 38 0.85 D 47 0.91 NBTR B 19 0.56 B 19 0.56 B 19 0.57 B 19 0.56 B 19 0.57 SB L B 14 0.22 B 14 0.22 B 14 0.22 B 14 0.22 B 14 0.23 SB TR C 24 0.72 C 23 0.71 C 24 0.73 C 23 0.71 C 24 0.73 PM Peak Hour 2011 No Build 2016 No Build 2016 Build 2021 No Build 2021 Build Unsignalized Intersections LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c Spear Street -Spear Meadows Road (proposed( WBL D 29 0.05 D 29 0.05 WBR B 13 0.03 B 13 0.03 SB L A 9 0.03 A 9 0.03 Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road EB LTR E 37 0.22 E 38 0.22 E 41 0.25 E 39 0.23 E 42 0.26 WBLT D 30 0.26 D 30 0.27 D 32 0.30 D 31 0.28 D 33 0.31 NB LTR A <1 0.01 A <1 0.01 A <1 0.01 A <1 0.01 A <1 0.01 SB L A 9 0.04 A 9 0.04 A 9 0.04 A 9 0.04 A 9 0.04 Nowland Farm Road -Vale Drive A <1 0 A <1 0 A <1 0 A <1 0 A <3 0 EBL A 1 0.01 A 1 0.01 A 2 0.01 A 1 0.01 A 2 0.01 SBL A 9 0.01 A 9 0.01 A 9 0.02 1 A 9 0.01 A 9 0.02 Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 21 As shown, the study intersections are expected to operate at generally consistent and acceptable LOS in all scenarios. The stop -controlled minor road approaches at the Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road intersection operate at LOS E and D under existing conditions and are projected to continue to operate at these levels with and without Spear Meadows. The amount of site -generated traffic using this intersection is minimal. LOS at the Spear Street -Swift Street intersection continues to be B in all scenarios in the AM peak hour and C in all scenarios in the PM peak hour. The northbound left -turn lane operates at LOS D during the PM peak hour. 5.0 QUEUING ANALYSIS In addition to the congestion analysis, estimated queues were also evaluated using Synchro. 501h and 95th percentile queues at the study intersections (an approximation of the average and maximum queues) are presented in Table 6 and Table 7. Queues for all lanes at the signalized Spear Street -Swift Street intersection are shown, while 501h percentile queues for crossing movements are calculated for unsignalized intersections. Storage bay lengths are shown where applicable. Detailed Synchro queuing worksheets are available in Appendix B. Table 6: Estimated AM Peak Hour Queues AM 2011 No Build AM 2016 No Build AM 2016 Build AM 2021 No Build AM 2021 Build Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Signalized Intersections 50th 95th 50m 95th 50th 95th 50th 95th 50th 95`h Spear Street -Swift Street EB LT 26 88 27 91 27 95 27 90 27 94 EB R 0 32 0 32 0 33 0 32 0 33 WBL 15 60 16 61 16 66 16 62 16 66 WBTR 60 191 62 197 62 207 62 197 62 208 NBL 43 92 44 94 47 100 44 95 48 100 NBTR 89 241 91 247 99 264 92 248 100 265 SBL 2 10 2 11 2 11 2 11 2 10 SBTR 32 76 33 78 34 78 33 78 1 34 78 Unsi nalized Intersections Spear Street -Spear Meadows Road (proposed) WBL 3 2 WBR 8 8 SBL 1 1 Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road EB LTR 11 13 13 12 13 WBLT 6 6 7 6 7 NB LTR 0 0 0 0 0 SB L 1 1 1 1 1 Nowland Farm Road -Vale Drive EBL 0 0 0 0 0 SB Ll 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 # overcapacity -queues may be longer 9 August 2010 Page 22 Storage Say Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 50 50 125 50 150 Table 7. Estimated PM Peak Hour Queues PM 2011 No Build PM 2016 No Build PM 2016 Build PM 2021 No Build PM 2021 Build Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Signalized Intersections 50`h 95`h 50`h 95`h 50`h 95`h 50`h 95`h 50`h 95`h Spear Street -Swift Street EB LT 94 191 95 191 96 191 97 194 98 194 EB R 4 59 5 60 5 62 6 62 6 63 WBL 34 82 35 82 37 85 35 84 37 86 WB TR 42 99 42 99 43 99 43 100 44 100 NB 62 #179 62 #183 65 #196 63 #186 66 #201 NBTR 108 203 110 206 114 213 111 207 116 214 SBL 17 42 17 43 17 43 17 43 18 43 SBTR 144 259 147 263 1S4 274 149 265 157 276 Unsi nalized Intersections Spear Street -Spear Meadows Road (proposed) WBL 4 4 WBR 3 3 SB L 2 2 Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road EB LTR 20 20 23 21 24 WELT 26 26 30 27 32 NB LTR 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 3 3 3 3 3 Nowland Farm Road -Vale Drive EBL 1 1 1 1 1 SB LI 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 # overcapacity -queues may be longer Storage Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 50 50 125 so 150 During the AM peak hour scenarios, the westbound through -right lane of the Spear Street -Swift Street intersection has an average queue length of approximately 2-3 vehicles. About 5% of the time, this lane experiences queues of 4-8 vehicles. The northbound through -right lane has an average queue of 2-4 vehicles and a maximum/95th percentile queue of about 10 vehicles. The eastbound approach at the Spear Street -Deer Field Drive-Nowland Farm Road intersection experiences average queues of approximately 2-3 vehicles. During the PM scenarios, the eastbound approach at the Spear Street -Swift Street intersection has an average queue of approximately 4 vehicles, and about 5% of the time experiences queues of about 8 vehicles. The northbound lanes have 95th percentile queues of approximately 8-10 vehicles. The southbound through -right lane has an average queue of about six vehicles and a maximum queue (about 5% of the time) of 10-11 vehicles. 6.0 SAFETY ANALYSIS 6.1 High Crash Locations In order to be classified as a High Crash Location (HCL), an intersection or road section (0.3 mile section) must meet the following two conditions: 1. It must have at least 5 crashes over a 5-year period. 2. The Actual Crash Rate must exceed the Critical Crash Rate. Based on the most current crash data available from VTrans (2003-2007), the 0.3 mile section of Spear Street that includes the Swift Street intersection is a HCL. This location is ranked 521 out of 653 HCL's in Vermont. The actual to critical rate ratio is 1.11. The project access road is not within this HCL section. Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 23 6.2 Crash Histories Crash histories were collected from Mans for the most recent five year period available (January 2003- December 2007). Mans maintains a statewide database of all reported crashes along all state highways and federal aid road segments.' This database was used in analyzing the crash history along Spear Street between Swift Street and Nowland Farm Road. A reportable crash is a collision with at least one of the following results caused by the event: ■ property damage exceeding $1,000 ■ personal injury ■ fatality There were 62 crashes on Spear St. in the study area between 2003 and 2007, and 12 just east of Spear on Swift St. in the same period; of these, nine involved injuries and there were no fatalities. Figure 16 shows the number of reported crashes by location between 2003 and 2007. Figure 17 shows that of these crashes, 57% were rear -end collisions and 20% involved a single vehicle. Rear end crashes are typically higher where vehicle speeds are changing, or significantly different from one vehicle to another, and are common at intersections (78% of the reported crashes were either at the Nowland Farm Rd., Cedar Glen Dr. or Swift St. intersections). The locations of the crashes by type are shown in Figure 18. The majority of the single vehicle crashes occurred in the northern part of the study area in the vicinity of the Spear Street intersection with Swift Street. Rear -end crashes appear to be concentrated on Spear Street between Cedar Glen Drive and Swift Street. Nearly half of the broadside crashes took place near the Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road intersection. 1 This data is exempt from Discovery or Admission under 23 U.S.C. 409. 9 August 2010 Page 24 Figure 16: Reported Crashes in the Study Area (2003-2007) Crashes and HCLs: 2003-2007 Al250 500 1,000 Number of crashes " ' - Fe 1-2 3-4 Q 5-8 ® 9-12 •13.16 �CL Sections Spear Meadows OR 0 P Figure 17: Summary of Crash Types within Study Area (2003-2007) Si Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 25 Figure 18: Location of Crashes by Type (2003-2007) Crashes and HCLs: 2003-2007 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Crash Type Rear End N Single Vehicle Crash m Broadside Involving Left Turn o z Q Sideswipe m T HCL Sections SWIF z z T o O m v Oc m O O 0 w O v i STONEMEDGE DR Spear �z 0 w Meadows CEDAR GLEN DR Q W h ro DOREYRD Z n O m A v 'V' 0 OL DEERFIQDD DDR. ^' NOWtANDFA M RD B OWNELI Y Inclement weather does not appear to be a significant factor as 82% of the crashes occurred when the weather was clear or cloudy (Figure 19). Inattention/distracted was a factor in 44% of the crashes, as well as following too closely (21%) and failure to yield right of way (16%) (Figure 20). 9 August 2010 Page 26 Figure 19: Weather as a Factor in Study Area Crashes Sleet or Hail Fog, Smog, 2% Not Figure 20: Contributing Factors in Study Area Crashes 30 25 20 10 0 27 13 10 8 5 4 4 3 3 2 1 1 Inattention Followedtoo Failed to Unknown Made an Drivingtoo Failure to Other Swervingor Distracted Disregarded Visibility closely yield right of improper fast for keepin improper avoiding traffic signs obstructed way turn conditions properlane action or running off road 6.3 Sight Distances Stopping sight distance is the distance required for a vehicle, traveling at the design speed, to stop before reaching a stationary object in its path, such as a stopped vehicle. Intersection (or corner) sight distance Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 27 is the distance required for drivers to stop or adjust their speed, as appropriate, to avoid having to slow down a potentially conflicting vehicle leaving an intersection. The provision of adequate stopping sight distance is critical for safe operations. The 2004 Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (a.k.a. "The Green Book") states that, "[i]f the available sight distance for an entering or crossing vehicle is at least equal to the appropriate stopping sight distance for the major road, then drivers have sufficient sight distance to anticipate and avoid collisions."' The Green Book goes on to state that, "intersection sight distances that exceed stopping sight distances are desirable along the major road." z In the field, the available stopping sight distance is measured from a point 3.5 feet above the road surface of the major road approach lanes to a point 2.0 feet above the road surface at the stop bar of the minor street approach.' The available intersection sight distance is measured from a point 3.5 feet above the road surface at a point on the minor road approach 14.5 feet from the edge of the major road's traveled way to a point 3.5 feet above the road surface of the major road approach lanes 4 The minimum stopping sight distances are calculated based on factors such as design speed, response times, and grades as reported in The Green Books The minimum intersection sight distance from a stop -controlled minor road onto a 35 mph major road is 390'.6 There is currently a large hedge where Spear Meadows Road is proposed which prevents precise measurement of sight distances. What measurements were made in the field (approximately 10' from the edge of pavement) indicated that the sight distances exceed this distance (Figure 21 and Figure 22). A question had been raised regarding a tree approximately 50' north of the proposed intersection and whether it would interfere with the sight distance for westbound vehicles turning left. Measuring the sight distance from the site plan suggests that the tree will not obstruct the sight distance (Figure 23). The sight distance should be re-evaluated when the hedge is removed and measurements can be made more precisely. 1 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition (Washington D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004), pg. 651. 2 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition (Washington D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004), pg. 651. 3 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition (Washington D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004), pg. 127. ° American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition (Washington D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004), pg. 653,657, 659. 5 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition (Washington D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004), pg. 659. 6 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition (Washington D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004), pg. 661. 9 August 2010 Page 28 Figure 21: Sight Distance Looking North (measured 10' from edge of pavement) Reaches Spear -Swift Intersection Figure 22: Sight Distance Looking South (measured 10' from edge of pavement) Reaches Approximately to Cedar Glen Drive Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 29 Figure 23: Sight Distance to the North as Measured from Site Plan Point 14.5' from NI EXISTING PAVEMENT MINMUM OF 1 FT. CLEAN I EXISTMir. HOUSE AND ) GARAGE TO BE REMOVED traveled Way T WITH EMULSION PRIOR I t EXISTING DRIVE IG (SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET) i TO BE REMOVED )VE EXISTING 12' CMP ERT AND REPLACE WITH — _ RELOCA EXISTING Tree does not 15' HOPE STORM LINE RESTORE EXISTING --i oFF NEW EDGE DF oRlvEvuYs AFTER MAILBOXs' appear to interfereI INSTALLAnoNOF NEW sTORM uNE RELOCATESENT) EXISTING with sight distance t NEW 15' HDPE I 382.0' GMP POLEINV. NEW 15' HOPE -__f EDGE aF UANT 1 RELOCATE EXISTING L INV. - W.2' —� ..- � IITE� _ I B YELLOW) MA— EXISTING EDGE \ OF PAVEMENT \ TO REMAIN 7.0 DESIGN REVIEW i 392, o o I c 0 —W REMOVE EXISTING O D TT 4' O 1 PAVEMENT MARKINGS EXISTING EDGE J/ \ WHITE LINE 4' WNITE- AS REOUIRED OF PAVEMENT \ PEDESTRIAN ADVANCE LINE \ PEDESTRIAN EXISTING HEDGE TO TO BE "WARNING CROSSING SIGN 1 CROSSING SIGNS REMOVED AS NECCESARY PER MUTCD STANDARD) (PER MUTCO) FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 10• WIDE PEDESTRIAN Ir YELLC CROSS WALK LINES SPEAR STREET TURN LANE PARTIAL SITE PLAN _ 1"=40' 7.1 Spear Street Southbound Left -Turn Lane In Figure 23 above, the southbound left -turn lane is designed with 190' of taper and 125' for storage and additional deceleration. These dimensions are consistent with the VTrans Guideline for Determining Storage, Taper and Deceleration Lengths for Left & Right -Turn Lanes at Intersections. In addition to the VTrans methodology, NCHRP Report 457 provides guidance on determining the adequacy of storage and deceleration bay lengths and suggests that a storage bay length of 25' and a deceleration bay length of 90' is adequate.' The NCHRP Report also describes a taper length of 120' that is within the range of 100-180' suggested by the AASHTO Green Book.' Therefore, the southbound left - turn lane is adequately designed. 7.2 Spear Meadows Road Westbound Turn Lanes The westbound left- and right -turn lanes at the Spear Meadows Road access on Spear Street are 50' long. Although the amount of traffic using these lanes is not expected to be large, the two lane approach ' National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 457 Evaluating Intersection Improvements: An Engineering Study I Guide (Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001), pg. 24. Z American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition I (Washington D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004), pg. 718. 9 August 2010 Page 30 I facilitates the best operation, allows plenty of room for truck and snow plow turns, and eases the need for large (undesirable) curb radii. 8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ■ In the congestion and queuing analyses, traffic operations remain generally acceptable and r atively consistent with existing conditions both with and without Spear Meadows. Th he proposed Spear Meadows development will not cause undue adverse traffic or safety onditions on the local roadway network. ■ Highlights of the traffic analysis include: - The stop -controlled minor road approaches at the Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road intersection operate at LOS E (Deer Field Drive) and D (Nowland Farm Road) under existing conditions and are projected to continue to operate at these levels with and without Spear Meadows. - Overall LOS at the Spear Street -Swift Street intersection continues to be B in all scenarios in the AM peak hour and C in all scenarios in the PM peak hour. - During the PM peak hour at Spear Street -Swift Street the northbound left -turn lane operates at LOS D with maximum queues (95 percentile, or those experienced 5% of the peak hour) sometimes exceeding the turn pocket capacity. ■ Cut -through traffic is expected to be minimal provided that the development's roads are designed to discourage such traffic. ■ The additional southbound left turn lane at the proposed project entrance is suitably designed, and will remove left turning vehicles from through traffic, thus reducing the potential for rear end type collisions which are common in this stretch of Spear Street. ■ The 0.3 mile segment of Spear Street that includes the Swift Street intersection is rated a High Crash Location by VTrans and is ranked 521of 653 such locations in Vermont. The posed site entrance is not within this section of roadway. ■ Th sight distance at Spear Meadows Road should be re-evaluated when the hedge is oved and measurements can be made more precisely. Measurements made from the site plans suggest that the tree approximately 50' north of the proposed intersection will not obstruct the sight distance. Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 31 APPENDIX Raw Volumes Adjustments Trip Generation O8/08/10 09:35 AM Synchro Node Raw Count Data PM DHV & Annual Adjustments (1) to 2011 EB WB NB SB 1 SpearSt/Swift St L 48 124 236 78 DHVATR/CTC S6D086 S Burlington: Spear St 0.3 mi Not Swift DHV Calculations South Burlington, VT T 208 141 226 328 DHV Poll Group Urban ATR/CTC Year 2009 7/30/2009 R 228 34 98 74 1823 AnnlGrwthATR/CTCID S6D086 SBurlington: Spear St0.3miNofSwift ATR/CTCAADT 4,900 5th Thursday Enter 484 299 560 480 1823 Annl Grwth Poll Group Urban 2009-2009 Growth 1.00 CCMPO Exit 384 451 308 680 1823 TM Count Year 2009 Corr. AADT 4,900 %Trucks 0.4% 1.7% 0.5% 0.4% DHV Adjustment 0.65 DHV (Equation) n/a Peds 4 1 1 1 PHF 2009-2011 Growth 0.96 Glalea"AdjusW&M DHV (K-Factor) 510 Peak Hour 3:45 PM - 4:45 PM Peak 0.92 Total Adjustment Corr. Count 788 EB WB NB SB 2 Spear St/Nowland Farm Rd L 22 27 5 34 DHVATR/CTC S6D086 5 Burlington: Spear St 0.3 mi Nof Swift DHV Calculations South Burlington, VT T 6 9 504 538 DHV Poll Group Urban ATR/CTC Year 2009 7/22/2010 R 3 18 34 32 1232 Annl Grwth ATR/CTC ID 56D086 SBurlington:Spear St0.3miNofSwift ATR/CTCAADT 4,900 4th Thursday Enter 31 54 543 604 1232 Annl Grwth Poll Group Urban 2009-2010 Growth 0.98 RSG Exit 74 46 544 568 1232 TM Count Year 2010 Corr. AADT 4,802 %Trucks 0.0% 1.9% 1.7% 1.0% DHV Adjustment 0.44 DHV (Equation) n/a Peds Peak Hour 4 1 1 18 PHF 0.93 2010-2011 Growth Total Adjustment 0.98 I I Calulcated Adjustment DHV (K-Factor) Corr. Countl 500 1,148 4:45 PM - 5:45 PM Peak EB WB NB SB 3 Nowland Farm Rd/Vale Dr L 11 0 0 6 DHV ATR/CTC 56C723 Nardwica:vm-0.1miNof Graelq South Burlington, VT T 67 50 0 0 DHV Poll Group Rural Primary and Secondary 7/22/2010 R 0 6 0 4 144 Annl Grwth ATR/CTC ID P6C007 Hardwick: Vrl5700ft W of Vrl4 4th Thursday Enter 78 56 0 10 144 Annl Grwth Poll Group P6C007 RSG Exit 73 54 17 0 144 TM Count Year 2010 %Trucks 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% DHV Adjustment"' IV/O! Peds 0 0 0 13 PHF 2010-2011 Growth Peak Hour 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM Peak 0.88 Total Adjustment Page 1 of 6 PM Adjusted Raw Counts 2011 EB WB NB SB L 48 124 236 78 T 208 141 226 328 R 228 34 98 74 1823 Enter 484 299 560 480 1823 Exit 384 451 308 680 1823 EB WB NB SB L 22 27 5 34 T 6 9 504 538 R 3 18 34 32 1232 Enter 31 54 543 604 1232 Exit 74 46 544 568 1232 EB WB NB SB L 11 0 0 6 T 67 50 0 0 R 0 6 0 4 144 Enter 78 56 0 10 144 Exit 73 54 17 0 144 ODVs Cider Mill Phase 1 Enter Exit PM 1 51 30 1 81 EB WB NB SB L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB L 0 1 T 0 0 R 0 1 2 Enter 0 1 1 1 2 Exit 1 0 0 0 2 EB WB NB SB L T 1 1 R 1 2 Enter 1 1 0 0 2 Exit 1 1 0 0 2 Travplline thrnuph Nowland/Dorset SB exiting intersection NB entering ntersection 30 12 ODVs Cider Mill Phase 2 Enter Exit PM 1 69 39 107 Trip distribution based on AM EB WB NB SB L T RI 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB L 0 1 TF 0 0 R 0 1 3 Enter 0 1 1 1 3 Exit 2 0 0 0 3 EB WB NB SB L T 2 1 RF 3 Enter 2 1 0 0 3 Exit 2 1 0 0 3 T—vallina thr-iah Nnw1-0r)nrcot SB exiting intersection NB entering intersection 41 16 per CCMPO TM counts 4% are EBR 6% are NBL per CCMPO TM counts 4% are EBR 6% are NBL resulting vol at Nowland/Vale 1 exit EB 1 enter WB resulting vol at Nowland/Vale 2 exit EB 1 enter WB CCMP SBOR83 PM peak hot Page 2 of 6 PM ODVs South Village ODVs Goldberg Enter Exit Enter Exit PM 1 157 85 242 PM 9 5 14 AM & PM peak hour directional splits from Figure 13 in the Dorset Street Corridor Study, as well as CCMPO turning movement counts on Dorset Str- EB WB NB SB L 7 19 T 18 19 RF 3 8 73 Enter 3 7 44 19 73 Exit 8 19 18 29 73 EB WB NB SB L 2 0 T 44 39 R 0 3 89 Enter 0 2 48 39 89 Exit 3 0 44 41 89 EB WB NS 58 L 0 T 3 2 R 0 Enter 3 2 0 0 Exit 3 2 0 0 Travelling through Nowland/Spear NB entering SB exiting intersection intersection 41 48 EB WB NB SB L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB N8 5B L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB L T R Enter 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 Travelling through Nowland/Dorset NB entering 58 exiting intersection intersection 5 2 per CCMPO TM counts 4% are EBR 6% are NBL resulting vol at Nowland/Vale 0 exit EB 0 enter WB resul WB EB (Allen) (S. Village) NB (Spear) SB (Spear) 10 TM count L 116 0 172 0 -Spear-Allen T 0 0 558 197 u May 2004 R 37 0 0 114 1194 Enter 153 0 730 311 1194 Exit 0 286 674 234 1194 Page 3 of 6 PM ODVs Shelburne -O'Brien Enter Exit PM 17 107 27 No Build 2011 Trip Generation Enter Exit PM 49 27 76 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L L 48 131 256 78 L 5 7 Ti T 208 141 244 347 T 7 14 R 0 R 231 34 106 74 18 R 9 3 46 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Enter 487 306 604 499 18 Enter 9 S 17 14 46 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 392 470 326 709 18 Exit 3 7 7 29 46 EB WB NB SB L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 Trnvpllino thrnuph Nnwland/r)nmPt SB exiting intersection NB entering intersection 10 4 per CCMPO TM counts 4% are EBR ting vol at Nowland/Vale 0 exit EB _Spew M dows Road WBL WBR NBR SBL 8 16 15 29 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L 22 30 5 35 L 1 1 4 T 6 9 548 577 T 1 0 14 7 R 3 19 38 32 13 R 2 3 0 33 Enter 31 58 59 6644 132 Enter 1 3 17 11 33 Exit 80 47 589 610 1325 Exit 8 1 16 9 33 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L 11 0 0 6 L 7 4 T 72 53 0 0 T R 0 6 0 4 153 R 4 2 17 Enter 84 59 0 10 153 Enter 7 4 0 6 17 Exit 78 58 17 0 153 Exit 4 2 11 0 17 Assumptions 60% of veh to/from south use Spear and remaining 40% use Vale Drive 95% of veh to/from north use Spear and remaining 5% 6% are NBL EB W8 N8 SB 1. Directional NB enter SB enter NB exit SB exit based on Sr 0 enter WB L 0 0 0 0 distribution 25 25 14 14 T 0 0 604 644 Spear enter enter R 0 0 0 0 2. Internal Meado from S from N exit to N exit to S Assumed distribution w Rd 15 23 13 8 Vale Dr 10 1 1 5 Diverted trips to Spear Meadows from Vale and Four Sisters neighborhoods 4 3 1 entering PM trip to the existing SF home on the site is included at Spear Meadows Road Page 4 of 6 Build 2011 EB WB NB SB L 48 136 262 78 T 208 141 251 361 R 240 34 109 74 1942 Enter 496 311 622 513 1942 Exit 395 477 333 737 1942 EB WB NB SB L 23 31 5 39 T 7 10 562 584 R 3 20 42 32 1359 Enter 33 61 609 655 1359 Exit 88 48 605 618 1359 Annual Adjustment 2016 1.01 2011to 2016 C� PM Adjusted Raw Counts 2016 EB WB NB SB L 48 125 238 79 T 210 142 228 331 R 230 34 99 75 1841 Enter 489 302 566 485 1841 Exit 388 456 311 687 1841 EB WB NB SB L 22 27 5 34 T 6 9 509 543 R 3 18 34 32 1244 Enter 31 55 548 610 1244 Exit 75 46 549 574 1244 No Build 2016 EB WB NB SB L 48 131 157 79 T 210 142 246 350 R 233 34 107 75 1914 Enter 492 309 610 504 1914 Exit 396 474 329 715 1914 EB WB NB SB L 22 30 5 36 T 6 9 553 582 R 3 19 39 32 133 Enter 32 58 598 650 1338 Exit 81 47 594 615 1338 Build 2016 EB WB NB SB L 48 138 264 79 T 210 142 253 364 R 242 34 110 75 1960 Enter 501 314 627 518 1960 Exit 399 481 336 744 1960 rEB WB NB SB 23 31 5 39 7 10 567 589 3 20 42 33 1371 33 62 615 662 1371 Exit 88 48 610 624 1371 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L 19 0 0 10 0 L 11 0 0 6 L 12 0 0 6 L 19 0 0 10 L� 51 0 Tj3 73 07 R 0 10 0 0 171 R 0 668 0 4 145 R 00 6 0 4 155 R 0 10 0 172 Enter 91 63 0 16 171 Enter 79 57 0 10 145 Enter 85 60 0 10 155 Enter 92 64 0 16 172 Exit 82 60 29 0 171 Exit 74 55 17 0 145 Exit 79 58 18 0 155 Exit 83 61 29 0 172 )ear St IN directional split (see ODVs) EB WB NB SB Spear Meadows Road L 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 610 650 R 0 0 0 0 �EB WB NB SB LI 8 0 29 0 T0 0 627 662 RI 0 16 15 0 Iffimm L Page 5 of 6 PM Annual Adjustment No Build 2021 F 2021 1.01 2016 to 2021 EB WB NB SB L 49 134 259 80 M T 212 144 248 353 R 235 35 108 75 1933 Enter 496 312 616 S08 1933 Exit 399 479 332 722 1933 EB WB NB SB L 22 30 6 36 T 6 9 559 588 R 3 19 39 33 1350 Enter 32 59 603 656 1350 Exit 81 48 600 621 1350 EB WB NB SB L 12 0 0 6 T 74 54 0 0 R 0 6 0 4 15 Enter 85 61 0 10 156 Exit 80 59 18 0 156 EB WB NB 5B L 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 616 656 R 0 0 0 0 11 Build 2021 EB WB NB SB L 49 139 267 80 T 212 144 255 367 1 R 245 35 ill 75 1979 Enter 506 317 633 523 1979 Exit 403 486 339 751 1979 EB WB NB SB L 23 32 6 40 T 7 10 572 595 R 3 21 42 33 1383 Enter 33 62 620 668 1383 Exit 89 48 616 630 1383 EB WB NB SB L 19 0 0 10 T 74 54 0 0 R 0 10 0 7 174 Enter 93 64 0 16 174 Exit 84 61 29 0 174 EB WB NB SB L 0 8 0 29 T 0 0 633 668 R 0 16 15 0 Page 6 of 6 08/08/10 09:32 AM Synchro Node Raw Count Data AM DHV & Annual Adjustments (1) to 2011 1 SpearSt/Swift St L 45 79 206 13 DHVATR/CTC S60086 SB,dington:Spear St0.3miNofSwift DHV Calculations South Burlington, VT T 58 250 295 101 DHV Poll Group Urban ATR/CTC Year 2009 7/30/2009 R 64 73 105 48 1337 Annl Grwth ATR/CTC ID S6D086 5 Butlmgton: Spear St 0.3 mi Nof Swift ATR/CTC AADT 4,900 5th Thursday Enter 167 402 606 162 1337 Annl Grwth Poll Group Urban 2009-2009 Growth 1.00 CCMPO Exit 176 504 413 244 1337 TM Count Year 2009 Corr. AADT 4,900 %Trucks 4.2% 1.5% 1.2% 3.7% DHV Adjustment 0.65 DHV (Equation) n/a Pedsl 2 2 2 0 PHF 2009-2011 Growth 1 0.96 DHV (K-Factor) 510 Peak Hour 6:45 AM - 7:45 AM Peak 0.85 Total AdjustmentI Corr. Countl 788 EB WB NB SB 2 SpearSt/Nowland Farm Rd L 33 18 1 11 DHV ATR/CTC S6D086 S Burlington! Spear St 0.3 in, Nof Swift DHV Calculations South Burlington, VT T 5 1 446 205 DHV Poll Group Urban ATR/CTC Year 2009 7/23/2010 R 4 25 14 12 774 AnnlGrwthATR/CTCID S6D086 SBurlington: Spear St0.3miNofSwift ATR/CTCAADT 4,900 4th Thursday Enter 42 44 460 228 774 Annl Grwth Poll Group Urban 2009-2010 Growth 0.98 RSG Exit 30 13 504 227 774 TM Count Year 2010 Corr. AADT 4,802 %Trucks 2.4% 2.3% 0.7% 5.3% DHV Adjustment 0.44 DHV (Equation) n/a Pedsl 2 0 0 14 PHF 2010-2011 Growth 0.98 DHV (K-Factor) 500 Peak Hour 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM Peak 0.88 Total Adjustment I Corr. Count 1,148 EB WB NB SB 3 Nowland Farm Rd/Vale Dr L 1 0 0 7 DHVATR/CTC S6C723 Hardwick: V715-0.1 mi N of Granite St South Burlington, VT T 22 39 0 0 DHV Poll Group Rural Primary and Secondary 7/23/2010 R 0 2 0 14 84 Annl Grwth ATR/CTC ID P6C007 Hardwick: VT15 700ft W of Vr14 4th Thursday Enter 22 41 0 21 84 Annl Grwth Poll Group P6C007 RSG Exit 29 53 2 0 84 TM Count Year 2010 %Trucks 4.5% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% DHVAdjustment NDIV/0! Peds 0 0 0 10 PHF 2010-2011 Growth 6m Peak Hour 7:15 AM - 8:15 AM Peak 1 0.91 1 Total Adiustment Page 1 of 6 AM Adjusted Raw Counts 2011 EB WB NB SB L 45 79 206 13 T 58 250 295 101 R 64 73 105 48 1337 Enter 167 402 606 162 1337 Exit 176 504 413 244 1337 EB WB NB SB L 33 18 1 11 T 5 1 446 205 R 4 25 14 12 775 Enter 42 44 461 228 775 Exit 30 14 504 227 775 EB WB NB 5B L 1 0 0 7 T 22 39 0 0 R 0 2 0 14 85 Enter 23 41 0 21 85 Exit 29 53 3 0 85 ODVs Cider Mill Phase 1 Enter Exit 15 46 62 EB WB NB SB L T RF 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB L 0 T 0 RF 0 1 Enter 0 1 0 0 1 Exit 0 0 0 0 1 EB WB NB SB L T 1 RF 1 Enter 0 1 0 0 1 Exit 0 1 0 0 1 Travelling through Nowland/Dorset NB entering SB exiting intersection intersection 4 35 ODVs Cider Mill Phase 2 Enter Exit 20 65 85 Assumed directional splits for AM peak: Dorse EB WB NB SB L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB L 0 T 0 R 1 1 Enter 0 1 0 0 1 Exit 0 0 1 0 1 EB WB NB SB L T 1 R 1 Enter 0 1 0 0 1 Exit 0 1 0 0 1 Travelling through Nowland/Dorset SB exiting intersection NB entering intersection 5 49 per CCMPO TM counts 4% are EBR 2% are NBL per CCMPO TM counts 4% are EBR 2% are NBL resulting vol at Nowland/Vale 0 exit EB 1 enter WB resulting vol at Nowland/Vale 0 exit EB 1 enter WB CCMP SBOR83- AM peak hog Page 2 of 6 AM ODVs ODVs South Village Goldberg Enter Exit Enter Exit 53 188 241 4 16 1 21 )rset Street: 75% NB, 25% SB (per Figure 13 of Dorset Street Corridor Study; Spear Street: 70% NB, 30% SB (per RSG's July 2010 TM counts at Spear-Nowland Farn EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L 8 21 L T 30 10 T RF 5 11 86 R 0 Enter 5 8 63 10 86 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 11 21 30 23 86 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB L 2 0 T 63 25 R 0 2 92 Enter 0 2 65 25 92 Exit 2 0 63 28 92 EB WB NB SB L 0 T 2 2 R 1 4 Enter 2 2 0 1 4 Exit 2 2 0 0 4 Trn-11ina thrniioh Nnwlnnri/Gnaar NB entering SB exiting intersection intersection 28 65 EB WB NB SB L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 Travallino thrnuoh Nnwland/r)nmPt NB entering SB exiting intersection intersection 1 12 per CCMPO TM counts 4% are EBR resulting vol at Nowland/Vale 0 exit EB EB (Allen) WB NB (Spear) SB (Spear) 0 TM count L 169 0 66 0 Spear -Allen T 0 0 327 534 hour May 21 R 124 0 0 218 1438 Enter 293 0 393 752 1438 Exit 0 284 496 658 1438 2% are NBL 0 enter WB result Page 3 of 6 AM ODVs Shelburne Enter Exit 6 19 25 EB WB NB SB L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 Tra—llina thrniiah N—AII rl/t —pt SB exiting intersection NB entering intersection 2 14 per CCMPO TM counts 4% are EBR 2% are NBL ing vol at Nowland/Vale 0 exit EB 0 enter WB No Build 2011 EB WB NB 513 L 45 87 227 13 T 58 250 325 111 R 69 73 116 48 1423 Enter 172 410 669 172 1423 Exit 187 525 443 267 1423 Trip Generation Enter Exit 12 44 56 EB WB NB SB L 2 14 T 1 21 3 1 R 2 7 49 Enter 2 2 43 3 49 Exit 7 14 21 7 49 Spear Meadows Road WBL WBR NBR SBL 8 40 5 7 EB WB NB SB L 33 21 1 11 T 5 1 509 230 1 R 4 26 16 12 869 Enter 42 48 526 253 869 Exit 32 14 568 255 869 EB WB NB 5B L 1 0 0 7 T 24 42 0 0 R 0 2 0 15 Enter 25 44 0 22 Exit 31 57 3 0 EB WB NB SB L 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 669 253 EB WB NB SB L 0 2 1 T 0 0 5 7 R 2 1 0 19 Enter 1 4 5 8 19 Exit 2 0 7 9 19 EB WB NB SB L 1 2 T 91 R 2 5 10 91 Enter 1 2 0 7 10 91 Exit 2 5 4 0 10 Assumptions 60% of veh to/from south use Spear and remaining 40% use Vale Drive 95% of veh to/from north use Spear and remaining 5% 1. Directional NB enter 58 enter NB exit SB exit based on Spe distributionj 9 4 31 13 R 0 0 0 0 Spear I enter enter exit to N exit to 5 Assumed Mead 5 4 29 8 Vale DrI 3 0 2 5 Diverted trips to Spear Meadows from Vale and Four Sisters neighborhoods 3 10 1 exiting AM trip from the existing SF home on the site is included at Spear Meadows Road Page 4 of 6 AM Annual Build Adjustment Adjusted Raw Counts No Build Build 2011 2016 2016 2016 2016 1.01 2011to 2016 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L[ 45 89 242 13 L[ 45 80 208 13 L 18 8 229 13 L[ 45 T 58 250 346 114 T 59 253 298 02 T 59 253 328 112 T 59 2503 349 115 R 70 73 123 48 1472 R 65 74 106 48 1350 R 69 74 117 48 1436 R 71 74 124 48 1485 Enter 173 412 711 175 1472 Enter 169 406 612 164 1350 Enter 173 414 675 174 1436 Enter 175 416 717 177 1485 Exit 194 540 464 274 1472 Exit 178 509 417 246 1350 Exit 189 530 448 270 1436 Exit 196 545 468 276 1485 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LI 33 21 35 1 35 21 T 5 513 237 T 450 207 T 5 11 513 232 T 518 239 R 4 28 17 12 888 R 4 25 14 12 783 R 5 26 16 12 877 R 5 28 17 12 895 Enter 43 52 531 261 888 Enter 42 44 466 230 783 Enter 43 48 530 255 877 Enter 43 53 536 264 895 Exit 34 15 575 265 888 Exit 30 14 509 229 783 Exit 32 14 573 258 877 Exit 34 15 580 267 895 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB T 24 42 0 0 T 22 39 0 0 T 24 43 0 0 T 24 43 0 0 R 0 4 0 19 101 R 0 2 0 14 86 R 0 2 0 15 92 R 0 4 0 19 102 Enter 26 47 0 28 101 Enter 23 41 0 21 86 Enter 25 45 0 22 92 Enter 26 47 0 29 102 Exit 33 61 7 0 101 Exit 29 54 3 0 86 Exit 31 57 3 0 92 Exit 33 62 7 0 102 Spear St N-S directional split (see OC Spear Meadows Road EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L 0 0 0 0 L 0 8 0 7 T 0 0 675 255 T 0 0 717 264 R 0 0 0 0 R 0 40 5 0 Page 5 of 6 Annual Adjustment 2021 1.01 2016 to 2021 No Build 2021 EB WB NB SB L 46 89 231 13 T 59 255 331 113 1 R 70 74 118 49 1450 Enter 175 418 681 176 1450 Exit 190 535 452 272 1450 EB WB NB SB L 34 21 1 11 T 5 1 518 234 R 5 26 16 12 885 Enter 43 49 535 258 885 exit 33 14 578 260 ,,, 885 � EB WB NB SB L 1 0 0 7 T 24 43 0 0 R 0 2 0 15 93 Enter 25 45 0 22 93 Exit 31 58 - 3 0 93 EB WB NB SB L 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 681 258 R 0 0 0 0 AM Build a 2021 Iw EB WB NB SB L 46 91 246 13 T 59 255 352 116 R 72 74 125 49 1499 Enter 177 420 723 178 1499 Exit 198 550 473 279 1499 EB WB NB SB L 34 23 1 12 T 5 1 522 241 R 5 29 17 13 903 Enter 44 53 540 266 903 Exit 34 15 585 269 903 EB WB NB SB L 2 0 0 9 T 24 43 0 0 R 0 4 0 19 103 Enter 27 47 0 29 103 Exit 34 63 7 0 103 EB WB NB. g : SB L 0 8 0 t 7T 00 72266 R 0 40 5,0 Page 6 of 6 APPENDIX B Synchro LOS and Queuing Worksheets SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2011 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 103 69 87 323 227 441 13 159 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.18 0.26 0.55 0.47 0.59 0.04 0.39 Control Delay 25.7 8.5 15.7 18.3 14.7 16.4 9.8 16.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 25.7 8.5 15.7 18.3 14.7 16.4 9.8 16.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 26 0 15 60 43 89 2 32 Queue Length 95th (ft) 88 32 60 191 92 241 10 76 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 413 542 339 971 485 1363 334 1356 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.25 0.13 0.26 0.33 0.47 0.32 0.04 0.12 Intersection Summary 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2011 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r T 1� Vi T Volume (vph) 45 58 69 87 250 73 227 325 116 13 111 48 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1859 1615 1805 1836 1805 1825 1805 1814 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.44 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1353 1615 817 1836 1006 1825 839 1814 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 45 58 69 87 250 73 227 325 116 13 111 48 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 57 0 13 0 0 18 0 0 24 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 103 12 87 310 0 227 423 0 13 135 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.9 9.9 18.0 18.0 24.0 19.7 16.4 15.9 Effective Green, g (s) 9.9 9.9 18.0 18.0 24.0 19.7 16.4 15.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.32 0.32 0.43 0.35 0.29 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 238 284 299 588 491 640 253 513 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.17 c0.04 c0.23 0.00 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.16 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.04 0.29 0.53 0.46 0.66 0.05 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 20.6 19.2 14.0 15.6 10.9 15.4 14.2 15.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.3 2.0 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 21.1 19.2 14.2 16.0 11.2 17.4 14.3 15.7 Level of Service C B B B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 20.4 15.6 15.3 15.6 Approach LOS C B B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.2 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.1 % ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2011 NB 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street I Baseline --* --,, 4\ I ♦ i 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 -T r 4T+ T Volume (veh/h) 33 5 4 21 1 26 1 509 16 11 230 12 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 33 5 4 21 1 26 1 509 16 11 230 12 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 790 785 236 778 783 517 242 525 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 790 785 236 778 783 517 242 525 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 89 98 100 93 100 95 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 292 323 808 308 324 562 1336 1052 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 42 48 526 11 242 Volume Left 33 21 1 11 0 Volume Right 4 26 16 0 12 cSH 315 674 1336 1052 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 6 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 18.2 14.4 0.0 8.5 0.0 Lane LOS C B A A Approach Delay (s) 18.2 14.4 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2011 NB I Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations -' T Y Volume (veh/h) 1 24 42 2 7 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 24 42 2 7 15 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 44 69 43 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 44 69 43 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1577 940 1033 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 25 44 22 Volume Left 1 0 7 Volume Right 0 2 15 cSH 1577 1700 1002 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.03 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.3 0.0 8.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.3 0.0 8.7 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2011 NB 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline ,,- 4-- t I` �► Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r T t Volume (veh/h) 0 0 669 0 0 253 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 669 0 0 253 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 922 669 669 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 922 669 669 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 302 461 931 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 0 0 669 253 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline ~ * I I # Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 106 70 89 329 230 447 14 162 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.18 0.26 0.56 0.48 0.60 0.04 0.40 Control Delay 26.0 8.4 15.9 18.6 14.8 16.6 9.9 16.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.0 8.4 15.9 18.6 14.8 16.6 9.9 16.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 0 16 62 44 91 2 33 Queue Length 95th (ft) 91 32 61 197 94 247 11 78 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 411 540 340 966 484 1355 331 1349 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.26 0.13 0.26 0.34 0.48 0.33 0.04 0.12 Intersection Summary 8/9/2010 Synchro 7 - Report I Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +T r T T 11� Volume (vph) 46 60 70 89 254 75 230 329 118 14 113 49 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1860 1615 1805 1835 1805 1825 1805 1814 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.43 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1350 1615 818 1835 1006 1825 822 1814 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 46 60 70 89 254 75 230 329 118 14 113 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 58 0 13 0 0 18 0 0 24 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 106 12 89 316 0 230 429 0 14 138 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 10.0 18.1 18.1 24.2 19.9 16.6 16.1 Effective Green, g (s) 10.0 10.0 18.1 18.1 24.2 19.9 16.6 16.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.32 0.32 0.43 0.35 0.29 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 239 286 299 588 492 643 250 517 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.17 c0.04 c0.24 0.00 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.16 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.04 0.30 0.54 0.47 0.67 0.06 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 20.8 19.3 14.1 15.8 11.0 15.5 14.2 15.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.3 2.0 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 21.2 19.3 14.3 16.2 11.2 17.5 14.3 15.7 Level of Service C B B B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 20.5 15.8 15.4 15.6 Approach LOS C B B B Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 16.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/9/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 NB 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street I Baseline --I' --;iv #,- *-- 4\ t # A/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4,- 4 r 4 T Volume (vehlh) 34 6 6 22 2 27 2 514 17 12 233 13 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 34 6 6 22 2 27 2 514 17 12 233 13 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 804 798 240 792 796 522 246 531 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 804 798 240 792 796 522 246 531 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 88 98 99 93 99 95 100 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 284 317 804 299 318 558 1332 1047 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 46 51 533 12 246 Volume Left 34 22 2 12 0 Volume Right 6 27 17 0 13 cSH 315 639 1332 1047 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 13 6 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 18.4 14.7 0.0 8.5 0.0 Lane LOS C B A A Approach Delay (s) 18.4 14.7 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8I912010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 NB 3: Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations +' T Y Volume (veh/h) 2 25 44 3 8 16 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 25 44 3 8 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 47 74 46 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 47 74 46 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1573 933 1030 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SIB 1 Volume Total 27 47 24 Volume Left 2 0 8 Volume Right 0 3 16 cSH 1573 1700 995 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.03 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.5 0.0 8.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.0 8.7 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/9/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 NB 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline t Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r 1 t Volume (veh/h) 1 1 676 1 1 256 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 1 676 1 1 256 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 934 676 677 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 934 676 677 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 297 457 924 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 1 1 677 257 Volume Left 1 0 0 1 Volume Right 0 1 1 0 cSH 297 457 1700 924 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 17.2 12.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B A Approach Delay (s) 15.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/9/2010 Synchro 7 - Report I Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS 1: Swift Street & Spear Street AM 2016 B Baseline t �► 1 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 106 72 91 329 245 475 14 165 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.20 0.26 0.52 0.52 0.65 0.05 0.40 Control Delay 28.1 8.7 16.1 18.0 16.2 18.3 9.7 17.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 28.1 8.7 16.1 18.0 16.2 18.3 9.7 17.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 0 16 62 47 99 2 34 Queue Length 95th (ft) 95 33 66 207 100 264 11 78 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 390 517 354 917 470 1288 303 1281 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.27 0.14 0.26 0.36 0.52 0.37 0.05 0.13 Intersection Summary 8/9/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 B 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +1 r 'k I 1� Volume (vph) 46 60 72 91 254 75 245 350 125 14 116 49 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1860 1615 1805 1835 1805 1825 1805 1815 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.39 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1350 1615 808 1835 1008 1825 732 1815 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 46 60 72 91 254 75 245 350 125 14 116 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 60 0 13 0 0 18 0 0 24 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 106 12 91 316 0 245 457 0 14 141 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.7 9.7 18.8 18.8 24.6 20.3 17.0 16.5 Effective Green, g (s) 9.7 9.7 18.8 18.8 24.6 20.3 17.0 16.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.43 0.35 0.30 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 227 272 317 599 490 643 225 520 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.17 c0.04 c0.25 0.00 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.18 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.04 0.29 0.53 0.50 0.71 0.06 0.27 Uniform Delay, dl 21.6 20.1 14.1 15.8 11.6 16.1 14.5 15.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.3 3.1 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 22.2 20.1 14.3 16.2 11.9 19.2 14.6 16.0 Level of Service C C B B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 21.3 15.8 16.7 15.9 Approach LOS C B B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 57.6 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/9/2010 Synchro 7 - Report I Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 B 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street I Baseline --,, --I, - I ♦ i 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4 r *T+ T Volume (veh/h) 35 6 6 24 2 29 2 519 18 13 240 13 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 35 6 6 24 2 29 2 519 18 13 240 13 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 820 814 246 807 811 528 253 537 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 820 814 246 807 811 528 253 537 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 87 98 99 92 99 95 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 276 310 797 292 311 554 1324 1041 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 47 55 539 13 253 Volume Left 35 24 2 13 0 Volume Right 6 29 18 0 13 cSH 306 622 1324 1041 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 13 7 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 18.9 15.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 Lane LOS C B A A Approach Delay (s) 18.9 15.0 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/9/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 B I Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline 41. \01 4/ Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 3 25 44 5 10 20 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 25 44 5 10 20 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 49 78 46 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 49 78 46 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1571 929 1029 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 28 49 30 Volume Left 3 0 10 Volume Right 0 5 20 cSH 1571 1700 993 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.03 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.8 0.0 8.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.8 0.0 8.7 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/9/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 B 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline ,or- 4,- t l Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r T T Volume (veh/h) 9 41 718 6 8 265 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 41 718 6 8 265 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1002 721 724 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1002 721 724 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 97 90 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 269 431 888 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 9 41 724 8 265 Volume Left 9 0 0 8 0 Volume Right 0 41 6 0 0 cSH 269 431 1700 888 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.10 0.43 0.01 0.16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 8 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 18.9 14.2 0.0 9.1 0.0 Lane LOS C B A Approach Delay (s) 15.1 0.0 0.3 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/9/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline -. -,* 4\ T 1 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 105 70 89 329 231 449 13 162 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.18 0.26 0.56 0.48 0.60 0.04 0.39 Control Delay 26.0 8.4 15.9 18.6 14.9 16.6 9.8 16.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.0 8.4 15.9 18.6 14.9 16.6 9.8 16.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 0 16 62 44 92 2 33 Queue Length 95th (ft) 90 32 62 197 95 248 11 78 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 410 540 340 966 484 1356 329 1349 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.13 0.26 0.34 0.48 0.33 0.04 0.12 Intersection Summary 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline --* --io, ---t "r .0- *-- 4\ T �- ♦ -4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +' r 1 1� Volume (vph) 46 59 70 89 255 74 231 331 118 13 113 49 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1859 1615 1805 1836 1805 1825 1805 1814 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.43 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1347 1615 818 1836 1006 1825 816 1814 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 46 59 70 89 255 74 231 331 118 13 113 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 58 0 13 0 0 18 0 0 24 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 105 12 89 316 0 231 431 0 13 138 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 10.0 18.1 18.1 24.2 19.9 16.6 16.1 Effective Green, g (s) 10.0 10.0 18.1 18.1 24.2 19.9 16.6 16.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.32 0.32 0.43 0.35 0.29 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 238 286 299 588 492 643 248 517 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.17 c0.04 c0.24 0.00 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.17 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.04 0.30 0.54 0.47 0.67 0.05 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 20.8 19.3 14.1 15.8 11.0 15.5 14.2 15.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.3 2.2 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 21.2 19.3 14.3 16.2 11.3 17.7 14.3 15.7 Level of Service C B B B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 20.5 15.8 15.5 15.6 Approach LOS C B B B Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 16.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 NB 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street Baseline --11 --,, '`r 'r *-- -*\ I l#. \1* Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +T+ +T r +14 T Volume (veh/h) 34 5 5 21 1 26 1 518 16 11 234 12 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 34 5 5 21 1 26 1 518 16 11 234 12 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 804 798 240 792 796 526 246 534 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 804 798 240 792 796 526 246 534 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 88 98 99 93 100 95 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 286 318 804 301 319 556 1332 1044 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SIB 2 Volume Total 44 48 535 11 246 Volume Left 34 21 1 11 0 Volume Right 5 26 16 0 12 cSH 313 659 1332 1044 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 12 6 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 18.4 14.6 0.0 8.5 0.0 Lane LOS C B A A Approach Delay (s) 18.4 14.6 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 NB 3: Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations +' 1� Y Volume (veh/h) 1 24 43 2 7 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 24 43 2 7 15 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 45 70 44 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 45 70 44 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1576 939 1032 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 25 45 22 Volume Left 1 0 7 Volume Right 0 2 15 cSH 1576 1700 1000 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.03 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.3 0.0 8.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.3 0.0 8.7 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 NB 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline 41- *-- 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r T t Volume (vehlh) 0 0 675 0 0 255 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 675 0 0 255 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 930 675 675 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 930 675 675 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 299 457 926 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SIB 1 b , Volume Total 0 0 675 255 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8l8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report I Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 B 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline I Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 105 72 91 329 246 477 13 165 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.20 0.26 0.52 0.52 0.65 0.04 0.40 Control Delay 28.1 8.7 16.2 18.0 16.2 18.3 9.7 17.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 28.1 8.7 16.2 18.0 16.2 18.3 9.7 17.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 0 16 62 48 100 2 34 Queue Length 95th (ft) 94 33 66 208 100 265 10 78 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 389 517 354 917 470 1288 302 1281 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.27 0.14 0.26 0.36 0.52 0.37 0.04 0.13 Intersection Summary 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 B 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline -.4 --1' --t ♦ I I i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 1 T T31 Volume (vph) 46 59 72 91 255 74 246 352 125 13 116 49 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1859 1615 1805 1836 1805 1825 1805 1815 Fit Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.38 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1347 1615 809 1836 1008 1825 726 1815 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 46 59 72 91 255 74 246 352 125 13 116 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 60 0 13 0 0 18 0 0 24 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 105 12 91 316 0 246 459 0 13 141 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.7 9.7 18.8 18.8 24.6 20.3 17.0 16.5 Effective Green, g (s) 9.7 9.7 18.8 18.8 24.6 20.3 17.0 16.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.43 0.35 0.30 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 227 272 318 599 490 643 224 520 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.17 c0.04 c0.25 0.00 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.18 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.04 0.29 0.53 0.50 0.71 0.06 0.27 Uniform Delay, dl 21.6 20.1 14.1 15.8 11.6 16.1 14.5 15.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.3 3.1 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 22.1 20.1 14.3 16.2 11.9 19.3 14.6 16.0 Level of Service C C B B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 21.3 15.8 16.8 15.9 Approach LOS C B B B Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 16.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 57.6 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 B 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street Baseline II Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 +T r T. T Volume (veh/h) 34 5 5 23 1 29 1 522 17 12 241 13 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 34 5 5 23 1 29 1 522 17 12 241 13 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 819 812 248 805 810 530 254 539 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 819 812 248 805 810 530 254 539 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 88 98 99 92 100 95 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 278 311 796 295 312 552 1323 1040 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 44 53 540 12 254 Volume Left 34 23 1 12 0 Volume Right 5 29 17 0 13 cSH 304 653 1323 1040 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 13 7 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 18.8 14.8 0.0 8.5 0.0 Lane LOS C B A A Approach Delay (s) 18.8 14.8 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 B I Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations +' T Y Volume (veh/h) 2 24 43 4 9 19 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 24 43 4 9 19 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 47 73 45 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 47 73 45 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1573 935 1031 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 26 47 28 Volume Left 2 0 9 Volume Right 0 4 19 cSH 1573 1700 998 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.03 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 8.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 8.7 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 B 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline I I i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r li� t Volume (veh/h) 8 40 717 5 7 264 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 40 717 5 7 264 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 998 720 722 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 998 720 722 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 97 91 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 271 432 889 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 8 40 722 7 264 Volume Left 8 0 0 7 0 Volume Right 0 40 5 0 0 cSH 271 432 1700 889 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.09 0.42 0.01 0.16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 8 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 18.7 14.2 0.0 9.1 0.0 Lane LOS C B A Approach Delay (s) 14.9 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2011 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline --,, --V 4\ t Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 256 231 131 175 255 350 78 421 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.45 0.45 0.28 0.84 0.55 0.21 0.77 Control Delay 35.7 7.9 21.4 15.6 43.9 21.7 12.6 30.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 35.7 7.9 21.4 15.6 43.9 21.7 12.6 30.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 94 4 34 42 62 108 17 144 Queue Length 95th (ft) 191 59 82 99 #179 203 42 259 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 546 656 290 895 303 864 378 883 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.47 0.35 0.45 0.20 0.84 0.41 0.21 0.48 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2011 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +T r T T 1� Volume (vph) 48 208 231 131 141 34 255 244 106 78 347 74 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1882 1579 1769 1801 1786 1784 1804 1841 Flt Permitted 0.89 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.46 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1695 1579 632 1801 568 1784 875 1841 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 208 231 131 141 34 255 244 106 78 347 74 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 172 0 11 0 0 21 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 256 59 131 164 0 255 329 0 78 411 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 1 % 1 % 1 % 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.6 13.6 22.6 22.6 25.6 21.4 23.2 20.2 Effective Green, g (s) 13.6 13.6 22.6 22.6 25.6 21.4 23.2 20.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.35 0.35 0.39 0.33 0.36 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 355 330 272 626 302 587 355 572 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.09 c0.05 0.18 0.01 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.04 0.15 c0.28 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.18 0.48 0.26 0.84 0.56 0.22 0.72 Uniform Delay, d1 23.9 21.1 16.3 15.2 17.7 17.9 14.1 19.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 18.3 0.7 0.1 3.6 Delay (s) 29.9 21.2 16.8 15.3 35.9 18.7 14.3 23.5 Level of Service C C B B D B B C Approach Delay (s) 25.8 15.9 25.9 22.0 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 23.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2011 I NB 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street Baseline * I Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 +T r +T+ 1 Volume (veh/h) 22 6 3 30 9 19 5 548 38 35 577 32 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 6 3 30 9 19 5 548 38 35 577 32 Pedestrians 4 1 1 18 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 2 Right turn flare (veh) 2 I Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1276 1264 598 1232 1261 586 613 587 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1276 1264 598 1232 1261 586 613 587 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 83 96 99 79 94 96 99 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 127 163 504 143 163 502 963 992 I Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 31 58 591 35 609 Volume Left 22 30 5 35 0 Volume Right 3 19 38 0 32 cSH 143 220 963 992 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.26 0.01 0.04 0.36 Queue Length 95th (ft) 20 26 0 3 0 Control Delay (s) 36.9 29.5 0.1 8.8 0.0 Lane LOS E D A A Approach Delay (s) 36.9 29.5 0.1 0.5 Approach LOS E D Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 i 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2011 NB 3: Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline .,,* __,, -4F-- k, Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations *' T Y Volume (veh/h) 11 72 53 6 6 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 72 53 6 6 4 Pedestrians 13 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 72 163 69 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 72 163 69 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.4 p0 queue free % 99 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1518 795 962 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 83 59 10 Volume Left 11 0 6 Volume Right 0 6 4 cSH 1518 1700 854 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.03 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 Control Delay (s) 1.0 0.0 9.3 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.0 0.0 9.3 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.1 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2011 NB 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline I I t Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r T t Volume (veh/h) 0 0 604 0 0 644 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 604 0 0 644 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked 0.96 vC, conflicting volume 1248 604 604 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1239 604 604 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 189 502 984 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 0 0 604 644 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.38 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline --1' "r -4--- - * I Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 258 233 132 176 257 353 79 425 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.46 0.46 0.29 0.84 0.55 0.21 0.76 Control Delay 36.1 8.1 21.8 15.7 44.0 21.6 12.6 29.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.1 8.1 21.8 15.7 44.0 21.6 12.6 29.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 95 5 35 42 62 110 17 147 Queue Length 95th (ft) 191 60 82 99 #183 206 43 263 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 538 649 284 881 305 852 380 870 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.36 0.46 0.20 0.84 0.41 0.21 0.49 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline -1" -• ---t 4,- ~ 4-- t �► 1 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +T r T T T Volume (vph) 48 210 233 132 142 34 257 246 107 79 350 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Fit Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1882 1579 1769 1801 1786 1784 1804 1841 Fit Permitted 0.89 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.46 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1695 1579 622 1801 568 1784 871 1841 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 210 233 132 142 34 257 246 107 79 350 75 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 172 0 11 0 0 21 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 258 61 132 165 0 257 332 0 79 415 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 1 % 1 % 1 % 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.6 13.6 22.6 22.6 26.1 21.9 23.7 20.7 Effective Green, g (s) 13.6 13.6 22.6 22.6 26.1 21.9 23.7 20.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.33 0.36 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 352 328 267 621 304 596 358 582 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.09 c0.05 0.19 0.01 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.04 0.15 c0.28 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.19 0.49 0.27 0.85 0.56 0.22 0.71 Uniform Delay, dl 24.3 21.4 16.7 15.5 17.7 17.8 14.0 19.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.6 0.1 0.5 0.1 18.3 0.6 0.1 3.4 Delay (s) 30.9 21.5 17.2 15.5 36.0 18.5 14.2 23.2 Level of Service C C B B D B B C Approach Delay (s) 26.4 16.3 25.9 21.8 Approach LOS C B C C HCM Average Control Delay 23.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 NB 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street * Baseline --, -1, �-- I l Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4� +T r 4 T Volume (veh/h) 22 6 3 30 9 19 5 553 39 36 582 32 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 6 3 30 9 19 5 553 39 36 582 32 Pedestrians 4 1 1 18 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 2 Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1288 1277 603 1244 1274 592 618 593 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1288 1277 603 1244 1274 592 618 593 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 82 96 99 79 94 96 99 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 124 160 501 140 160 499 959 987 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SIB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 31 58 597 36 614 Volume Left 22 30 5 36 0 Volume Right 3 19 39 0 32 cSH 140 215 959 987 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.27 0.01 0.04 0.36 Queue Length 95th (ft) 20 26 0 3 0 Control Delay (s) 37.8 30.2 0.1 8.8 0.0 Lane LOS E D A A Approach Delay (s) 37.8 30.2 0.1 0.5 Approach LOS E D Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 NB 3: Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline .,,* --a. •-- 4" \,,. -4/ Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations *' T Y Volume (vehlh) 12 73 54 6 6 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 12 73 54 6 6 4 Pedestrians 13 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 73 167 70 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 73 167 70 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.4 p0 queue free % 99 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1517 790 960 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 85 60 10 Volume Left 12 0 6 Volume Right 0 6 4 cSH 1517 1700 850 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.04 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 Control Delay (s) 1.1 0.0 9.3 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.1 0.0 9.3 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 NB 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline i- *,- I I Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r 1� t Volume (veh/h) 0 0 610 0 0 650 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 610 0 0 650 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked 0.96 vC, conflicting volume 1260 610 610 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1250 610 610 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 185 498 979 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 0 0 610 650 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.38 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 B 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline ---► 1 ~ 4\ t II i Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 258 242 138 176 264 363 79 439 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.47 0.49 0.29 0.89 0.56 0.21 0.77 Control Delay 36.5 8.2 22.7 15.8 51.1 21.8 12.6 30.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.5 8.2 22.7 15.8 51.1 21.8 12.6 30.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 96 5 37 43 65 114 17 154 Queue Length 95th (ft) 191 62 85 99 #196 213 43 274 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 534 651 282 874 298 845 376 863 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.37 0.49 0.20 0.89 0.43 0.21 0.51 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 B 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +T if T T�' lt� Volume (vph) 48 210 242 138 142 34 264 253 110 79 364 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1882 1579 1769 1801 1786 1784 1804 1843 Flt Permitted 0.89 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.45 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1695 1579 620 1801 542 1784 847 1843 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 210 242 138 142 34 264 253 110 79 364 75 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 178 0 11 0 0 20 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 258 64 138 165 0 264 343 0 79 429 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 1 % 1 % 1 % 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.7 13.7 22.7 22.7 26.6 22.4 24.2 21.2 Effective Green, g (s) 13.7 13.7 22.7 22.7 26.6 22.4 24.2 21.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.34 0.34 0.40 0.34 0.37 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 351 327 265 618 297 605 354 591 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.09 c0.06 0.19 0.01 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.04 0.16 c0.30 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.19 0.52 0.27 0.89 0.57 0.22 0.73 Uniform Delay, dl 24.5 21.6 17.3 15.7 18.3 17.9 14.0 19.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.7 0.1 0.9 0.1 25.3 0.7 0.1 3.8 Delay (s) 31.2 21.7 18.2 15.8 43.5 18.6 14.1 23.6 Level of Service C C B B D B B C Approach Delay (s) 26.6 16.8 29.1 22.2 Approach LOS C B C C HCM Average Control Delay 24.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.1 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 B 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street Baseline I � � � 'r I--- � � I 4 1� ' i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4 r 4-T+ T. Volume (veh/h) 23 7 3 31 10 20 5 567 42 39 589 33 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 23 7 3 31 10 20 5 567 42 39 589 33 Pedestrians 4 1 1 18 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 2 Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1318 1308 610 1274 1303 607 626 610 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1318 1308 610 1274 1303 607 626 610 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 80 95 99 77 93 96 99 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 117 153 496 133 153 488 952 973 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 33 61 614 39 622 Volume Left 23 31 5 39 0 Volume Right 3 20 42 0 33 cSH 133 205 952 973 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.25 0.30 0.01 0.04 0.37 Queue Length 95th (ft) 23 30 0 3 0 Control Delay (s) 40.9 32.3 0.1 8.9 0.0 Lane LOS E D A A Approach Delay (s) 40.9 32.3 0.1 0.5 Approach LOS E D Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 B 3: Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations +' T Y Volume (veh/h) 19 73 54 10 10 7 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 19 73 54 10 10 7 Pedestrians 13 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 77 183 72 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 77 183 72 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.4 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1512 770 958 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 92 64 17 Volume Left 19 0 10 Volume Right 0 10 7 cSH 1512 1700 838 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.04 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 2 Control Delay (s) 1.6 0.0 9.4 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.6 0.0 9.4 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 B 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline ,(- 4-- r �. Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r T+ f Volume (veh/h) 8 16 627 15 29 662 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 16 627 15 29 662 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked 0.96 vC, conflicting volume 1354 634 642 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1348 634 642 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 95 97 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 156 482 952 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 8 16 642 29 662 Volume Left 8 0 0 29 0 Volume Right 0 16 15 0 0 cSH 156 482 1700 952 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.03 0.38 0.03 0.39 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 3 0 2 0 Control Delay (s) 29.3 12.7 0.0 8.9 0.0 Lane LOS D B A Approach Delay (s) 18.3 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 261 235 134 179 259 356 80 428 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.46 0.48 0.29 0.85 0.56 0.21 0.76 Control Delay 36.6 8.3 22.2 15.6 45.8 21.7 12.7 30.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.6 8.3 22.2 15.6 45.8 21.7 12.7 30.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 97 6 35 43 63 111 17 149 Queue Length 95th (ft) 194 62 84 100 #186 207 43 265 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 535 647 282 879 303 848 378 867 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.49 0.36 0.48 0.20 0.85 0.42 0.21 0.49 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline --.* --,, ---* f- f-- 4\ I * II i A/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +T r T. T. T. Volume (vph) 49 212 235 134 144 35 259 248 108 80 353 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1882 1579 1769 1801 1786 1784 1804 1842 Flt Permitted 0.89 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.45 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1692 1579 614 1801 563 1784 863 1842 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 49 212 235 134 144 35 259 248 108 80 353 75 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 171 0 12 0 0 21 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 261 64 134 167 0 259 335 0 80 418 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 1 % 1 % 1 % 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.7 13.7 22.7 22.7 26.3 22.1 23.9 20.9 Effective Green, g (s) 13.7 13.7 22.7 22.7 26.3 22.1 23.9 20.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.34 0.34 0.40 0.34 0.36 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 352 329 264 621 303 599 356 585 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.09 c0.05 0.19 0.01 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.04 0.15 c0.29 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.19 0.51 0.27 0.85 0.56 0.22 0.71 Uniform Delay, dl 24.4 21.5 17.0 15.6 17.9 17.9 14.1 19.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.2 0.1 0.6 0.1 19.6 0.6 0.1 3.4 Delay (s) 31.6 21.6 17.5 15.6 37.5 18.5 14.2 23.3 Level of Service C C B B D B B C Approach Delay (s) 26.8 16.4 26.5 21.8 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 23.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.8 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 NB 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street Baseline 1# --11� "I'*♦ �--- I Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4 r +T. T Volume (veh/h) 22 6 3 30 9 19 6 559 39 36 588 33 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 6 3 30 9 19 6 559 39 36 588 33 Pedestrians 4 1 1 18 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 2 Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1303 1292 610 1258 1288 598 625 599 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1303 1292 610 1258 1288 598 625 599 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 82 96 99 78 94 96 99 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 121 157 496 137 156 495 953 982 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 31 58 604 36 621 Volume Left 22 30 6 36 0 Volume Right 3 19 39 0 33 cSH 137 210 953 982 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.23 0.28 0.01 0.04 0.37 Queue Length 95th (ft) 21 27 0 3 0 Control Delay (s) 38.8 30.9 0.2 8.8 0.0 Lane LOS E D A A Approach Delay (s) 38.8 30.9 0.2 0.5 Approach LOS E D Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 NB 3: Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations #' T Y Volume (veh/h) 12 74 54 6 6 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 12 74 54 6 6 4 Pedestrians 13 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 73 168 70 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 73 168 70 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.4 p0 queue free % 99 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1517 789 960 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SIB 1 Volume Total 86 60 10 Volume Left 12 0 6 Volume Right 0 6 4 cSH 1517 1700 850 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.04 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 Control Delay (s) 1.1 0.0 9.3 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.1 0.0 9.3 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 NB 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline ,or- I l� Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r 11� T Volume (veh/h) 0 0 610 0 0 650 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 610 0 0 650 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (f1s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked 0.96 vC, conflicting volume 1260 610 610 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1251 610 610 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 185 498 979 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 0 0 610 650 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.38 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 B 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 261 245 139 179 267 366 80 442 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.47 0.50 0.29 0.90 0.56 0.21 0.77 Control Delay 36.9 8.4 23.1 15.8 53.9 21.9 12.7 30.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.9 8.4 23.1 15.8 53.9 21.9 12.7 30.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 98 6 37 44 66 116 18 157 Queue Length 95th (ft) 194 63 86 100 #201 214 43 276 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 531 650 280 872 296 842 374 860 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.49 0.38 0.50 0.21 0.90 0.43 0.21 0.51 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 B 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r T T T Volume (vph) 49 212 245 139 144 35 267 255 111 80 367 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1882 1579 1769 1801 1786 1784 1804 1843 Flt Permitted 0.89 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.44 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1692 1579 613 1801 536 1784 839 1843 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 49 212 245 139 144 35 267 255 111 80 367 75 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 178 0 12 0 0 20 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 261 67 139 167 0 267 346 0 80 432 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 1 % 1 % 1 % 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.8 13.8 22.8 22.8 26.7 22.5 24.3 21.3 Effective Green, g (s) 13.8 13.8 22.8 22.8 26.7 22.5 24.3 21.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.34 0.34 0.40 0.34 0.37 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 352 329 263 619 295 605 351 592 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.09 c0.06 0.19 0.01 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.04 0.16 c0.31 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.20 0.53 0.27 0.91 0.57 0.23 0.73 Uniform Delay, dl 24.6 21.7 17.5 15.7 18.6 17.9 14.0 20.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.2 0.1 0.9 0.1 28.6 0.8 0.1 4.0 Delay (s) 31.8 21.8 18.4 15.8 47.1 18.8 14.2 23.9 Level of Service C C B B D B B C Approach Delay (s) 26.9 16.9 30.7 22.4 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 25.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.3 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 B 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street Baseline -,A' --,, --* f- ♦- ,,- 4\ t `- 1 ./ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 +T r +T+ T Volume (veh/h) 23 7 3 32 10 21 6 572 42 40 595 33 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 23 7 3 32 10 21 6 572 42 40 595 33 Pedestrians 4 1 1 18 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 2 Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1334 1322 616 1288 1318 612 632 615 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1334 1322 616 1288 1318 612 632 615 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 80 95 99 75 93 96 99 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 113 150 492 129 149 485 948 969 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 33 63 620 40 628 Volume Left 23 32 6 40 0 Volume Right 3 21 42 0 33 cSH 129 201 948 969 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.26 0.31 0.01 0.04 0.37 Queue Length 95th (ft) 24 32 0 3 0 Control Delay (s) 42.3 33.3 0.2 8.9 0.0 Lane LOS E D A A Approach Delay (s) 42.3 33.3 0.2 0.5 Approach LOS E D Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 B 3: Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline .,* --,, k, Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations T T Y Volume (veh/h) 19 74 54 10 10 7 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 19 74 54 10 10 7 Pedestrians 13 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 77 184 72 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 77 184 72 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.4 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1512 769 958 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 93 64 17 Volume Left 19 0 10 Volume Right 0 10 7 cSH 1512 1700 837 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.04 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 2 Control Delay (s) 1.6 0.0 9.4 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.6 0.0 9.4 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS I PM 2021 B 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline t II i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r T t Volume (veh/h) 8 16 627 15 29 662 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 16 627 15 29 662 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked 0.96 vC, conflicting volume 1354 634 642 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1348 634 642 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 95 97 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 156 482 952 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SIB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 8 16 642 29 662 Volume Left 8 0 0 29 0 Volume Right 0 16 15 0 0 cSH 156 482 1700 952 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.03 0.38 0.03 0.39 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 3 0 2 0 Control Delay (s) 29.3 12.7 0.0 8.9 0.0 Lane LOS D B A Approach Delay (s) 18.2 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary i Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: July 26, 2011 drb\staffcomments\2011\SD_11_07_SpearSt_Farre11_Spea Plans received: January 28, 2011 Weadows 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street Preliminary Plat Application #SD-11-07 Master Plan Application #MP-11-01 nda #6 Meetina date: Auaust 3, 2011 Owner Applicant Spear Meadows, Inc Eric Farrell Gary N. and Jane G. Farrell PO Box 1335 1350 Spear Street Burlington, VT 05402 South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer PropertV Information Civil Engineering Associates Inc. Tax Parcel 1640-01302; Tax Parcel 1640-01340 PO Box 485 Tax Parcel 1640-01350 Shelburne, VT 05482 SEQ Zoning District- Neighborhood Residential 25.91 acres Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLdVGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments120111SD 11 07 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows Farrell Real Estate, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking preliminary plat and master plan approval for a planned unit development on 25.91 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 25 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. The application was reviewed by the Development Review Board through a series of sketch plan meetings, beginning on October 6, 2009 and ending on July 6, 2010. A full set of preliminary plat plans and application were submitted in August, 2010. This application was withdrawn and a new application was received and deemed complete on January 28, 2011. The plans were revised to reflect a very minor change in the property boundary near the western edge. Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose, Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on January 28, 2011. Other staff members, including department heads, reviewed the plans submitted in August as well as those submitted in January. While their comments pre -date the January submission, each and every commenting member has also thoroughly reviewed the January plans and have stated to Planning and Zoning staff that their comments remain unchanged. Staff has the following comments. DENSITY The base density of the parcel generated by the land at 1.2 units per acre, based on 25.91 acres, is 31 units. The maximum units allowed, in accordance with Chapter 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and determined by the Neighborhood residential sub -district, are 104 units. The applicant is proposing 69 new units, with one existing dwelling to remain, for a total of 70 units within the PUD for a proposed density of 3.06 units/acre. Therefore, a total of 39 development rights shall be needed to complete the project as proposed. The applicant has stated that they have a legal option to purchase enough development rights to build the project as proposed. Staff recommends that the Board require the applicant to submit the legal documents pertaining to the options for review by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. Staff further recommends that the development rights be purchased by the applicant prior to issuance of zoning permits for any units beyond the 31 allowed by the property's inherent density. 1. The applicant shall submit legal documents pertaining to the options to purchase Transferred Development Rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to Final Plat approval. 2. The applicant shall submit legal documents showing clear ownership of the remaining 39 development rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the 32nd unit. CITY OF SOUTH BURLaVGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments12011W 11 07 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows Pursuant to Section 15.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (hereafter referred to as the SBLDRs), the Development Review Board shall require a master plan for any application of more than ten (10) dwelling units in the Southeast Quadrant. This application may, at the applicant's request, be combined with preliminary subdivision plat review. The DRB shall review the master plan and all areas proposed for preliminary plat simultaneously and shall make separate findings of fact as to the master plan and the areas reviewed for preliminary plat. 15.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations govern Master Plan review and approval. As the master plan may be combined with the preliminary plat, many of the items required are included in the preliminary plat, and do not necessitate redundant mention in this paragraph. There are some items which are exclusively tied to the master plan process which staff will try to distinguish below. (3) Master Plan Application. The master plan shall consist of one or more maps or drawings, with all dimensions shown in feet or decimals of a foot, drawn to a scale of not more than one hundred (100) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (100) feet of frontage, showing or accompanied by the information listed below. The applicant shall submit complete preliminary site plan or preliminary plat applications consistent with the master plan application for any area or phase for which. approval is sought simultaneously with the master plan. (a) Accurate and updated Sketch Plan data (b) The name of the proposed Master Plan or an identifying title (c) Name and address of the land surveyor and plat designer (d) The names of all subdivisions immediately adjacent and the names of owners of record of adjacent acreage (e) An overall plan for the property indicating the following: i. the locations and total combined area of the propert(y)(ies) proposed for subdivision and/or site plan phase, either in conjunction with the initial master plan application or in the future, specifying which area or areas are currently proposed for subdivision or development. ii. The location and total area of the propert(y)(ies) currently proposed for subdivision or development that are to be deeded as perpetually open spaces, and which areas proposed to be left open are subject to future evaluation within the parameters of the master plan. iii. the location, total area and nature of any public amenities or facilities other than buildings proposed either in conjunction with the initial master plan application or in the future, specifying which features are currently proposed for development. iv. The maximum impervious coverage proposed for the property or properties subject to the Master Plan. V. The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and/or number of dwelling units proposed for the property or properties subject to the CITY OF SOUTH BURLWGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 07 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows Master Plan. vi. The maximum number of vehicle trip ends (VTEs) and associated parking proposed for the property or properties subject to the master plan. vii. The location and size of any existing sewers and water mains, culverts and drains on the property or serving the property. viii. The location, names and widths of existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts and parking areas and their relationship to existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts and parking areas on surrounding properties ix. Contour lines at intervals of five feet, based on USGS datum of existing grades and also of finished grades. Contour intervals closer than five feet may be required by the Development Review Board in order to properly evaluate specific aspects of the project, such as storm drainage, landscaping, etc. X. A complete survey of any tracts to be subdivided completed by a licensed land surveyor A. The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the DRB to locate readily and appraise the basic layout in the field. Unless an existing street intersection is shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall be shown. xii. A list of waivers the applicant desires from these regulations. The application was deemed complete by the Administrative Officer on January 28, 2011. D. Approval and Amendment of Master Plan. (1) Upon receipt of a complete application for master plan approval, with or without an associated preliminary site plan or preliminary plat application, the DRB shall take action to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the master plan at a duly warned public hearing. The Board is reviewing the master plan concurrent with the preliminary plat. While the staff comments and discussions may be concurrent, the Board shall issue two separate decisions. (2) In its approval of a Master Plan, the DRB shall specify the level of review and process required for subsequent applications pursuant to the approved Master Plan provided such procedure is consistent with the intent of these Regulations. The DRB may, for example, specify that final site plan only shall be required for specified portions of a project subject to a master plan, or that a section of a PUD shall be able to be amended with a final plat amendment action. Staff recommends that any items of change which would otherwise necessitate Board level review pursuant to the SBLDRs, require a final plat amendment. Although the proposed project is within its coverage limitations, the project is subject to residential design review. As such, Staff also recommends that the Board be required to approve any future proposed additions such as sheds, porches, decks, and balconies. The Board should discuss this. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 07 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows 3. The Board should discuss what land development should require future review by the Development Review Board and under what form. (3) Any application for amendment of the master plan, preliminary site plan or preliminary plat that deviates from the master plan in any one or more of the following respects, shall be considered a new application for the property and shall require sketch plan review as well as approval of an amended master plan: (a) An increase in the total FAR or number of residential dwelling units for the property subject to the master plan; (b) An increase in the total site coverage of the property subject to the master plan; (c) A change in the location, layout, capacity or number of collector roadways on the property subject to the master plan; (d) Land development proposed in any area previously identified as permanent open space in the approved master plan application; and/or (e) A change that will result in an increase in the number of PM peak hour vehicle trip ends projected for total buildout of the property subject to the master plan. This is primarily a judicial statement for which the applicant shall be bound without any special condition included herein. For simplicity and transparency, the Board should establish the total site coverage, vehicle trip ends, and land which is proposed for future development or permanent open space. 4. The proposed project is estimated to generate 76 pm peak vehicle trip ends. Any increase in this number shall require further review by the Development Review Board. 5. The proposed development will result in a site coverage of 25.3% and a building site coverage of 11.9%. Any increase to this shall require further review by the Development Review Board. The applicant should submit a plan which generally labels those areas which may be considered for further future development. Units and layouts would not need to be included. The plan should also show which areas will be permanently unbuildable. The Board has expressed an interest in keeping a corridor along the wetland and in line with the open space on the adjacent property. The master plan should show this is as permanently restricted from any land development. 6. The applicant shall submit a plan which generally labels any areas considered for further future development. This plan shall also label any land which is to be permanently undeveloped. (4) Any application for amendment of the master plan that does not reduce the total area or alter the location of proposed permanent open spaces, and which does not meet any of the criteria in (3) above, and any application for preliminary plat or preliminary site plan that is found to be consistent with the findings of fact for the master plan, shall not require sketch plan review. The DRB may, at its discretion, allow applicants for preliminary plat or preliminary site plan review pursuant to a master plan to combine preliminary and final review into one application and approval action. r CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 07 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows These applications have been combined for review. (5) The DRB may in its findings of fact on the master plan, or its approval of a site plan or preliminary plat pursuant thereto, specify certain minor land development activities (such as but not limited to the addition of decks or porches to dwelling units) that will not require DRB action, and may be undertaken pursuant to issuance of a Zoning Permit. Staff has already addressed this item for review by the Board. As the project requires residential design review, the Board should review any additional land development, including those listed above, that are not already shown on the plans. (6) The City shall in its approvals maintain a record of such criteria as are applicable to the project such as residential density, total site coverage, required off-street parking, sewer capacity, and the location and status of public amenities. Staff has already addressed density and site coverage. Parking, sewer capacity, and public amenities (parks) are discussed below in this report. The subject parcels total 25.91 acres. Table 1. Dimensional Requirements SEQ Zoning District Required Proposed Min. Lot Size 12,000 SF* 3 acres** Max. Building Coverage 15% 11.8% �1 Max. Overall Coverage 30% 25.2% ^ Min. Front Setback 20 ft.^ See below Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. 30 ft zoning compliance * 12,000 sf is the minimum lot size for single family dwellings ** the smallest parcel proposed for development is 3 acres ^ the front yard setback requirement for the Southeast Quadrant Zoning district is 20 feet. The Residential Design criteria for the Neighborhood Residential sub -district (SBLDR section 9.08) states that "buildings should be set back twenty-five feet from the back of the sidewalk." The guidelines further state that "a close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment." The applicant is proposing between 15- 20 foot setbacks for front units, with rear units located between 40 and 60 feet back. The Board discussed the location of units at length throughout the sketch plan review process and all members expressed favorability with respect l t CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 07 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows to the proposed location of buildings given the increased stream -side buffer, and instructed the applicant to proceed without changes. The Board should discuss this item again and include its reasoning for any waivers in its decision. 7. The Board should discuss the location of the proposed buildings with respect to the front setback and detail any waivers or deviations from recommended placements that they wish to grant. SUBDIVISION CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, subdivisions shall comply with the following standards and conditions: A. General Standards. In all zoning districts of the City, the DRB shall make findings of fact on a PUD, subdivision and/or Master Plan in keeping with the standards for approval of subdivisions in Article 15 and/or site plans and conditional uses in Article 14. PUD, subdivision and Master Plan applications in the Central District shall meet the standards and criteria applicable in the appropriate sub -district and shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals for the City Center. For PUD, subdivision and/or Master Plan applications within the SEQ, 10 and R1-Lakeshore districts, the DRB shall also make positive findings with respect to the project's compliance with the specific criteria in this section. The general standards applicable to all PUDs, subdivisions and Master Plans are: (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. The City of South Burlington Water Department has reviewed the plans and provided comments in a memo from the Department of Public Works, dated September 28, 2010 (from Justin Rabidoux, attached). The applicant shall adhere to these comments, shall revise the plans where necessary, and shall obtain preliminary and final wastewater allocations per the recommendations included herein. 8. The applicant shall address and/or adhere to the comments of the South Burlington Water Department per the memo from the Department of Public Works dated September 28, 2010 and any additional comments. The plans shall be revised accordingly. 9. The applicant shall receive preliminary wastewater allocation prior to final plat approval. 10. The applicant shall receive final wastewater allocation prior to issuance of any zoning permits. (2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating CITY OF SOUTH BURLuVGTON 8 1 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 07 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. The City of South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent has reviewed the plans and provided comments in a memo from the Department of Public Works, dated September 28, 20010 (from Justin Rabidoux, attached). The applicant shall adhere to these comments, shall revise the plans where necessary, and shall obtain preliminary and final wastewater allocations per the recommendations included herein. 11. The applicant shall address and/or adhere to the comments of the South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent per the memo from the Department of Public Works dated September 28, 2010 and any additional comments. The plans shall be revised accordingly. (3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. Access is proposed via a public street connection to Spear Street as well as to the existing public road of Vale Drive. The applicant is proposing a short, private dead-end street connection to the parcel to the north, labeled as UVM and State Agricultural College, as well as a gravel public drive to the proposed public park and private community gardens. Vale Drive is currently a public street terminated in a cul-de-sac. A right-of-way exists at the end of the cul-de-sac, always intended as a secondary access to this parcel. The applicant has submitted details of the roadway (including cross -sections) as part of the preliminary plat application. The road details have been extensively reviewed by the Director of Public Works. Comments are provided in a memo from the Department of Public Works, dated September 28, 20010 (from Justin Rabidoux, attached; he stated on July 12.2011 that those comments remain unchanged). The applicant shall adhere to these comments, shall revise the plans where necessary, and shall obtain preliminary and final wastewater allocations per the recommendations included herein. 12. The applicant should work closely with the Director of Public works to address and/or adhere to the comments per the memo from the Department of Public Works dated September 28, 2010 and any additional comments. Where necessary, the plans shall be revised accordingly. This should be worked out prior to preliminary plat approval. Staff has reviewed the proposed lot layout in accordance with the Regulating Plan illustrated in Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and discussed below in this report. Staff finds that the project does not meet the strict guidelines of the SEQ which call for short development blocks and limits the lengths of roadways, in order to minimize impacts on the wetlands which traverse the site from north to south and fit into the unique shape of the lot. One possibility to remedy this could include a connection from the newly proposed road to split the block in an east -west fashion and provide for a connection to the east to a property there, which could support development in the future and which would be a logical planned connection. t � CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 07 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows In this case of competing objectives, staff finds that the design presented achieves the best possible layout given the restrictions on the site. Staff does not advocate for an additional connection, but as it would be an option for bringing the property into more strict compliance with the guideline stated above, the Board may wish to discuss it. With respect to traffic management, the applicant has submitted a traffic impact study, prepared by RSG Inc, dated August, 2010. The City's Director of Public Works reviewed the study and has incorporated comments in a memo dated September 28, 2010 (attached, refer to numbers 57-60). In summary, there do not appear to be any major issues, though the department has asked for additional clarification. Furthermore, the Board has the authority to seek a third -party, technical review of the study. The Board should discuss this. 13. The Board should review and discuss the traffic study submitted by the applicant's consultant as well as the comments made in response by the Director of Public Works. The Board should also discuss whether an additional third -party review is warranted. The applicant is proposing a dead-end street to access the park area, which is more than 700 feet in length. The South Burlington Land Development Regulations state that: (2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets may not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). This guideline is waivable. Given the unique shape of the lot, the location of the wetlands on site, and the existence of two access points, and the close proximity of the cul-de-sac to an adjacent lot with development potential, and that the dead-end road is proposed only to access a park, staff is comfortable with this request. The Board has previously discussed this request and expressed favorability of the proposal. (4) The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project's impact on natural resources. There are small encroachments into a Class II wetland on the site. Staff finds that the proposed development minimizes the impact to these wetlands to the greatest extent possible while still allowing for a road to access the site. Pursuant to the SBLDRs, the applicant should obtain a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) from the State of Vermont prior to final plat approval. However, the State of VT no longer issues CUDs. Staff is working with the State to determine the new requirements and ensure that the spirit and intent of the regulations, including proper oversight of wetland impacts, is fully met. 14. The applicant shall apply for and obtain [the equivalent of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD)] for the proposed wetlands impacts prior to final plat approval. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 07 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows Furthermore, staff recommends a ground delineation of the wetland buffer where it gets close to the rear of the homes proposed along the west side of the road so as to reduce impact by residents of those units. The wetland and wetland buffers shall be protected and should not in any case be used as useable lawn or other recreational areas. The applicant has submitted a plan which includes a line of shrubbery and tress along the wetland buffer. There appears to be sections of fencing which fills in some of the gaps between landscaping, though staff was unable to locate a legend. The applicant should clarify if this is indeed proposed fencing. 15. The Board shall discuss the applicant's proposal for the wetland buffer delineation. Staff also suggests additional measures of protection, including limitations on fertilizers and mowing. The following are suggested conditions: 16. There shall be no use of pesticides or non -organic fertilizers within the wetlands or associated 50 foot buffers. This shall be reflected in the association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. 17. There shall be no mowing within 50 feet of the wetlands on the property. Brush - hogging shall be allowed no more than three (3) times per year. This shall be reflected in the association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. 18. Deeds and association covenants shall reflect all of the standards included above, especially the prohibition of use of the wetland buffer as lawn or other recreation areas, and the use of pesticides on site. (5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The stated purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located (Southeast Quadrant) is as follows: A Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ) is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and well -planned residential use in the area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The natural features, visual character and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique resources in the City and worthy of protection. The design and layout of buildings and lots in a manner that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will best create neighborhoods and a related network of open spaces consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Southeast Quadrant shall be encouraged. Any uses not expressly permitted are hereby prohibited, except those which are allowed as conditional uses. CITY OF SOUTH BURL NGTON 11 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 07 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows Furthermore, pursuant to Section 9.02 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: "These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, and any adopted amendments to such plan, and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. In the event of a conflict between the Southeast Quadrant chapter and other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the Southeast Quadrant chapter shall control." (6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The Board discussed this objective as part of the sketch plan review. Previous plan iterations were altered so as to remove some buildings from the area which were proximate to, but not inside, the wetland corridor which bisects the site from the north to south. This corridor was widened with homes moved further from the wetland buffer. Homes are now clustered more closely and a continuous corridor is now present. Furthermore, the largest portion of the wetland and undeveloped portion of the site is immediately adjacent to a wetland/buffer area on the adjoining development to the south. (7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water. The South Burlington Fire Chief reviewed the plans and provided comments on November 5, 2010. He stated on July 251h that those comments remain unchanged. There are some items which the Fire Chief will have to coordinate with the Director of Public Works on, and some that he should work with the applicant on. Staff recommends that the applicant meet with the Fire Chief prior to a decision on the preliminary plat. 19. The applicant shall meet with the Fire Chief to discuss the plans. Any items not agreed upon shall be reviewed by the Development Review Board for decision prior to preliminary plat approval. (8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. The road details have been extensively reviewed by the Director of Public Works. Comments are provided in a memo from the Department of Public Works, dated September 28, 20010 (from Justin Rabidoux, attached). The applicant shall adhere to these comments, shall revise the plans where necessary. Staff has already commented on the need for connection to adjacent properties. The Recreation Path Committee reviewed the plans at their meeting on September 13, 2010 (comments attached). The Committee is requesting a recreation path easement along the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 12 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 07 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows western boundary. The applicant should respond to this request, and the Board should determine whether one must be provided. Spear Street is within a very wide right of way for a two lane road, and there remains substantial land available within the public right of way for facilities. Constructing a path outside of the right of way in this area would require dozens of private easement agreements before a complete path could be constructed. The applicant is proposing street improvements which include a turning lane. It may be more appropriate to discuss whether the street improvements should include a recreation path or on -road bicycle lanes within the public right of way. 20. The Board should discuss the Recreation Path Committee's request for an easement along the western property boundary. If one is not warranted, the Board should discuss the road improvement plan within Spear Street and determine whether any additional provisions should be made within the road right of way. (9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. Staff has already stated that the applicant should continue to work with the Director of Public Works/City Engineer regarding the road design and with respect to his written comments. The applicant is proposing a private road to access a public park. The applicant should work with the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and the City Attorney to ensure that proper public access will be secured. A basic agreement should be reached prior to final plat approval, with final legal documents signed and recorded prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the site. Discussed further below, the Board should determine when the park is to be constructed. 21. The applicant shall reach agreement with the Director of Public Works/City Engineer as to adequate public access to the park prior to final plat approval. Final legal documents shall be signed and recorded prior to issuance of the first zoning permit for a building on the property. (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Comprehensive Plan has a chapter dedicated to the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. The goal statements have guided the work of the Planning Commission and City Council in outlining the density, zoning, coverage limitations, and allowable uses in the district and its sub -districts. Staff encourages the Board to read the entirety of the Chapter (Chapter 8 Southeast Quadrant) which is attached. An excerpt of the goal statement is included herein, and the objectives may be found near the end of the chapter. It is a goal of this City to support a planned strategy for land conservation and neighborhood development in the Southeast Quadrant that preserves areas of ecological significance, creates a cohesive and publicly accessible open space system, and encourages neighborhood development pattems, including street systems that create walkable neighborhoods, a range of housing choices, an a strong sense of place. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 13 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 07 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows Each subset of these goals is included in the general review standards for PUDs as well as specific standards for the SEQ and the SEQ-NR sub -district. Though they may be addressed individually, Staff believes that the general goals are met with the proposal. At question is not whether any land development is appropriate for the parcel (this has been decided through the City zoning, and subsequent sub -zones of the SEQ, a multi -year public process ultimately approved by vote of the City Council) but whether the adherence to the specific regulations adopted thereafter meets the general goals. 14.06 General Review Standards The following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design. A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has just addressed the proposed project's compliance with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see the section in the staff notes above. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Staff and the Board worked with the applicant at the sketch plan level to ensure suitable and safe pedestrian movement throughout the PUD. The plans include sidewalks on both sides of the road, safe crosswalks, and a paved recreation path. The plans also provide provisions for the adjacent neighborhood to access the recreation path, sidewalk network, and park. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 14 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 07 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home; (iii) The lot has unique site conditions such as a utility easement or unstable soils that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street; (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re -used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s); or, (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation. (c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all proposed parking areas that are both to the side of a building and between the front lot line and the building line of the building on the lot that is closest to the public street shall not exceed one-half of the total building width of all buildings on the lot that are located adjacent to the public street Buildings separated from the front lot line by parking approved pursuant to 14.06(C)(2)(b) shall be considered adjacent to the public street. Buildings separated from the front lot line by any other parking areas shall not be considered adjacent to the public street. (d) The DRB shall require that the majority of the parking on through lots and corner lots be located between the building(s) and the side yards or between the building and the front yard adjacent to the public street with the highest average daily volume of traffic. Where the rear yard of a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, the majority of parking shall be located between the building and the side yards or between the building and the yard that is adjacent to the Interstate. The parking on site serves single family and two family residential use, or is for the park (public recreation). Therefore, parking is permissible to the front of the buildings. Nevertheless, the Board worked with the applicant through the long sketch process to ensure that most parking was set back from the road and beyond the buildings. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. The heights of all buildings are within the limits of the district and characteristic of typical and nearby single and two-family dwellings. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. 22. Newly installed utility services shall be underground. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 15 � DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 07 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The design of buildings is discussed in greater detail in a discussion of the specific Southeast Quadrant design standards found elsewhere in this report. 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. Access is proposed via a public street connection to Spear Street as well as to the existing public road of Vale Drive. Vale Drive is currently a public street terminated in a cul-de-sac. A right-of-way exists at the end of the cul-de-sac, always intended as a secondary access to this parcel. As is customary, the applicant will submit more details of the roadway (including cross -sections) as part of the preliminary plat application. The applicant is now proposing a short dead- end street connection to the parcel to the north, labeled as UVM and State Agricultural College. This connection would be made if any development were to be approved on the UVM parcel. The Director of Public Works has commented on the road connection to Vale Drive, a connection that was planned and approved as part of the Pinnacle subdivision and which has existed on the plans since. The abutting property owners have expressed concern about the safety of this connection. The Fire Chief and the Director of Public Works have commented on whether or not the island should remain in the cul-de-sac. Although an understanding of how the roadway functions is important to the design of this development, the area on Vale Drive around the cul-de-sac is an existing city -owned street and right of way and is not on the land owned by the party listed in this application. It is not part of the land described in the PUD. Staff strongly advises that the Director of Public Works continue to work with the residents of Vale Drive, as well as the Fire Chief to address the configuration of the cul-de-sac. However, it is not for the review of this Board. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be l CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 16 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 07 SoearStreet Farrell SDearMeadows located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Staff has already stated that the utility lines must be underground C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). No dumpsters or group disposal facilities are proposed. Residential trash disposal and recycling facilities shall be treated like all others in the City. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. E. Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, with the exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. The applicant is asking for the following waivers: 1) Section 9.08 2) Table C-2 Section 9.08 states that blocks which are not shorter than 300-500 linear feet in length must include mid -block public sidewalks or recreation path connections. The longest block between the intersection of Spear Meadow Drive and Park Street is 775'. These blocks could be broken up by recreation path or road connections. The applicant argues that new recreation paths introduced between the blocks would not make sense as they would lead to dead ends at the property lines, or would be duplicative. Staff adds that they may also terminate in a location that does not provide a safe crossing or access. Staff has reviewed the proposed lot layout in accordance with the Regulating Plan illustrated in Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Staff finds that the project does not meet the strict guidelines of the SEQ which call for short development blocks and limits the lengths of roadways, in order to minimize impacts on the wetlands which traverse the site from north to south and fit into the unique shape of the lot. In this case of competing objectives, staff finds that the design presented achieves the best possible layout given the restrictions on the site. The Development Review Board previously discussed this matter and agreed. The Board should discuss this again and provide a decision. 23. The Board should discuss the applicant's request for a waiver on block length and l { CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 17 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 07 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows mid -block connections. Table C-2 relates to the setback requirement for structures in the district. Staff fully supports this waiver request as the goal of the requirement is being met. The front yard setback for buildings in the SEQ is stated at 20 feet. Closer proximity of buildings is appropriate to foster a closer relationship to the street and a larger buffer from the wetland, wetland buffer, and other property lines. This is discussed at the beginning of this report and calls for the Board to review and render a decision. The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The planned character of the area is defined in the comprehensive plan, the goals of which have already been identified and discussed in this report. Again, the Board should read the Southeast Quadrant chapter of the Comprehensive Plan in order to best assess this criterion. The South Burlington Land Development Regulations, purpose of the zoning district is "to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and well -planned residential use" and that the "design and layout of buildings and lots in a matter that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will best create neighborhoods and related network of open spaces consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Southeast Quadrant shall be encouraged." Southeast Quadrant District This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district. Therefore it is subiect to the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR. 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub -Districts The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. A. Height. (1) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT, or SEQ-NR sub -district shall not exceed forty-five feet (45 ); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub -districts. (2) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-VR or SEQ-VC sub- district shall not exceed fifty feet (50); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub -districts. The applicant has stated that the heights of buildings will remain below the height limitations of the sub -district. B. Open Space and Resource Protection. (1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels l CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 18 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 07 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows The Board discussed the layout of the site with respect to open space corridors at length during the sketch plan review, including some revisions to the location of proposed dwelling units near the wetland and wetland buffer, and near the corridor which would continue a line of open space from the adjacent PUD. (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the Regulating Plan for the applicable sub -district allowing carefully planned development at the average densities provided in this bylaw. Staff has already addressed this criterion with respect to the requested waiver from the block length. The average density remains below that which is permitted in the sub -district. (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. Staff has discussed the need for a plan for the future spaces as part of the master plan requirements. The applicant is proposing a 2.7 acre parcel to be deeded to the city as a neighborhood park, as well as a 1.6 acre lot to be used for community gardens. The proposed park will serve as an amenity not just to the residents of the PUD, but will also be convenient to the adjacent neighborhoods as well as open to the general public. The applicant has begun discussions with the Director of the Recreation Department, and should continue to as the application evolves. The Director and the applicant should address which facilities shall be planned for the space (ie- basketball courts, play structures, etc), as well as parking needs. The park is proposed to be accessed via a narrow cul-de-sac off of a wider road stub (labeled on the plans as `Park Street'). As previously stated, the applicant should work with the Director of Public Works to determine the needs for access and turn -around to this parcel. Section 9 of the SBLDR states that "a range of parks should be distributed through the SEQ to meet a variety of needs including children's play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation." Furthermore, "parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program" and "a neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be provided within a one -quarter mile walk of every home not so served by an existing City park or other publicly -owned recreation area." The proposed park space exceeds the requirements of this section. Legal documents shall be worked out prior to final plat approval and recorded prior to issuance of a zoning permit. 24. The applicant shall work with the City Attorney, Planning Director, and Director of Recreation to formalize ownership of the park lands. This shall have a draft agreement prior to final plat approval and formalized and recorded prior to issuance of a zoning permit for any buildings on the property. (4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 19 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 07 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The applicant has submitted a grading and erosion control plan as part of the phasing plan. The Stormwater Superintendent has reviewed the plans and given the size of the parcel, it will be subject to all levels of state review. 25. The proposed project should adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan should meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. (5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged. As previously stated, there are small encroachments into a Class II wetland on the site. Staff previously recommended a ground delineation of the wetland buffer where it gets close to the rear of the homes proposed along the west side of the road so as to reduce impact by residents of those units. The wetland and wetland buffers shall be protected and should not in any case be used as useable lawn or other recreational areas. This has been accomplished. C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community - supported agriculture. This criterion is not applicable to this application. D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development, the location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned public facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths, streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 20 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 07 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows (2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. (3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. (4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. (1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. (2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. These items have all been previously addressed in this report. (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and neighborhoods shall apply. 9.08 SEQ-NR &NRT Sub -District; Specific Standards The SEQ-NRT sub -district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 400 linear feet; see Figure 9-2 for example. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks 400 feet or longer must include mid -block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. Staff has discussed this at length elsewhere in this report. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 21 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 07 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows (2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets may not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). Staff has discussed this at length elsewhere in this report. (3) Street Connection to Adjoining Parcels. Street stubs are required to be built to the property line and connected to adjacent parcels per section 15.12(D)(4) of these Regulations. Posting signs with a notice of intent to construct future streets is strongly encouraged. Staff has already commented on this matter with respect to the street connection to Vale Drive. This is a requirement of the regulations, as well as part of the original intent of a Vale Drive connection. (4) Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended. The proposed development is a large PUD without individual home lots. This criterion applies to subdivision of land. B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards (1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the NR sub -district are intended to be low -speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Dimensions for public collector and local streets shalt be as set forth in Tables 9-1 and 9-2, and Figures 9-4 and 9-5 of the SBLDR. Staff has already commented on the roadway, sidewalk, and recreation path design. (2) Sidewalks. Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5') in width with an additional minimum five-foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the street. Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, and must be connected in a pattern that promotes walkability throughout the development. The DRB may in its discretion require supplemental sidewalk segments to achieve this purpose. This criterion is being met and are on both sides of the street. Again, the Board should discuss whether any additional pedestrian or bicycle pathways are necessary along Spear Street. (3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3) Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet wide. Street tress shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to the City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30') on center. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 22 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 07 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows The applicant is proposing street trees in accordance with the regulations along both sides of every street. The City Arborist has reviewed the plans. (4) On -street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4). On street parking is appropriate in a small neighborhood. The roadway is of sufficient width and well -planned to accommodate such. Once the road becomes public and is taken over by the City, the City Council will have complete control to dictate either way. (5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and to slow traffic; see Figure 9-6 and Section 9.08(B)(5). The City Engineer and Director of Public Works shall more specifically comment on this issue. (6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian -scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12' to 14') shall be provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces. Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower -intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather than hot -spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety. The applicant has submitted sufficient lighting details. C. Residential Design (1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries for single family and multi -family buildings must face the street. Secondary building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to arterial streets). (2) Building Fagades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but facades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi -private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged. Staff has already addressed the project's compliance with the lot layout and road configuration. The applicant has also addressed the Residential Design, pursuant to Section 9.08(C) of the Regulations, including building orientation, building facades and front building setbacks, placement of garages and parking, and mix of housing types. The applicant has submitted drawings which illustrate the general layout of the proposed units. The applicant has submitted two pages showing the variations in building type (attached). CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 23 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 07 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows (3) Front Building Setbacks. In pedestrian districts, a close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. Buildings should be set back twenty-five feet (25') from the back of sidewalk. This is discussed repeatedly elsewhere in this report. (4) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8') into the front setbacks. Porch, stoop and balcony areas within the front setback shall not be enclosed or weatherized with glazing or other solid materials. This criterion is being met (5) Placement of Garages and Parking. See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9-7. The front building line of the garage must be set behind the front building line of the house by a minimum of eight feet. The plans are in compliance with this requirement. (6) Mix of Housing Types. A mix of housing types is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. Housing types should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of identical housing types. Please see the attached memo from the applicant. This testimony will be added to the decision at a later time, but for now will be sufficient to be referenced as a secondary document. Staff finds this sufficient to meet this criterion. This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district. Therefore it is subject to the provisions of Section 15.18(B). Staff finds that the proposed subdivision is in compliance with all provisions of this section. Respectfully submitted, lt� 0, Cathya V LaRose, AICP, Associate Planner LIST OF REQUESTED WAIVERS The Applicant hereby requests a waiver of the following Regulation(s): 1) Section 9.08 2) Table C-2 See below for specific regulations and information regarding waiver request. 1) Section 9.08 reads as follows: 669.08 SEQ-NRT and SEQ-NR Sub -Districts; Specific Standards The SEQ-NR and SEQ-NRT sub -districts have additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A. Street, block and lot pattern. (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear feet. If it is unavoidable, blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid -block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. Figure 9-2: Typical SEQ -NR and SEQ-NRT Block 1��.5 � i' C_....... .... �.... _.. _. e.. 500' (2) Interconnection of Streets Size and Lot Proportion (a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet." The revised plans depict 5 street blocks having the following lengths: 750', 775', 450' and 170', plus one private street bock measuring 175'. These measurements are between intersecting streets or recreation path connections. The longest block (775') runs between the intersection of Spear Meadow Drive/Vale Drive and Park Street. The next longest block (750') runs from the intersection of Spear Street/Road A and Road B and is necessitated by the configuration of the property and the existence of a Class II Wetlands that cuts through the middle of the property. These two longer blocks could be reduced by introducing intermediate recreation path connections, thereby eliminating the need for a waiver, however, the new connections would not make good planning sense, as one would lead to a dead end at our north property line and the other would be duplicative. 2) The setback language in the SEQ-NR Sub -District section of the LDRs is a recommended guideline and therefore, the requirement in Table C-2 governs. Table C-2 sets forth the following setback requirements: "TABLE C-2 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS by ZONING DISTRICT District Land Use Minimum lot size (max. residential density) Maximum site coverage: Standard setbacks (feet): Buildings only Buildings, parking and all other impervious surfaces Front yard(s) Side yard(s) Rear yard SEQ Single- family SF 15%** 30% 20 10 30 Two- family F24,000SF 15% 30% 20 10 30 All other ,SI, 15% 30% 20 20 30 uses (1.2) We are requesting a waiver of the setback requirement to accommodate additional buffering of the Class II Wetlands, per the recommendation and request of the Development Review Board at Sketch Plan Review. SPEAR MEADOWS BUILDING TYPE SUMMARY 713012010 BLDG TYPE: UNIT 1: UNIT 2 / GARAGE: NOTES: page 1 A Single Family 1,860 sf 3-bedroom, 2 % bath variations: Al SF-M GAR-1 1-car attached garage A2 SF-M GAR-2 2-car attached garage A2r SF-M GAR-2r 2-car attached garage w/ perpendicular access *A2d SF-M n/a 2-car detached garage B Single Family 1,373 sf 2-bedroom, 2 % bath variations: B1 SF-S GAR-1 1-car attached garage *B2 SF-S GAR-2 2-car attached garage B2r SF-S GAR-2r 2-car attached garage w/ perpendicular access B2d SF-S n/a 2-car detached garage BX Single Family 1885 sf 3-bedroom, 2 % bath variations: BX1 SF-SX2 GAR-1X 2"d floor master suite over 1-car attached garage *BX2 SF- SX2 GAR-2X 2"1f floor master suite over 2-car attached garage BX2r SF- SX2 GAR-2Xr 2"d floor master suite over 2-car attached garage w/ perpendicular access C Single Family 1,738 sf 3-bedroom, 2 % bath variations: *C1 SF-L GAR-1 1-car attached garage C2 SF-L GAR-2 2-car attached garage C2r SF-L GAR-2r 2-car attached garage w/ perpendicular access C2d SF-L n/a 2-car detached garage CX Single Family Z200 sf 4-bedroom, 2 'z bath variations: *CX1 SFTH-LX GAR-1X 2d floor master suite over 1-car attached garage CX2 SFTH-LX GAR-2X 2" d floor master suite over 2-car attached garage CX2r SFTH-LX GAR-2Xr 2"d floor master suite over 2-car attached garage w/ perpendicular access * Indicates specific Building Type variation illustrated on SheetA1.0 SPEAR MEADOWS BUILDING TYPE SUMMARY 713012010 BLDG TYPE: UNIT 1: UNIT 2 / GARAGE: NOTES: poge 2 H Duplex (1,421 sf) (1,315 sf) 2-bedroom, 2 % bath + 2-bedroom, 2 bath variations: H *H-alt TH-S TH-S F4 F4-alt 2-car attached garage + 1 car garage below 2-car attached garage + 1 car garage below, with external porch option HX Duplex (1,885 sf) (1,005 sf) 3-bedroom, 2 % bath + 1-bedroom, 1 bath variations: *HX HX-alt SFTH-SX SFTH-SX F3 F3-alt 2-car attached garage + 1 car garage below 2-car attached garage + 1 car garage below, with external porch option J Duplex (1,738 sf) (1,315 sf) 3-bedroom, 2 % bath + 2-bedroom, 2 bath variations: J *J-alt TH-L TH-L F4 F4-alt 2-car attached garage + 1 car garage below 2-car attached garage + 1 car garage below, with external porch option JX Duplex (2,200 sf) (1,005 sf) 4-bedroom, 2 % bath + 1-bedroom, 1 bath variations: JX *JX-alt SFTH-LX SFTH-LX F3 F3-alt 2-car attached garage + 1 car garage below 2-car attached garage + 1 car garage below, with external porch option M Duplex (1,315 sf) (1,315 sf) 2-bedroom, 2 bath + 2-bedroom, 2 bath variations: *M F4 F4 1 car garage below + 1 car garage below N Duplex (1,520 sf) (1, 600 sf) 2-bedroom, 2 bath + 3-bedroom, 2 bath variations: *N F1 F2 2 car attached garage + 1 car garage below P Duplex (1,700 sf) (1,700 sf) 2-bedroom, 2 % bath + 2-bedroom, 2 % bath variations: * P TH-M TH-M 2-car attached garage + 2-car attached garage * Indicates specific Building Type variation illustrated on Sheet Al. Farrell Real Estate P.O. Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402 802-861-3000 fax 802-861-3003 Memo To: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer From: Eric Farrell Date: 1/27/2011 Re: Spear Meadows, 1340 - 1350 Spear Street I am writing to provide additional information in support of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review application we submitted on August 11, 2010. Project Design/Development Goals and Overview We have been asked on several occasions why we are not proposing fewer, larger and more expensive single-family homes, similar to those in adjacent neighborhoods and we have attempted to answer that question clearly and consistently. It is a well known fact that South Burlington needs new housing that is within the reach of average working families. Not only are smaller homes more affordable, they represent the first line of defense in responsible home -energy management. Our goal has always been to provide a variety of smaller more compact homes designed for greener living, while maintaining outdoor spaces, both private and public, for the enjoyment of the residents and their neighbors, including community gardens, public parks and recreation path connections. The final Spear Meadows design accomplishes the 58 LDR's goal for the SEQ of fostering attractive, walk -able neighborhoods that relate to scale, connectivity, and overall building orientation. The innovative design and architectural concept of Spear Meadows promote pedestrian friendly neighborhood living. The design/site planning is consistent with the tenants of "Traditional Neighborhood Design". Land Ownership Organization As depicted on the plans, the project site is subdivided into 7 Parcels and 48 Lots. Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 are common lands surrounding individual building lots. Parcel 5 15 a Community Garden Area to be owned and maintained by the Spear Meadows Homeowners Association. Parcel 6 is a section of private road, to be owned and maintained by the Spear Meadows Homeowners Association. Parcel 7 is a Neighborhood Park to be owned and operated by the City. In addition to the 7 Parcels, there are 48 individual building lots to be owned by the record owners of the buildings constructed thereon (both single family and duplexes). It is our understanding that, because this is a PUD, all of these parcels and lots would be considered a single lot for zoning purposes, wherein internal boundary lines would be ignored. SOUTHEAST QUADRANT (SEQ) Height All of the buildings comply with the 35 foot height limit of the district. Open Space and Resource Protection Spear Meadows includes a generous Neighborhood Park and a Community Garden area that are adjacent to open land affiliated with the Pinnacle at Spear neighborhood to the south. These areas border a Class II wetland that runs through the center of the project site, creating a contiguous open space and wildlife corridor. It is the combination of these contiguous open space elements that present a significant natural area that will enhance the quality of life in the neighborhood. These elements will be preserved in perpetuity. Fencing and landscaping is proposed along the wetlands buffer for its protection. In addition to such barriers, an Open Space Management Plan will be promulgated and administered by the Spear Meadows Homeowners' Association. Agriculture We are studying the feasibility of incorporating the concepts of 'Permaculture' at Spear Meadows as an ecological design for sustainability of human endeavor into the landscape planting plan that will integrate local food production into the proposed development. Edible plantings have been incorporated around the proposed housing units, at the perimeter of wetland buffers, around storm water features and along side of pedestrian paths. A center to this approach will be anchored with a 1.82 acre Community Garden area. The landscape plans as presented include nearly 300 fruit and nut trees including, apples, pears, plums, cherries and hazelnuts and over 600 berry bushes including raspberries, black Berries, juneberries, bush cherries, gooseberries, black currants and red currants. Opportunity also exists to incorporate edible ground covers, such as Strawberries, Creeping Thyme, Chamomile, Mint and Lemon Balm. As development plans are further defined other programs through the Homeowners' Association may be possible, such as community organized composting and rain water harvesting. • Page 2 The 1.82 acre Community Gardens is planned to host 36 individual garden plots, each 10 x 20 feet, a 100 x 140 foot area designated for a shared community vegetable garden, a small fruit tree orchard, and a border of raspberries, blackberries and hazelnut bushes. An area of approximately 100 by 150 feet has been left undesignated that could accommodate expansion of any one or a combination of all three major components of the Community Gardens. A larger orchard is proposed near the storm water management pond along Spear Meadow Road. Other edible plantings are integrated throughout the community. A need to provide a buffer between proposed residential units and the recreational path along the eastern boundary of the project site was accomplished through a mix of fruiting trees and shrubs. As well, a combination of fruit and nut producing plantings line other pedestrian paths, designate the border of wetland buffers and surround storm water retention areas. Harvesting, pruning and other maintenance of the edible plantings will be managed through the Homeowners' Association and may include collaboration with a tenant farmer or maintenance company with added expertise to ensure continued perseverance and care of the plantings. The planting design will provide fresh quality local food for the residents of the Spear Meadows neighborhood and provide an opportunity for them to participate in and appreciate the "work" in growing food sustainably. Public Services and Facilities We have met with officials in the City to determine the validity of the design of Spear Meadows with respect to this section. Comments have been incorporated into the current design. Circulation In formulating the plans for Spear Meadows, keeping in mind the need for safe and efficient vehicular movements while safeguarding pedestrians and alternative modes of transportation, we created a street and recreation path network that is both convenient and accessible for the residents and visitors. The infrastructure provides linkage between adjacent neighborhoods and affords easy access to the proposed City Park and future Recreation Path connections. Street, Sidewalk A Parking Standards We have met with City officials to ensure we are in compliance with street regulations with respect to intersection design, on -street parking layout and design, sidewalks and lighting. Spear Meadows actually exceeds the required sidewalk standard by placing sidewalks on both sides of the street, providing improved safety for residents and visitors, as well as improved access. Although we do not strictly meet the building setback guideline, the benefit is a greater fostering of increased "front porch interaction". • Page 3 Also under this regulation, the proposed development exceeds the requirement for the green space planting strip. The additional width ensures the continued health and longevity of the street trees. Public Park Area Per the LDR's, at 2.25 occupants per dwelling unit and a required park area of 7.5 acres per 1,000 person population of the development, the 70 units proposed would require a park area of 1.19 acres (70 x 2.25 = 158 persons / 1,000 persons x 7.5 acres = 1.19 acres). The proposed plans depict a "Neighborhood Park" on Parcel 7 containing 2.253 acres, fully 1.06 acres more than required. The public park will be owned by the City of South Burlington and contain a full basketball court, off street parking for approximately 10 cars and a spacious passive recreation area, subject to the approval of the Recreation Board. It will be accessible by a city -owned roadway (Park Street) and an extension of the recreation path network. The proposed plans also depict a Community Garden Area on Parcel 5 for the exclusive use of residents of the Spear Meadows development. It will be located adjacent to the public park and contain approximately 1.852 acres. It will be owned and operated by the Spear Meadows Homeowners Association. Both the public park and the community garden area are contiguous to the natural area that was preserved in connection with the Pinnacle at Spear development to the south many years ago. Street Blocks and Street Connections to Ad ioinina Parcels There are six public street blocks, having the following lengths: 750', 775', 450' and 170', plus one private street bock measuring 175', which will also be constructed to City standards. These measurements are between intersecting streets or recreation path connections. The main public street is proposed at 26 feet wide, allowing for undesignated parking on one side; 18 feet at the wetland crossings and 24 feet for the Vale Drive connection. Sidewalks are proposed at 5 feet wide; and the street -side green belt area is proposed at 6.5 feet wide to accommodate generous street trees, in full compliance with the LDR's. The street and Recreation Path connections to Vale Drive will link the two neighborhoods providing residents of both neighborhoods with "non -circuitous" driving routes to local destinations. Although some of the block lengths do not conform to the regulations, the overall design of Spear Meadows enhances the livability of the neighborhood and provides for the most efficient vehicular pattern and layout for alternative modes of transportation within the constraints of the natural features of the project site. • Page 4 Building Orientation and Glazing Through the use of creative design and theme/variation architecture, each and every residential unit in the development is oriented to the street, as depicted on Drawing L001. There is direct access from the sidewalk to each front door. Per the attached Memorandum and Schedules from studio b architecture, our current plan yields 29% "translucent windows and surfaces oriented to the south". The irregular shape of the parcel makes it difficult to reach the 35% guideline, while satisfying the regulation of orientating all buildings to the street. Front Building Setbacks The homes fronting on the street are set back 15 - 20 feet from the public ROW and some of the porches are set back 10 feet from the public ROW. In combination with a 5 foot sidewalk and 6.5 foot green belt, this juxtaposition will present an intimate local street experience and serve to foster conversation between passing pedestrians and residents. The reduced front yard setbacks also allow for greater buffering from the Class II wetlands, as recommended by the DRB at Sketch Plan Review. Placement of Garages and Parking At Spear Meadows, our goal was to avoid a row of garages facing the street. Of the 48 buildings proposed, 4 single family homes have garages that face the street. Two of these garages are to the rear of the main house and two are set back from the front fa4ade of the house. In all other instances, the garages are located behind the buildings and do not face the street. Mix of Housing Types & Building Facades The architectural design of the proposed development intends to lend the feel of the Vermont farmhouse, with many variations of porch design, window design and door placement with smaller "farmhouse" buildings in the foreground and larger "barn" buildings located to the rear. Each building has a front porch of varied design that orients to the street. Consistency is offered through color palette and conceptual design, while variation is offered through type of unit and front porch size and type. There are 5 basic single family building models, across which there are small, medium and large floor plan alternatives resulting in different home styles ranging in size from 1,373 sf to 2,200 • Page 5 sf. In addition to the floor plan alternatives, there are several garage arrangements, both attached and detached, which will serve to add even more variety to the building configurations. There are 7 basic duplex building models, townhouses, flat -over -flats and carriage units (flat over a garage), within which there are several floor plan alternatives. This results in different building styles ranging in size from 2,736 sf to 3,400 sf (both units). Within the different building styles, there are 9 variations of individual unit floor plans ranging in size from 1,005 sf to 2,200 sf. The average size of a duplex structure is consistent in scale and massing with the existing single family and duplex structures in the surrounding neighborhoods. The building facades employ a common theme, while also presenting sufficient variation so as to not be monotonous. All of the individual buildings present a diverse streetscape due to varying home sizes, roof orientation, exterior fenestration and porch design and garage access. Taking all these facts into consideration, Spear Meadows likely offers more variation and mix of housing types than any other development currently permitted in South Burlington. Recreation Path Committee Recommendations The proposed plans incorporates all of the recommendations of previous Recreation Path Committee reviews, including locating the recreation path along the easterly boundary line of the project site, making various connections to the street -sidewalk network within the development and eliminating the berm along Spear Street (in front of Gary's existing home), so as to accommodate a future recreation path along the east side of Spear Street. At the most recent Recreation Path Committee meeting, on September 13, 2010 (minutes attached), a bike lane along the Spear Street frontage and a 10-foot easement along the entire westerly boundary of the Community Garden Area was requested. In response to these two new requests, we will re -design the east side of Spear Street to accommodate a bike lane. We will provide a 10-foot wide easement from the Neighborhood Park to a point on the western boundary line of the Community Garden Area, such point to be determined when and if the City acquires an easement for the future installation of a Recreation Path to connect to Spear Street. Landscaping Budget Total building costs are estimated at $12,000,000. At the rate of 3.0% times the first $250,000 in costs; 2.0% times the next $250,000 in costs; and 1.0% times the balance, the total amount of required landscape plantings is $127,500. We have proposed total landscape plantings of $257,296, plus Street Trees of $52,525, plus Park plantings of $16,760. • Page 6 FRB Meeting We intend to have our plans available on power -point for easier viewing by the DRB and the public and hope to be able to address any other areas of the LDR's that I may have overlooked in this memo. Our presentation will include various streetscape elevations to demonstrate and reinforce the diversity and quality of the design. Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information. Attachments • Page 7 The building configurations are as follows: Single Family Homes • 1 - existing Single -Family Home — 1 unit • 25 - new Single -Family Homes — 25 units Duplex Buildings • Ground Floor Flats — 6 units • Flat over a Flat — 6 units • Flats over Garage —16 units • Townhouse — 16 units Phasinq We propose to permit the project as one phase, which will be built out over several years depending on market conditions. We request permission to construct the first 31 units using our base density, at which time we will purchase and provide TDR's from the Leduc Farm for the remaining 39 units. We request permission to construct the first 50 units, which would take us up to the intersection of Road B (ultimately to be an extension of Vale Drive) and Road C, before being required to complete the connection to the existing Vale Drive cul-du-sac. Review by Public Works Director Prior to issuing the revised plans, the Project Engineer reviewed them with Justin Rabidoux, Public Works Director. We believe the plans, as submitted, meet all of his requirements set forth in his 9/28/10 Memo, some of which he has since modified. DRB Meetinq Please schedule us before the DRIB at its convenience and let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information. Attachments 0 Page 2 RECREATION PATH COMMITTEE September 13, 2010 The Recreation Path Committee held its regular monthly meeting on Monday, September 13, 2009, at 7:00 pm in the small conference room at the city office building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair; David Jacobowitz; Vice Chair, Rick Hubbard; Secretary, Ed Darling; Lou Bresee, Bill Cimonetti, Donna Leban ALSO PRESENT: Tom Hubbard, Recreation Director; Eric Farrell and Danielle Fisette, representing Farrell Real Estate, to discuss the Spear Meadows Development; and Michael Buscher, representing T. J. Boyle Associates, Landscape Architect for the Spear Meadows development. We requested a bike lane on Spear St. We recommend that a deeded easement be provided from the planned and shown recreation path to any point on the western boundary line at the community gardens in parcel 5, with the intent of an eventual connection to Spear St. We discussed the placement of a path in the Parcel 5 and Parcel 7 area —where a neighborhood park and community gardens will be located. The park will be owned by the City, the gardens by owners of residences in the development. The committee reiterated its recommendation to have an easement along the western boundary to allow for a future connection to Spear Street at some location at some point in the future. The path width will be 10 feet. Notes from the August 2 meeting were mentioned. Since these are notes, they were not formally approved. Tom will send the June minutes for review. The AOT grant project is virtually finished. Signage has been placed, the last remaining step to completion, and the balance of the bill will be submitted for payment. The committee will share thoughts on plans for an official Grand Opening sometime in October. DRB update: There may be a proposed development on Highland Terrace which could involve the committee's asking for an easement. The committee wants to keep track of similar plans for other parcels of land that might be subdivided, so that easements can be requested when appropriate. Queen City Park Road -Shelburne Rd. update: there was some discussion about the right- of-way. Path maintenance: leaves should be removed before they become slippery. Tom will talk with Justin about the mowing schedule for grass, brush, and overhanging branches. The 50UTff �uRLINGTo FIRE DEP"I November 5, 2010 South Burlington Fire Department 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4110 Fax (802) 846-4125 Mr. Ray Belair City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Spear Meadows, Date of Plans 8-6-10 Dear Ray: I have reviewed the re -worked plans for the Spear Meadows project. These are the first plans I have reviewed since they changed from only single family dwellings. I have the following recommendations: I am not sure what the plans are for the cul de sac currently at the end of Vale Drive. It will be extremely difficult for our larger firefighting apparatus to negotiate through that segment of highway if it is not removed. 2. Due to the private access roads to a lot of the structures, all but the stand-alone single family structures which face/front on Vale Drive, must have an approved NFPA 13 D sprinkler system installed in each occupancy. I believe that the buildings which need to have sprinklers are; 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 13, 15, 22, 26, 32 ,36, 38, 41, 43, 46, and 48. 3. Installation of the necessary fire alarms and carbon monoxide detectors as required for occupancies such as these. 4. Compliance with all requirements of Vermont Division of Fire Safety codes and standards. 5. I am concerned with the name "Park Street". We currently have a "Park Road" and believe for emergency response purposes that a different name should be given. Page — 2 6. Install a hydrant in the vicinity of or at the end of Park Street. With that exception the number and location of fire hydrants are acceptable and should be approved and finalized by the South Burlington Water Department. 7. Trees and plantings should be located so as not to block windows or interfere with the use of the aerial ladder for rescue and firefighting purposes. This looks like it could be an issue with some of the trees shown. S. Trees and plantings should be located so as not to interfere with the deployment of firefighting equipment and hoselines. 9. The access road/driveway widths within the clusters need to be sized to allow for parking, set-up and operation of fire apparatus. At this point these seem to be the major issues which present themselves. As this project moves forward additional items may surface which could be dealt with as needed with the assistance of the developer and/or the Vermont Division of Fire Safety. Should you need any further assistance on this project please feel free to contact me. Ognur y,� as S. Brent Chief of Fire and EMS south o PUBLIC WORKS MEMO To: Cathyann LaRose From: Justin Rabidoux, Director Date: September 28, 2010 Re: Preliminary Plat #SD-10-20 and Master Plan #MP-10-01, Farrell Real Estate, 70 Unit PUD, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street —Spear Meadows Project Public Works staff reviewed plans for the referenced project ("SPEAR MEADOWS", dated 8/6/10, prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.) and has the following comments to offer. Water 1. An Application for Water Allocation must be completed and returned to the South Burlington Water Department as soon as possible. A CWD Wholesale tapping application must also be completed and returned in order to tap the 24" CWD transmission main. All tapping fees must be paid prior to scheduling any work. 2. Based upon the final water allocation request, water service fees shall be applied to the project based on the current Rate and Fee Schedule. It must be recognized by all developers that the Rate and Fee Schedule established by the South Burlington City Council may be modified by resolution at an open meeting of the City Council, and therefore subject to change prior to completion of the project. 3. All construction drawings and plans shall have a note saying "All water line and related work to be performed in accordance with the Specifications and Details for the Installation of Waterlines and Appurtenances for all Water Systems Owned by the Champlain Water District, the City of South Burlington, Colchester Fire District #1, and the Village of Jericho, dated February, 2007, henceforth "CWD Specification." 4. All water installation work and water distribution material must comply with the CWD Specifications. Details for this project must be the same as those within the above referenced CWD Specifications. 5. All domestic services and fire sprinkler systems that are connected to the public water system shall be protected with a backflow prevention assembly and an appropriate thermal expansion system in compliance with the Ordinance for the Control of Cross Connections within the Water System of the City of South Burlington, henceforth the "Backflow Ordinance." Please contact this department for more information on backflow protection devices. 6. Page specific comments: a. Sheet C4.0 — The valve cluster at the waterline tee (Sta. 107+80 LT) should include valves on all legs of the tee, and should connect to the tee via Foster Adapters. S75 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT OS403 tel 802.658.7961 fax 802.658.7976 www.sburi.com Physical Address 104 Landfill Road South Burlington Spear Meadows Project Public Works Review Comments September 29. 2010 b. Sheet C4.0 — The 90" bend shown in the waterline in front of Lot #6 shall be replaced with two (2) 45' bends. c. Sheet C4.2 — Please delete the two (2) valves that are shown on either side of the tapping sleeve on the 24" ductile iron line. d. Sheet C6.2 — Details show a check valve vault and an air release manhole. Previous plan reviews indicate that they are necessary. Please show these respective locations on the waterline plan and profile views. e. Sheet C7.2 — Please update all specifications regarding waterline work to reflect the February 2007 edition of the CWD Specifications. 7. CWD Specifications state that no water lines shall be installed after November 15 or before April 1 without prior approval of the Superintendent. The Superintendent may restrict work before November 15 and after April 1 during adverse weather conditions. 8. Looping of all water lines shall be a design requirement. As presently designed, the project loop is generated by connecting the CWD High Service via the 24" line tap on Swift Street, and connecting to the Reduced Pressure Zone via the 8" connection at Vale Drive. This interconnection of distinctly different pressure zones is not allowed. The best possible solution would be to change the Vale Drive connection to Meadowood Drive (via easement), thus creating a loop entirely within the High Service pressure zone. 9. Eight -inch and larger ductile iron (DI) water pipe shall have no less than three (3) brass wedges installed at each joint. Bury depth to the new main shall be six feet (6') to the top of the pipe. 10. All DI pipe and fittings shall be poly -wrapped and sealed with tape approved by the poly - wrap manufacturer. 11. Mechanical joint restraints with twist off nuts shall be EBAA or Sigma, or a Department approved equal. 12. Fire hydrants shall be placed at each intersection, with a maximum of 500' between hydrants. Fire hydrant assemblies shall consist of an anchor tee connected directly to a six-inch RW gate valve, the appropriate length of 6" DI pipe, the fire hydrant, and appropriate thrust block. All hydrants shall meet the CWD Specifications, and a hydrant flag shall be supplied with each hydrant. Hydrant shall have all drains plugged prior to installation. Fire hydrants may be Kennedy K81A, Mueller Centurion or Waterous Pacer. The same brand hydrant shall be used throughout the entire project. Note: Waterous fire hydrants must be installed with a "Boston Operating Nut." 13. All curb boxes shall be installed with a stainless steel rod. 14. No underground utility shall be installed within four feet from the water main on either side, from the top of the main to the finish grade, with the exception of storm sewer and sanitary sewer as stated in the CWD Specifications. Generally, trees shall not be placed over any water main or service line, nor placed within 20' of any appurtenance, including fire hydrants. 15. Separation between the water main and service line and nearby sanitary and storm sewer lines shall comply with the VT WSR requirements and CWD Specifications. 16. The SBWD shall be sent any future hard copy plans involving this project for review. Future plans must include details and specifications as required in the CWD Specifications. 17. The SBWD shall be notified prior to backfilling to inspect all joints, fittings, main line taps, appurtenances, water line crossings, and testing. 18. A hard copy set of As-Builts as well as one electronic copy in AutoCAD.dwg Version 14 or newer shall be supplied to Public Works upon completion of the water system improvements. 19. The water service to the community gardens shall have a vault for a meter and shut off. Page 2 of 6 Spear Meadows Project Public Works Review Comments September 29, 2010 Highway 20, Sheet C4.1 — Existing sewer main in Vale Drive cul-de-sac — should the main be extended now for the existing building lot rather than having road completely dug up later for a new service and main extension? 21. Sheet C6.0 — Typical Sanitary Sewer Manhole, Note #1, why would inverts be constructed after? SMH's shall be purchased with shelves and inverts already in place. This practice is better for the long term maintenance of the structure. 22. Sheet C6.3 —Typical Concrete Sidewalk Detail, the sidewalk shall be 8" through driveways. Expansion Joints shall be every 10' not every 20' as called for in Note 1. 23. Sheet C6.3 — Typical Roadway Section, all underground utilities are shown except for natural gas. 24. Sheet C6.4 — Detectable Warning Details, Note 6 should read "See the City of South Burlington ..." 25. Sheet C6.4 — Crosswalk Detail, Intersection grade 3M tape is preferred over thermoplastic with the only allowable provision being thermoplastic is would be required to be set in routed groves and be flush with finished pavement surface. Please revise the detail accordingly. 26. There are multiple "roundabouts" shown in the bike path. Without knowing the function of these, we recommend removing them from the plan. 27. If the city is to plow Park Street, the parking spaces adjacent to the Neighborhood Park shall be paved. 28, All references to pavement thickness, be it the replacement of existing or new pavement sections, shall consist of at a minimum, 2 %2" Type II base and 1 '/2" Type III wearing. 29. Are any stop signs proposed for the two new three way intersections at each Vale Drive intersection? What about crosswalks or other pavement markings? 30. The proposed left turn lane and associated taper on Spear Street shall be reviewed in further detail with the city. Stormwater 31. It appears that this project will disturb greater than 1 acre of land and create greater than 1 acre of impervious area. Therefore, this project will need both a construction stormwater permit (3-9020 or individual permit) and an operational stormwater permit (3-9015 or individual permit) from the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Stormwater Division. Obtaining these two permits shall be a condition of approval for this project. 32. FinaI hydrologic modeling information submitted to DEC should also be submitted to Public Works for review, comment, and inclusion in a Potash Brook watershed model maintained by the Stormwater Utility. 33. Sheet C1.2 shows a phasing plan for development. Will this same phasing plan be part of the stormwater construction permit submitted to the DEC stormwater section in order to obtain a 3-9020 permit? The DRB may want to consider a condition requiring the applicant to stabilize the soil on the previous project phase prior to starting construction on the next phase of development. 34. The erosion control plan (sheets C5.0 through C5.2) should show the location(s) of the stabilized construction entrance. 35. Silt fence shall be installed down gradient of the detention basin to the south of Spear Meadow Road 36. The proposed project crosses a Class 2 wetland in two locations. This project will need a conditional use determination from the DEC Wetlands Division. Obtaining this permit shall be a condition of approval for this project. Page 3 of 6 l Spear Meadows Project Public Works Review Comments September 29, 2010 37. Some of the proposed units back up to the class 2 wetland and associated buffer (e.g. units 7, 8, 32, 36, 38, 41, 43, 46 and 48). Use of this buffer area is regulated under section 12.02 of the City's Land Development Regulations (LDRs). The DRB should pay particular attention to section 12.02.E(1) through 12.02.E(3) of the LDRs and my want to include a condition that this buffer area not be turned into lawn. 38. The plans show stotmwater detention basins inside easements in favor of the City. The applicant should be aware that the City has a process for taking over stormwater facilities in residential neighborhoods. This policy is outlined in a City Council resolution dated August 21, 2006. For new development, the City takes over eligible stormwater infrastructure (pipes, basins, etc) at the same time that it accepts roadways. 39. The City uses a minimum 15" pipe for stormwater drainage in public ROW or in easements proposed for future City ownership. 40. In order to minimize the total amount of runoff generated, the project designers are encouraged to implement Low Impact Development (LID) as described in the City's Low Impact Development Guidance Manual. This document can be found on-line at htIR://www.sburlstorTnwater.com/downloads/manuals/SB Low Impact Development M anual.pdf or by contacting the city's stormwater superintendent. 41. The plans shall include appropriate maintenance access to the stormwater detention basins, to be reviewed and approved in the future. 42. At wetland crossings on the Spear Meadows site the applicant is proposing to use four (4) 15" HDPE culverts. The applicant should discuss how they arrived at this pipe size and configuration and discuss any other possible culvert size/types that were considered for these locations. 43. Directly downstream of the Spear Meadows development there are three (3) existing culverts. The first is a City -owned 18" HDPE pipe that crosses under Spear Street (the culvert location would be on page C4.2 at roughly station 2+50). The second is a 24" corrugated metal pipe owned by UVM on the Wheelock farm. The third is a 36" HDPE pipe under the bike path owned by the City on the Wheelock Farm. As per section 15.13(F)(3) of the LDRs, the applicant should provide hydrologic modeling to show that development of the Spear Meadows project will not increase flow and overwhelm the existing downstream culverts and the drainage swales between them. This analysis should be conducted using the 25 year, 24 hour storm event and submitted to the stormwater superintendent for review and approval. 44. Sheet C6.5 — Typical Storm Manhole, the minimum sump shall be 18". Landscaping 45. All cultivars of Ash are unacceptable species in South Burlington due to over planting. A substitute species shall be used. 46. I would recommend species other than Viburnum dentatum and Viburnum trilobum. Both of these are very susceptible to damage from Viburnum leaf beetle, which is becoming a problem in South Burlington. The following species are much less susceptible to attack: a. V. carlesii, Koreanspice Viburnum b. V. plicatum, Doublefile Viburnum c. V plicatum var. tomentosum, Doublefile Viburnum d. V, rhytidophylum, Leatherleaf Viburnum e. V. sieboldii, Siebold Viburnum 47. Tsuga canadensis is listed in the planting schedule, and is incorrectly identified as Canadian Hawthorn; it should be Canadian Hemlock. Hemlock is not well adapted to the poorly drained clay soils on this site and a substitute species shall be proposed. Page 4 of 6 Spear Meadows Project Public Works Review Comments September 29, 2010 48. Golden Weeping Willow is a great choice for wetland buffers; however, there are several locations where this species is located in close proximity to sewer lines and storm sewer lines. Due to the invasiveness of willow root systems, this species should not be located within 50' of sewer or storm sewer lines. 49. The Freeman Maples located on the back of lots 16 and 17 are almost directly on top of the sewer line. These trees should be relocated a minimum of 10 feet from the sewer line. 50. There are several locations where trees are located directly over or within a couple of feet of where water services tap into the water main. Tree spacing should be altered to leave maximum clearance as described in the Water section above around these intersections. 51. We recommend reconsidering the use of Hackberry. Locally it does not do very well in clay soils. Some of the disease resistant elm cultivars would be a good substitution 52. Island in the recreation path shows 54 Thuja occidentalis 'Nigra' planted in a 10 foot diameter island; this is a lot of plantings in such a small area. Who would maintain these in the future? 53. As a general note, all root wrapping material shall be removed at time of planting. 54. In the landscaping specifications, 3.02 Seeding- eliminate the clause, "when a soil test is not available, the following minimum amounts should be applied". All fertilization and/or lime applications should be based on a soil test. Sewer 55. Drawing sheet C6.1: Sewer Pump Station Pump Detail a. Pump Station and Valve Pit Plan i. Junction box shall be located outside of wetwell otherwise confined space entry is required for access and maintenance. ii. Slide rails shall be stainless steel. iii. Emergency connection needs to be cam and groove female. b. Pump Station Design Data i. Our calculations show the storage requirements shall be 15,552 gallons (EPFP). c. Control Panel Detail i. Control panel will be equipped with the city's SCADA system, not bell and light. Please contact the Sewer Division for more details. 56. If the city is to own the pump station there shall be adequate access for maintenance and service with utility and tanker trucks. Traffic 57. The traffic study submitted by RSG, Inc. dated August 2010 analyzing a 69 unit development was reviewed. Are the number and classification of units in the traffic study consistent with the plans submitted? Also, is Land Use Code #210 appropriate to use given the mixed use nature of the development? Is it consistent with the developer's plans for the ownership of the units? 58. Overall I concur with the study's findings and agree the project will not cause undue adverse traffic or safety conditions on the local roadway network. Of particular note the volume to capacity ratios and levels of service are within acceptable levels and meet state standards. 59. The northern sight distance for vehicles exiting the site and turning left onto Spear Street who look north for southbound Spear Street traffic, continues to be a concern. The study conditionally states it will be sufficient, but finds that more analysis is needed once the hedge row is removed. I agree that it should be re-evaluated in the future. Page 5 of 6 l i Spear Meadows Project Public Works Review Comments September 29, 2010 60. As mentioned above in the Highway comments, the city will meet with the designer and go over the details of the new Spear Street left turn lane, taper and associated pavement markings prior to its construction. All pavement markings shall be VTrans spec 646.07, Durable Pavement Markings. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and please let me know if you have questions. Page 6 of 6 r South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 —Southeast Quadrant CHAPTER VIII SOUTHEAST QUADRANT GOAL STATEMENT: It is a goal of this City to support a planned strategy for land conservation and neighborhood development in the Southeast Quadrant that preserves areas of ecological significance, creates a cohesive and publicly accessible open space system, and encourages neighborhood development patters, including street systems, that create walkable neighborhoods, a range of housing choices, and a strong sense of place. It is a further goal of this City to create a small, appropriately -scaled and designed neighborhood service center in the SEQ and a circulation system that balances automobile transportation with bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes in a safe, integrated system.. The development and ultimate land use pattern in the Southeast Quadrant of South Burlington is of critical importance to South Burlington's future. Creating a balance between housing, complimentary land uses, and conservation, especially conservation of key natural communities and habitat features, will happen through continuous planning, public involvement, and the thoughtful use of the City's land acquisition funds and regulatory tools. From 2001 through 2005, the Planning Commission embarked on a series of studies and plans that underpin this Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The findings and goals of the Open Space Strategy (2002), Ecological Assessment (2004), Bird Habitat Study (2004), and SEQ Concept Plan (2005), are embodied in the goals and objectives of this Comprehensive Plan. Implementing these goals and objectives will ensure that the SEQ becomes a vibrant, ecologically healthy district over the long term. A. Land Use Setting The Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) comprises 3,900 acres or 37% of South Burlington's land area, and is the focus of much of the City's future land use planning and land conservation effort. For purposes of this chapter, the SEQ is bounded by Spear Street to the west, Interstate 89 to the north, the Muddy Brook to the east, and the Shelburne town line to the south. It includes all of the Southeast Quadrant zoning district, and portions of the Industrial -Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and Residential-2 zoning districts. South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 54 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 —Southeast Quadrant The SEQ, which has developed and changed substantially since the early 1990s, has a remarkable variety of land uses. It remains South Burlington's least developed and most open land use district. It is home to several significant natural areas, such as the Great Swamp and Cheese Factory Swamp, which include areas with largely intact natural communities; a patchwork of hayfields, pastures and early successional "old fields" reflecting the area's agricultural heritage; and several of the City's largest stands of hardwoods. It is also home to the Vermont National Country Club and roughly nine hundred homes, with another six hundred homes in various stages of permitting. Dorset Park, located at the district's far northwest end, is now home to two ice rinks and the City's largest concentration of recreation fields. Dorset Park has become an important community gathering place for the entire City, with its constant flow of activity and hub of recreation path connections. Commercial uses in the residential portions of the Southeast Quadrant have declined in recent years, particularly with the closing of the area's last dairy farm in 2004. The Chittenden Cider Mill, however, continues its retail operations and is a well-known landmark and neighborhood store. Larger -scale commercial and light industrial uses in the far northwest of the district, within the Industrial -Open Space district, include Verizon, CBA, Dynapower, the Lane Press, and more recent office construction. The Ireland Quarry continues operations along the Interstate near the Muddy Brook. B. Natural Resources Setting The SEQ's natural resources are among the City's finest environmental assets. Marked by a pair of distinct north -south ridges between Spear and Dorset Streets, and between Dorset Street and Hinesburg Road, the SEQ also contains the headwaters of Shelburne Pond, Monroe Brook, Bartlett Brook and Potash Brook, and a large swath of the Muddy Brook basin. These resources, particularly the natural communities, were documented in the 2004 report "Wildlife and Natural Communities Assessment of the Southeast Quadrant, South Burlington, Vermont" by Arrowwood Environmental (the "SEQ Assessment"). The six focus areas defined in the SEQ Assessment are summarized below, along with descriptions of other important natural resource characteristics of the SEQ. South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 55 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 —Southeast Quadrant General Environmental Conditions: Soils, Ridges, and Watersheds Soils: The SEQ's soils are characterized by a shallow depth to groundwater and moderate permeability, with many rock outcrops found throughout the area. The soil types are chiefly Vergennes and Covington clays with gentle slopes, which are classified as having moderately high agricultural potential. Additional soil types include smaller areas of Stockbridge and Farmington soils. Ridges and Watersheds: Two north -south ridges define the watersheds in the SEQ. The first begins at Dorset Park, south of the interstate between Dorset Street and Hinesburg Road, and heads south to the City line. Water falling to the west of this ridge goes into Lake Champlain via Bartlett Brook and North Brook. The second ridge roughly parallels Hinesburg Road, and continues south to the City line. Water falling east of this ridge feeds into Muddy Brook and flows north to the Winooski River. The fate of water falling between the two ridges is complex. An imaginary line south of Old Cross Road and extending east to Muddy Brook roughly defines the direction of flow. South of this line, water will flow south through the watershed, into Shelburne Pond, and out into Muddy Brook. North of the line, water flows into Potash Brook and then Shelburne Bay. Natural Communities and Habitat Areas Within the SEQ, the SEQ Assessment determined that there are six distinct groupings of natural features that form unique habitat areas, each with different resource, aesthetic, and habitat values. These sub- areas, and their key values, are summarized below, and in Map 9: Southeast Quadrant Natural Communities and Buffers. #1 Muddy Brook Corridor: The Muddy Brook corridor at the northeastern end of the SEQ includes the brook, its surrounding wetlands, and adjacent upland forest and early successional agricultural fields. The area has a high vegetative diversity, which along with the Brook helps support habitat for a variety of wildlife including mink, muskrat, herons and fish. Noted natural community areas associated with the corridor include the Dubois Swamp, a flooded red maple -black ash swamp, and the Van Sicklen Woods, a 12- acre Clay Plain forest that has been assessed as part of a statewide Clay Plain forest inventory. South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 56 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 —Southeast Quadrant #2 Muddy Brook Basin: The Muddy Brook Basin in the southeastern corner of the SEQ includes the Muddy Brook, its associated wetlands, the adjacent farm fields and pastures, and nearby small woodlots. Field visits during the SEQ Assessment found evidence that this area is used by gray and red fox, mink, river otter, muskrat, and coyote, as well as by many hydrophilic birds. Ecologically, this area extends well beyond South Burlington into the adjacent areas of Williston, Shelburne, and St. George. #3 The Great Swamp: The Great Swamp area, perhaps the City's most unique and important natural area, is centered on a hardwood swamp on the ridge east of Spear Street. It includes upland forests, shrubby successional fields, and wetlands. The large Red Maple -Black Ash swamp, which is notable among other features for the lack of invasive species present within it, appears to be the "Higbee Swamp" that is referred to in a variety of historical scientific collections at the University of Vermont. Five rare plant species were found in this swamp near the turn of the last century. While these species are not likely to have persisted, the Great Swamp is perhaps the most intact and important natural communitv area within South Burlington. rk a r ail . �� �; � _ � t♦' �.� s Ali � ro �qq1 � w S. V I`tl y 1F8+rY Natural Communities and Generalized Habitat Areas in the SEQ Source: Arrowwood Environmental, January 2005 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 57 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 —Southeast Quadrant #4 Spear Street frontage: The area east of Spear Street and west of the Great Swamp is a mix of small wooded areas, old agricultural fields, and shrubby and emergent wetlands. This area's key significance is that it acts as an ecological buffer between the Great Swamp and the more developed areas to the west. #5 The Bowl: This area, in the south-central portion of the SEQ, contains some of the most substantial concentrations of wetland and wildlife resources in the sEQ and has been the focus of the city's land conservation efforts since 2002. The large wetland complex called the "Cheese Factory Swamp" straddling Cheese Factory Road, and the mixed hardwood communities just north and west of the swamp, are key parts of this area. Field inventories during the SEQ Assessment found signs that the area is home to bobcat, gray and red fox, coyote, wild turkey, and numerous other animal and bird species. #6 Calkins Property and Associated Lands: The City -owned Calkins property just north of the SEQ zoning boundary was found during the SEQ Assessment to be an important haven for wildlife. It is comprised of a series of open spaces and small woodlots on the Golf Course, and other nearby properties, along with some old field areas and wetlands. The diverse combination and proximity of different wetlands, streams, hardwood forest, and old field areas makes this an important "cluster" of features that act as wildlife habitat. Views The SEQ affords some of the City's most scenic views of the Adirondacks, Camel's Hump, and the ridges and valleys stretching south to Shelburne Pond. The City has protected what are deemed to be the most important public views from existing and proposed public properties through the View Protection Overlay Zone (VPZ). Other significant views have been evaluated through the SEQ Concept Plan. Areas that should be protected through height and site plan standards in the Land Development Regulations and design guidelines have been identified through the SEQ Planning Process. Historic and Cultural Resource The SEQ contains many remnants of the City's agricultural heritage, including old barns, stone walls, hedgerows, and some of the City's very few structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Old Stone House at the corner of Hinesburg and Van Sicklen Roads was renovated recently, greatly enhancing the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 58 C A visual quality of Van Sicklen Road. South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 -Southeast Quadrant Conservation and adaptive re -use of these structures is important and should be encouraged where possible; staff assistance in seeking grant funding can be an important way of accomplishing this goal. Allowing an expanded use of the Chittenden Cider Mill is intended, in part, to ensure longer -term preservation of the building as a historic and cultural resource. C. Housing Patterns and Housing Demand The past ten years have seen a great deal of housing development in the SEQ zoning district and adjacent areas, ranging from large single- family houses to more densely -developed triplex units. The past five years have seen a marked trend towards duplex and smaller single- family units in the SEQ, where previously larger single-family homes made up most of the new housing supply. South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 59 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 —Southeast Quadrant Residential Developments in the SEQ, 1985-2005 Name Year # of Single- # of Duplex/ Zoning Permitted Family Multi -Family District Units Units Ledge Knoll 1986 57 0 SEQ Butler Farms 1989 155 0 SEQ Oak Creek SEQ Village 1992 115 0 Village at SEQ Dorset Park 63 104 Indian Creek 59 R2 Swift Estates 16 0 R2 Vermont SEQ National 1996- 96+ 200+ Country Club ongoing Heatherfields 2004 89 R2 Pinnacle at Spear 80 0 SEQ Dorset Farms 1994 160 60 SEQ Chittenden Cider Mill 2004 59 90 SEQ Shea Subdivision 2005 4 0 SEQ Goldberg subdivision 2003 4 0 SEQ Anderson subdivision 2004 3 0 SEQ Ridgewood Estates 0 55 R2 Stonehouse Village 2002 48 0 SEQ South Pointe 2005 32 0 SEQ Developments proposed during the preparation of this Comprehensive Plan chapter have shown a change back towards more single-family units. The lack of new single-family housing in Chittenden County was leading developers to propose more single- family housing and more new types of single-family, such as smaller "cottage" homes. South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 60 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 —Southeast Quadrant Residential Developments Proposed as of 2005: Name Year # of Single- # of Duplex/ Zoning Permitted Family Multi -Family District Units Units South Total of To be SEQ Village 2005 336 determined Marceau Under SEQ Meadows review 51 71 Farrell Under SEQ Subdivision review 17 12 Williams Under SEQ Subdivision review 4 0 Residential Development Patterns and Densities With the exception of a few very small subdivisions, new housing built in the SEQ since 1992 has been built under the zoning provisions that allow for an overall density of 1.2 housing units per acre, with the units built in a clustered manner at 4 housing units per acre. This clustering option has created a pronounced change in site development patterns, away from the standard, larger -lot developments like Butler Farms, Oak Creek (below left) or Ledge Knoll to a more compact pattern exemplified in Stonehouse Village (below right). Butler Farms/Oak Creek ..T '.` F^ — w � t, s Stonehouse Village South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 61 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 -Southeast Quadrant More recently, with the completion of the Open Space Strategy and Arrowwood Assessment, there has been a strong interest in building neighborhoods at higher densities in order to conserve more of the SEQ's priority open space lands. The SEQ zoning regulations do provide for the transfer of development rights between non-contiguous parcels, and thus provide a way for this to happen. The SEQ Concept Plan was charged with evaluating whether and how to adjust the "sending" and "receiving" densities within the zoning to provide more incentive for this type of transfer to happen. Affordable Housing in the SEQ South Burlington's Comprehensive Plan recognizes that while the City has been a leader in the provision of affordable housing, very little has been built in the SEQ relative to other areas of the City. The very high cost of land in the SEQ and the lack of access to public transit, and distance from available services, have limited the introduction of affordable housing into the SEQ. Nonetheless, affordable ownership units were included in Dorset Farms, and are included in the proposed South Village project as well. The SEQ Concept Plan has evaluated how increased "buildable" densities might increase the opportunity for affordable housing as well. The City's Comprehensive Plan policy in the past has been to encourage housing affordable to moderate -income households, rather than housing for low- or very -low-income households, because of the lack of access to public transit and services in the SEQ. This policy continues to be appropriate for the next five years, particularly since bus transit options still are not as strong as is needed to support lower -income housing within the SEQ. In addition, the City has partnered very successfully with area housing providers to build more low- and very -low-income housing in more transit - accessible locations. D. Non -Residential Land Uses in the SEQ While predominantly residential, the SEQ district also includes many non- residential land uses. These are found chiefly in the Industrial -Open Space (IO) Zoning District at the northeastern edge of the SEQ, but are also found South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 62 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 —Southeast Quadrant at the Chittenden Cider Mill on Dorset Street, but throughout the district is a scattering of churches, schools, recreation areas, and home -based businesses. Industrial Open Space District The Industrial -Open Space zoning district was intended originally to provide land for high -quality, large -lot industries and offices whose buildings and operations are consistent with a location in an environmentally healthy and visually sensitive area adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The Lane Press, Dynapower, Nynex, CBA and a new dental office all operate within the IO district. Recently, there have been significant concerns about the suitability of this district for warehousing, particularly in areas adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. While this area is close to the Airport and the planned highway interchange at Route 116 and I-89, the noise and visual impacts associated with truck traffic are potentially very disruptive to residential neighborhoods. This issue has been discussed during the SEQ Concept Plan; among the ideas evaluated were the creation of a warehousing sub -district adjacent to the Interstate. In any case, there was strong consensus that the zoning regulations for the IO district regarding warehousing should be re-evaluated. Institutional Land Uses Institutional uses in the SEQ are varied and provide important visual focal points within this district. These uses include four churches, all located at the north end of the SEQ near the Interstate (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints, Temple Sinai, All Saints' Episcopal, and United Methodist). A private elementary school, The Schoolhouse, is located on one of the out - parcels near the Dorset Farms subdivision, and the plans pending for South Village include a site for a private school along Spear Street. The City's land uses in the district center on recreation and open space. Dorset Park is the City's main active recreation center, with two skating rinks, heavily used playing fields, and playground equipment. The adjacent, 100-acre Calkins natural area was studied extensively in the Arrowwood Assessment and has unusually high value as wooded wildlife habitat. A network of unpaved walking paths has been developed through South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 63 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 —Southeast Quadrant the Recreation Path Committee. Most recently, the City added the 40-acre Scott property in the center of the SEQ zoning district to its recreation lands. Accessible via a pedestrian easement network from Dorset Street, this property may be developed in the future with additional recreation paths and walking areas once the city has exercised its option to purchase fee title to the property. The Vermont National Country Club One of the most prominent features of the SEQ is the Vermont National Country Club, which began construction in 1996 and continues developing today. This 450-acre complex straddles Dorset Street and extends from Swift Street south to Nowland Farm Road. It includes 264 residential units ranging from large single-family homes to triplex townhouses, an eighteen - hole golf course that draws players from throughout Vermont, and a clubhouse complex overlooking the swath of wetlands and golf course stretching southwest from the ridge near Dorset Park. Development of this large and very visible section of the SEQ as a golf course has helped to keep wetland areas and some very attractive views open, but has also raised concerns and legal conflicts relating to the location of some associated residential areas. To accommodate the golf course itself, housing has been built on some of the more visible and prominent areas of the property, such as the ridge facing east towards Route 116. A proposal in 2001 to site ten single-family homes in a woodlot at the 13th hole was denied by the Development Review Board and appealed to the Vermont Environmental Court, and the DRB's denial of two proposed development areas in 2004 was likewise appealed. Nonetheless, the Vermont National Country Club is a very visible and important part of the SEQ's landscape, and the City's overall network of open spaces and recreation lands. Retail and Services in the SE The sole remaining retail and service use in the SEQ is the Chittenden Cider Mill. The Cider Mill has remained open for retail and a small-scale auto repair facility despite major damage to one of the adjacent barns. It functions today as a local landmark and gathering spot for the SEQ. South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 64 C C" South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 —Southeast Quadrant The 2001 Comprehensive Plan stated that "A basic level of support services will eventually be required by the residences of the Quadrant. Such services would allow Quadrant residences to drive only a short distance, walk or ride a bike rather than requiring the residences to drive all the way to Shelburne or Wiliston Roads `just for a gallon of milk."' It stated further that "Neighborhood commercial uses in the Quadrant should be limited in size and type; should respect surrounding residential uses; and should be designed to blend in with the residential and open character of the Quadrant." In light of the growth that has taken place and been proposed in the SEQ in the past five years, the Planning Commission has carefully considered whether the need for retail services articulated in the 2001 Comprehensive Plan. From both public input and the analysis performed in the SEQ Concept Plan, described in more detail later in this Chapter, it is clear that there has been sufficient population growth to warrant creation of a small retail and service sub -district in the SEQ at this time. The recommendations of the 2001 Plan still hold: such a district must be limited in size and type, respect and contribute to the quality of the surrounding neighborhoods, and utilize design features that contribute to the traditional, Vermont vernacular that characterizes the visual quality of the SEQ. Agricultural Lands and Land Uses Agricultural operations, from hayfields to dairy farming, have shaped the SEQ's landscape over the past two centuries and contributed greatly to its natural beauty. In the past five years, however, it has become clear that the economic prospects for traditional, larger -scale farming, especially dairy farming, have faded in the SEQ. The last two herds of dairy cows in the SEQ were sold in 2003 and 2004, leaving only hayfields and other limited operations in business. The planning discussion has shifted to new and emerging forms of agriculture that can thrive even in a suburbanizing environment. A number of agricultural uses are continuing, however, in the SEQ and in adjacent areas of Shelburne. Active hayfields and pastures continue to be found throughout the SEQ, and the Scott property conservation easement allows for continued haying and agricultural use. Also in 2004, the Town of Shelburne and Vermont Housing & Conservation Board conserved a working South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 65 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 -Southeast Quadrant farm just south of the Shelburne -South Burlington town line. The City supported Shelburne's efforts to conserve this farm, as it supports the important City and regional goal of creating a conserved corridor stretching south to Shelburne Pond. More recently, a proposal was submitted by the Intervale Foundation and Retrovest Companies to establish an organic farm as part of the new South Village subdivision off of Spear Street. This type of farming use, as well as the community gardens found on Spear Street on the University of Vermont Wheelock Farm, can be an important part of the SEQ's visual character, quality of life and environmental health into the future. These examples demonstrate that South Burlington can facilitate a new future for agriculture in the SEQ but at a different scale and with different priorities than the past focus on protecting traditional, large farming operations. Both the Arrowwood Assessment and the SEQ Concept Plan highlight the importance of these types of agricultural uses to the landscape and ecology of the SEQ. E. Recreation Facilities in the Southeast Quadrant South Burlington has worked aggressively over the past twenty years to provide a wide range of recreation lands, facilities, and opportunities to its citizens. These efforts and goals are described in detail in Chapter 10. As the City looks to the next five and ten years, it is clear that the population and housing growth in the SEQ will increase the need for recreation and open space opportunities, and the need for the City and developers to provide for these needs as development occurs. DeveloDed recreation areas Dorset Park, with 220 acres of land, playing fields, playground equipment, and two hockey rinks, is one of South Burlington's "crown jewels" and a major community gathering place. It functions as a City-wide facility, but also as a neighborhood park for SEQ residents and, along with the Calkins natural area, the "green lungs" of the City Center. Dorset Park acts as the southern anchor of the City's core area flanking Dorset Street from Williston Road at the north to Swift Street at the south. It South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 66 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 —Southeast Quadrant also has an important role as a transitional area between the City Center just to the north, and the more open lands of the Vermont National Country Club and SEQ to the south. The very heavy scheduled use of Dorset Park's playing fields indicates that the park's capacity for providing active recreation space has been reached. Thus it is recognized in this plan, and detailed in the Recreation chapter, that the anticipated housing growth in the SEQ (including projects built since 2001 and those undergoing review) will necessitate acquisition of additional lands for active and passive recreation, as well as continued expansion of the recreation path system, to ensure that there are sufficient recreation areas within walking or biking distance of all SEQ neighborhoods. A near -term focus should be on providing new opportunities for active recreation, including soccer/playing fields and playground equipment. Recreation oaths The SEQ is increasingly well -served by recreation paths, and all new developments have incorporated extensive public recreation paths in their designs. In the summer of 2004, a section of the path was built on the east side of Dorset Street stretching north from Midland Avenue. This will eventually connect to the new Chittenden Cider Mill development, forming a link all the way from the City Center to Midland Avenue. Construction of the South Village project eventually will provide a loop from Dorset to Spear Street. The Recreation Path Committee has identified five priority improvements within or directly related to the SEQ district as its priorities for the area: (1) completing the path from Dorset Farms to Nowland Farm Road; (2) completing the connector from Midland Avenue to Allen Road and Spear Street through the South Village project; (3) extension of the path from Spear Street and Allen Road to Shelburne Road; (4) completing a path on the west side of Dorset Street from Swift Street north to the United Methodist Church; and (5) constructing a path along Van Sicklen Road from the Muddy Brook to the existing path terminus on Old Cross Road. Natural areas The 110-acre Calkins natural area adjacent to Dorset Park is the City's largest natural area. This property includes areas of hardwood forest, South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 67 C, South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 —Southeast Quadrant ledge, and wetlands, and has been documented as one of the most important areas of wildlife habitat in the City. The City intends to maintain this as a natural area, with unpaved walking trails the only type of improvement to be constructed within the property. The recent conservation of the Scott property provided a much -needed addition to the City's inventory of natural lands. It will be available for low - impact, non -motorized recreation activities such as hiking, biking and skiing. The Open Space Strategy focused on this area, "The Bowl," as a critical area of the SEQ for further natural area conservation. Ideally, a conserved network of natural areas and farmland with public walking paths will be created extending south to Shelburne Pond. F. Southeast Quadrant Infrastructure Public Water and Wastewater The availability of municipal wastewater and water has been a significant factor enabling housing development in the SEQ. Facilities planning for both systems has incorporated and considered both the demand for new housing and the City's conservation goals in determining how much capacity is required to serve the long-term needs in this district, as well as in helping to determine where extensions of service lines are and are not appropriate. Water system: The water system serving the SEQ underwent a major upgrade in 2004-2005, following a successful bond vote in May, 2004. The water main on Droset Street was upgraded and "looped" through the City right-of-way along Old Cross Road to improve storage, pressure, and firefighting capacity. In a remarkable engineering and construction project, the Dorset Street water storage tank was raised by 35 feet to provide greater water pressure and fire protection capacity for the SEQ. Finally, a "twin" water tank was built by the existing Allen Road tank, providing improved storage, fire protection and pressure to the service area along Spear Street. This complex project received the 2004 Grand Award for Engineering Excellence from the Vermont Chapter of the American Council of Consulting Engineers, recognizing the creative work of the South Burlington Water Department and Forcier Aldrich & Associates, the project's engineers. South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 68 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 —Southeast Quadrant The one remaining water infrastructure item for the SEQ is to secure a water tank site on the high point of the AuClair farm to serve the City's 20- to 25- year pressure and storage needs. This should be added to the Official Map, and incorporated into any development plans for the AuClair farm. Municipal Wastewater System: Municipal wastewater service for the SEQ is provided both at the Airport Parkway and Bartlett Bay wastewater treatment facilities. While a very small number of properties continue to use on -site wastewater systems, the location and availability of municipal sewer infrastructure has a major role in determining the amount and location of new neighborhoods within the SEQ. Municipal wastewater service for the SEQ is provided both at the Bartlett Bay and Airport Parkway wastewater treatment plants. Facilities plans for both treatment plants have included projected future growth in the SEQ based on the current zoning density of 1.2 units per acre. During the facilities planning process for the upcoming expansion of capacity at the Airport Parkway Wastewater Treatment Facility, the City and ANR carefully reviewed zoning, conservation, and development plans for the SEQ to ensure that increased sewer capacity at Airport Parkway would be consistent with State growth policies. The State's determination that the SEQ plans are consistent with State wastewater and growth policies was made in February, 2005, and allowed plans for the plant upgrade to proceed. As a result, wastewater treatment plant capacity will not be a limitation on growth in South Burlington as a whole or the SEQ in particular. However, the City has recognized that there are certain planned conservation areas where the installation of sewer lines is not an appropriate investment. Sewer lines are not recommended for extension in or through any of the Primary Natural Communities identified in the Arrowwood Assessment, in "The Bowl" area identified for future conservation. The limited number of housing units and low densities planned for this area can be served by On -site septic systems if development occurs. The Public Utilities Map (Map #5: Public Utilities #2) shows the areas where sewer lines are not planned to be extended within the SEQ. The Public Utilities Map does show specific pump stations and force mains that should be upgraded in order to provide better service to existing and planned development areas in the SEQ. These improvements and upgrades, South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 69 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 -Southeast Quadrant which have been incorporated into the facilities plan for upgrading the Airport Parkway Wastewater Treatment Facility, are consistent with the planning principles and goals for the SEQ and should be completed. Public Safety As development increases in the SEQ and as decisions are made regarding the new public safety facility, the City must monitor the need for substations in the SEQ. Any new public building in the SEQ should include space for public meetings, as this has been sorely lacking in the SEQ. F. Transportation Network The provision of an integrated network of roadways, recreation paths, sidewalks and walking trails that balances the needs of SEQ residents, the City as a whole, and the City's natural environment is an ongoing challenge that requires thoughtful discussion, planning, and technical assistance. While automobile transportation will be the chief mode of moving through and around the SEQ for the foreseeable future, the City must recognize and plan for all modes of travel in a balanced way. The main north -south routes through the SEQ have very different functions. Spear Street acts as a quasi -rural corridor carrying substantial amounts of commuter traffic northbound into Burlington each morning. This has created difficulties for the local traffic, particularly the houses with driveways on Spear Street, between Allen Road and Swift Street. The corridor's open character is protected in some stretches by the University of Vermont's farm and natural area lands that flank the road in parts of South Burlington, particularly north of Swift Street through to Williston Road. The recent Spear Street Corridor Study, completed in 2004, provided the City with a detailed series of recommended improvements intended to maintain Spear Street as a hybrid local and collector road that is able to carry the through traffic demand without creating a need for additional lanes. Citizens expressed a strong desire to keep Spear Street as a two-lane profile throughout South Burlington, while making improvements to the Spear and Swift intersection and providing better recreation path connections throughout. South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 70 C South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 —Southeast Quadrant A new design for the chronic problem spot in this corridor, the intersection of Spear Street and Swift Street, was developed as part of the Corridor Study. Some parts of this design were implemented by the Public Works Department in late 2004, and the remaining improvements are planned for 2006. Other problem spots addressed in 2004 were the pedestrian crossing near Overlook Park, which received new signs and striping, and the intersection of Allen Road and Spear Street. This intersection became very congested with the start of the Shelburne Road reconstruction, leading the Department of Public Works to recommend a three-way stop sign plan that was installed in November, 2004. This has improved traffic safety and flow and is working as a short-term measure. Future development affecting Allen Road will likely require signalization of this busy intersection. Dorset Street functions more as a local collector roadway and carries far less commuter or through traffic in the SEQ than do Spear Street and Hinesburg Road. Dorset Street is likely to be affected by increased volumes of local traffic as more development occurs, especially in the SEQ. The very visible presence of important local landmarks such as Dorset Park, the water tank, the Vermont National Country Club golf course and club house, and the Chittenden Cider Mill right on Dorset Street make Dorset Street very much the "main street" of South Burlington, both in the SEQ and farther north in the City Center. These visual features make it appropriate to bring new housing and other uses closer to Dorset Street, especially in the area south of Old Cross Road as identified in the SEQ Concept Plan, and to ensure that its profile enhances its use as a local "main street." This will require careful design review to ensure that new development contributes to the attractive visual quality that has been developing along Dorset Street. Hinesburg Road (Vermont Route 116) is an important regional transportation corridor that carries an increasing amount of through traffic, including trucks, from Addison and southern Chittenden County north to Williston, South Burlington and Burlington. The State has begun the formal scoping process, with the full support of Williston and South Burlington, for a full interchange at Hinesburg Road and South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 71 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 —Southeast Quadrant Interstate 89. This is expected to reduce the use of Van Sicklen Road as a cut -over to Exit 12 in Williston, provide more direct airport access, and service the truck demand from the industrial parks north and south of the Interstate in both communities. And, while essential to the regional economy, the interchange will lead to increased through traffic on Route 116. Therefore, careful provisions for recreation path and pedestrian crossings and strict limits on new curb cuts through this corridor are essential. East-West and Neighborhood Connector Roads: One of the most difficult issues for South Burlington has been the provision of east -west connector roads between Spear Street, Dorset Street, and Hinesburg Road, and provision of connections between adjacent subdivisions. Despite the fact that a network of east -west roads has been shown on the City's Official Map and included in the Comprehensive Plan for over 40 years, at the present time, the only full connection between the north -south roads in the SEQ is Cheese Factory Road. Nowland Farm Road terminates at Dorset Heights; Swift Street terminates at the Village at Dorset Park; and Midland Avenue terminates within Dorset Farms. The lack of east -west roadways means, effectively, that the SEQ presently has over 1,000 housing units and regional traffic moving through a farming community's roadway network. The lack of east -west connections increases travel times and miles traveled between, for example, Butler Farms and Dorset Park, or Dorset Farms and Shelburne Road. When east -west and neighborhood connector roads are lacking, school bus routes and emergency service responses also are lengthened, and there is less physical connectivity between neighborhoods, creating an isolating development, transportation, infrastructure and social network in the SEQ. The flip side of this discussion relates to the potential environmental impacts of new roadways on wetlands and other environmental resources, and the desire of many residents to have as little "through traffic" as possible able to drive through their neighborhoods. Proposed roadway connections between new and existing neighborhoods are a frequent source of conflict in the development review process, and, unfortunately, the DRB has in some cases allowed one-way or "emergency only" roadways as a way to allow projects to proceed. South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 72 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 —Southeast Quadrant Also, wetland regulations are often interpreted in a manner that considers connector roads an "unnecessary impact" or an easy way to reduce wetland impacts. This interpretation is often self-defeating from an environmental perspective, since it leads to greater vehicle miles traveled by new residents when neighborhoods do not connect to other neighborhoods and the street network. One key issue where there has been increasing agreement on all sides is the need to design east -west and neighborhood connector roads with narrower profiles and other environmental design features, such as box or open - bottom culverts instead of pipes for wetland and stream crossings, narrower road profiles (especially at crossing points), wildlife -friendly landscaping, and other traffic -calming features. These approaches, which can be incorporated with the City's public service and roadway maintenance practices, should become "standard operating procedure" for new development in the SEQ. With these issues in mind, the Planning Commission evaluated the planned cross-town roads on the Official Map in 2003 and proposed a series of amendments that were adopted by City Council in December, 2003. Based on projected population and traffic growth, the Open Space Strategy, and public input, the new Official Map reaffirms the planned extensions of Swift Street through to Hinesburg Road; Midland Avenue through to Spear Street; Old Cross Road between Dorset Street and Hinesburg Road; and a connection between the proposed Marceau Meadows and Chittenden Cider Mill subdivisions. The new Official Map does NOT include the north -south and east -west proposed roads throughout "The Bowl" that had been proposed for decades, including a connector road at Autumn Hill Road through the Scott Propertyl. This Comprehensive Plan reaffirms that the remaining proposed roadways through the SEQ that are shown on the Official Map should be constructed. Based on all of these evaluations and actions, it is a goal of the City and this Comprehensive Plan to complete the planned network of east -west roads in the Southeast Quadrant, at appropriate locations and with environmentally - appropriate roadway profiles and pedestrian features, creating an integrated transportation network and a series of inter -connected neighborhoods throughout the SEQ, in support of better social, infrastructure, South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 73 r South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 —Southeast Quadrant transportation and recreation connections among neighborhoods and uses. OBJECTIVES 1. Preserve areas of Ecological Significance as identified in the SEQ Concept Plan 2. Create a cohesive open space system, including substantial areas and resources with public access, serving multiple objectives: 3. Protect land for wildlife habitat and a network of open lands, both public and private; 4. Protect environmentally sensitive lands as identified in the SEQ Concept Plan; S. Provide a connected system of trails that can be used for recreation, non -vehicular transportation, and environmental restoration and education; 6. Maintain opportunities for traditional and emerging forms of agriculture that can be complimentary with a growing city, and help support continued productivity of South Burlington's lands; 7. Maintain and enhance cultural and historic resources that are valued in the community, such as the Calkins House and gardens, farm structures, and prominent landscape features; and 8. Preserve the ability of the public to enjoy significant vistas, such as the Golf Course, Green Mountains and Adirondacks, from public lands and public roads. 9. Encourage development patterns that create walkable neighborhoods, a range of housing choices, and a unique sense of place. 10. Create a village center for the SEQ along Dorset Street south of Old Cross Road, connected to the recreation path system. 11. Create a circulation system that balances automobile circulation with bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes. 12. Maintain Spear Street as a north -south collector using access and traffic management techniques 13. Maintain Hinesburg Road as the major north -south through road, with safe, convenient and attractive provisions for pedestrian crossings and bicycle use; South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 74 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 —Southeast Quadrant 14. Enhance Dorset Street as the SEQ's "main street" with traffic calming techniques and a roadway profile suited to its intended local traffic function. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 1. Land Use and Zoning, General 1.1 Take an active role, through cooperative planning and projects, policy discussions, zoning, and land conservation, in promoting new or revitalized agricultural and other open space uses, such as community gardens, orchards, nurseries, and community -supported agriculture, in the SEQ that can be compatible with residential neighborhood and village center uses, in order to promote continued agricultural uses in the SEQ as planned neighborhoods and village centers are developed. 1.2 Continue to promote TDRs among non-contiguous parcels within the SEQ zoning district and into the IO zoning district to achieve the goals of the SEQ Concept Plan. 1.3 Strongly discourage land use planning and permitting decisions to be based solely on the location of certain soil classes on individual parcels rather than overall planning and environmental goals. Participate in State proceedings to advance the City's position on open space, housing and agricultural use issues as they relate to soil classes. 1.4 Cooperate with the towns of Williston and Shelburne to plan compatible uses and densities along town boundary lines. 1.5 Support the re -consideration of previously -permitted projects that could be altered to better achieve the goals of this Plan and the SEQ Concept Plan. 2. Land Use and Zoning, SEO Zoning District 2.1 Evaluate and revise the Land Development Regulations applicable to the SEQ, including the PUD, landscaping and Master Plan standards, to implement this Plan's recommendations and achieve the objectives for the SEQ. South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 75 .South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 Southeast Quadrant 2.2 In doing so, Maintain the present residential density of 1.2 dwelling units per gross acre of land as the basic limitation on the ultimate buildout of the SEQ zoning district. 2.3 Further consistent with the SEQ Concept Plan, through revisions to the LDRs and SEQ Zoning Map, create neighborhood areas with a buildable density of between four and eight units per acre, using development rights transferred from areas in the SEQ designated for conservation or protection. 2.4 Further consistent with the SEQ Concept Plan, create a neighborhood commercial center along Dorset Street in the area of the Chittenden Cider Mill. Consider the inclusion of a gas station as an allowable use, provided such use incorporates neighborhood retail, and include strict architectural design standards to ensure that all such development is compatible with the Vermont vernacular architectural styles and landscape quality of surrounding residential and agricultural uses. 3. Land Use and Zoning. IO Zoning District 3.1 Revise the Land Development Regulations for the Industrial -Open Space District to enable the development of a residential neighborhood in the west of the district with density from on transferred development rights from conserved properties in the SEQ, and not from an as -of -right allowance. 3.2 Consider establishing a small mixed -use commercial node similar to the R7-NC district within the IO district, near Hinesburg Road. 3.3 Continue to limit uses in the Industrial -Open Space District to Clean, high quality light manufacturing, research and testing, and office uses, and take steps through zoning and development review to limit potential adverse impacts on adjacent natural areas and residential neighborhoods. 3.4 Revise the LDRs to ensure that all truck -intensive uses in the IO district are located a sufficient distance away from residentially -zoned lands to prevent adverse noise, air quality, light, and visual impacts. South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 76 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 —Southeast Quadrant 4. Housing 4.1 Continue to permit single-family, duplex and multi -family housing in the SEQ zoning district. 4.2 Through development review and the LDRs, encourage and consider incentivising neighborhoods that use a mix housing types and integrate different types next to each other, rather than creating a mono -culture of one type of housing. 4.3 Observe the general height limit of 45 feet for housing and most non- residential structures, unless specific aesthetic considerations or site conditions warrant an increased height. In such cases, require architectural design review to ensure that the proposed structures are consistent with the vernacular architectural styles and visual quality of the SEQ [separate policy encouraging wind turbines?] S. Affordable Housing 5.1 The City will continue to strongly encourage, but not require, affordable housing to be incorporated within new residential neighborhoods within the SEQ. 5.2 The City will encourage developers to make use of the affordable housing density bonus provisions in Section 13.14(B) of the Land Development Regulations to carry out this goal. 5.3 The Planning Commission will consider suggestions to modify this section of the LDRs to increase these incentives for including affordable housing in new SEQ residential projects. 5.4 The City will continue to work with CCTA to expand public transit options throughout the SEQ for the benefit of all residents and workers. 6. Land Conservation 6.1 Continue to work with Shelburne on strategies to create a conserved agricultural and natural area, with appropriate public access and paths, from Shelburne Pond and Pond Road north to the Chittenden Cider Mill, South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 77 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 —Southeast Quadrant consistent with the goals of the Open Space Strategy. 6.2 Continue to support the use of the one -cent -on -the -tax -rate open space fund to conserve key properties, leveraging funds from other conservation agencies and organizations. 6.3 Work with Shelburne, Hinesburg and the Addison County Regional Planning Commission to explore ways to create of a regional greenbelt with public access extending north and south of Shelburne Pond. 6.4 Work with the owners of major SEQ lands with agricultural use or potential to ensure the appropriate use of TDRs for land conservation, consistent with the SEQ Concept Plan and Open Space Strategy. 6.5 Through the development review process, land conservation initiatives, and development of Zoning Map amendments for the SEQ, work towards the addition of supplemental conserved areas adjacent and connected to existing open space lands, including the Scott Property, Calkins natural area, Dorset Park, and the Vermont 6.6 Evaluate standards in the Land Development Regulations regarding the provision of open spaces and buffer areas in the SEQ in new neighborhoods, and ensure that these provisions are consistent with the SEQ Concept Plan and lead to the creation of usable, attractive conserved spaces. 7. Ecology and Environment 7.1 Designate the Primary Natural Areas [Map 9: Southeast Quadrant Natural Communities and Buffers] as "restricted" or "TDR sending" areas on the SEQ Zoning Map and adopt regulations in the LDRs to severely limit any development, subdivision or disturbance within these areas. 7.2 Designate a three hundred foot buffer around the perimeter of the Great Swamp and Cheese Factory Swamp (Map in Appendix B, SEQ Natural Communities and Buffers) as an additional primary natural area subject to the same limits on disturbance, development or subdivision. 7.3 Designate the lands within a three hundred foot buffer area around the perimeter of the other Primary Natural Areas, and the lands within South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 78 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 —Southeast Quadrant Secondary Natural Areas, as a supplemental restricted area with limitations on development, subdivision, and disturbance. 7.4 Adopt measures in the LDRs and SEQ zoning map to ensure that open spaces in all developments affecting secondary natural areas be designed in a manner to ensure continued connectivity between other open spaces and the preservation of "stepping stone" or other pockets of important wildlife habitat. 7.5 Consult the Arrowwood Environmental SEQ Environmental Assessment regarding environmental resources, conditions, and possible strategies for protecting wildlife habitat values through conservation, restoration and development. 7.6 Seek funding to have a VYCC crew or other volunteers assist with invasive species removal and control on the Calkins property. 7.7 Work with property owners and the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources to establish treed buffers along tributaries of Potash Brook on the Calkins property, Hill Farm, and Meadowlands Industrial Park where the stream buffer is not forested. 7.8 Work with the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission and local land owners to develop a land management plan with recommended strategies for conserving the ecological function of the primary natural areas and adjacent lands, as identified in the Arrowwood Assessment. 7.9 Revise the Surface Water Protection Standards in the LDRs to create a one hundred foot setback along the Muddy Brook in the SEQ and IO zoning districts. 7.10 Develop a habitat and watershed restoration plan for the SEQ to identify locations where ecological strategies, such as reforestation or wetland creation, can contribute to improved ecological function. Once such a plan is developed, pursue available funding sources and programs for implementation. 7.11 Fully support Burlington International Airport's wetland mitigation project along the Muddy Brook, and seek opportunities to expand this type of mitigation and enhancement work in the Muddy Brook corridor. South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 79 C C. South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 -Southeast Quadrant 7.12 Revise the planned residential development and site plan standards for the SEQ and IO zoning districts to incorporate landscaping, buffer, stormwater management, surface water protection, and lighting standards that will enhance the habitat value of the area's undeveloped lands, and reduce conflicts between development, human activity, and wildlife. 7.13 Limit the development of paved recreation paths and lighting within Primary Natural Areas, unless required to make a planned connection among path segments. 7.14 Explore incentives and strategies to encourage builders to use LEED and other energy -efficient building techniques throughout the SEQ and IO zoning districts. 7.15 With the Recreation Department, landowners, and the DRB, promote the use of unpaved recreation paths and leash requirements within Primary Natural Areas to ensure public access, while causing as little disturbance as possible. 8. Public Utilities 8.1 Work with the Water Department and Water Pollution Control Department to develop infrastructure plans that limit disturbance within Primary and Secondary Natural Areas. 8.2 Work with the Water Department and land owner to secure a site for a water tank as identified in the twenty-year facilities plan for the water system in the SEQ. 8.3 Work with the Water Department and through the development review process to implement the twenty-year facilities plan for the water system in the SEQ. 9. Transportation 9.1 Evaluate the roadway design standards in the LDRs to ensure there is sufficient flexibility, consistent with public safety requirements as set forth by the Fire Chief and Director of Public Works, to reduce required roadway widths and curbing requirements to create more pedestrian -friendly and South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 80 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 Southeast Ouadrani neighborhood -scaled roadways. 9.2 Where new roads must cross primary or secondary natural areas, or associated buffers as set forth in the recommendations above, utilize measures such as landscaping, signage, and wide, vegetated underpasses or culverts to ensure that such roads create as little disruption as possible. 9.3 Continue to work with the Recreation Path Committee and Recreation Department to extend the planned network of recreation paths. 9.4 Allow paths to vary from eight feet in width to ten feet depending upon the projected level of use. 9.5 Require, through the LDRs and development review, the inclusion of sidewalks and recreation paths in all new residential neighborhoods. 9.6 New residential development shall be connected to adjacent developments, and the cross-town roadways identified in this Plan and on the Official Map shall be constructed by the developer (unless otherwise determined by the DRB and City Council) when development occurs on parcels where these roadways and connections are located. 9.7 Recreation path only, emergency -only and one-way connections will be insufficient in most cases to accomplish this City goal; therefore, roadways allowing safe two-way vehicular traffic and a recreation path are the minimum necessary for neighborhood connections and consistency with this Comprehensive Plan. South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 81 J I 9 Aolqkd southburlinp.ton PLANNING & Z O N I N G Permit Number MP- JL-_ (office use only) APPLICATION FOR MASTER 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 plans will result in your application being deemed incomplete, and a delay in scheduling for the Development Review Board. 1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mail 5 no-1 M/-1, IAt-3S - In r _ — 's,DO..1'- &fT^/ni address, phone and fax #) 2,Z �j� y t-ar-1. rk an.a Jan t tom. t-dryV_1( - �"'�L Iw \' 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #� r f:IaCu N . Fd rre.(( V (01-7 i L{D ?`T rU a>1�l ��N L Fd rnP l . V i g P ys 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone, fax & e-mail) { Ari^e ( Ld ( Esta[r. Erl L Fd rno v �fa�cLl� F��r�l(���leSta�c� cy^ 4) APPLICANT'S LEGAL INTEREST IN PROPERTY (i.e. fee simple, option, etc.) V ,04 5) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone, fax and e-mail) F,^ C_ Fd rYe (I PO —klik. 1R. 1 i 1: n, "Irn UT o1 4 D2._ - (A (,� I - 2,on D S)b 1.3D D :� 5a) APPLICANT EMAIL ADDRESS: &rreLl P f2rna_tlreAle�htca, o 6) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 1302- l 3Ll n dn.,4 lv« r 7) TAX PARCEL ID # (may be obtained online or at the Assessor's Office): ( qo — 013�Z', 8) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: L6LAO ` 01 OJ a) General vroiect description (explain what you want approval for): 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com 6 . b) Existing uses on property (please describe sizes of each separate use, if 3 na rc4_ k.: � c) eva rip I S w`►•l-I„ -fan c) Proposed uses on property (please describe the size or number of units and nature of proposed uses) d) Maximum total number of residential units and/or square footage of uses to be developed, including any existing units and/or uses to remain: �St--0) r 2 -two e) Maximum proposed building height (if applicable) �noi— f) Proposed phasing (please describe the number of tota phases and, if ap lica le at this time, he / number of units or square feet of uses to be proposed in the first phase): nj {-,5 le J�,j� �►t C-�) e. o —ft 9) MASTER PLAN UMBRELLA CRITERIA a) Total acreage of involved property(ies) 2_5 .q pierCS b) Total acreage of first phase for development (if known at this time) Zs.q ( Pkc(z S c) Total number of residential units and/or sq ft of all uses requested —7 (D uai'IS d) Existing impervious coverage, entire site (sq ft and %) Lll ,10 130 1)1] Sr e) Maximum proposed impervious coverage, entire site (sq ft and %) �276-?. aJ0 06-S DOS SF-_ f) Maximum existing building coverage, entire site (sq ft and %) 2 Master Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2010 .1 g) Maximum proposed building coverage, entire site (sq ft and %) �k . - `'o Iv 133 1ID Z 5F h) Estimated number of existing PM peak hour vehicle trip ends ( 0= 4A t'6 (I T(-cl c Im pad- i) Maximum proposed number of PM peak house vehicle trip endsd,rL' �,� ,^,a�i_ u ALL — ,T--I �1 j) Existing or proposed encumbrances on property (easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc. . ie,.W'K4 k) Proposed extension, relocation or modification of municipal facilities (sanitary, sewer water supply, streets, stormwater, etc.) — please describe briefly i nINI. C 10) OWNERS OF RECORD OF ALL CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES & MAILING ADDRESSES (this shall be provided on a separate attached sheet and on pre -stamped and pre - addressed envelopes. The city will add the return address). 11) ESTIMATED FINAL PROJECT COMPLETION YEAR e r .2b 116 12) PLANS AND FEE Please submit plans showing the information listed in Section 15.07(C)(3) of the Land Development Regulations. Five full-sized and one reduced size copy (I Ix17) of the plans must be submitted. Application fee must be included with the application. I hereby certify that all the information request as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Applicant Signature of Property Owner Master Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2010 AUG-9-2010 01:30P FROM:CITY OF(,I-iUTH BURLIN 8028464101 �n:98613003 P.3 f APPLICATION for MASTER PLAN REVIEW i0ians and Fee Please submit. plans showing the information listed in Section 15.07(C)(3) of the Land Development Regulations. Five full-sized and one reduced size copy (I 1x17) of the plans must be submitted . The application fee for Master Plan review is $500, plus $13 clerk's fees ($513). I hereby certify that all the information request as part of this Application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. by- Signature of Applicant igna j 6 of PfopeM Owner 6JN_j N, ml_ei l r C-d-`a N, Fdrrryv d F1-ralt Please do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION 6 AN I have reviewed this application and find it to be: COMPLETE O INCOMPLETE Di ctor of PlanrAnj'&'1oning or designee Dite Please do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION h�ll t I have reviewed this application and find it to be: V" COMPLETE L� INCOMPLETE A/T)-41k A/100 Admin' trative Officer Lfate The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call (802) 879-5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. Master Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2010 Farrell Real Estate P.O. Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402 802-861-3000 fax 802-861-3003 Memo To: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer From: Eric Farrell C/10- Date: 1 /27/2011 Re: Spear Meadows, 1340 —1350 Spear Street Attached please find the following materials in connection with the above referenced project: • Application for Master Plan Review • Application Fee - $513.00 • List of Abutters • Master Site Plan — C1.0 (11 x 17) I refer you to the complete set of plans submitted today with our Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review application. I request that the DRB review this application contemporaneously with our Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review. DRB Meeting Please schedule us before the DRB at its convenience and let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information. Attachments 1 r r r r I I I I I II I _ I J- / I I I I I I I , d 1ea-o1 z6o R"kW - I— I / k Kelley , Q f•ITe \ lea -ma 1 I � \ I � \ J '7 I I I �•a �\ I I I I I CaFtw1•la B•bY E ow, I C/o L HuW E I I \ MEADOWOODS I DRIVE I I 1 /I \\ I I I I I I I I I ME L It and M. Elcofr n6o-oo2tA I T. and L Kleh U6o-0021a PARCEL , 3 / � W. •Ild M. mart / 161p-0,,00 / LOT 1 Q ".I F•FT•1 / 1a/D-maso GRAPHIC SCALE :oe IN FEET ) 1 inch . 100 It 97a6ia "" MUNITY ARC I L � I II I / / L tuW D. Ybirtp I I G. end ve.+ J. Ferrell-2 errell vavme 11z. Pesal xz,s If n I / R tutd T. Ilmoe� I LL DwxA.r T•Ff•Ili 161 01404 r j /\ I I I I R. ad E.La T` I I I 1 6a-01mi If R •Td T. CiImaTMll�� � �'��\ � � I I I I I � I � /% \ � I I 1 I 1 Q' 1 / 1 1 I l 1 i I SITE ENGINEER: I / \Ap- I \ / \ CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. 10 MANSFIEID VIEW LME, SOON BUNl1NGTON, VI 050 W24fWP3P3 FAX 60PA6 71 mob: www.ceo- wm DRAtIN n�s'�J ACL c—O SAV APPROYEO PROJECT: SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURIJNGTON VERMONT RECEI I I JAN 2 8 2011 City of So. Burlingtrl PWWat sew• M6 \ DRIVE E V \ LEGEND — — — .— — — EXISTING CONTOUR ElOStWG PPOPOSt]) — 55— GRAVITY SEWER UNE — —FM— FORCE MAIN — — W — WATER LINE — —OE— OVERHEAD ELECTRIC — —UE— UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC — —UT— UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE 0 — GAS UNE — —ST— STORM DRAINAGE UNE OC.O. GRAVITY SEWER CLEANOOT m m SEWER MANHOIE ® ® STORM MANHOLE HYDRANT W • SMUT -OFF ® ® CATCH BASIN POWER POLE rvwwwY� EDGE OF WOODS ® TRANSFORMER CABINET / GATE c. D REYL9ION 1LE1Z9® BLOG BmE11AI8, AEC. le-m-10 61 .1 ROAD T L-t4-I1 YT/IOL ARP•D PLAN PER REVRII COMIRNTE � / 1 I I MASTER / SITE PLAN / `___•••�-"'���0°�R ,gam• / O / MR EM,feiO NVI®ER AUG., 2010 C1.0 PROI. NO. 02250 FARRELL SUBDIVISION List of Abutters August 9, 2010 Parcel Number Name & Address Subject Property: 1640-1340 Spear Meadows, Inc. c/o Brent Farrell Double Tree Hotel Burlington 1117 Williston Rd So. Burlington, VT 05403 Abutters: 1742-00033 R Larkin/Milot Partnership P.O. Box 4193 Burlington, VT 05401 1640-01350 R Gary N. & Jane G. Farrell 1350 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1645-00112 Brett P. Grabowski & Jennifer L. Milot 23 Dorey Rd So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01260 N UVM & State Agricultural College 85 So. Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05401 1640-01402 R Linda & David Young 1402 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01406 R Douglas J. & Christine Franzoni 1406 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1160-00214 R Michael J. & Mary D. Scollins 214 Meadowood Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01430 R Margareta D. Dencker 1430 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Farrell Subdivision List of Abutters - Page 2 0570-01225 R Ila M. Isham Estate 1225 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1160-00219 R Thomas R. & Louise T. Kleh 219 Meadow Wood Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01302 R Gary N. Farrell 1350 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Open Space Pinnacle at Spear Pinnacle @ Spear c/o Betsy Carter Real Estate Management, Inc. 81 Ethan Allen Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01400 R William A. & Maureen G. Gilbert 1400 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01408 R George A. Sporzynski & Diane I. Muhr 1408 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01317 R St. Clair Group, Inc. 15840 Lakeview Court Crosse Point, MI 48230 1640-01331 R Robert & Estaleen Lavigne 1331 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01393 R William & Tanya Cimmonetti 1393 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01404 R Rich & Tracy Tarrant 1404 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Farrell Subdivision List of Abutters - Page 3 1640-01300 R Kim McCoy -Whitten & Kevin Sellon 1300 Spear St. So. Burlington, VT 05403 1645-00089 R Robert A. & Marjorie N. Skiff 89 Springhouse Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01295 R Mark and Sheila Phillippe 1295 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2002\02250\Spear Meadows Adjoiners 8-09-10.doc r southburlington PLANNING & ZONING Permit Number SD-� 1-- 0 (ofticeuse only) APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT REVIEW A Preliminary ❑ Final PUD Being RequestedWyes ❑ No 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 plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. 1.OWNER(S) OF RECORD (Name(s) as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) ©S 1Yl S l,, Z � N. dK r , fe-rrel( �t� 13 5a Y not\eQJ - 2. LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) W V -7 Li 0 V 67-1 1 P yo 2- d V (LI L-qq S 3. APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax#) Fjrr-e.(( a0 ErC--;fp+e Sb(• oo 4. CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) �dn-te, d S 3 aL-�c�✓� a. Contact email address: e E) r" 1-f=a rt-P. ( ((ea (esfa A, 1,54 5. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 13p Z, 13y� d (3S0 �_ j- Gb1 ,.+- 6. TAX PARCEL. ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) n i (cHQ " D (3D 0 ((eLID - D13I-40 © 1(0i(p - 019sC) 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. General Project IDescription (describe what you are propo� f af- -7 0 Vntk-S . ' X' b. Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each senarste noe)- c. Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): b 4 d. Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain): / ..r.._ ter- . I e. Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine): — f. Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain): 1 f Uri g. Number p employees (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees): h. Other (list any other information pertinent to t application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): rcat i. List a changes to the subdivision, such as property lines, number of units, lot mergers, etc. 2 Subdivision Application Form. Rev. 12-2010 8. LOT COVERAGE (ALL information MUST be provided here, even if no change is proposed) a. Size of Parcel: 2-S. C (acres /sq. ft.) b. Building Coverage: Existing square feet (ps % Proposed 3?j , �� Z square feet I . �l % c. Overall Coverage (building, par —king, outside storage, etc): Existing O square feet l .' % Proposed OD3 square feet ZS . % d. Front Yard Coverage(s) (commercial projects only) Existing Proposed 9. WETLAND INFORMATION NlA square feet % square feet % a. Are there any wetlands (Class I, II, or III) on the subject property? X Yes ❑ No b. If yes, is the proposed development encroaching into any of these wetlands associated 50' buffers (describe) �JD c. If yes, please submit the following with this application: 1. A site specific wetland delineation of the entire property or a written statement that the applicant is relying on the City's wetland map. 2. Response to the criteria outlined in Section 12.02(E) of the Land Development Regulations (applicant is strongly encouraged to have a wetland expert respond to these criteria) 10. AREA DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION: SQD 000 SQ. FT. * *Projects disturbing more than one (1) acre of land must follow th6 City's specifications for erosion control in Article 16 of the Land Development Regulations. Projects disturbing more than one (1) acre require a permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. Subdivision Application Form. Rev. 12-2010 11. COST ESTIMATES a. Building (including interior renovations): $ 2- (� 't `I V� b. Landscaping: $�2•( In (Please submit itemized list of landscaping proposed) p)e a Se Sep_ c1 c e r i_. c. Other site improvements (please ` list with cost)llofr�or\ M-'M i M. U 12. ESTIMATED TRAFFIC (sot a. P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): 13. PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: �J 14. PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION:Mf . T 1 15. ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 16. OWNERS OF RECORD OF ALL CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES & MAILING ADDRESSES (this shall be provided on a separate attached sheet and on pre -stamped and pre - addressed envelopes. The city will add the return address). 17. PLANS AND FEE Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information required by the City's Land Development Regulations. Five (5) regular size copies, one reduced copy (11" x 17"), and one digital (PDF-format, on compact disk) of the plans must be submitted. A subdivision application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the application. See the City fee schedule for details. Subdivision Application Form. Rev. 12-2010 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 �K 4V SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: I have reviewed this preliminary plat application and find it to be: Complete El Incomplete r Date PRINT NAME The applicant orpermittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call (802) 879-5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. 5 Subdivision Application Form. Rev. 12-2010 Subdivison Plat Application 17. PLANS AND FEE Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (11" x 17") of the plans must be submitted. A subdivision application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the application (see Exhibit A). I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. SP Af- IYIC4 - S0 (,�C„ SIG A RE fcl AI' 1CANz, Fi rr&L, SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWN of write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION:"'' I have reviewed this preliminary plat application and find it to be: C1aezi N. rdrrcAl PRINT NAME Ep r� N . F rrrl I J-cvne Fier Al Complete i_._� Incomplete Director of la ning & Zoning or Designee UaW 5 s . �. �: r ,. � . v s. . Farrell Real Estate P.O. Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402 802-861-3000 fax 802-861-3003 Memo To: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer From: Eric Farrell Date: 1 /27/2011 Re: Spear Meadows, 1340 — 1350 Spear Street Attached please find the following materials in connection with the above referenced project: • Application Subdivision Plat Review/Preliminary - Southeast Quadrant • Application Fee - $513.00 • List of Abutters • Full set of Plans — 5 Sets at 24 x 36 Full set of Plans — 1 Set at 11 x 17 • Traffic Impact Study (3 copies) • Planting Schedule (street trees, project & park) • 14.05 Application, Review, and Approval Procedure - checklist • 15.07 Master Plan Review and Approval - checklist • 15.08 Major Subdivision or PUD Approval Procedure — checklist • List of Requested Waivers • Spear Meadows Building Type Summary • Spear Meadow Modeling (re storm water) • Memo with Additional Information Density The plans depict a revised total of 70 dwelling units in 48 (was 50 at last Sketch) buildings, representing an overall density of 2.70 (was 2.75 at last Sketch) units per acre. 1 FARRELL SUBDIVISION List of Abutters August 9, 2010 Parcel Number Name & Address Subject Property: 1640-1340 Spear Meadows, Inc. c/o Brent Farrell Double Tree Hotel Burlington 1117 Williston Rd So. Burlington, VT 05403 Abutters: 1742-00033 R Larkin/Milot Partnership P.O. Box 4193 Burlington, VT 05401 1640-01350 R Gary N. & Jane G. Farrel] 1350 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1645-00112 Brett P. Grabowski & Jennifer L. Milot 23 Dorey Rd So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01260 N UVM & State Agricultural College 85 So. Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05401 1640-01402 R Linda & David Young 1402 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01406 R Douglas J. & Christine Franzoni 1406 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1160-00214 R Michael J. & Mary D. Scollins 214 Meadowood Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01430 R Margareta D. Dencker 1430 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Farrell Subdivision List of Abutters - Page 2 0570-01225 R Ila M. Isham Estate 1225 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1160-00219 R Thomas R. & Louise T. Kleh 219 Meadow Wood Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01302 R Gary N. Farrell 1350 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Open Space Pinnacle at Spear Pinnacle @ Spear c/o Betsy Carter Real Estate Management, Inc. 81 Ethan Allen Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01400 R William A. & Maureen G. Gilbert 1400 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01408 R George A. Sporzynski & Diane I. Muhr 1408 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01317 R St. Clair Group, Inc. 15840 Lakeview Court Crosse Point, MI 48230 1640-01331 R Robert & Estaleen Lavigne 1331 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01393 R William & Tanya Cimmonetti 1393 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01404 R Rich & Tracy Tarrant 1404 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 E Farrell Subdivision List of Abutters - Page 3 1640-01300 R Kim McCoy -Whitten & Kevin Sellon 1300 Spear St. So. Burlington, VT 05403 1645-00089 R Robert A. & Marjorie N. Skiff 89 Springhouse Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01295 R Mark and Sheila Phillippe 1295 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2002\02250\Spear Meadows Adjoiners 8-09-10.doc Spear Meadows - Spear Street. South Burlington - Planting Schedule Street Trees Qtv Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Notes 21 AFAB ACER x freemanii'Autumn Blaze' Autumn Blaze Maple 2.5" Cal. BBB 8 BNH BETULA nigra'Heritage' Heritage River Birch 2.5"Cal. BBB TREEFORM 9 GB GINKGO biloba'Autunm Gold Autumn Gold Ginkgo 2.5" Cal. BBB 25 GTH GLEDITSIA tricanthos inerrnis'Halka' Halka Honeylocust 2.5" Cal. B&B _ BBB 6 MA MAACKIA amurensis Amur Maackia 2.5" Cal. 3 PAS PLATANUS x acerifolia'Bloodgood' Bloodgood London Planetree 2.5" Cal. B&B 21 PCA PYRUS calleryana'Anstocrat' Anstocrat Flowering Pear 2.5" Cal. B&B 12 PSA PRUNUS sargentti ISargent Cherry 2.5" Cal. BBB 8 1 OR IQUERCUS rubra Red Oak 2.5" Cal. BBB 6 1 UP ULMUS X.'PatrioY jPatriotElnn 2.5" Cal. BBB 6 1 UAP JULMUS americana'Princeton Princeton American Elm 2.5" Cal. BBB Trees city. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Notes 8 ACC1 ABIES conwlor White Fir T Ht BBB 29 ACC2 ABIES concolor White Fir 5' Ht BBB 6 AN1 ABIES nordmanniana Nordman Fir T Ht BBB 7 AN2 ABIES nordmanniana Nordman Fir 5' Ht BBB 5 AFAB ACER x freemanii'Autumn Blaze' Autumn Blaze Maple 2" Cal. BBB 10 AR ACER mbrum 'Red Sunset' Red Sunset Maple 2" Cal. BBB 16 ASGM ACER sacchamm'Green Mountain' Green Mountain Sugar Maple 2" Cal. BBB 6 AHB AESCULUS hippocastanum'Baumannii' Double White Horsechestnut 2.5" Cal. B&B 43 AGAB AMALANCHIER grenddolia'Autumn Brilliance' Autumn Brilliance Ser ncebeny 6' Ht i B&B CLUMP 12 ARH AMALANCHIER'Robin Hill' Robin Hill Serviceberry 2" Cal. B&B SINGLE -STEM 9 BN BETULA nigre River Birch 10' Ht. B&B CLUMP 8 CTH CHAMAECYPARIS thyoides'Hopkinton' Hopkinton While Cedar 5' B&B 20 CRA CORYLUS amencana American Hazelnut 30" Ht. 95 ConL z 7 CC CARPINUS caroliniana American Hombeam 2" Cal. B&B 4 CCI CRATAEGUS crusgali inenmis'Crusadee Crusader Hawthorn 2" Cal. B&B 25 GTS JGLEDITSLA tncanthos mermus'Skyline' Skyline Honeylocust 2* Cal. B&B _ 1 LDt ILARIX larcina American Larch T Ht. B&B 3 LD2 LARIX larcina American Larch 5' Ht. *10 Cont. 21 MCC, MALLS 'Cortland' Cortland Apple 13/4"Cal. B&B Ix 16 MDW MALUS'Donakt Wyman' Donato Wyman Crabapple 2" Cal. B&B 25 MFI MALUS'Fuji' Fuji Apple 1314"Cal. B&B 18 MMC MALUS'Mclntosh' McIntosh Apple 1 314" Cal. _ B&B 12 MS MALUS sargentii Sargent Crab 2" Cal. B&B 12 MSD MALUS'Snowdrift' Snowdrift Crab 2" Cal. B&B 6 NS NYSSA sytyatica Black Gum 2" Cal. B&B 85 OM ORCHARD mix Fruiting Orchard Mu 3 Gal. _ Cont. 2 PA1 PICEA abies Norway Spruce T Ht. B&B 5 PA2 PICEA aces Norway Spruce 5' Ht. _ B&B 32 PG1 PICEA glauca Whde Spruce T Ht. B&B 66 PG2 PICEA glauca White Spruce 5' Ht. B&B 1 PAS PLATANUS x acerifolia'Bloodgood' Bloodgood London Planebw 2" Cal. B&B B PBG PRUNUS'Bla kgoldns Cherry BlackgEvans 1 1/4" Cal. #7 Cont _ 9 FEB Bali' PRUNUS'Evans Ball aCherry Evans Bali Chery 1 1l4" Cal. #7 Cont x a 10 PK PRUNUS'Knstin' Kristin Cherry 1 1/4" Cal. #7 Cont. x 10 PMR PRUNUS'Mount Royar Mount Royal Plum 1 1/2" Cal. B&B 3 PNS PRUNUS'North Star North Star Cherry 5 Gal. _ Cont. - 3 PVC PRUNUS wginiana'Canada Red' Canada Red Chokecherry 2" Cal. B&B 3 PWG PRUNUS'Whitegold Whitegold Cherry 1 1/4" Cal. #7 Cont _ 1 PCA PYRUS calleryana'Aristocrat' jAristocnit Flowering Pear 2" Cal. B&B _ 9 PYB PYRUS x'Bartlett' Bartlett Pear 1 114" Cal. #7 Cont. x 9 PYA PYRUS x'D'Aniou' D'Anjou Pear 1 1/4" Cal. 97 Cont. x 10 PYS PYRUS x'Secker ISeckel Pear 1 1/4" Cal. #7 Cont. x T. J. Boyle and Associates 301 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 Unit Material Price Installed $143.00 $3,003.00 $7,507.50 $143.00 $1,144.00 $2,860.00 $175.00 $1,575.00 $3,937.50 $175.00 $4,375.00 $10,937.50 $180.00 $1,080.00 $2,700.00 $175.00 $525.00 $1,312.50 $220.00 $4,620.00 $11,550.00 $175.00 $2100.00 $5,250.00 $175.00 $1.400.00 $3,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $198.00 $1,188.00 $2,970.00 Street Tree Total $62,525.00 Unit Price $160.00 $1,200.00 $3,000.00 $108.00 $3,132.00 $7,830.00 $185.00 $1,110.00 $2,775.00 $135.00 $945.00 $2,362.50 $135.00 $675.00 $1,687.50 $107.00 $1,070.00 $2,675.00 $144.00 $2,304.00 $5,760.00 $204.00 $1,224.00 $3,060.00 $75.00 $3,225.00 $8,062.50 $140.00 $1,680.00 $4,200.00 $120.00 $1,080.00 $2,700.00 $50.00 $400.00 $1,000.00 $25.00 $500.00 $1,250.00 $152.00 $1,064.00 $2,660.00 $133.00 $532.00 $1,330.00 $133.00 $3,325.00 $8,312.50 $90.00 $90.00 $225.00 $27.00 $81.00 $202.50 $115.00 $2,415.00 $6,037.50 $125.00 $2,000.00 $5,000.00 $115.00 $2,875.00 $7,187.50 $115.00 $2,070.00 $5,175.00 $107.00 $1,284.00 $3,210.00 $107.00 $1,284.00 $3,210.00 $165.00 $990.00 $2,475.00 $45.00 $3,825.00 $9,562.50 $135.00 $270.00 $675.00 $75.00 $375.00 $937.50 $120.00 $3,840.00 $9,600.00 $80.00 $5,280.00 $13,200.00 $160.00 $160.00 $400.00 $85.00 $680.D0 $1,700.00 $85.00 $765.00 $1,912.50 $85.00 $850.00 $2,125.00 $120.00 $1,200.00 $3,000.00 $45.00 $135.00 $337.50 $107.00 $321.00 $802.50 $85.00 $255.00 $637.50 $115.00 $115.00 $287.50 $85.00 $765.00 $1,912.50 $85.00 $765.00 $1,912.50 $85.00 $850.00 $2,125.00 1 QB QUERCUS bicolor Swamp White Oak 2" Cal. B&B u OR IQUERCUS rubra Red Oak 2" Cal. B&B 16 1 SAT ISALIX albs Tristis' lGolden VVLeping Willow 1 3/4" Cal. B&B 6 1 TO ITAXODIUM distichum Bald Cypress 2" Cal. B&B Shrubs Qtv. I Code Scientific Name Common Name Size S. Notes 15 AAr< AAB Reya� ARONIA arbutifolia'Bnlliantissima -W. -y Red Chokebeny 5' Ht. B&B _ x 15 COC CEPHALANTHUS occidentalis Buttonbush 30" 03 Cont. 5 CA CLETHRA alnifolia Surtmersweet 30" #5 Cont. 34 CAH CLETHRA alnifolia'Hummingbird' Hummingbird Sunxnersweet 24" Ht. #5 Cont. 33 CM CORNUS mas Comelian Cherry T Ht. B&B x 3-5 Stem Clump 9 CR CORNUS racemosa Grey Dogwood 4' Ht. B&B 8 CSA CORNUS sencea'Allman's Compacta' Allman's Compact Dogwood 3<' Ht #5 Cont 2 CSI CORNUS sencea 1santi Isanti Dogwood 34 Ht. #5 Cont 35 FNH FORSYTHIA'New Hampshire Gob' New Hampshire Gold Forsythia 3' 3 HV HAMAMELIS virginiana Witchhazel 5' 51 IGS ILEX glabra'Shamrock' Shamrock Inkberry 18" Ht. 2 IVSG ILEX verticillata'Southem Gentleman' Southern Gentleman Wnterbeny 24" HL K*3 2 IVJ ILEX verticillata'Jim Dandy' Jim Dandy Wlnterberry 3' 15 IVR ILEX verticillata'Red Sprite' Red Sprite Wtnterberry 18" Ht. nt.25 JCHC JUNIPERUS chinensis'Hetzii Columnaris' _ Green Columnar Juniper 6' Ht2 JCS JUNIPERUS chinensis sargen6 Vridis' Green Sargent Juniper 24" HL 38 20 27 PBH PCJ PCP PRUNUS besseyi'Hansen's' PRUNUS x. kerrasis'Carmine Javier PRUNUS x. kerrasis'Crknson Passion' Hansen's Bush Cherry Carmine Jewl Cherry Crimson Passion Cherry 3 Gal. 5 Gal. 5 Gat. _ Cont. I x 3' O.C. Cont. x Cont. x 13 PT PRUNUS tomentosa Nanking Cherry 3 Gal. Cont. 36HL B&B 9 RCA RHODODENDRON catawbiense'Alba' Alba Catawba Rhododendron 2 RPJM RHODODENDRON'P. J. W P. J. M. Rhododendron 30" Ht B&B 18 RRE RHODODENDRON'Roseum Elegans' Roseum Elegans Rhododendron 36" HL _ B&B 49 RHR RIBES grossularia'Hinnomaki Red' Hinnomaki Red Gooseberry 3 Gal. Cont. 5 RBS RIBES nigrum'Ben Sarek' Ben Sarek Black Currant 3 Gal. Cont. 24 RRL RIBES rubrum' Red Lake' Red take Currant 3 Gal. Cont. x 190 BM RUBUS mix Blackberry Mix #2 Cont. x 208 RM RUBUS mix Rasbeny Mix #2 Cont 30 SJLP SPIRFA japonica'Little Princess' Little Princess Spirea 18" Ht. #3 Cont J 14 SB SYRINGA'Bbomerang' Boomerang Lilac 15" HL #1 Cons 20 SV SYRINGA vulgaris revs is .... - •r.ae Purple Lilac 1- -- 6' M. B&B ozc 90 TMD TAXUS x media'Densiformis' Dense Yew 24" Ht B&B 45 THE TAXUS x media'Everlowt Everlow Yew 24" HL B&B 8 TMH TAXUS x media'Hicksii' Hicks Yew 36" Ht B&B 46 TOE ITHWA occidentalis'Emerakf IfEmerald Arborvitae T Ht B&B I I 30" O.C. 1 104 1 t un I i nuJA o6 uenuuis Nigra Iuarx green Ammme 1 o nt. I bats I I r^.rn Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Notes 79 CAF CALAMAGROSTIS x acutiflora'Karl Foerster' Karl Foerster Reed Grass #2 Cont Clump 7 DC DESCHAMPSIA caespitosa 'Golostaub' Golden Hair Grass #2 Cont. Clump 4 MSS IMISCANTHUS s. 'Strictus' IPorcupine Grass #5 Cont. I I Clump 38 SS ISCHIZACHYRIUM sceparium The Blues' IThe Blues Little Blue Stem #2 Cont. I I Clump Perennials Qty Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Notes PM Perrenial mix IPerrennial Flowering Plants Mix #2 Cont HM I HOSTA mix lHosta Mix 1 02 Cont. T. J. Boyle and Associates 301 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 $180.00 $180.00 $450.00 $162.00 $1,782.00 $4,455.00 $87.00 $1,392.00 $3,480.00 $133.00 $798.00 $1,995.00 Unit Price $15.00 $315.00 $787.50 $45.00 $675.00 $1,687.50 $22.00 $330.00 $825.00 $22.00 $110.00 $275.00 $23.50 $799.00 $1,997.50 $85.00 $2,805.00 $7,012.50 $20.00 $180.00 $450.00 $37.50 $300.00 $750.00 $25.00 $50.00 $125.00 $15.00 S525.00 $1,312.50 $42.00 $126.00 $315.00 $22.00 $1,122.00 $2,805A0 $27.00 $54.00 $135.00 $31.00 $62.00 $155.00 $17.00 $255.D0 $637.50 $72.00 $1,800.00 $4,500.00 $20.00 $40.00 $100.00 $45.00 $1,710.00 $4,275.00 $65.00 $1,300.00 $3,250.00 $65.00 $1,755.00 $4,387.50 $45.00 $585.D0 $1,462.50 $58.00 $522.00 $1,305.00 $38.00 $76.00 $190.00 $58.00 $1,044.00 $2,610.00 $30.00 $1,470.00 $3,675.00 $30.00 $150.00 $375.00 $30.00 $720.00 $1,800.00 $12.00 $2,280.00 $5,700.00 $15.00 $3,120.00 $7,800.00 $13.50 $405.00 $1,012.50 $18.00 $252.00 $630.00 $49.00 $980.00 $2,450.00 $54.00 $2,322.00 $5,805.00 $24.50 $2,205.00 $5,512.50 $31.50 $1,417.50 $3,543.75 $45.00 $360.00 $900.00 $42.00 $1,932.00 $4,830.00 $37.00 $6,068.00 $15,170.00 Unit Price $7.00 $553.00 $1,382.50 $7.00 $49.00 $122.50 $13.75 $55.00 $137.50 $7.00 $266.00 $665.00 Unit Pnce $0.00 $0.00 $12.00 $0.00 $0.00 Entry Wall Plants Code Scientific Name Common Name Size I Spec Notes 20 HHR HEMEROCALLIS'Happy Returns' Happy Returns Dayliy 12" HI. 92 Cont. 10 IVWR ILEX venicillata'Writer Red' Winter Red Winterberry 30" HL #3 Cont. 12 JSB JUNIPERUS sabina'Broadmoor' Broadmoor Juniper 15" HL #3 Cont 4 VCC VIBURNUM cerlesii'Cayuga' jCayugaVibumurn 24" Ht. #5 Cont Park Planting Schedule Street Trees QtY, Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Edible Notes 2 ACC1 ABIES concolor White Fir T Ht. B&B 4 ACC2 ABIES concolor White Fir V Ht. B&B 7 AR ACER rubrum 'Red Sunset' Red Sunset Maple 2" Cal. B&B 3 ARH AMALANCHIER'RoUn FIX Robin Hill Serviceberry 2" Cal. B&B x SINGLE -STEM 6 BN BETULA nigra'Heritage Heritage River Birch 10' Hl. B&B CLUMP 6 GTH GLEDITSIA tricanthos inennis'Halka' Halka Honeylocust 2" Cal. B&B 2 LD1 LARIX larcina American Larch T Fit. B&B 6 LD2 LARIX larcina American Larch V Ht. #10 Cont 3 PG1 PICEA glauca White Spruce T HL B&B 5 PG2 PICEA glauca White Spruce V HL B&B 3 PSA PRUNUS sargentti Sargent Cherry 2" Cal. B&B 7 gR QUERCUS rubra Red Oak 2" Cal. B&B 3 SA SALIX albs Tristis' Golden Weeping Willow 1 34" Cal. B&B T. J. Boyle and Associates 301 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 Unit Price $6.00 $120.00 $300.00 $22.00 $220.00 $550.00 $15.00 $180.00 _ $450.00 $24.00 $96.00 $240.00 Landscape Credit Total (Not $267,296.25 Including Street Trees or Park Plantings) Unit Matenal Price Installed $150.00 $300.00 $750.00 $108.00 $432.00 $1,080.00 $107.00 $749.00 $1,872.50 $140.00 $420.00 $1,050.00 $125.00 $750.00 $1,875.00 $135.00 $810.00 $2,025.00 $90.00 $180.00 $450.00 $27.00 $162.00 $405.00 $135.00 $405.00 $1,012.50 $75.00 $375.00 $937.50 $150.00 $450.00 $1,125.00 $162.00 $1,134.00 $2,835.00 $87.00 $261.00 $652.50 _ Price $22.00 $176.00 $440.00 $20.00 $100.00 $250.00 Park Planting Total Park Planting Total $16,760.00 14.05 Application, Review, and Approval Procedure D. Application for Site Plan. A site plan application and five (5) sets of plans, including one copy reduced to ii" by 17", drawn to scale, shall include the following information for the Administrative Officer to deem the application complete and ready to send to the Development Review Board for its review: (1) Legal data: (a) A list of the owners of record of abutting properties, which may be generated by the Department of Planning and Zoning or by the applicant. See attached. (b) Boundaries of existing zoning and special districts on the subject property and adjacent zoning and special district boundaries. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing No. Si.o. (c) Area and boundaries of the property, building or setback lines as required in this chapter, and lines of existing streets and adjoining lots, as shown on a survey. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing No. S1.o. (d) Streams, drainage ways, and associated stream buffer areas as set forth in Article 12. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing No. C2.0. (e) Reservations, easements and areas dedicated to public use, if known, shall be shown. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (f) Lot dimensions and survey data, and section and lot numbers of the subject property. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing Nos. S1.0, S1.1, S1.2, S1.3, S1.4, S1.5, and Si.6. (2) General project description: (a) The title of the development, date, North arrow, scale, name and address of the owner of record and of the applicant, if other than the owner, and of the engineer, architect, landscape architect or surveyor preparing the plan shall be shown on a preliminary site plan map. Where the applicant or owner is a corporation, the Development Review Board may require the names and addresses of all officers, directors and principal stockholders of said corporation. The preferred scale shall be not less than one (1) inch equals thirty (30) feet. Shown in title blocks on all plans, summarized on Spear Meadows plan package cover sheet. (b) Such map shall show the applicant's entire property, adjacent properties, streets within two hundred (200) feet of the site, approximate location and dimensions of all existing structures, and location of all existing structures on adjacent properties and within one hundred (ioo) feet of the site boundary. At the discretion of the Administrative Officer or Development Review Board, the required area of the site plan may be increased. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (c) Such map shall show proposed structures, access points, and general internal circulation. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing Ci.o. (d) Existing and proposed contours at a maximum vertical interval of two (2) feet. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing Nos. C2.0, C3.0, C3.i., C3.2, and C3.3 (3) Existing conditions: (a) Location of existing structures on the site, and showing all site conditions to remain. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing C2.0. (b) Location of watercourses, waterbodies, wetlands, floodplains, and floodplain boundaries as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency or as mapped by the City of South Burlington, watercourses, wetlands, rock outcrops, wooded areas, existing vegetation, and other significant natural features on the site. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing Nos. C2.0, C2J, and Si.o. (c) Topographic contours and profiles as needed. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing Nos. C2.0, C3.0, C3.1, C3.2 and C3.3 (d) Existing structures and access points on adjacent properties, including those directly across a public street. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing Nos. C1.0 and C1.1. (4) Development data: (a) All means of vehicular access and egress to and from the site onto public streets, and all provisions for pedestrian access and circulation. Please refer to civil engineer and landscape plans. (b) One set of preliminary plans, elevations, floor plans, and sections of proposed structures showing the proposed location, use, design and height of all structures, roads, parking areas, access points, sidewalks and other walkways, loading docks, outdoor storage areas, sewage disposal areas, landscaping, screening, site grading, and recreation areas if required. Plans shall also show any proposed division of buildings into units of separate occupancy and location of drives and access thereto. Depicted on civil engineering, landscape and architectural plans. (c) The location and layout of any off-street parking or loading areas, traffic circulation areas, pedestrian walkways, and fire lanes. Depicted on civil engineering, landscape and architectural plans. (d) Analysis of traffic impacts, if required by the traffic overlay district and/or the DRB. See attached Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study prepared by RSG, Inc. dated August 2010. (e) Lot area in square feet and acres, and lot coverage calculations including building, overall, and front yard coverage. Lot size: 26.23 acres; 1,142,592 SF Lot Coverage; Building: 11.9 Lot Coverage; Overall: 25.3 Lot Coverage; Front Yard: Not applicable. (f) The location of all proposed waterlines, valves and hydrants and sewer lines or of alternative means of water supply and sewage disposal and treatment. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (g) Cut sheets for all proposed outdoor lighting within the site Depicted on landscaping plans. (h) Preliminary grading, drainage, landscaping and buffering plan in accordance with Article 13, Supplemental Regulations. Depicted on civil engineering and landscaping plans. (i) The extent and amount of cut and fill for all disturbed areas, including before -and -after profiles and cross sections of typical development areas, parking lots and roads, and including an erosion and sedimentation control plan, and proposed locations of sediment sink/setting pond and interceptor swales. Depicted on civil engineering plans. With respect to "cut and fill" the site is balanced. 0) Proposed stormwater management system, including (as applicable) location, supporting design data and copies of computations used as a basis for the design capacities and performance of stormwater management facilities. Depicted on civil engineering plans. See also attached Spear Meadows Modeling for stormwater design and computations. (k) Detailed specifications and locations of planting, landscaping, screening, and/or buffering materials. Depicted on landscaping plans. (1) The location of all existing and proposed site improvements, including drains, culverts, retaining walls and fences. Depicted on civil engineering and landscaping plans. (m) The location of any outdoor storage for equipment and materials if any, and the location, type and design of all solid waste -related facilities, including dumpsters and recycling bins. Not applicable. (n) Location and design of all energy distribution facilities, including electrical, gas, and solar energy. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing Nos. C4.o and C4.1. (o) Lines and dimensions of all property that is offered, or to be offered, for dedication for public use, with purpose indicated thereon, and of all property that is proposed to be served by deed covenant for the common use of the property owners of the development. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing Nos. S1.1, S1.2, S1.3, S1.4, S1.5, and SiA (p) Estimated project construction schedule, phasing, and date of completion. Project Start Date: May 2011 Project Completion Date: December 2018 Project Phasing: As depicted on civil engineering Drawing C1.2 (q) Estimated cost of all site improvements. $2.0 Million (r) Estimated daily and peak hour traffic generation, and an estimate of traffic generation during the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. See attached Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study prepared by RSG, Inc., dated August 2010. (s) Finished grades of walls, pavements, and storm drains. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (t) Detailed plans of retaining walls, steps, ramps, paving, and drainage structures. Depicted on civil engineering and landscaping plans, more specifically landscaping plan L203. (u) Estimate of all earthwork, including the quantity of any material to be imported to or removed from the site or a statement that no material is to be removed or imported. We anticipate this will be a balanced site. (v) Location and dimensions of all proposed water supply, sanitary sewerage, stormwater system, and other utility lines and equipment, including connections to existing facilities. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (w) Detailed landscaping plan, including type, size, and location of all materials used and plans for buffer screening and fencing in conformance with Article 13, Section 13.o6, Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. Depicted on landscaping plans and attached planting schedule. (x) Locations, types, and cut sheets for all exterior lighting. Depicted on landscaping Drawing L201 and L202. (5) Other: Any other information or data that the Administrative Officer or Development Review Board shall require for a full assessment of the project pursuant to this article. Any additional information necessary will be provided at the instruction/request of the Administrative Officer or Development Review Board. Spear Meadows Modeling Type 11 24-hr Q-10 Rainfall=3. 10 " Prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. Printed 8/10/2010 HydroCAD® 8.50 s/n 000787 ©2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Time span=0.00-300.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 15001 points x 3 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Subcatchment 15S: proposed Runoff Area=9.760 ac 62.50% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.16" Tc=4.0 min CN=91 Runoff=38.56 cfs 1.761 of Subcatchment 16S: ex estimate Runoff Area=8.650 ac 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.20" Flow Length=300' Tc=16.8 min CN=78 Runoff=12.46 cfs 0.865 of Subcatchment20S: park area ex Runoff Area=136,955 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.20" Flow Length=315' Slope=0.0160 '/' Tc=12.1 min CN=78 Runoff=5.34 cfs 0.315 of Subcatchment21 S: park area proposed Runoff Area=136,755 sf 19.01 % Impervious Runoff Depth=1.53" Flow Length=320' Tc=9.9 min CN=83 Runoff=7.42 cfs 0.400 of Subcatchment22S: disc area and buffer Runoff Area=106,000 sf 18.87% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.46" Flow Length=50' Slope=0.0250 '/' Tc=6.1 min CN=82 Runoff=6.32 cfs 0.296 of Subcatchment23S: disc area and buffer ex Runoff Area=106,000 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.20" Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0250 '/' Tc=8.4 min CN=78 Runoff=4.75 cfs 0.243 of Subcatchment24S: west pond trib area Runoff Area=140,000 sf 42.86% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.91" Tc=3.0 min CN=88 Runoff=11.88 cfs 0.511 of Subcatchment25S: west pond trib area ex Runoff Area=140,000 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.20" Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=20.0 min CN=78 Runoff=4.19 cfs 0.322 of Reach 26R: wetland channel estimate Avg. Depth=0.98' Max Vet=3.16 fps Inflow=24.89 cfs 2.965 of n=0.035 L=200.0' S=0.0100 '/' Capacity=286.89 cfs Outflow=24.56 cfs 2.965 of Reach 27R: wetland channel estimate Avg. Depth=0.75' Max Vet=2.37 fps Inflow=13.30 cfs 0.695 of n=0.035 L=400.0' S=0.0075'/' Capacity=248.45 cfs Outflow=12.50 cfs 0.695 of Reach 28R: wetland channel estimate Avg. Depth=0.64' Max Vet=2.18 fps Inflow=9.84 cfs 0.558 of n=0.035 L=400.0' S=0.0075 T Capacity=248.45 cfs Outflow=9.22 cfs 0.558 of Reach 29R: wetland channel estimate Avg. Depth=0.99' Max Vet=3.18 fps Inflow=25.18 cfs 1.745 of n=0.035 L=200.0' S=0.0100 '/' Capacity=286.89 cfs Outflow=25.03 cfs 1.745 of Pond 18P: New wet pond Peak Elev=385.33' Storage=37,010 cf Inflow=38.56 cfs 1.761 of Primary=10.72 cfs 1.738 of Secondary=1.60 cfs 0.021 of Outflow=12.32 cfs 1.760 of Pond 19P: New wet pond west Peak Elev=387.24' Storage=11,998 cf Inflow=11.88 cfs 0.511 of Outflow=1.12 cfs 0.511 of 15S 16S Proposed 22S a estimate 18 disc are and buffer ex die area and buffer -- wz— wet pond prop 26R I 27R L9R 28R wetland than I wetland ch nel wetland cha el as wetland ch nel estimate estimate estimate \ \ 19 New wet pon est 21S 25S 20S park area proposed west pond Crib area ex park area ex estimate 24S west pond ldb area proposed Subcat Reach on Link wat pond.zls Page 1 of 2 version: 9ro6 For the area draining to*: Spear Meadows West Pond Located in drainage area for S/N: 1 001 WQ Volume and Modified Curve Number Calculation for Water Quality Treatment in Flow -Based Practice Use this worksheet to calculate your WQv if you steed to determine the Peak Q for the WQ storm (i.e. designing a grass channel, flow-splitter or other flow based practice) and you are not using any of the site design credits in section 3 of the 2002 VSWMM. See page 2 for "Calculating Peak WQ Discharge Rate (0.9" storm) using the Modified Curve Number." Please note that in the case of grass channels you must include any off -site area draining to the practice as this will affect the peak discharge rate which will ultimately affect the hydraulics, and thus residence time, in your channel. Water Quality Volume Calculations Line value/calculation units 1 acres 2 acres 3 % (whole #) 4 inches 5 6 Qa (watershed inches, a.k.a. inches of runoff) 7 watershed inches 8 watershed inches 9 ac. ft. 10 cu. ft. Area draining to practice A= 3.22 Impervious area 1.40 Percent Impervious Area =[(line 2/line 1) " 100] = I = 43.48 Precipitation P = 0.9 Runoff coefficient calculation = (0.05 + (0.009*I)) Rv = 11,441 WQ Volume (in watershed inches) Calculation � P * Rv) = 0.3y� Minimum WQ Volume 0 2 Enter the greater of line 6 or line 7 WQv = 0.3y; WQ Volume Calculation = (line 8 "A)/12 = WQv = p.l p� WQ Volume Calculation = (line 9 "43560) = WQv = 4642 Notes: 1: Sites with low impervious cover ( -19%) but that do not employ a significant use of the stormwater design credits in Section 3 of the VSWMM are required to treat the minimum water quality volume of 0.2 watershed inches. Sites that have a significant portion of their impervious cover addressed via the stormwater credits (section 3 of the VSWMM) will be able to reduce this WQv and will only be required to treat the volume calculated on the "WQ Volume (with credit reduction)" worksheet which will be less than the 0.2 watershed inches. * Enter the name of the STP (both type and label) which has been designed to treat this particular WQv (e.g. Wet Pond #2) Cwest pmid.xls Page 2 of 2 Version: 9N6 For the area draining to*: Spear Meadows West Pond Located in drainage area for S/N: 001 Calculating Peak WQ Peak Discharge Rate (0.9" storm) using the Modified Curve Number Because NRCS methods underestimate the peak discharge for rainfall events of less than 2", simply plugging in 0.9" of rainfall into your hydrologic model with the standard curve numbers will not produce the correct peak discharge during the WQv storm, nor will it produce a volume of runoff equivalent to that which you have calculated using the WQv formula (WQv = P*Rv*A/12). In order to calculate the peak discharge for the 0.9" storm, a modified curve number must be calculated. This modified curve number is based on the runoff (in inches) calculated using the short cut method formula (WQv = P*Rv) that is also the basis of the familiar WQv calculations provided in the 2002 VSWMM (and on the WQv calculation worksheets). Essentially, the curve number that is calculated using the methods below is the curve number that will generate the volume of runoff calculated using the WQv formula. Above, you should have calculated the WQv in watershed inches draining to the facility/practice for which you need to calculate the WQ- peak discharge. As provided in the guidance listed on the grass channel worksheet, please remember that the WQv calculation should include runoff from on -site as well as off -site area draining to the grass channel since this will have an impact on the channel hydraulics and thus the velocity and residence time. Steps: 1. Transfer information from WQv calculation worksheets. Enter the Qa ( line 8 from WQv sheet) Qa = 0.397 inches Enter the area (site+off-site draining to practice) used in calculating the percent impervious (1) A = 3.2 acres 2. Use the following equation to calculate a corresponding curve number where P = 0.9 inches CN=1000/(10 +(5*P)+(10*Qa) - (10*(Qa^2 + (1.25*Qa*P))^0.5)) CN = 93.5 3. If you are using hand hydrologic runoff calculations, use the computed CN above along with your calculated time of concentration and the drainage area (A) to calculate the peak discharge (Qwq) for the water quality storm using the TR-55 Graphical Peak Discharge Method. OR 3. If you are using a computer aided hydrologic model, simply revise the curve number for your subwatershed(s) draining to the practice using the curve number calculated above; the computed curve number should be applied to the total area (A) used in the WQv calcuation. As a check, you should note that now when you run the 0.9" storm, your runoff depth should be roughly equal to Qa (WQ runoff in inches) and your total runoff volume roughly equal to your WQv (in ac. ft.). If this is not the case, make sure that the time span for your modelling run is long enough to capture the entire storm. Small variations are likely due to having to round your computed CN to a whole number. Remember that for storms larger than 2", you do not need to use the modified curve number and you should calculate your composite curve number based on the accepted values for different types of land -use (see TR-55). * Enter the name of the STP (both type and label) which has been designed to treat this particular WQv (e.g. Wet Pond #2) Copy of sw-wgv_wiai ca1cs- low.xls Page ] of 2 version: 9/06 For the area draining to*: Spear Meadows Pond -Sizing Located in drainage area for S/N: 1001 WQ Volume and Modified Curve Number Calculation for Water Quality Treatment in Flow -Based Practice Use this worksheet to calculate your WQv if you need to determine the Peak Q for the WQ storm (i.e. designing a grass channel, flow-splitter or other flow based practice) and you are not using any of the site design credits in section 3 of the 2002 VSWMM. See page 2 for "Calculating Peak WQ Discharge Rate (0.9" storm) using the Modified Curve Number. " Please note that in the case of grass channels you must include any off -site area draining to the practice as this will affect the peak discharge rate which will ultimately affect the hydraulics, and thus residence time, in your channel. Water Quality Volume Calculations Line value/calculation units 1 Area draining to practice A= 10.65 acres Impervious area 6.60 Notes: 1: Sites with low impervious cover ( -19%) but that do not employ a significant use of the stormwater design credits in Section 3 of the VSWMM are required to treat the minimum water quality volume of 0.2 watershed inches. Sites that have a significant portion of their impervious cover addressed via the stormwater credits (section 3 of the VSWMM) will be able to reduce this WQv and will only be required to treat the volume calculated on the "WQ Volume (with credit reduction)" worksheet which will be less than the 0.2 watershed inches. *Enter the name of the STP (both type and label) which has been designed to treat this particular WQv (e.g. Wet Pond #2) 1 Y Copy ofsio_u�qv_ mith_co1cs,/loto.x1s Page 2 of 2 Version: 9/06 For the area draining to*: Spear Meadows Pond -Sizing Located in drainage area for S/N: 001 Calculating Peak WQ Peak Discharge Rate (0.9" storm) using the Modified Curve Number Because NRCS methods underestimate the peak discharge for rainfall events of less than 2", simply plugging in 0.9" of rainfall into your hydrologic model with the standard curve numbers will not produce the correct peak discharge during the WQv storm, nor will it produce a volume of runoff equivalent to that which you have calculated using the WQv formula (WQv = P*Rv*A/12). In order to calculate the peak discharge for the 0.9" storm, a modified curve number must be calculated. This modified curve number is based on the runoff (in inches) calculated using the short cut method formula (WQv = P*Rv) that is also the basis of the familiar WQv calculations provided in the 2002 VSWMM (and on the WQv calculation worksheets). Essentially, the curve number that is calculated using the methods below is the curve number that will generate the volume of runoff calculated using the WQv formula. Above, you should have calculated the WQv in watershed inches draining to the facility/practice for which you need to calculate the WQ- peak discharge. As provided in the guidance listed on the grass channel worksheet, please remember that the WQv calculation should include runoff from on -site as well as off -site area draining to the grass channel since this will have an impact on the channel hydraulics and thus the velocity and residence time. Steps: 1. Transfer information from WQv calculation worksheets. Enter the Qa ( line S from WQv sheet) Qa = 0.547 inches Enter the area (site +off -site draining to practice) used in calculating the percent impervious (I) A = 10.7 acres 2. Use the following equation to calculate a corresponding curve number CN=1000/(10 +(5*P)+(10*Qa) - (10*(Qa^2 + (1.25*Qa*P))^0.5)) where P = 0.9 inches CN = 96.1 3. If you are using hand hydrologic runoff calculations, use the computed CN above along with your calculated time of concentration and the drainage area (A) to calculate the peak discharge (Qwq) for the water quality storm using the TR-55 Graphical Peak Discharge Method. OR 3. If you are using a computer aided hydrologic model, simply revise the curve number for your subwatershed(s) draining to the practice using the curve number calculated above; the computed curve number should be applied to the total area (A) used in the WQv calcuation. As a check, you should note that now when you run the 0.9" storm, your runoff depth should be roughly equal to Qa (WQ runoff in inches) and your total runoff volume roughly equal to your WQv (in ac. ft.). If this is not the case, make sure that the time span for your modelling run is long enough to capture the entire storm. Small variations are likely due to having to round your computed CN to a whole number. Remember that for storms larger than 2", you do not need to use the modified curve number and you should calculate your composite curve number based on the accepted values for different types of land -use (see TR-55). * Enter the name of the STP (both type and label) which has been designed to treat this particular WQv (e.g. Wet Pond 112) C 15.07 Master Plan Review and Approval A. Master Plans Established. For any application involving subdivision for which the applicant has sought Master Plan approval, or for which Master Plan approval is required, the applicant shall follow the procedures outlined in this Section. The applicant may elect to apply simultaneously for preliminary plat and/or preliminary site plan approval for a portion or portions of the affected property. B. Master Plan Optional or Required. As part of the PUD and/or subdivision review process, any applicant for land development involving ten (1o) or more contiguous acres may submit an application for Master Plan. Master plan review also shall be required as a step in the PUD or subdivision review process in the following cases: (1) Development of more than ten (lo) dwelling units in the Southeast Quadrant (2) Development involving more than ten (1o) acres in the Central District (3) Development of more than ten (io) units in a five (5) year period in the Ri- Lakeshore District. Under 15.0 7 B.(i) we are required to apply for Master Plan. C. Master Plan Review Process. (i) Master Plan. An applicant meeting the criteria in (B) above shall submit a sketch plan for review by the DRB. After identification of the proposed project as requiring a master plan, and within six (6) months after the final DRB meeting on the sketch plan (or a longer period if mutually agreed by the applicant and the DRB, but not exceeding two (2) years in total), the applicant shall file an application for approval of a master plan. The plan shall conform to the layout shown on the sketch plan, incorporating recommendations made by the Development Review Board. Applicant has completed five (5) Sketch Plan Reviews by the Development Review Board and the plans proposed herein reflect the specific recommendations made by the DRB. (2) Combined with Preliminary Site Plan or Preliminary Plat Review. The Master Plan application may, at the applicant's request, be combined with preliminary site plan or preliminary subdivision plat review for a discrete portion or all of the property proposed for development. Any areas of the lands proposed for development for which master plan review is secured but preliminary site plan or preliminary plat review is not shall require preliminary site plan or plat review at a subsequent time prior to receiving final approval. The DRB shall review the master plan and all areas proposed for preliminary plat simultaneously, and shall make separate findings of fact as to the master plan and the areas reviewed for preliminary plan or plat. The findings of fact pertaining to the master plan shall be binding on the DRB and the applicant for all subsequent preliminary site plan or preliminary plat applications made pursuant to the master plan approval. Applicant hereby requests a combined review of the Master Plan with the Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the entire parcel. (3) Master Plan Application. The master plan shall consist of one or more maps or drawings, with all dimensions shown in feet or decimals of a foot, drawn to a scale of not more than one hundred (ioo) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (ioo) feet of frontage, showing or accompanied by the information listed below. The applicant shall submit complete preliminary site plan or preliminary plat applications consistent with the master plan application for any area or phase for which approval is sought simultaneously with the master plan. (a) Accurate and updated Sketch Plan data Reflected on the plans submitted for the Preliminary Subdivision Plat review. (b) The name of the proposed Master Plan or an identifying title Spear Meadows (c) Name and address of the land surveyor and plat designer Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. TJ Boyle Associates, LLC (d) The names of all subdivisions immediately adjacent and the names of owners of record of adjacent acreage See list of abutters in Preliminary Subdivision Plat Application. (e) An overall plan for the property indicating the following: i. the locations and total combined area of the propert(y)(ies) proposed for subdivision and/or site plan phase, either in conjunction with the initial master plan application or in the future, specifying which area or areas are currently proposed for subdivision or development. I The location and total area of the propert(y)(ies) currently proposed for subdivision or development that are to be deeded as perpetually open spaces, and which areas proposed to be left open are subject to future evaluation within the parameters of the master plan. iii. the location, total area and nature of any public amenities or facilities other than buildings proposed either in conjunction with the initial master plan application or in the future, specifying which features are currently proposed for development. iv. The maximum impervious coverage proposed for the property or properties subject to the Master Plan. As to i. through iv., please see plans submitted for Preliminary Subdivision Plat review. V. The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and/or number of dwelling units proposed for the property or properties subject to the Master Plan. One (i) existing, plus sixty-nine (69) new, for a total of 70 units. vi. The maximum number of vehicle trip ends (VTEs) and associated parking proposed for the property or properties subject to the master plan. Please see Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study prepared by RSG, Inc. dated August 2oio for vehicle trip ends and landscape Sheet No. Looi vii. The location and size of any existing sewers and water mains, culverts and drains on the property or serving the property. viii. The location, names and widths of existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts and parking areas and their relationship to existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts and parking areas on surrounding properties ix. Contour lines at intervals of five feet, based on USGS datum of existing grades and also of finished grades. Contour intervals closer than five feet may be required by the Development Review Board in order to properly evaluate specific aspects of the project, such as storm drainage, landscaping, etc. X. A complete survey of any tracts to be subdivided completed by a licensed land surveyor. As to vii. through x., please see plans submitted for Preliminary Subdivision Plat review. A The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the DRB to locate readily and appraise the basic layout in the field. Unless an existing street intersection is shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall be shown. C Temporary markers will be placed in the field at the request of the Staff or DRB. Please refer to both the plans and the Traffic Impact Study submitted as part of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat. xii. A list of waivers the applicant desires from these regulations. See attached list of Requested Waivers. 15.08 Major Subdivision or PUD Approval Procedure A. Preliminary Plat Application. After classification of the proposed subdivision as a major subdivision and within six (6) months of the meeting on the sketch plan, the applicant shall file an application for the approval of a preliminary plat with the Administrative Officer. The preliminary plat application shall consist of one or more maps or drawings, with all dimensions shown in feet or decimals of a foot, drawn to a scale of not more than one hundred (too) feet to the inch, or not more than sixty (6o) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (ioo) feet of frontage, showing or accompanied by the following information: (1) Items (1) through (9) in Section 15.05(A) above The information required in Items i through 9 of Sketch Plan Review, and quoted below, are contained on the plans submitted herewith for the Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review Application. 4615.05 Sketch Plan Review A. Sketch Plan Required for PUD and Subdivision. For the purpose of classification and initial review, any applicant for a subdivision or PUD of land shall, prior to submitting an application for subdivision approval, submit to the Administrative Officer at least ten days prior to a regularly scheduled meeting of the Development Review Board a sketch plan of the proposed PUD or subdivision, which shall include the following information: (1) Name and address of the owner of record and applicant. (2) Name of owners of record of contiguous properties. (3) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic). The preferred scale shall be not more than one hundred (m) feet to the inch, or not more than sixty (6o) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (m) feet of frontage. (4) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. (5) Boundaries and area of: (a) All contiguous land belonging to owner of record, (b) The proposed subdivision, and (c) Existing zoning districts (boundaries only). (6) Existing and proposed layout of property lines; type and location of existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and covenants. (7) Type of, location, and size of existing and proposed streets, structures, utilities, and open space. (8) Existing water courses, wetlands, floodplains, wooded areas, ledge outcrops, and other natural features. (9) Location of existing septic systems and wells." (2) For applications including commercial or industrial uses or multifamily dwellings, or applications made as a PUD, all information required for site plan review in Section 14.05 (D) of these Regulations. See response to Section 14.05(D) attached hereto. (3) Plans and profiles showing existing and proposed elevations along center lines of all streets within the subdivision. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (4) Plans and profiles showing location of street pavements, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, manholes, catch basins and culverts. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (5) Plans showing the location, size and invert elevations of existing and proposed sanitary sewers, storm water drains, and fire hydrants and location and size of water, gas, electricity and any other utilities or structures. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (6) Details of proposed connection with the existing sanitary sewage disposal system or adequate provision for on -site disposal of septic wastes. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (7) Preliminary designs of any bridges or culverts which may be required. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (8) The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the Development Review Board to locate readily and appraise the basic layout in the field. Unless an existing street intersection is shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall be shown. Temporary markers will be placed in the field at the request of the Staff or DRB. Pleaserefer to both the plans and the Traffic Impact study submitted as part of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat application. (9) List of waivers the applicant desires from the requirements of these regulations. See attached list of Requested Waivers. (1o) Base flood elevation data for proposed development that contains at least fifty (50) units or five (5) acres, if appropriate. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing S.1.o. (11) A complete survey of the subdivision, prepared by a licensed land surveyor, showing the location, bearing and length of every street line, lot line and boundary line, and existing and proposed restrictions on the land, including but not limited to access ways and utility easements. Where applicable, this information shall be tied to reference points previously established by the City. Depicted on civil engineering plans. memorandum: to: Eric Farrell Farrell Real Estate cc: studio b file TJ Boyle & Associates from: Susan Coddaire date: 1/26/2011 re: Building Orientation- South Facing Glazing architecture Based on the 12 building types for which we have designed typical elevations, the current arrangement on our Site Plan yields 29% "translucent windows and surfaces oriented to the south." Given the geometry of the parcel as well as various site plan requirements- including street orientation, wetland buffers, contiguous open space, etc.- by necessity, solar orientation has not been a driving concept in the site design. Indeed however, day -lighting, passive solar design and a high benchmark for energy -efficiency have been fundamental considerations in the architectural design for Spear Meadows. We fully support the City's initiative in addressing the issue of south -facing glazing. While the 35% directive may be a good general guideline, additional factors must be considered in order to truly maximize building performance. Among these considerations are specific climate conditions, site location, as well as technical glazing specification. While the goal of the ordinance is to provide 35% of all translucent material facing south, my opinion is that our current calculation of 29% glazing facing south in combination with other measures toward the same goal (outlined below) will meet — and probably exceed- the intent of the 35% guideline. These measures may include the following: 1) Consider similar building types on a case -by -case basis during the Construction Document design phase where site -specific adjustments can be made for each building (i.e. maximize window size on the south elevation, and minimize to the north). 2) Passive Solar Design: Specify clear glazing for all south —facing windows where there is access for winter solar heat gain. Deciduous plantings and/or overhangs for summer shading could be considered for passive solar design. All north, east and west -facing windows could be specified for LowE II glazing. Triple -glazing on all north elevations is an option, but cost/benefit may be prohibitive. 3) Design for Passive Cooling: create opportunities for cross -ventilation, and stack -effect cooling. 22 church street #304 burlington, vt 05401 www.studiobvt.com reference: Building:* H-alt No. 2 T m H SOUTH ELEVATION: SIDE S- GLAZING: 102 TOTAL GLAZING: 411 % SOUTH: 24.8% H-alt N N 3 N MOTOR 84 415 20.3% 82 62 4 B FRONT 73 241 30.3% P P 5 P FRONT 131 529 24.8% C1 C2 6 C FRONT 104 251 41.5% JX-alt JX 7 JX FRONT 142 426 33.3% BX2 BX2 8 BX MOTOR 77 261 29.6% B2 B2 9 B MOTOR 70 241 29.0% N N 10 N MOTOR 84 415 20.3% HX HX 11 HX SIDE 87 384 22.6% 82 62 12 B MOTOR 70 241 29.0% CX1 CX2 13 CX REAR 32 220 14.5% A2d A2d 14 A MOTOR 64.65 239 27.0% M M 15 M MOTOR 118 414 28.5% B2 62d 16 B SIDE 72.85 241 30.2% HX HX 17 HX SIDE 87 384 22.6% H-alt H 18 H MOTOR 153 411 37.4% BX2 BX2 19 BX SIDE 73 261 28.0% J-alt J 20 J MOTOR 139 413 33.7% Cl C2d 21 C SIDE 82 251 32.7% M M 22 M MOTOR 118 414 28.5% B2 62d 23 B MOTOR 70 241 29.0% ix-olt JX 24 1X SIDE 149 426 34.9% 82 B2 25 B MOTOR 70 241 29.0% BX2 BX2r 26 BX REAR 47 280 16.8% J-alt 1 27 1 SIDE 126 413 30.4% Cl Cl 28 C FRONT 104 251 41.5% BX2 BX1 29 BX FRONT 82 261 31.5% H-alt H 30 H SIDE 102 411 24.8% CX1 CX1 31 CX SIDE 96.4 220 43.8% P P 32 P MOTOR 66 529 12.5% A2d Al 33 A MOTOR 64.65 239 27.0% H-alt H-alt 34 H MOTOR 153 411 37.4% HX HX-alt 35 HX SIDE 87 384 22.6% CX1 CX2r 36 CX FRONT 55 220 24.9% B2 B2 37 CX SIDE 72.85 241 30.2% N N 38 N MOTOR 84 415 20.3% A2d A2d 39 A MOTOR 65 239 27.0% B2 B1 40 B MOTOR 70 241 29.0% N N 41 N SIDE 130 415 31.3% CX1 CX1 42 CX SIDE 96.4 220 43.8% N N 43 N MOTOR 84 415 20.3% CI C2d 44 C SIDE 81.9 251 32.7% CX1 CX2 45 CX SIDE 96 220 43.8% N N 46 N SIDE 130 415 31.3% HX HX-alt 47 HX MOTOR 151 384 39.4% B2 B2r 48 B REAR 47 280 16.8% TOTAL WINDOWS ORIENTED SOUTH: 4345 15327 29% * Building variations listed in bold type represent 'Basic Building Type' from which glazing values have been derived. LIST OF REQUESTED WAIVERS The Applicant hereby requests a waiver of the following Regulation(s): 1) Section 9.08 2) Table C-2 See below for specific regulations and information regarding waiver request. 1) Section 9.08 reads as follows: 649.o8 SEQ-NRT and SEQ-NR Sub -Districts; Specific Standards The SEQ-NR and SEQ-NRT sub -districts have additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A. Street, block and lot pattern. (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear feet. If it is unavoidable, blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid -block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. Figure 9-2: Typical SEQ-NR and SEQ-NRT Block Size and Lot Proportion (2) Interconnection of Streets (a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet." The revised plans depict 5 street blocks having the following lengths: 750', 775', 450' and 170', plus one private street bock measuring 175'. These measurements are between intersecting streets or recreation path connections. The longest block (775') runs between the intersection of Spear Meadow Drive/Vale Drive and Park Street. The next longest block (750') runs from the intersection of Spear Street/Road A and Road B and is necessitated by the configuration of the property and the existence of a Class II Wetlands that cuts through the middle of the property. These two longer blocks could be reduced by introducing intermediate recreation path connections, thereby eliminating the need for a waiver, however, the new connections would not make good planning sense, as one would lead to a dead end at our north property line and the other would be duplicative. 2) The setback language in the SEQ-NR Sub -District section of the LDRs is a recommended guideline and therefore, the requirement in Table C-2 governs. Table C-2 sets forth the following setback requirements: "TABLE C-2 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS by ZONING DISTRICT District Land Use Minimum lot size (max. residential density) Maximum site coverage: Standard setbacks (feet): Buildings only Buildings, parking and all other impervious surfaces Front yard(s) Side yard(s) Rear yard SEQ Single- family 12,000 SF 1.2 15%** 30% 20 10 30 Two- family 24,000 SF 1.2 15% 30% 20 10 30 All other uses 40,000 SF (1.2) 15% 30% 20 20 30 We are requesting a waiver of the setback requirement to accommodate additional buffering of the Class II Wetlands, per the recommendation and request of the Development Review Board at Sketch Plan Review. Page 1 of 1 ray From: Eric Farrell[efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 2:23 PM To: ray Subject: FW: Spear Meadows Hi Ray, I have a DRB meeting at 5 pm on Tuesday, May 17th for a project in Burlington, so will not be able to attend the South Burlington DRB meeting on the same night. Consequently, I am asking the DRB to continue our May 17th public hearing on Spear Meadows to its June 7th agenda. Eric Eric F. Farrell efarrel I (u,)farreI Irealestatevt. corn FARRELL REAL ESTATE Mailing: PO Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402-1335 Physical: 875 Roosevelt Highway, Suite 120, Colchester, VT 05446 P: 802-861-3000 x12 F: 802-861-3003 C: 802-343-7055 4/22/2011 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 DATE: March 10, 2011 Physical Address Owner of Record 23 DOREY RD JENNIFER MILOT South Burlington, VT 05403 24 DOREY RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 24 DOREY RD MICHAEL & SUSAN VANKOEVERING South Burlington, VT 05403 58 DOREY RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1225 DORSET ST CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT South Burlington, VT 05403 1225 DORSET ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1 PINNACLE DR DAVID G JR & ELIZABETH A H BAKER South Burlington, VT 05403 P O BOX 2037 S BURLINGTON, VT 05407 2 PINNACLE DR LAWRENCE & SHIRLEY ROBERTS South Burlington, VT 05403 4 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 4 PINNACLE DR KISHORE KHANDAVALLI South Burlington, VT 05403 338 BONANZA PARK COLCHESTER, VT 05446 5 PINNACLE DR BRETT & AISHA BROSSEAU South Burlington, VT 05403 7 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 7 PINNACLE DR MICHAEL T & MARGARET M LONERGAP South Burlington, VT 05403 8 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 8 PINNACLE DR CHARLES & PENNY PIZER South Burlington, VT 05403 10 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1 of l l SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 DATE: March 10, 2011 Physical Address 10 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 11 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 12 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 14 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 15 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 16 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 18 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 19 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 20 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record PAUL & JEAN BRANA 330 EAST 75TH ST NEW YORK, NY 10021 STANLEY D CHESS 12 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KENNETH & PHYLLIS PALM 14 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 SUSITH & JOLYN WIJETUNGA 15 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CHRISTOPHER T & SUSAN C GREGOIRE 16 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WILLIAM & CYNTHIA BAUER 18 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ROGER C YOUNG 19 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 FRED V PEET 20 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GEOFFREY KNISELY 22 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 2of11 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 DATE: March 10, 2011 Physical Address Owner of Record 22 PINNACLE DR KEVIN & MICHELE DONAHUE South Burlington, VT 05403 410 SHELBURNE RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 23 PINNACLE DR JOSEPH F LARKIN South Burlington, VT 05403 24 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 24 PINNACLE DR JUN & MIAO LIMIN YU South Burlington, VT 05403 26 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 26 PINNACLE DR ROBERT & ELAINE ERLANDSON South Burlington, VT 05403 27 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 27 PINNACLE DR MOHAMMAD N & MAHNAZ M KHORRAMI South Burlington, VT 05403 28 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 28 PINNACLE DR DARYL L & GABRIELLE E MEUNIER South Burlington, VT 05403 29 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 29 PINNACLE DR CAROL L BLATTSPIELER South Burlington, VT 05403 31 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 31 PINNACLE DR PETER A & KAREN S HANDY South Burlington, VT 05403 35 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 35 PINNACLE DR DAVID M & PATRICIA M WARSHAW South Burlington, VT 05403 39 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 3of11 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 DATE: March 10, 2011 Physical Address 39 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 41 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 42 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 43 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 44 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 45 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 46 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 47 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 48 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record ELLIOT W & MOLLIE M GRAY 41 PINNACLE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DAVID R & JANET L KRUPA 42 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MILLER THOMAS J & DEBRA A TRUSTEE 43 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 RIPPA S ALEXANDER TRUSTEE 44 PINNACLE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KIRSTEN L & DANIEL J BERTGES 45 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 RACINE KATHLEEN YANDOW TRUST 46 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ANDREW & LESLIE GRIFFITHS 47 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 TIMOTHY & CHRISTINE KEOGH 48 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ARTHUR S & LISA J ROVNER 49 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 4ofII SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 DATE: March 10, 2011 Physical Address Owner of Record 49 PINNACLE DR MICHAEL & HEIDI GAGNON South Burlington, VT 05403 50 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 50 PINNACLE DR RAHUL & APARNA NAHAR South Burlington, VT 05403 51 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 51 PINNACLE DR GERALD JOHNSON South Burlington, VT 05403 52 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 52 PINNACLE DR DENNIS & SANDRA LINDBERG South Burlington, VT 05403 53 PINNACLE DR LOT 41 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 53 PINNACLE DR LARRY N & MARIE E WOOD South Burlington, VT 05403 54 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 54 PINNACLE DR CHON I & PING Y LEI South Burlington, VT 05403 55 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 55 PINNACLE DR ERIC & DIANA SCHWAIGERT South Burlington, VT 05403 56 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 56 PINNACLE DR CEDRIC & UMA WESLEY South Burlington, VT 05403 57 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 57 PINNACLE DR CHARLES R MILLER & TARA K WILLETTS South Burlington, VT 05403 58 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 5of11 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 DATE: March 10, 2011 Physical Address 58 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 59 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 60 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 61 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 62 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 63 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 65 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 67 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 69 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record TIMOTHY & LYNNE BAECHLE 59 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LINDA D BRADLEY 60 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 JOSEPH & JENNIFER BURKE 61 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MITCHELL D & NATALIE J FLEISCHMAN 62 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CONCETTA N & MAURICE A GREGOIRE 63 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MARGOT B ROGERS 214 SWIFT STREET S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KENNY JAMES C FAMILY TRUST 67 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 FRANCES CARR 69 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DANIEL DWIGHT & OLGA L FOSS 5 PLEASANT AVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 6ofII SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 DATE: March 10, 2011 Physical Address Owner of Record 1260 SPEAR ST UVM & STATE AGRUCULTURAL COLLEGE South Burlington, VT 05403 1263 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1285 SPEAR ST JOHN & HEIDI BEAN South Burlington, VT 05403 1295 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1295 SPEAR ST MARK & SHIELA PHILLIPPE South Burlington, VT 05403 1300 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1317 SPEAR ST ST. CLAIR GROUP INC South Burlington, VT 05403 1331 SPEAR STREET S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1331 SPEAR ST ROBERT E & ESTALEEN R LAVIGNE South Burlington, VT 05403 1117 WILLSTON RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1300 SPEAR ST KIM MCCOY-WHITTEN South Burlington, VT 05403 1350 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1302 SPEAR ST GARY N FARRELL South Burlington, VT 05403 15840 LAKEVIEW COURT CROSSE POINT, MI 48230 1350 SPEAR ST GARY N & JANE G FARRELL South Burlington, VT 05403 1393 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1400 SPEAR ST WILLIAM A & MAUREEN G GILBERT South Burlington, VT 05403 1402 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 7of11 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 DATE: March 10, 2011 Physical Address Owner of Record 1402 SPEAR ST LINDA & DAVID YOUNG South Burlington, VT 05403 1404 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1404 SPEAR ST DR. RICHARD E TARRANT South Burlington, VT 05403 1406 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1406 SPEAR ST DOUGLAS J & CHRISTINE FRANZONI South Burlington, VT 05403 1408 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1408 SPEAR ST DIANE I MUHR South Burlington, VT 05403 1411 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1430 SPEAR ST MARGARETA D DENCKER South Burlington, VT 05403 1431 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 112 SPRINGHOUSE RD P BRETT GRABOWSKI South Burlington, VT 05403 8 STANHOPE RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 214 MEADOWOOD DR MICHAEL J & MARY D SCOLLINS South Burlington, VT 05403 215 MEADOWOOD DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 219 MEADOWOOD DR THOMAS R & LOUISE T KLEH South Burlington, VT 05403 60 MIDAS DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1 VALE DR MARC & JILL YANKOWSKI South Burlington, VT 05403 PO BOX 4193 BURLINGTON, VT 05401 8of11 . C C SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 DATE: March 10, 2011 Physical Address Owner of Record 2 VALE DR LARKIN MILOT PARTNERSHIP South Burlington, VT 05403 3 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 3 VALE DR TERRY A & LAURA B BENNER South Burlington, VT 05403 4 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 4 VALE DR RUIJIA XIA South Burlington, VT 05403 5 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 5 VALE DR WILLIAM & LORI CHARASH South Burlington, VT 05403 6 VALE DR SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 6 VALE DR KEITH J SAUNDERS South Burlington, VT 05403 7 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 7 VALE DR WILLIAM EDWARDS South Burlington, VT 05403 8 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 8 VALE DR GEORGE & LINDA TANG South Burlington, VT 05403 9 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 9 VALE DR ROBERT M & TOMOKO BERMAN South Burlington, VT 05403 10 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 10 VALE DR CHRISTOPHER D & SARA L DUBIE South Burlington, VT 05403 11 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 9of11 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 DATE: March 10, 2011 Physical Address 11 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 12 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 14 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 15 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 16 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 17 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 18 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 19 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 20 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record LOUIS B POLISH 12 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MITCHELL & SANDRA S KNISBACHER 14 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 FORREST L & DIANE G CHAMBERLAIN PO BOX 8329 ESSEX, VT 05451-8329 JOHN MCGRATH 16 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 STEPHEN L & ERIKA GOTLIEB 17 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MARIAM ABBOTT 18 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ROBERT J & JULIE A MCLANE 19 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WAQAR WAHEED 20 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KOKSAL & SULE TONYALI 21 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 10ofll SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 DATE: March 10, 2011 Physical Address Owner of Record 21 VALE DR PETER WALCOTT South Burlington, VT 05403 23 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 23 VALE DR KYLE N & SUSAN F CHURCH South Burlington, VT 05403 47 MANSION ST # A WINOOSKI, VT 05404-2031 25 VALE DR ANDREA COUTURE South Burlington, VT 05403 26 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 26 VALE DR VICTOR V & NANCY L VETTERS South Burlington, VT 05403 27 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 27 VALE DR FATHIMA BARIYAJANN South Burlington, VT 05403 792 SHELBURNE RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 29 VALE DR JIN RONG ZHANG South Burlington, VT 05403 31 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 31 VALE DR GARY ROUNDS South Burlington, VT 05403 PO BOX 4193 BURLINGTON, VT 05401 33 VALE DR LARKIN MILOT PARTNERSHIP South Burlington, VT 05403 1200 AIRPORT DR #1 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 11 of 11 March 17, 2011 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a notice for an upcoming public hearing of the South Burlington Development Review Board. It includes an application for development that abuts property you own. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. You will not receive this notice if any subsequent or continued public hearings for the same applications are required. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public hearing. Si rely, Waond J. Bel Administrative Officer Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD The South Burlington Development Review Board will hold a public hearing in the South Burlington City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on April 5, 2011 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1. Master Plan application #MP-11-01 and preliminary plat application #SD-11-07 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned unit development on 25.91 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 25 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. 2. Final plat application #SD-11-11 of Champlain Housing Trust to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of two (2) 24 unit multi- family dwellings. The amendment consists of the installation of solar panels on the roof of each building requiring the need of height waivers, 378-380 Lime Kiln Road. Mark Behr, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. March 16, 2011