HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH 10 - Supplemental - 1840 Spear StreetCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
Report preparation date: September 23, 2004
\sub\south_village\preliminary_phasel.doc
Plans received: July 16, 2004
SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-04-55
Agenda #4 Meeting Date: September 28, 2004
Owner
Applicant
Paul Calkins
South Village Communities, LLC
P.O. Box 82
70 South Winooski Avenue
L ndonville, VT 05851
Burlington, VT 05401
Engineer
Property Information
Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.
Tax Parcel 1640-01840-F
928 Falls Road
Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) District
Shelburne, VT 05482
39.8 acres
Location Ma-
r
k-w
subject Property
._•
aePJ1. _. ._.,
j,
i
P L
m
,
., ,.,
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING
\sub\south village\preliminary phase1 doc
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
South Village Communities, LLC, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is requesting preliminary
plat approval of a planned unit development consisting of 156 residential units and a 100-
student educational facility, 1840 Spear Street. This project is Phase 1 of a master plan
consisting of 334 residential units, a 100-student educational facility, and a 35-acre community
supported farm. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on the project on
September 7, 2004, but continued the hearing until September 28, 2004.
COMMENTS
Associate Planner Brian Robertson and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as
Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on July 16, 2004 and have the following comments.
Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements
1. The applicant shall submit detailed dimensional information (minimum lot size; minimum front,
rear, and side setbacks, building coverage; and overall coverage) for the proposed project, prior to
preliminary plat approval.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations PUDs shall
comply with the following standards and conditions:
Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of
the project.
According to Section 15.13(B)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the
existing public utility system shall be extended to provide the necessary quantity of water, at an
acceptable pressure, to the proposed dwelling units.
The water utility line plans are depicted on sheets C6.0 through C6.3 of the plans. The South
Burlington Water Department shall review the water plans prior to preliminary approval.
2. The South Burlington Water Department shall review the water plans prior to preliminary
approval.
According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider
or developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system
approved by the City and the State in any subdivision where off -lot wastewater is proposed.
The sewer utility line plans are depicted on sheets C6.0 through C6.3 of the plans. The City
Engineer reviewed the plans and provided comments in a memorandum dated September 2, 2004
(attached).
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING
\sub\south village\preliminary phase1 doc
3. The plans shall be revised to comply with the requests of the South Burlington City Engineer, as
outlined in his memorandum dated September 2, 2004, prior to submittal of the final plat
application.
Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to
prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the
subject property and adjacent properties.
The grading and drainage plans are depicted on sheets C5.0 through C5.5 of the plans. The
erosion control plans are depicted on sheets C7.0 through C7.10 of the plans. The grading and
erosion control plans were reviewed by the City Engineer.
4. 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 project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.
Access to this project is proposed via a 48' wide pubic roadway directly across from Allen Road
and a 24' wide roadway approximately 1,260' south of Allen Road. Both of these public roads
access onto Spear Street and have a 60' wide right-of-way. They feed into a public roadway
network within the project boundaries. At this time, the applicant is proposing to close the street
network with two (2) cul-de-sacs: one (1) to the north of the project and one (1) to the south of
the project. These cul-de-sacs will only be temporary, as the Master Plan, of which this project
is Phase 1, depicts this public roadway network extending to the north and to the east.
Circulation on this property appears to be adequate. There applicant is currently proposing two
(2) points of ingress and egress, and the master plan proposed two (2) additional points of
ingress and egress for the overall project. In addition, the master plan depicts a right-of-way to
the property to the north, which could facilitate and additional point of ingress and egress in the
future.
The applicant submitted a traffic impact study prepared by TND Engineering, dated April 8,
2004. The applicant also submitted a traffic impact study addendum, dated June 17, 2004.
Both of these documents were submitted to Fuss and O'Neil for technical review. The specific
traffic management strategies to control access and circulation for the proposed project will be
provided as they become available.
5. The applicant shall pay all applicable traffic impact fees prior to issuance of a zoning permit
for each unit.
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.
This phase of the master plan overlaps some Class I I I wetlands and is adjacent to the major Class
II wetland on the property. There is no development proposed in the Class II wetlands or its
respective 50' buffer. However, there is encroachment into the Class III wetland and/or their
respective 50' wide buffers. The Natural Resource Committee reviewed the proposed project on
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING
\sub\south village\preliminary phase1 doc
July 22, 2004 and recommended approval of the preliminary plat plans with the following
conditions:
1. DRB should require management plan for open spaces and quite plats with final plat
application;
2. no application of pesticides/herbicides in wetlands or their buffers;
3. add natural fencing (hedge or wood) between lots #55-66 and the Class II wetland
buffers;
4. add natural fencing (hedge or wood) between parking areas along "D Street" and the
Class II wetland buffers.
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.
Pursuant to Section 9.01 of the Land Development Regulations, the Southeast Quadrant District
(SEQ) is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural
resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agricultural use, and well planned
residential use in the largely undeveloped area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant.
The open 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 location and clustering of
buildings and lots in a manner that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will best
preserve the open space character of this area shall be encouraged.
In order to analyze this project's visual compatibility with the area, the entire master plan, of
which this project is phase 1, must be considered. The master plan is visually compatible with
the planned development patterns of the Southeast Quadrant. The buildings, building lots, and
roads are clustered and concentrated towards the westerly portion of the property, creating
significant open space areas in the central and easterly portions of the subject property. The
more than 132 acres of open space preserved through this master plan will maintain the open
character of the Southeast Quadrant and will protect wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife habitat.
This project has five (5) lots that intersect the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection
Overlay District. These lots shall comply with the building height restrictions outlined in Section
10.03(F) of the Land Development Regulations. As long as these lots comply with these height
restrictions, the project will offer scenic view protection.
6. The plans shall be revised to indicate that maximum building heights for the five (5) lots that
intersect the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District, as outlined in
Section 10.03(F) of the Land Development Regulations, prior to submittal of the final plat
application.
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.
In order to analyze this project's open space areas, the entire Master Plan, of which this project
is Phase 1, must be considered. The layout proposed through this Master Plan will preserve
over 152 acres of dedicated open space, mainly in the central and easterly portions of the
subject property. The location of this open space will create contiguous open space corridors
with the properties to the south and north of the subject property.
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING
\sub\south village\preliminaryphase1 doc
The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to
ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided.
The South Burlington Fire Chief has reviewed the plans and provided comments in a
memorandum dated September 2, 2004 (attached).
7. The plans shall be revised to comply with the requests of the South Burlington Fire Chief, as
outlined in his memorandum dated September 2, 2004, prior to submittal of the final plat
application.
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 landowners.
All of the proposed infrastructure and services proposed for this project are consistent with the
infrastructure and services proposed in the Master Plan, of which this project is Phase 1. These
services and infrastructure have been designed to facilitate extension to adjacent properties.
Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards.
The applicant submitted proposed street lighting details (cut -sheets) for the project (attached).
Staff does not feel that the proposed street lights are appropriate for this property, as we are trying
to coordinate the street light fixtures in all of the new streets in the Southeast Quadrant. Staff
suggests that the street lights used in the Vermont National Country Club development be used for
this project.
8. The applicant shall submit street lighting details (cut -sheets) for the street light fixtures used in
the Vermont National Country Club development, with the final plat application.
The proposed recreation path is depicted for the entire master -planned development, of which this
project is Phase 1. The Recreation Path Committee reviewed the recreation path and provided
comments in a memorandum from Tom Hubbard, dated September 2, 2004 (attached).
9. The plans shall be revised to depict the proposed recreation path on all applicable sheets of the
plans for this project, prior to submittal of the final plat application.
10. The plans shall be revised to comply with the requests of the Recreation Path Committee, as
outlined in the memorandum from Tom Hubbard, dated September 2, 2004, prior to submittal of
the final plat application.
The water utility line plans are depicted on sheets C6.0 through C6.3 of the plans. The South
Burlington Water Department shall review the water plans prior to preliminary approval.
The City Engineer reviewed the plans and provided comments in a memorandum dated
September 2, 2004.
11. All of the proposed roadways and sidewalks shall be compatible with the approved Master
Plan.
12. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING
\sub\south village\preliminary phase1 doc
utility lines shall be underground.
The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
Staff feels the proposed project is consistent with the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan and
the South Burlington Land Development Regulations.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations any PUD
shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development
Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications. -
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 feels the proposed project accomplishes a desirable transition from structure to site and from
structure to structure. Staff also feels the site provides for adequate planting and safe pedestrian
movement.
According to Table 13-1 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the proposed
residential units will require 340 parking spaces (94 for the single-family lots and 246 for the two-
family and multi -family dwellings). In addition, the school will require a specific number of parking
spaces. Table 13-1 of the Land development requires information on the type of school, the
number of classrooms, and the number of students of legal driving age. The applicant shall submit
information on the total number of parking spaces provided in the project, so that the Development
Review Board can analyze the parking requirement in relation to the number of parking spaces
provided.
13. The applicant shall submit, with the final plat application, information on the type of school, the
number of classrooms, and the number of students of legal driving age for the proposed school.
14. The applicant shall submit, with the final plat application, information on the total number of
parking spaces provided in the project.
Pursuant to Section 13.01(G)(5) of the Land Development Regulations, bicycle racks shall depicted
on the plans. The plans do not depict bicycle racks.
15. Pursuant to Section 13.01(G) (5) of the Land Development Regulations, the plans shall be
revised to depict at least one (1) bicycle rack, prior to submittal of the final plat application.
Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable.
The proposed parking plan for the residential units is in compliance with this requirement. The
parking lot proposed to serve to the school is not in compliance with his requirement. However, the
fact that the school essentially has frontage on three (public roads) and has a working farm behind
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING
\sub\south village\preliminary phasel.doc
it makes it difficult to comply with this requirement. Thus, staff feels the proposed location of the
parking lot is adequate.
Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and
scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings.
The maximum height for buildings with a pitched roof is 40' from average pre -construction grade.
The maximum height for buildings with a flat roof is 35' from average pre -construction grade. The
application has stated that the proposed buildings will be in compliance with this requirement.
However, more detailed information on building heights shall be submitted with the final plat
application.
In addition, five (5) of the propose lots fall within the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View
Protection Overlay District. These lots shall comply with the building height restrictions outlined
in Section 10.03(F) of the Land Development Regulations. Staff has already stated that the
plans shall be revised to indicate that maximum building heights for these five (5) lots.
16. The applicant shall submit detailed information on the proposed building heights of the school,
the two-family dwelling units, and the multi -family dwelling units with the final plat application.
17. The applicant shall submit building elevation plans for the school, the two-family dwelling units,
and the multi -family dwelling units with the final plat application.
Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior
alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground.
Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new
utility lines shall be underground.
The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural
characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive
transitions between buildings of different architectural styles.
Staff feels this criterion is being met.
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.
Staff feels this criterion is being met
Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the
South Burlington Land Development Regulations:
The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting
properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial
of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to
improve general access and circulation in the area.
CITY OF SOUTH BURLING TON 8 DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING
\sub\south villaae\r)reliminary ohasel.doc
It is not necessary for the Development Review Board to require any addition easements for this
project (Phase 1 of the Master Plan).
Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be
underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to
have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site.
Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new
utility lines shall be underground.
All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any
recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with
opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).
The plans do not depict any dumpsters on the subject property. The single-family lots will not use
any dumpsters, but the two-family and multi -family dwelling units, and the school may. If
dumpsters are proposed, they should be clearly depicted on the plans and adequately screened.
18. If dumpsters are proposed on the subject property, they shall be clearly depicted on the plans
and adequately screened, prior to submittal of the final plat application.
Landscaping and Screening Requirements
Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and
screening shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The minimum
landscape requirement for this project is determined by Table 13-9 of the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations. The costs of street trees are above and beyond this minimum
landscape requirement. The applicant must submit information on the estimated buildings costs of
the proposed project and a landscape budget indicating the value of the proposed landscaping.
The applicant's landscape plans for the proposed project are included on sheets L-2 and L-3 of the
plans. Sheet L-3 shows typical landscaping details for the two-family dwelling units and one type of
single-family dwelling unit. The landscape plans need to be revised to include details for the all of
the proposed types of dwelling units, including all of the proposed single-family dwelling unit types
and multi -family dwelling unit types, and the proposed school. In addition, if the applicant is going
to propose typical landscape plans for each dwelling unit type, all of the dwelling units must
incorporate the landscaping that their specific type is approved for. If the landscaping throughout
the project is going to vary, then an overall landscaping plan for the entire project must be
submitted. The street tree plan that the applicant submitted must be prepared by a landscape
architect or other landscape professional, in accordance with Section 13.06(F) of the Land
Development Regulations. In addition, the applicant must submit a landscape budget indicating
the value of the landscaping in the proposed street tree plan. The City Arborist reviewed the
proposed street tree plan and provided comments in a letter dated August 11, 2004 (attached).
19. Pursuant to Section 13.06(C)(1) of the South Buffington Land Development Regulations, any
dumpsters and utility cabinets on the site shall be effectively screened to the approval of the
Development Review Board.
20. The applicant shall submit information on the estimated buildings costs of the proposed project
with the final plat application.
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGION 9 DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING
\sub\south village\preliminary phase1.doc
21. Pursuant to Section 13.06(G) of the Land Development Regulations, the applicant shall submit
a landscape budget indicating the value of the proposed site landscaping and street tree
landscaping, with the final plat application. The site landscaping budget shall be separated from
the street tree landscaping budget.
22. The landscape plans shall be revised to include details for the all of the proposed types of
dwelling units, including all of the proposed single-family dwelling unit types and multi -family
dwelling unit types, and the proposed school, prior to submittal of the final plat application.
23. The site landscaping plans and the street tree landscaping plans shall be revised to indicate the
landscaping professional who prepared them, prior to submittal of the final plat application.
24. The landscaping plans shall be revised to comply with the requests of the City Arborist, as
outlined in his letter dated August 11, 2004, prior to submittal of the final plat application.
Restricted Areas
This project has buildings and building lots proposed in designated "restricted areas", as
depicted on the Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map. The project has development
proposed in a "restricted area" designated to facilitate a planned roadway. The applicant has
proposed a roadway network through the property that will connect Midland Avenue to Spear
Street. Thus, the "restricted area", designed to facilitate the planned roadway, as labeled on the
"Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map", is no longer necessary.
The project also has building lots proposed in a "restricted area" designated to protect scenic
views. A portion of this "restricted area" overlaps the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View
Protection Overlay District. The applicant is following the building height requirements for the
Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District, as outlined in Section
10.03(F) of the Land Development Regulations. Thus, development in the "restricted area" that
overlaps the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District is warranted. In
addition, the application is proposing building lots in the "restricted area" along Spear Street that
is designated for a scenic view corridor. This development is consistent with the intent and
purpose of the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District, as development in this "restricted area"
allows the applicant to cluster more of the units towards the westerly portion of the property,
away from the wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources that comprise the central
and easterly portions of the property.
Street Names
25. The applicant shall submit street names for the proposed project, as approved by the South
Buffington Planning Commission, with the final plat application.
E911 Addresses
26. The applicant shall submit E911 addresses for the proposed project, in conformance with the
E911 addressing standards, with the final plat application.
Other
27. The applicant shall pay all applicable impact fees prior to issuance of the zoning permit for each
unit.
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING
\sub\south village\preliminary phase1 doc
28. Pursuant to Section 15.08 (D) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the
applicant shall submit homeowner's association legal documents with the final plat application.
The documents that include language that:
a. ensures that the garages will not be converted to living space;
b. prohibits the storage and parking of recreational vehicles within the development,
c. prohibits clearing of land, disturbance of land, or application of pesticides within
wetlands or wetland buffers, except for the Class 111 wetland on Lot 16 and the Class 111
wetland to the west of Lot 20;
d. ensures that the association shall assume all maintenance responsibilities for the
sewage pumping station;
AND
e. ensures that the association shall assume all maintenance responsibilities for the
stormwater drainage facilities until such time as a future City stormwater utility accepts
the stormwater infrastructure.
29. Pursuant to Section 15.17 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, prior to
issuance of the first zoning permit or start of utility or road construction, the applicant shall
submit all appropriate legal documents including easements (e.g. irrevocable offer of dedication
and warranty deed for proposed public roads, utility, sewer, drainage, water, and recreation
paths, etc.) to the City Attorney for approval and recorded in the South Burlington Land
Records.
30. Prior to the start of construction of the improvements described in condition #29 above, the
applicant shall post a bond which covers the cost of said improvements.
31. Pursuant to Section 15.14(E)(2) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations,
within 14 days of the completion of required improvements (e.g. roads, water mains, sanitary
sewers, storm drains, etc.) the developer shall submit to the City Engineer, `as -built'
construction drawings certified by a licensed engineer.
Staff recommends that the South Burlington Development Review Board continue Preliminary Plat
application #SD-04-55.
Respectfully submitted,
Brian Robertson, Associate Planner
Copy to: David Scheuer, Applicant
Dave Marshall, Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF 1PEANNE04G & ZONING
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
(802) 846-4106
FAX (802) 846-4101
September 24, 2004
David Scheuer
Retrovest
70 South Winooski Avenue
Burlington, VT 05403
Re: South Village
Dear Mr. Scheuer:
Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Board meeting
and staff comments to the Board. Please be sure that someone is at the meeting
on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 at 7:00 p.m, at the City Hall Conference Room,
575 Dorset Street.
If you have any questions, please give us a call.
Sincerely,
0
\y
Betsy McDonough
Administrative Assistant
Encl.
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNII*IG & ZONING
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
(802) 846-4106
FAX (802) 846-4101
September 22, 2004
David Scheuer
Retrovest
70 South Winooski Avenue
Burlington, VT 05403
Re: Minutes
Dear Mr. Scheuer:
Enclosed, please find a copy of the minutes from the September 7, 2004
Development Review Board meeting.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Betsy McDonough
Administrative Assistant
Encl.
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANN01G & ZONU",JG
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
(802) 846-4106
FAX (802) 846-4101
September 14, 2004
David Scheuer, President
Retrovest
70 South Winooski Avenue
Burlington, VT 05401-3830
Re: Minutes
Dear Mr. Scheuer:
Enclosed, please find a copy of the minutes from the August 17, 2004
Development Review Board meeting.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
�jj
Betsy McDonough
Administrative Assistant
Encl.
SOURCE THE BASEMAP FOR THIS EXHIBIT IS A SCANNED IMAGE OF A PLAN ENTITLED "SOUTH VILLAGE,
ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN' PREPARED BY LOONEY RICKS KISS ARCHITECTS, INC. FOR THE RETROVEST
COMPANIES DATED MAY 10, 2004 (PROJECT #02.01047.04). THE RESTRICTED AREA ILLUSTRATED ON THIS
PLAN WAS OBTAINED FROM THE CHITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS FIGURE
IS SIMILAR TO SHEET C2.3 OF THE SOUTH VILLAGE APPLICATION PACKAGE DATED JUNE, 2004.
GOPYRIGNI LIM
THEVH REfitO1P,NC
A1I RIGHTSTSRESERVED NO PORTION OF THIS DRAWING MAY RE COPIED WfRIg11PRIDRWRIfIFM PHd69O16THEYE1iiHd€ff1QIP.NC
GRAPHIC SCALE
—1 0pp
tmrml
1 IDeL = 2W ft.
N
W E
APPROXIMATE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA OF
PHASES I, II & III = 65.7 ACRES (+/-)
APPROXIMATE PHASE I, II & III DEVELOPMENT AREA
WITHIN RESTRICTED AREA = 27.8ACRES (+/-)
APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE OF PHASE I, II & III
DEVELOPMENT AREA WITHIN RESTRICTED AREA = 42%
' RED HATCH INDICATES RESTRICTED AREAS
RESTRICTED AREA PLAN
DI
CHECK
APPRC
DATEATE'. f
SCALE
The Verterre Group, Inc. v.l
414 Rl—wit Highway- Stite 200 I
cold miff, VemroTa 054"-jmzfiS4-ltm FI
it �r• (" i
i i
I� j�
• '�' 4 pp
'1
SOURCE THE BASEMAP FOR THIS EXHIBIT IS A DIGITAL IMAGE OF THE BURLINGTON, VERMONT U.S.G.S.
MAP OBTAINED UTILIZING TERRAIN NAVIGATOR SOFTWARE FROM MAPTECH, INC. RIDGES HAVE BEEN
`t-
- -
' l• I
HATCHED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES.
THE VERTERRf (3iWP,IxNo
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED vORnOx OF n113 DRAWNG MAx BECWx:DV•MO1TPfbp2VebDBIPHMSSId CFMEVERIHME GItIIP,NC
- _...__y,n-:" -
•�.� I J
116 • �,�
l
r
O�
GRAPHIC SCALE` `
} sm sop +aoo spW
1 99pD :Sap 0.
�! RIDGELINE MAP
M�
DRJ!H
CHECI®BT RH PROVED
DATE 9ffm
SCALE App— T•=SW
The Verterre Group, Inc w,w.•
4URooseveBHig—W-sm.?w
Colchester, I"—* 9511, • ba ss.-seep FI[.IIRF 2
11 � } s t q �•. ' -tom „ , 4 . M� � � 6 A p � ,,�i� !a^� � �� ( t A � Yy � rY•
3 .• �f' •-7 �nn.n 1� '1 �1. ;.y G� a �+
. n n_ � ^ O pia �'�' n n 1S 4� ri �pn -J ,.�i •�°' .,fit i � ��
SOURCE: THE BASEMAP FOR THIS EXHIBIT IS A SCANNED IMAGE OF A PLAN ENTITLED "SOUTH VILLAGE,
ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN" PREPARED BY LOONEY RICKS KISS ARCHITECTS, INC. FOR THE RETROVEST
COMPANIES DATED MAY 10, 2004 (PROJECT #0201047.04). RIDGES HAVE BEEN HATCHED FOR
ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES.
GRAPHIC SCALE
2a0 o 200 Sao ea0
ON -SITE PROMINENT RIDGELINE MAP
The Verterre Group, Inc."
4u RooseveK HxX war - StiW zoo
Coldwst-, V— t osus - (M3) 659-BM
a
y 3y
1 7 t.
k�{
OLrd
iv
Al
et
. .�`�.� ...•....++�� 1 ,n q ,, it 3:"
A
'30c1' �1� 7, ') -�, JJ� ^�`)l ,ram n _77
x.
IR
:'JaRgi!F Q
-
1'f� •ii��'> A z ` f •"� ja' nA 9�aa)r9r s1 � {�.1 ti•`7j 5 ... �. �� Y.7 .�:
.n �� eJ •''�°kj'rls .&i,�.
il
SOURCE THE BASEMAP FOR THIS EXHIBIT IS A SCANNED IMAGE OF A PLAN ENTIT ED "SOUTH VILLAGE,
ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN" PREPARED BY LOONEY RICKS KISS ARCHITECTS, INC. FOR THE RETROVEST
COMPANIES DATED MAY 10, 2004 (PROJECT #02.01047.04). THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR ILLUSTRATED BY THE
RED ARROW ON THIS MAP WAS OBTAINED FROM MAP #9 OF THE SOUTH BURLINGTON OPEN SPACE
STRATEGY PREPARED BY T. J. BOYLE AND ASSOCIATES DATED APRIL, 2002
H
W E
' RED ARROW INDICATES WILDLIFE CORRIDOR
WILDLIFE CORRIDOR MAP
DRA"
CHECKE
GRAPHIC SCALE
"oo Boo
AP R
DATE
Im ]00
SCALE.
The Verterre Group, Inc."
vea
l teem n.
414 aoo e t Highway - iwlte 200
�tl�. y,.� 05..6 - 1902) 651-»aa3
FK
a p
�..H.�'•
A> J
m
Is-
PY
r., h
n� r lA
a-
WETLAND rs r la ^r ,ra n'.
"kl y q
DISTURBAf ICF y a �
36- P�. { ti - T�. nQ •i ^ j'a
WETLAND DISTURBANCE
STREAM CROSSING WITH '
POTENTIAL FLOODPLAIN IMPACT WETLAND CROSSING
SOURCE THE BASEMAP FOR THIS EXHIBIT IS A SCANNED IMAGE OF A PLAN EMTFfLED "SOUTH VILLAGE,
ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN" PREPARED BY LOONEY RICKS KISS ARCHITECTS, INC. FOR THE RETROVEST
COMPANIES DATED MAY 10, 2004 (PROJECT #02 01047.04).
cmvuHA1>. m
Tovalic PE �GVGPnMY nPnPTlGetx THIS GRAWMG MAV BE CGPIFG VNIHGUTPgIOt W4REM P9ir651O16ME�•FFIERHE(3tU1P,NC
GRAPHIC SCALE
am a 10o m
/ 40 em1
1 6ncp = mo 1l.
e�rje
P
STREAM CROSSING
x
W E
STREAM CROSSING & WETLAND
DISTURBANCE MAP
DRAI
CHEI
APPI
)ATI
SCA
The Verterre Group, Inc.'
r
414 RoowW* Hk$-W -Sint. 200
Culcheaff, V-9 054" - (20Z 654-9653
F
a
II °•
The Retrovest Companies
B U I L D E R S& D E V E L O P E R S
June 29, 2004
Brian Robertson, Associate Planner
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
RE: SOUTH VILLAGE
Dear Brian:
For our meeting with the Natural Resources Committee on Thursday, July 8, 2004,
please find copies of the following along with duplicates for committee members.
- 24 x 36 of Drawing #C4.0 entitled Wetland Plan with Points - South Village
- 11 x 17 of same
- Memorandum from Art Gilman of William D. Countryman addressing the
City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations regarding South
Village Wetlands.
- South Village Wildlife Assessment from David E. Capen, Ph.D, Certified
Wildlife Biologist
We will meet you and the committee members at the site at 6pm on that date and
proceed afterwards to the City of South Burlington's offices. Art Gilman, David
Capen, David Marshall from Civil Engineering, myself and David Scheuer will be
there. I will also have on site, the Wetland Plan on foam board and any other plans
you deem necessary.
If you require any further information, please let me know.
�Sincerely,
Michelle Holgate�
70 South Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT 05401-3830 802-863-8323 800-679-1929 F 802-863-1339 www.retrovest.com
y�
1
I
I '
I � 1
1' l
'� _ •___- 11 1 II
1\�
ci
\ Of
1 .ram[^ Tom
`I I
I
I
IGRAPHIC SCALE
f (w �200 I —
1 in•h f<
_ PLANS PREPARED HY:
AL
' A
1
I CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
P.O. BOX 485 SHRBURNE, Vf 05482
1 6@-0&iZ M H02-D =ll wa0.' w.w.cra,tcvn
1 _
AWY
D1
�- ----- GSM
1 APPLICANT:
1
SOUTH VILLAGE
1 COMMUNITIES, LLC.
1
IPROJECT CONSULTANTS:
' LAND USE PLANNERIARCHITECT
1 LOONEY RICKS KISS
i. • I NASHVILLE. IN
�:. .
CIVIL ENGINEER
1 CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES
Jn . 1 SHELBURNE, VT
- 3. •..::..::•:.• TRAFFIC ENGINEER
- TND ENGINEERING
1 OSSIPEE, NH
1
• • • - -.. I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
LAND -WORKS
MIDDLEBURY, VT
1
1
........PROJECT TITLE:
tm
SOUTH VILLAGEI
� S o a 1 6 8 a r 1 1�., o a. V• r s o
SPEAR STREET AND
ALLEN ROAD
SOUTH BURLINGTON,VT
LOCATION MAP
D�RB 4ffiC® 1RVISIDN
WETLAND
PLAN
WITH POINTS
DATL DR.�INC NUY98Y
JUNE, 2004
1' - 200'
C4.0
01243
William A Countryman
Environmental Assessment & Planning
868 Winch Hill Road, Northfield, VT 05663
Ph: (802) 485-8421; FAX: (802) 485-8422
wdcenv@to,gether.net
MEMORANDUM
To: Dave Marshall, PE
From: Art Gilman, Errol Briggs
Date: 4 June 2004
Re: South Village Wetlands, for City of South Burlington Land Development
Regulations
Under the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations, adopted 12 May
2003, a project that will impact wetlands must be reviewed by the Natural Resources
Committee. Submittals to the Committee include 1) a wetland delineation of the entire
property and 2) a response to criteria in Section 12.02 E of the Regulations.
1) We have reviewed the map of the delineations and believe that it is accurate.
Following initial concerns that our 2001 delineations missed some areas, we re -delineated
certain areas, and have reviewed the delineations in the field with personnel from the US
Army Corps of Engineers, the Vermont Wetlands Office, and with Dori Barton of
Arrowwood Environmental. We believe that that there is now general concurrence that
the wetland boundaries are accurately portrayed.
2) For response to Section 1202.E (Standards for Wetlands Protection), each
standard is given below with our response:
(1) Consistent with the purposes of the Section, encroachment into wetlands
and buffer areas is generally discouraged.
The South Village project has been laid out with avoidance of wetlands in mind,
and specifically avoids the large central wetland and the forested swamp on the
eastern property boundary. The requirements of the City to have a through road,
however, necessitates crossing the major wetlands in two locations.
Encroachment into the 50' buffer zones designated under the Vermont Wetland
Rules has also been minimized.
(2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in
cotjunction with issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the
DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below
An application for a Conditional Use Determination will be submitted to the
DEC.
(3) Encroachment into Class H wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III
wetland buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed
project's overall development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system,
provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following
standards for wetland protection:
(a) The encroachments) will not adversely affect the ability of the property
to carry or store floodwaters adequately;
The flood storage capacity of the wetlands on this property is significant
and is primarily related to the large central wetland. The capacity of the
small Class III wetlands is not significant individually, nor, in our
estimation, in the aggregate - being altogether much less than the large
central wetland. Encroachment into this wetland is limited to crossings;
these will be adequately culverted to avoid impounding waters;
furthermore, the various stormwater controls will serve to slow the flow of
water into the large wetland.
(b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed
stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state
standards.
It is our understanding that all stormwater control measures will be
undertaken outside of existing wetlands, i.e., the creation of Stormwater
Treatment Trains. These are intended to filter out sediments, sequester
any toxicants or pathogens, and uptake nutrients. Therefore, there will be
no diminution of capacity of the wetlands to cleanse waters, which is a
recognized function of these wetlands. We observed, and will note for the
record, that following heavy rains, the stream through the wetlands runs
cloudy, even though the entire area is fully vegetated - an indication of
natural erosion of the clay soils.
(c) The impact of the encroachments) on the specific wetland functions and
values identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized
or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment and/or other
mitigation measures.
The small Class Three wetlands were found to be significant primarily for
water quality maintenance, and as noted above, we believe the proposed
stormwater treatment, which is quite innovative, will suffice to minimize
or offset any impact to this function.
The large, contiguous Class Two wetland was found to be significant for
numerous functions and values, which we discuss individually here:
1) Stormwater storage - the storage capacity of the wetland will not
be diminished
2) Water quality through trapping of sediments, toxicants, and
pathogens - the capacity of the wetland will not be significantly
diminished, and with the stormwater treatment in place, there
should be little or no additional input
3) Water quality through uptake of nutrients - we would note that the
main wetland is dominated by lake sedge which is very well suited
to uptake of nutrients; there should be no impact
4) Fisheries - we do not believe the wetland is significant for fisheries
although there may be minnows in the manmade pond; the stream
channel is ephemeral and only suitable during a portion of the year.
We believe there would be no impact to this function
5) Hydrophytic vegetation - the forested swamp along the eastern
edge of the property is likely a significant area for hydrophytic
vegetation as a community, but no development is proposed within
it or within 50' of it. Otherwise, we have not identified any
significant hydrophytic vegetation, but have indicated that we will
revisit one locale later this summer to determine if a species of
bedstraw (Galium) observed there is a rare species (it was
unidentifiable when observed in 2003). If so, then we would
advise Retrovest that a slight project redesign should be
undertaken to avoid the location.
6) Wildlife - we refer you to the studies of Dr. Dave Capen in regard
to wetland -dependent wildlife.
7) Recreation - as generally construed, this wetland would not be
significant for this function
8) Education - as generally construed, this wetland would not be
significant for this function
9) Erosion control - as generally construed, this wetland would not be
significant for this function
SOUTH VILLAGE WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT
Prepared by David E. Capen, Ph.D.
Certified Wildlife Biologist
Research Professor, University of Vermont
June 2004
Introduction
This report provides a record of field studies conducted to document wildlife occurrence
on the proposed South Village project site in South Burlington, Vermont. The specific
purpose of this study was to survey the site frequently during winter, spring, and summer
months, 2002, to document use by wildlife and to assess habitat for wildlife. In winter,
observations focused on detecting and identifying tracks left by mammals. In spring and
summer, surveys featured birds. Occasional visits throughout 2003 and 2004 have
supplemented the initial surveys.
South Village
The Retrovest Companies plan to build a series of innovative neighborhoods in South
Burlington, Vermont, using design concepts reflecting historic Vermont settlement
patterns. Known as South Village, the new community will be situated on a 227-acre
propertv on the east side of Spear Street at Allen Road. Currently, the land includes a
substantial acreage of followed agricultural farm fields dominated by non-native
agronomic grasses and forbs, and areas that are being reinvaded by shrubs and
saplings; a large central wetland area; mixed forests and pine plantations; and a forested
wetland. Except for the forested wetland (an unusual example of a Calcareous Red
Maple -Tamarack Swamp that also supports a number of species characteristic of acidic
wetlands) the land supports a typical diversity of plant communities and wildlife habitat
found in many areas of South Burlington and surrounding towns.
Wildlife Surveys
Methods
Field surveys were conducted systematically from January -July 2002 to document use of
the South Village property by mammals and birds. Surveys for mammals consisted of
locating and identifying tracks in snow. Tracking was conducted during 13 visits from 18
January to 2 April by Tina Scharf (M.S. Wildlife Biology, Univ. of Vermont). The winter of
2002 was not one with abundant snow, but nevertheless 11 surveys were conducted on
snow. Bare -ground surveys were done on two occasions to find other animal sign, such
as scats and runways. Most surveying was done by following north -south and east -west
transect lines. Animal tracks also were followed on occasion to determine movement
patterns, with a special interest in determining if and where animals moved onto and off
the property.
Surveys for bird species were conducted primarily in late spring and early summer, when
breeding birds are most conspicuous, although sightings also were recorded in winter
and early spring while surveying for mammals. The majority of bird species were found
on five trips to the property between 24 May and 15 June. Tina Scharf also conducted
survey for birds, accompanied on one day by Ernest Buford, a local expert in bird
identification.
Additional visits to the site to observe wildlife have been made (D. Capen) in April 2003,
June 2003, December 2003, and April 2004.
Results —Mammal surveys
Tracks were detected for 13 species of wild mammals on the 13 days when tracking
surveys were conducted (Table 1). The Eastern cottontail was the most consistently
abundant mammal, and was recorded on all 13 surveys. Red fox tracks also were
recorded during all surveys. Coyote tracks were seen on 12 of the 13 survey dates.
For these three species, it was common to note that three or more individuals had left
tracks in the snow. Other predatory species detected included long-tailed weasel,
ermine, and bobcat. The ermine and bobcat were detected only once, but the long-
tailed weasel had been active prior to four survey dates.
White-tailed deer tracks were not found regularly throughout the winter, but their tracks
were common and widespread in late winter and early spring, when weather was
uncharacteristically mild and snow cover was inconsistent. There is evidence from
runways, scats, and buck antler rubs that deer occupy the property most of the year.
Winter food may be lacking, however, because there is very little woody understory in
the forest. There also was evidence --bark stripping on small red maple trees --that
moose have been present in the past, and one set of fresh moose tracks was observed
in late spring.
Small mammals, including Eastern cottontails, meadow voles, white-footed mice, gray
squirrels, red squirrels, eastern chipmunks, moles, and shrews, appear to be plentiful on
the site, even though some of these species were not represented by track counts.
These species obviously support the small and mid -sized predators mentioned above.
The property is part of the home ranges of at least two red foxes and perhaps three
coyotes. It was common to see their tracks throughout the property, sometimes even
quite close to —but never crossing-- Spear Street. Beds of two coyotes were found in the
northeastern corner, but no dens were found. One or two bobcats had visited the
property on one survey day. No place looks like a characteristic den site for bobcats
within the South Village property, so it is assumed that the area is a part of a bobcat's
extended territory.
A raccoon was seen during spring bird surveying, but no tracks were found in the winter.
No sign was found of skunks, flying squirrels, woodland or meadow jumping mice, or
woodchucks; but it is likely that they do exist on the property. Bats are not present in the
winter, but probably could be found in the summer.
Table 1. Results of tracking surveys for mammals on South Village property, 2002. Numbers indicate
evidence of at least that many animals.
Species
Survey
Dates
18-Jan
21-Jan
25-Jan
28-Jan
5-Feb
9-Feb
12-Feb
15-Feb
18-Feb
28-Feb
19-Mar
21-Mar 2-Apr
Masked shrew
3
Eastern cottontail
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Eastern chipmunk
1
Gray squirrel
3
3
1
1
Red squirrel
3
2
1
2
1
2
1
White-footed mouse
1
1
1
1
Meadow vole
2
2
3
1
3
3
3
Coyote
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
1
2
2
Red fox
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
2
3
3
Long-tailed weasel
3
1
2
2
Ermine
1
Bobcat
2
White-tailed deer
2
1
1
3
3
3 3
House cat
1
1
1
Results —Bird Survevs
Fifty-seven species of birds were observed during observation periods that ran from
January through July 2002 (Table 2). Observations during winter, however, were
incidental to searching for mammal tracks. Sixteen species seen or heard during winter
included three species —mallards, red -winged blackbirds, and American robin —that
were present because of the mild winter. The remaining 13 bird species would be
expected to occur on the site throughout the year.
During the breeding season, May -July, 54 species were detected on the site. Most of
these are birds that might be found nesting in one of the habitat types on the South
Village property. Exceptions are alder flycatcher, rusty blackbird, white -throated
sparrow, and purple finch, species that normally nest farther north, or at higher
elevations, and were likely seen while on migration. Several other species require large
trees or dense forest for nesting and probably find nest sites in the mature forest east of
the boundary of South Village property. These species include red-tailed hawk,
American kestrel, ruffed grouse, wild turkey, barred owl, pileated woodpecker, great -
crested flycatcher, scarlet tanager, and ovenbird. Other woodland species include
Eastern wood -pewee, great -crested flycatcher, nor -them flicker, ruby -throated
hummingbird, American crow, blue jay, black -capped chickadee, tufted titmouse, white -
breasted nuthatch, brown creeper, veery, wood thrush, and Eastern towhee.
Grassland species included field sparrow, song sparrow, savannah sparrow, brown -
headed cowbird, eastern meadowlark, killdeer, and bobolink. Shrubby habitat is
preferred by species such as yellow warbler, common yellowthroat, brown thrasher,
northern cardinal, and chipping sparrow. Several species were present because of
wetland habitats.- willow flycatcher, red -winged blackbird, common grackle, swamp
sparrow, and mallard. The wetland areas, in combination with abandoned pastures
attracted two northern harriers, which were seen on 13 June, 2002, but not on
subsequent visits to the site_
In April 2003, Canada geese and an American bittern were observed on or near the
small pond on the property. Geese were observed again in 2004, but the bittern was not
observed again, either in June 2003 or April 2004. In mid -April, 2003 and 2004, visits to
the site were made at dusk to document use of the shrubby fields by American
woodcock. At least two different male woodcock were observed in their courtship flights
during these visits.
'able 2. Birds observed during winter, spring, and summer, 2002, on South Village property.
-Species------------------ --------- --------------- Winter/Spring__-_______-_ Spring/Summer
- - - - ------------
Mallard
X
X
Red-tailed hawk
X
X
American kestrel
x
Ruffed grouse
X
X
Wild turkey
X
X
Killdeer
X
Mourning dove
X
X
Barred owl
X
Northern harrier
X
Black -billed cuckoo
X
Pileated woodpecker
Northern flicker
X
Ruby -throated hummingbird
X
Great -crested flycatcher
x
Eastern wood -pewee
X
Eastern kingbird
X
Willow flycatcher
X
Tree swallow
X
Alder flycatcher
X
Bam swallow
American crow
Blue jay
Black -capped chickadee
Tufted titmouse
White -breasted nuthatch
Brown creeper
House wren
Veery
Scarlet tanager
Wood thrush
American robin
Gray catbird
Brown thrasher
Cedar waxwing
Red -eyed vireo
Yellow warbler
Common yellowthroat
Ovenbird
Northern cardinal
Chipping sparrow
Eastern towhee
Field sparrow
Savannah sparrow
Song sparrow
Swamp sparrow
Bobolink
White -throated sparrow
Red -winged blackbird
Eastern meadowlark
Rusty blackbird
Common grackle
Brown -headed cowbird
Baltimore oriole
X
X
X
European starling X
Purple finch X
American goldfinch X
House sparrow X X
Discussion
The South Village property offers a mix of habitat types for wildlife, despite the
detrimental effects of recent agriculture practices on the structure of natural
communities. The acreage is a diverse mix of wetlands, shrubs, and forest stands of
different ages and species. It is clearly a mix of communities in transition. What were
pastures only 10-15 years ago have now succeeded to brush, and could become
forested in another 15 years. The white pine forest on the property appears to have
become established naturally during a rest from grazing or as a result of low -density
grazing. The virtual absence of natural understory vegetation in the white pines
suggests that grazing may have occurred as pines became established on the site or,
alternatively, that soil compaction from previous grazing has prevented a dense
understory of native species from becoming established and has favored a number of
invasive exotic species.
A diversity of mammals and birds was documented on the South Village property. None
of the species detected was a surprise, because all are common in habitats of this type
in suburban areas of the Champlain Valley. No species found is listed as Endangered or
Threatened in Vermont; indeed, all but the rusty blackbird are common. The Natural
Heritage database maintained by the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife shows
that the upland sandpiper, a Threatened species, was found on or near this property
about a decade ago. This is an easily observed species and one that many bird
watchers seek in the proper habitat, yet there have been no recent reports. The
grasslands on the South Village property are no longer sparse enough to attract the
Upland Sandpiper. When this species used this site, fields were still being grazed by
cattle, which produced a sparse, patchy condition preferred by this bird.
The South Village property remains as one of the most substantial parcels of
undeveloped land in the Southeast Quadrant of South Burlington. But, these acres have
rapidly become isolated from some of the other undeveloped parcels in the vicinity. The
west boundary of South Village abuts busy Spear Street and increasingly dense
suburban develop west of Spear Street. It is unlikely that any significant movements of
mammals to and from the property occur to the west. To the north, the western half of
the boundary is adjacent to some small fallow fields that mix with residential properties.
But, the eastern boundary blends into a large, 100+ acres, patch of mature forest that
also forms most of the eastern boundary of the property and likely serves as a reservoir
for many of the wildlife species detected on the South Village property. North of this
forested area, however, is now a large golf course and surrounding residential
development, so wildlife movements in this direction are quite limited.
The southern boundary of South Village abuts some fallow fields, residential property,
and wetlands along the Spear Street side of the property. This open land extends for
about 2500 feet before intersecting Barstow Road. On the eastern portion of the south
boundary, large, residential lots predominate. At the southeast comer of South Village,
one finds a funnel-like feature of vegetation types where wetlands, open fields, and
woodlands converge. This comer, until recently, likely was the point of greatest ingress
to the property for those wildlife species that have large home ranges and might
disperse from extensive areas of undeveloped land to the east of Dorset Street.
However, the area of connecting habitat between South Village and areas east of Dorset
Street, which includes the Shelburne Pond natural area, has been thoroughly dissected
by an extensive housing development, Dorset Farms.
Thus, the South Village property, and the adjacent forest to the east have been
progressively isolated from surrounding areas that formerly shared their undeveloped
character. This area is not yet an "island" of habitat for wildlife, but roads and housing
developments have almost surrounded the property and usurped travel corridors for
wildlife. Scattered patches of forest and open fields, interspersed with houses and
driveways, still exist south and southeast of the South Village property, but even these
areas are bounded by roads with increasingly heavy flows of traffic.
Impact of South Village Development on Wildlife Habitat
South Village proposes to establish more than 300 housing units, yet 55% of the 227-
acre property will remain in a natural state or as part of a small, working farm. Indeed,
the plan for ecological restoration should assure improvement of the condition of all
habitat types; except perhaps the amount of shn island; which is temporary stage in the
transition of fields to forest. Most importantly, the forests and wetlands on the eastern
portion of the property will be left largely undeveloped, but will be restored to a more
natural condition. The only housing proposed for this section of the property is in the low
quality (i.e., low diversity of plants species and habitat structure) white pine forest,
adjacent to existing development of Dorset Farms. Certainly, South Village will be busy
with people and their activities, but most wildlife species found today on this property
have already adapted to humans and their activities, and are quite common in suburban
areas.
One of the unique aspects of the South Village proposal is the plan for ecological
restoration of natural communities on undeveloped parts of the property. The restoration
plan is being developed by Applied Ecological Services (AES), a company that is widely
respected for such work. The plan is described below.
The ecological restoration program for South Village seeks to encourage plant
communities, dominated by native plant species, that resemble the structure and spatial
patterns of natural communities found on this land before recent agricultural uses. The
term restoration is used to mean that the existing vegetation systems will be enhanced
through active management or that existing degraded vegetation will be completely
replaced with native plant species. Other goals are to stabilize soils, hold nutrients on
the land, and manage stormwater runoff from the existing site, and future development
as an important asset and resource. These measures can enhance the quality of habitat
for wildlife, even though the extent of wildlife habitat will be reduced.
The restoration plan is comprised of two periods. The remedial period involves the
major tasks such as brushing buckthorn from the forests, replanting native grasslands,
conducting reforestation, and installing the Stormwater Treatment Train system. This
period usually lasts 3-5 years. The maintenance phase of this program includes
perpetual tasks done annually to maintain and enhance the ecological systems. Such
activities might include prescribed burning and noxious weed management. The
conceptual restoration plan was developed from the natural resources assessment,
while at the same time integrating the development intent, with its recreation and open -
space component, and the Stormwater Treatment Train for stormwater management.
An outline of major restoration tasks is as follows:
Forests and Savannas
A diverse understory vegetation will be restored in the forests. This will be done
by seeding, plugging, brushing, and prescribed burning. Invasive shrubs and
saplings of buckthorn, tartarian honeysuckle, boxelder, and other noxious or
invasive plant species will be removed, allowing ample light to the ground to
encourage growth of ground cover vegetation. Some forest areas, now
dominated by undesirable and invasive tree species, will be converted to native
species. Finally, dense white pine stands will be thinned to allow hardwood
regeneration to occur and native understory vegetation to be reestablished.
These practices will enhance, considerably, a portion of the property that now
lacks vertical plant diversity that is a key to a diverse wildlife community.
2. Conversion of Old Farm Fields to Native Grasslands
Parts of the fallowed farm fields now growing in agronomic grasses and weeds
will be restored to native grasses. The existing weedy vegetation in these areas
will be eradicated using selective herbicides, followed by preparation of soil, then
seeding and plugging of native plants. Prescribed burning and other methods
will be used for maintenance of the native grasslands. Although native prairies
probably were never present in Vermont, grasslands have become part of the
Vermont landscape. A number of grassland bird species are in serious decline in
the Northeast and are featured in conservation activities that promote grassland
management. The South Village site could contribute as a sustainable habitat for
some of these species.
3. Wetland Restoration and Enhancement
Most of the small wetlands that will be retained in the development are within
upland settings and will be restored by planting and managing the areas as
diverse sedge meadows, and various other native wetland types. Existing
drained wetland areas that border the large wetland area will be restored, where
these areas fall within buffer areas. Patches of reed canary grass, stinging
nettles, and cattails will be reduced, and the sites will be enhanced by addition of
native species. These areas also will be managed with prescribed burning and
other methods. Wetlands are among the most manageable of wildlife habitats,
and it is well known that wildlife productivity, including enhanced species
diversity, can respond to active management.
4. Stormwater Treatment Train
Stormwater management is a critical concern in any development. Here, we
propose to integrate native and ornamental landscaping treatments combined
with some engineering strategies to effectively manage the volume and quality of
water within and departing the property. The Stormwater Treatment Train (STT)
is a series of linked landscape elements that begin to manage water as soon as
precipitation hits the ground, and throughout its tenure on the property. The goal
of the STT is to reduce the volume of water leaving the land as surface runoff
(through infiltration, evaporation, and evapotranspiration), to reduce the rate at
which the remaining volume leaves the land by holding the water in
microdepressions, routing it through native grasslands, forests, wetlands, and
ornamental landscaping designed to hold, and beneficially utilize the runoff. The
benefactor of this volume and rate management for stormwater is increased
quality of water leaving the uplands.
5. Landscaping
Most open space in the South Village property will emphasize native landscaping
using the same native species proposed for the larger project restorations.
Lawns and ornamental landscapes are envisioned to be a necessity in some
areas. Native landscaping in yards, if any, will primarily be focused within
backyards and perhaps as an ornamental formal landscape (at the discretion of
the homeowner in front and side yards around homes) in other locations of the
yard. The project team will encourage use of native landscaping in as large an
area of the development as possible even in yards to reduce mowing, irrigation,
fertilizer and other contaminant loads generated by the development.
South Village and Act 250
Criterion 8a of Act 250 states that development will not "destroy or significantly imperil
necessary wildlife habitat..." Necessary wildlife habitat is defined as that habitat
important to the continued existence of a population or species. "Habitat" is often defined
as the place where a species lives. It is usually characterized by site conditions (e.g.,
wetlands vs uplands) and by plant communities and structure. Habitat may also include
a reference to space (e.g., a species such as the pileated woodpecker requires 200
acres for a breeding territory). Significantly, habitat should be viewed —especially in the
context of Act 250—as being species specific. Thus, many different species find habitat
on the South Village property because the area offers diverse habitat conditions. It is
unlikely that habitat for any of these species will be lost as a result of development. The
amount of space available for wildlife will be reduced, however, perhaps resulting in
lesser numbers of some species, but certainly not posing a threat to the continued
existence of a population or species. The Retrovest Companies is committed to a
unique plan of ecological restoration on this property that should be a substantial
mitigation for loss of acreage available for wildlife.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
17 AUGUST 2004
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on
Tuesday, 17 August 2004, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575
Dorset St.
Members Present: L. Kupferman, Acting Chair; M. Kupersmith, C. Bolton, G. Quimby,
R. F arley
Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; J. B. Hinds, Director of Planning &
Zoning; J. Anderson, S. Vallee, R. Spindler, E. Smith, D. Scheuer, D. & M. Wetzel, B.
Cimonettei, R. Erlenson, J. Prim, T. Heagher, L. Bresee, D. Miner, L. Effel, E. & D.
Tolan, R. DeWolf, P. Malone, R. & S. Griffin, B. Brenia, J. Jaeger, C.Lisman, D. Swain,
M & J. Koplewitz
1. Other Business:
No issues were raised.
2. Minutes of 20 July and 3 August 2004:
The Minutes of 20 July could not be acted upon as there was not a majority of those
present at that meeting.
Ms. Quimby moved to approve the Minutes of 3 August as written. Mr. Bolton seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
3. ketch Plan application #SD-04-62 of South Village Communities, LLC, for a
nned unit development consisting of. 1) a 334 residential unit traditional
neighborhood design to include single family, two-family, and multi -family
dwellings, 2) a 100 student educational facility, and 3) a community building to
support a 35-acre farm, 1840 Spear Street:
Mr. Anderson, representing Mr. Vallee, said he felt there should be no hearing as there
was no notice of the meeting provided. Mr. Belair referred to a letter of 17 August from
the City Attorney indicating there is no legal reason to reschedule this hearing. There is
also a letter from Mark Hall, the applicant's attorney, expressing the same opinion.
Mr. Kupferman noted there will be a preliminary plat hearing which is scheduled for 7
-1-
a
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
17 AUGUST 2004
September.
Mr. Anderson stated that he felt it was improper to let a developer speak with the Board
without proper notice.
Ms. Hinds advised the Board to follow the City Attorney's advice. She noted that anyone
who disagrees with the City Attorney's opinion can pursue the matter in Court. Ms.
Hinds added that all requirements for the public hearing on 7 September have been met,
but there are no requirements for notice of a sketch plan meeting. This sketch plan
presentation has been put on the Board's agenda and posted in three public places, as
required.
Members were OK to proceed with the sketch plan presentation.
Mr. Scheuer said the plan involves 220 acres. It is a large scale infill site near the
intersection of Dorset St. and Allen Rd. A very small part of the project is in the Town of
Shelburne.
A small portion of the plan previously seen by the DRB has been removed at staffs
request.
Highlights of the plan include:
a. a lot of open space
b. a stormwater management plan that goes beyond what the State requires
c. preservation of view sheds
d. an ecological restoration plan to rid the site of invasive species
e. the creation of a "sense of community" by using residentially scaled streets,
community meeting places, and a mix of housing types and prices.
On September 7, they will come to the Board with a Master Plan and a request to approve
the first group of homes.
There is also a commitment from a private school which wants to relocate to this site.
Mr. Scheuer showed the location for the school on the plan.
The Intervale Foundation will also participate in the development with an organic farming
program that residents will be able to participate in.
-2-
D
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
17 AUGUST 2004
There will be a very large network of walking paths and a continuation of the bike path.
Mr. Bolton asked whether the Fire Chief has seen the plans. Mr. Scheuer said he has and
has been very cooperative.
Mr. Kupferman noted a new entry from Spear St. Mr. Short said this was added at the
recommendation of the street designer. The Public Works Department head concurs.
Mr. Kupferman asked about turn lanes. Mr. Scheuer said he understood there will be a
signal at the main intersection.
Mr. Spindler thought the new urban design was very thoughtful. He was concerned with
Midland Avenue and said he thought South Burlington was going to protect that middle
section for wildlife. He felt this road would be very damaging.
Mr. Scheuer said they were told it was a "must." They have convinced staff that the road
should be narrower, 20 ft. from curb to curb. The impact on the wetland has already
happened because of the old road there. The impact of the new 20 ft. road will be
minimal. Mr. Bolton said one reason the road is important is that the city is trying to get
densities off roads like Kennedy Drive, Cheese Factory Rd., etc. Mr. Scheuer added that
it is also important for emergency vehicles.
Mr. Anderson felt portions of the project were very good, but he felt the project could be
"turned" to address wildlife and wetland concerns. He said that would make it more
consistent with what the Natural Resources Committee recommends. Mr. Anderson
noted there is enough disturbance because of the road to trigger a federal permit
requirement.
Mr. Vallee noted that 40% of the project is in the "restricted" area.
Mr. Kupferman noted that the DRB does have the option to get an impartial opinion from
a technical consultant on technical issues (traffic, wetlands, etc.).
Mr. Erlenson said Spear Street has very beautiful homes and views and he didn't feel this
development was appropriate because of the high density and narrow streets.
Ms. Prim was concerned with traffic. She said she can barely get out of her driveway
-3-
J/,
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
17 AUGUST 2004
now, and with a signalized intersection, traffic will back up in front of her house.
Mr. Kupferman asked if the density from the units that are not being built was transferred
elsewhere on the property. Mr. Scheuer said it was and showed where lots were added.
There will also be more multi -family units.
Ms. Hinds explained the "technical review process." The applicant noted that the State
Agency of Natural Resources has been working with them.
Mr. Wetzel questioned whether the applicant can meet the affordable housing criteria. He
noted that Dorset Farms is having a hard time doing that. Mr. Scheuer said they have a
commitment for a non-profit administrator to oversee that. He then explained the
affordable housing regulations and said he was confident they could meet the
requirements.
An audience member asked about the impact on schools and sewers. Mr. Scheuer said
there is plenty of capacity in the school and in the sewage treatment plant.
Mr. Cimonetti asked what Master Plan approval means. Ms. Hinds said a Master Plan
approval establishes overall housing density, the road network and building envelopes.
If, in the future, the applicant wants to change any of those things, they have to go back to
sketch plan again.
Mr. Miner asked if the project will have sidewalks. Mr. Scheuer said it will.
Ms. Kupersmith said the densities of a Master Plan are maximums. The applicant may
not be able to get those densities when they actually engineer the neighborhood. Mr.
Cimonetti noted that a master plan can also be changed.
Mr. Kupferman reminded interested parties of the September 7th Preliminary Plat hearing
for this plan.
4. Public Bearing: Final Plat Application #SD-04-57 of Thomas and Patricia Meaker
to resubdivide two lots developed with single-family dwellings. The re -subdivision
consists of transferring 7601 sq. ft. of the lot at 15 Gilbert Street to 21. Gilbert Street:
Mr. Belair said staff had no issues.
-4-
I A " f � C�D� G+ -� (e-
J
It
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
7 SEPTEMBER 2004
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on
Tuesday, 7 September 2004, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575
Dorset St.
Members Present: J. Dinklage, Chair; L. Kupferman, M. Kupersmith, C. Bolton, G.
Quimby, R. Farley, M. Boucher
Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; J. B. Hinds, Director of Planning &
Zoning; B. Robertson, Associate Planner; L. Bresee, G. Schramm, M. Barovick, J.
Cunningham, T. Bianchi, E. Larsen, M. Merritt, R. Erlandson, N. Sykes, J. Anderson, S.
Vallee, B. Hibbitts, J. Gears, L. Llewellyn, B. Cimonetti, D. & M.Wetzel, S. McIntyre,
M. Moore, L. Yankowski, B. Wilford, M. More, M. Westergard, S. Lindberg, M. Mara,
T. Gresham, J. Kleinman, M. Cypes, A. Netzel, R. Spindler, R. Trevithick, E. Bensen, S.
Clark, P. Smechenko, D. & P. Allison, S. Rose, P. Clifford, W. Schroeder, J. Larrow,
D.Sachdeva, R. Unsworth, N. Aydinyan, C. & G. Holmes, K. Lange
1. Other Business:
No issues were raised.
2. Minutes of 20 July and 17 August 2004:
Mr. Boucher moved to approve the Minutes of 20 July as written. Mr. Farley seconded.
Motion passed 5-0 with Messrs Kupferman and Bolton abstaining.
Ms. Quimby moved to approve the Minutes of 17 August as written. Mr. Farley
seconded. Motion passed 5-0 with Messrs. Boucher and Dinklage abstaining.
Mr. Dinklage then noted that since a majority of those present in the audience had come
to hear items 4 and 5 discussed, he felt the Board should first attend to a situation
involving those items. He then read a letter from the applicant requesting a
postponement of the 2 hearings due to a family emergency affecting one of the
presenters.
A general discussion then ensured during which the following comments and
observations were made:
Mr. Anderson (representing the Vallees who are abutting property owners): He
recommended that the applicant address "deficiencies" in the plan before the next
hearing. He also raised the question of a road crossing Dorset Farms common land and
whether that makes Dorset Farms part of these applications. Mr. Anderson cited traffic
issues related to that road.
Mr. Belair noted that staff is recommending technical review for traffic.
- 1 -
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
7 SEPTEMBER 2004
After a brief discussion, Mr. Kupferman moved that the Board invoke technical review
for the applicant's traffic study. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Kupfennan said he had the same concern for environmental work that has been done
and asked whether that could also come up for technical review. Mr. Belair said staff
wasn't sure at this time. There is an effort to get agreement on boundaries of the
wetlands. If the parties can't agree, technical review may be invoked for that issue.
Mr. Kupferman also asked for a separate report on the Spear Street traffic study so the
Board and the public know what is being planned. Ms. Hinds said there will be a
presentation on that study at the City Council meeting on 20 September. There will also
be the opportunity to use that study's findings for the technical review.
Ms. Barovick: She observed that she is having trouble getting out of her driveway now
(at Ridgewood) and asked if this would be considered.
Mr. Belair said traffic will be reviewed by at least 2 experts. Mr. Dinklage added that the
consultant can be asked to include the intersections near Ridgewood in their study.
Mr. Merritt: He expressed concern with public notification and asked where the meetings
are warned.
Mr. Dinklage said the DRB schedule is on the city's website as are agendas for all
meetings. Agendas are also posted at Grand Union, Hannaford, and Graceys. Abutting
property owners are notified by mail of preliminary and final plat hearings. Ms. Hinds
added that public hearings are warned in Seven Days under "Legal Notices."
Ms. Schramm: She felt notice should be in the Free Press.
Ms. Hinds explained that using Seven Days saved the city over $5000 a year and that this
was a decision of the City Council.
Mr. Larsen: He asked about the process the developer goes through with a plan.
Mr. Dinklage explained that for this development, there will first be a Master Plan
application. This includes the number of units planned, roadways, etc. Once a Master
Plan is approved, the developer can then come back with specific implementation based
on the Master Plan.
Mr. Cunningham: He asked if there would be a poll taken at Dorset Farms as to whether
to allow the road to cross Dorset Farms.
Mr. Bianchi said the developer told them Midland would never be a through street. Now
they are hearing it will be a connecting road. He said the problem is a level of trust with
the developer. He felt that notification was important so people don't think something is
being "slid by them."
-2-
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
7 SEPTEMBER 2004
Ms. Hinds said that the extension of Midland has been on the Official City Map for 14
years. There was a stipulation in the Dorset Farms approval that the road would be
connected through. She added that she felt badly that homeowners were misled by the
developer.
Mr. Dinklage then read the stipulation from the original Dorset Farms approval indicating
that Midland would be connected when the adjoining property was developed.
Mr. Erlandson questions whether development was getting ahead of the ability to provide
utilities and services for them. He referred to a letter from Green Mountain Power
regarding system "transmission stress."
Mr. Dinklage said that one of the advantages of the PUD process is that the Board must
ascertain that city services are adequate and must sign off on that. He then cited major
renovations to the water tower to address city needs.
A homeowner asked if the stipulation from the original Dorset Farms approval could be
reversed. Mr. Dinklage said there would have to be a full-blown review of the whole
PUD. Mr. Boucher added that it is the city's goal to interconnect neighborhoods. Mr.
Gears said things have to happen in someone's backyard and people just can't think of
their little strip. He felt the important thing was to make the connection safe.
Ms. Hibbitts noted that she lives at Stonehedge, and Spear Street is already overloaded so
that she can't get out of the development at any time of day.
Mr. Dinklage said there is a formal study underway for a long-range plan for Spear
Street. Ms. Hinds added that this study will be presented to the City Council on 20
September.
Mr. Sykes felt that the design of Midland would encourage a "speedway." He said that
Dorset Farms has many children, and this would create a hazard for them. He also noted
that the proposed new community would have very small houses, not necessarily family
homes. This would mean fewer children and residents who may not be as "kid aware" as
they should be. He suggested traffic claming devices such as a median.
Mr. Dinklage felt this was an excellent suggestion. Mr. Boucher added that the traffic
consultant would look at those options. Ms. Hinds said the city has many investments in
traffic calming. Neighbors need to request this. She suggested the Dorset Farms
neighborhood talk to the City Council as there are resources to make this happen.
Mr. Merritt said you can't stop change, but you do need to influence change. He
appreciated the Board listening to concerns of the neighbors, especially since the agenda
items were not being heard.
-3-
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
7 SEPTEMBER 2004
Mr. Bresee said he has lived in the community more than 30 years. He encouraged
everyone present to teach this process to their children so that they are more informed
when they become homeowners. Ms. Yankowski added that being involved in the
planning for a Master Plan is a very good experience. She also noted that there are
citizens who are opposing the Velco upgrade.
Ms. More asked which group in South Burlington is responsible for following up on
developments as they happen to be sure they are built as they are supposed to be. Mr.
Dinklage said city staff is in charge of enforcement issues. He added that there are some
complex issues such as maintenance of stormwater systems. The city is thinking of
establishing a stormwater utility to address this particular concern. Mr. Dinklage noted
that Mr. Belair is the Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Belair added that others involved in
the process are the Public Works Superintendent, the Water Pollution Control
Department Superintendent and the Superintendent of the Water Department. There are
also controls at the state level via Act 250. Ms. Hinds added that the City Manager and
the City Engineer are also involved in this process. Mr. Dinklage said it is very important
for citizens to contact city staff if they see anything that arouses concern.
Mr. Boucher then moved to continue Master Plan Application #MP-04-01 and
Preliminary Plat Application #SD-04-55 of South Village Communities to 28 September
2004. Mr. Bolton seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
3. Continued Public Hearing: Final Plat Application #SD-04-50 of University
Mall Realty Trust to amend approval #SD-03-70 to expand the shopping
center by 1884 sq. ft. GLA at 155 Dorset Street. The amendment consists of
eliminating condition #11 which requires a mutual access easement to the
property to the north (University Inn):
Ms. McIntyre read a letter from Finard & Co./University Mall in which they said they did
not feel the information available has been responsive to the Board's request. Ms.
McIntyre said UMall is requesting a postponement of the hearing to allow the consultant
to complete review of all data to allow consultants for both the applicant and the city to
work together to assess the "bigger picture," and to allow all parties to understand the
potential risks and benefits of the condition in question.
Ms. Kupersmith said she didn't feel the Board got enough information from the
consultant.
Mr. Belair reminded the Board that they must answer the question of whether or not to
eliminate Stipulation #11, not what kind of connection to build. Ms. McIntyre said the
stipulation says they have to build to the design as shown, and that is their concern.
Mr. Belair suggested the applicant submit a list of questions for the consultant to address.
He emphasized to the applicant that the city regulations require connections between
properties unless there is an overwhelming reason not to. He felt the Board has not yet
heard that overwhelming reason.
-4-
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
Report preparation date: September 3, 2004
\drb\sub\south_village\masterplan.doc
Plans received: August 31, 2004
SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC
MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #SD-04-01
Agenda #4
Meeting Date: September 7, 2004
Owner
Applicant
Paul Calkins
South Village Communities, LLC
P.O. Box 82
70 South Winooski Avenue
Lyndonville, VT 05851
Burlington, VT 05401
Engineer
Property Information
Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.
Tax Parcel 1640-01840-F
928 Falls Road
Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) District
Shelburne, VT 05482
224.18 acres
Location Map
'e i gyp.
� "�` - �'' •
.y..,It
Subject Property
q1"
,
r
F :
x r d
Project Description
South Village Communities, LLC, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking
Master Plan approval pursuant to Section 15.07 of the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 334
residential unit traditional neighborhood design to include single-family, two-family, and
multi -family dwelling units, 2) a 100-student educational facility, and 3) a 35-acre
community -supported farm, 1840 Spear Street. Master Plan approval for this property is
required by Section 15.07(B)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations
as a prerequisite to the development of ten (10) or more residential units in the
Southeast Quadrant Zoning District (SEQ). The sketch plan of this project was reviewed
by the Development Review Board on August 17, 2004 (minutes enclosed).
a. Application
i. This application consists of a Master Plan for a planned unit development
consisting of 334 residential units; a 100-student educational facility, and a
35-acre community -supported farm, 1840 Spear Street.
ii. The application is based upon a plan entitled "South Village — Master Plan
— Spear Street — South Burlington, Vermont".
The owner of record of the property is Paul Calkins.
iv. The application was deemed complete pursuant to 15.07(3) of the Land
Development Regulations.
b. Master Plan Application
The following information was relied upon in making this decision, pursuant to Section
15.07(C)(3) of the Land Development Regulations:
a. An accurate Master Plan has been submitted.
b. The title block is "South Village — South Burlington, Vermont — Spear Street and
Allen Road."
c. The plans were prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.; Looney Ricks
Kiss; TND Engineering; LandWorks; and Applied Ecological Services, Inc., dated
June 2004.
d. A list of abutters was provided with the application and the names of abutters are
included on sheet C2.1 of the plans.
e. The Master Plan application and the plans referenced in (b) above include the
following information:
i. The combined area of the property subject to the Master Plan is 224.18
acres.
H. The plan indicates that 71.6 acres (Phase 1: 25 acres; Phase 2: 18.7 acres;
and Phase 3: 22 acres) are proposed for development and 152.58 acres
are proposed for open space.
Public amenities and facilities indicated on the plans include public streets,
a public water system, a public sewer system; a public stormwater drainage
system, and a public recreation path.
2
iv. The maximum impervious coverage proposed for the property is _%
(30% permitted). The maximum building coverage proposed for the entire
property is _% (15% permitted).
v. The total number of residential dwelling units proposed by the applicant for
the entire property is 334. This total includes the 267 units yielded through
the base density in the Southeast Quadrant (1.2 units/acre), plus the 67
units yielded through the 25% density bonus for providing mixed -rate
housing, pursuant to Section 13.14 of the Land Development Regulations.
vi. The traffic study prepared by TN Engineering estimates a maximum PM
peak hour VTE count of 345.
vii. The sewer and water master plan is depicted on sheet C5.0 of the plans
and has been reviewed by the City Engineer and the Superintendent of
South Burlington Water Department.
viii. The roadway and sidewalk details, including the proposed hierarchy
system, are outlined on sheets T4.1 thought T4.4 of the plans. The plans
have been reviewed and by the Director of Public Works.
ix. The existing conditions plans on sheet C2.1 of the plans depict 2' contour
intervals. Other sheets depict 5' contour intervals, which are in compliance
with this requirement.
x. The boundary survey for the property is depicted on sheet S1.0 of the
plans.
xi. The proposed north and south street intersections have been staked in the
field and have been designed to intersect existing driveways and/or
undeveloped lots along the westerly side of Spear Street.
xii. The waivers that the applicant is requesting are as follows:
A. Minimum pavement width for Public Collector streets from 30' to 28'
with parking on one side and bulbouts and 20' at wetland crossings -
This waiver is requested to support the traffic calming efforts within
each neighborhood area. The variable width is dependent on the
amount of on street parking that could be expected within a particular
portion of the project area.
B. Minimum pavement width for Public Local streets from 28' to 26' with
parking on one side, 24' with no parking, and 18' at wetland crossings -
This waiver is requested to support the traffic calming efforts within
each neighborhood area. The variable width is dependent on the
amount of on street parking that could be expected within a particular
portion of the project area.
C. Minimum pavement width for Private Local streets from 26' with
parking on one side and 20' without parking 24' parking on one side
with single loaded lots or low density and 18' at wetland crossings —
This waiver is requested to support the traffic calming efforts within
each neighborhood area. The variable width is dependent on the
amount of on street parking that could be expected within a particular
portion of the project area.
D. Minimum radius of curves for Public Collector streets from 500' to
260'. The project will provide the connective route from Dorset Farms
to the Allen Road/Spear Street intersection, but seeks to reduce the
travel speeds through the introduction of narrower streets and tighter
center line radii consistent with the goals of creating livable
neighborhoods and attempting to reduce the amount of cut -through
traffic in the project area. The reduction provides centerline radius
consistent with a design speed of 25 mph. The goal of reducing
commuter or cut -through traffic is supported by the presence of
Barstow Road just to the south of the project area.
E. Minimum radius of curves for Public Local streets from 300' to 200' -
The intent is to utilize smaller radii with a design speed of 25 mph
within the neighborhood as part of the traffic calming techniques in
support of the creation of livable neighborhoods.
F. Minimum tangent length between curves for Public Collector streets
from 150' to 50' - With the implementation of multiple traffic calming
techniques, the need for excess distances between horizontal curves
for the driver to perceive and react to the change in direction of the
roadway will be reduced.
G. Minimum tangent length between curves for Public Local streets from
100' to 50' - With the implementation of multiple traffic calming
techniques, the need for excess distances between horizontal curves
for the driver to perceive and react to the change in direction of the
roadway will be reduced.
H. Minimum distance between centerline offsets for Public Local streets
from 200' to 150' - With lower design speeds and a street grid pattern
that eliminates large queuing distances at intersections, the need for
the traditional distance between intersections can be reduced.
Minimum vertical sight distance for Public Collector streets from 300'
to 150' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 42
mph to 25 mph) - With a reduced posted speed and ample traffic
calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe
stopping distance for a higher speed road can be reduced.
Minimum vertical sight distance for Public Local Streets from 200' to
150' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30
mph to 25 mph) - With a reduced posted speed and ample traffic
calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe
stopping distance for a higher speed road can be reduced.
K. Minimum horizontal sight distance for Public Collector streets from
500 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit
from 45 mph to 25 mph) - With a reduced posted speed and ample
4
traffic calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a
safe stopping distance for a higher speed road can be reduced.
L. Minimum horizontal sight distance for Public Local Streets from 300
to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30
mph to 25 mph) - With a reduced posted speed and ample traffic
calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe
stopping distance for a higher speed road can be reduced.
C. Proposed Development Areas in the Master Plan Application
The Master Plan application includes three (3) proposed development areas, as follows:
Phase 1: Village Center
156 units and a 100-student
school, southwesterly
portion of property.
Phase 2: Fields Edge
77 units, northwesterly
portion of property.
Phase 3: The Ridge
111 units, southeasterly
portion of the property.
The maximum number of units allowed on this property is 334. The plans submitted
depict a total of 344 units, so at least ten (10) of the units shall be deleted from the
plans.
Pursuant to Section 15.18 (A) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Master Plans shall comply with the following standards and conditions:
1. §15.18(A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is
available to 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 does not currently have adequate water supply capacity to serve the proposed
project, which is estimated to demand 115,000 gallons per day. However, the additional
water supply storage that the City is in the process of constructing will be sufficient to
supply the demand of the proposed project. The Bartlett Bay wastewater treatment
facility currently has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project, which is estimated
to generate 72,000 gallons per day. The City Wastewater Ordinance has specific
provisions to allow large-scale project to obtain wastewater allocation permits during the
approvals of specific phases of a Master Plan. Thus, the applicant will obtain water
allocation and wastewater allocation approval at each of the three (3) proposed phases
of this project. In addition, the applicant will obtain State permits in conjunction with the
approval of the three (3) phases of this project.
2. §15.18(A)(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during
construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from
creating 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.
Individual preliminary and final plat applications will be evaluated for conformance with
this criterion and the provisions of Article 16 of the Land Development Regulations,
Construction and Erosion Control.
3. §15.18(A)(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.
The applicant submitted a traffic impact study prepared by TND Engineering, dated April
8, 2004. The applicant also submitted a traffic impact study addendum, dated June 17,
2004. Both of these documents were submitted to Fuss and O'Neil for technical review.
The specific traffic management strategies to control access and circulation for the
proposed project will be conditioned and implemented at each of the three (3) phases of
this Master Plan.
The Director of Public Works has been extensively involved in the review of this Master
Plan because of the significance of the public roadway waivers the applicant is
requesting. His comments will be provided at the meeting on September 7, 2004.
4. §15.18(A)(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.
The subject property has a major Class II wetland extending from the northerly to the
southerly boundaries. The presence of this wetland was a major factor in the design of
the proposed master plan. All of the proposed buildings and building envelopes avoid
encroaching into this Class II wetland and its associated 50' wide buffer. The proposed
roadway layout will result in encroachment into the westerly finger of the Class 11 wetland
and its associated 50' wide buffer in two (2) locations. In addition, there are numerous
Class II I wetland and wetland buffer encroachments by buildings, building envelopes,
and roadways. The wetland impacts of the proposed master plan are minimal relative to
the surface area of wetlands on the subject property. The applicant's wetland consultant,
Art Gilman, submitted a memorandum dated June 4, 2004, addressing the criteria in
Section 12.02(E) of the Land Development Regulations.
In addition to wetland constraints, there are significant wildlife habitat impact concerns
on the subject property. The large swath of wetland area covering the property will serve
31
as a significant open space corridor to facilitate wildlife habitat and movement. The
large wooded area along the easterly property boundary, known as the "Great Swamp",
has been identified as one of the most significant natural areas in South Burlington. Due
to these wildlife concerns, the applicant has not proposed any buildings or building
envelopes in this area, thus leaving the area intact.
However, there is another wooded area to the west of the larger one referenced above,
located in between the two (2) fingers of the large Class II wetland. This "ridge" area,
by virtue of its location between the "Great Swamp" and five -acre residentially -zoned
areas and associated woodland areas to the south in Shelburne, also contains features
that make it suitable as wildlife habitat. The applicant has proposed 111 units in and
adjacent to this wooded area, making up Phase 3: The Ridge. In addition, the east -west
roadway connecting Spear Street to Midland Avenue is proposed to cross through the
southerly portion of this wooded area.
The applicant's certified wildlife biologist, Dave Capen, submitted a wildlife study dated
June 2004, addressing the project's wildlife impacts.
The South Burlington Natural Resources Committee (NRC) reviewed the proposed
Master Plan on July 8, 2004 and July 22, 2004. The NRC was provided with copies of
the applicant's wetland consultant's memorandum referenced above and the applicant's
wildlife study referenced above. In addition, the NRC visited the site with the applicant,
the applicant's wetland consultant, the applicant's wildlife biologist, the applicant's civil
engineer, and other applicable parties. The NRC's recommended approval of the
proposed Master Plan with the following conditions-
1 . eliminate the southeasterly pod (Phase 3: The Ridge) for wildlife habitat
protection considerations;
2. phase in east -west roadway based on City need and/or project need;
3. if the east -west road is constructed, the NRC recommends:
a. wildlife -friendly design features
b. wetland protection features
4. locate bike paths and pedestrian paths in a manner that minimizes wetland
impacts;
5. if wetland experts disagree on the delineation at the DRB meeting, the NRC
recommends that the DRB invoke technical review;
6. no pesticide application;
7. no mowing in wetlands and/or their buffers;
8. disturbance of wetland vegetation should be limited to remediation activities;
9. no planting non-native species in wetlands or their buffers;
10. require a management plan for the agricultural area.
The City has identified housing, the connection of neighborhoods, and wildlife protection
as three (3) major priorities in the development of South Burlington. There is a
challenge in balancing these priorities, as they are all in conflict with regard to Phase 3
of the proposed Master Plan. It is staff's opinion that the 65 units and lots that comprise
the upper portion of Phase 3 should be displaced elsewhere within the project. This
would entail removing seven (7) multi -family buildings, eight (8) single-family lots, and
the roadways, driveways, and parking areas serving them. This in turn will preserve a
7
vast majority of the wooded area and protect the integrity and functionality of the open
space and wildlife corridor in this area. Staff feels that the 46 units and lots that
comprise the lower portion of Phase 3 could remain. From a wildlife standpoint, it may
be beneficial to replace some of the proposed buildings and lots in the lower portion of
Phase 3 with the apartment buildings, as larger multi -family units could have less of an
impact on wildlife movement.
Staff feels very strongly that the east -west roadway connecting the proposed project to
Midland Avenue must be constructed. Dorset Farms was permitted with the explicit
understanding that Midland Avenue would be connected to Allen Road. In addition, the
proposed project coupled with Dorset Farms will create a significant number of housing
units in this area, and it is very important that they are connected from a safety, traffic
management, and community planning perspective.
5. §15.18(A)(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.
Pursuant to Section 9.01 of the Land Development Regulations, the Southeast Quadrant
District (SEQ) is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic
view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agricultural
use, and well planned residential use in the largely undeveloped area of the City known
as the Southeast Quadrant. The open 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 location and clustering of buildings and lots in a manner that in the
judgment of the Development Review Board will best preserve the open space character
of this area shall be encouraged.
The proposed Master Plan is visually compatible with the planned development patterns
of the Southeast Quadrant. The buildings, building lots, and roads are clustered and
concentrated towards the westerly portion of the property, creating significant open
space areas in the central and easterly portions of the subject property. The more than
152 acres of open space preserved through this Master Plan will maintain the open
character of the area and will protect wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife habitat. As staff
has suggested in this document, relocating the 65 buildings, building lots, and
associated roads, sidewalks, and parking areas currently proposed for the upper portion
of Phase 3 to other locations throughout the property will significantly increase the open
space in the central portion of the property. This in turn will further the protection of
wildlife habitat functions and natural resource on the property.
The proposed Master Plan complies with the building height requirements for the Spear
Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District, as outlined in Section
10.03(F) of the Land Development Regulations. A total of 35 acres of the land within this
scenic overlay district will be devoted to a community -supported farm.
6. §15.18(A)(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 layout proposed through this Master Plan will preserve over 152 acres of dedicated
open space, mainly in the central and easterly portions of the subject property. The
location of this open space will create contiguous open space corridors with the
properties to the south and north of the subject property.
7. §15.18(A)(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 master plan to assess the proposed
roadway layout. His comments are included in a memorandum dated September 2,
2004. The Fire Chief will review the location of hydrants and other details related to fire
protection within each of the three (3) phases during the preliminary and final plat review
of each phase.
8. §15.18(A)(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 general layout of the roads, recreation paths, and utilities is adequate to facilitate
the extension of such services to adjacent properties.
9. §15.18(A)(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.
The overall road layout and hierarchy system are adequate and have been approved by
the Director of Public Works and the Fire Chief. The overall recreation path layout was
reviewed by the South Burlington Recreation Path Committee and comments were
provided in a memorandum from Tom Hubbard, the Director of the South Burlington
Recreation Department, dated September 2, 2004. The landscaping and utility details
will be reviewed during the subsequent preliminary and final plat stages of the individual
phases.
10. §1 5.18(A)(1 0) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s).
The proposed Master Plan is consistent with the following objectives for the Southeast
Quadrant, as outline in Chapter 8(G) of the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan:
a. Preserve and enhance the open character, natural resources, and scenic views
of the Southeast Quadrant, while allowing carefully planned development.
9
b. Maintain a rate, location, intensity, and timing of future development in the
Southeast Quadrant that is in accord with the physical characteristics of the land
and the availability of municipal services and facilities, and which is consistent
with the City's population growth objectives and land use recommendations.
c. Promote a variety of residential patterns and styles, including a fair share of
affordable housing, while preserving the special character of the Southeast
Quadrant.
Pursuant to Section 15.18 (B) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Master Plans shall comply with the following standards and conditions:
1. §15.18(B)(1) Open space and development areas shall be located so as to
maximize the aesthetic values of the property in keeping with the Comprehensive
Plan goal of preserving and enhancing the open character, natural areas, and
scenic views of the Quadrant, while allowing carefully planned development.
As discussed above, in response to the criteria outlined in Sections15.18 (A)(4) and
15.18(A)(6) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed Master Plan includes
extensive open space and natural resource protection. The plan incorporates over 152
acres of dedicated open space, mainly in the central and easterly portions of the subject
property. The surface area and location of this open space will be integral to protecting
important natural resources, including wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife. However, it is
staff's opinion that the 65 buildings and building lots that comprise the upper portion of
Phase 3 of the master plans should be removed to increase the open space in the
central portion of this property, thus increasing wildlife protection.
The Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District overlaps a large
portion of the subject property. Sheet C-2.4 of the Master Plan depicts this scenic
overlay district and indicates the maximum building height allowed within this scenic
overlay district, as outlined in Section 10.03(F) of the Land Development Regulations.
The proposed buildings conform to the height restrictions for the Spear Street — Allen
Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District. At the preliminary and final plat review
stages of each of the three (3) phases, the maximum building height of each lot shall be
indicated on the plans.
2. §15.18(B)(2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a
manner that maximizes the protection of the open character, natural areas, and
scenic views of the Quadrant identified in the Comprehensive Plan, while allowing
carefully planned development at the overall base densities provided in these
Regulations.
The proposed buildings, building lots, streets, and other structures have been designed
to create the open space areas discussed above, in response to Section 15.18(B)(1) of
the Land Development Regulations.
3. §15.18(B)(3) Existing natural resources on each site shall be protected through
the development plan, including streams, wetlands, floodplains, wildlife habitat
and corridors including those areas identified in the South Burlington Open Space
10
Strategy, and special natural and/or geologic features such as mature forests,
headwaters areas, and prominent ridges.
The subject property has a major Class II wetland extending from the northerly to the
southerly boundaries. The presence of this wetland was a major factor in the design of
the proposed master plan. All of the proposed buildings and building envelopes avoid
encroaching into this Class II wetland and its associated 50' wide buffer. The proposed
roadway layout will result in encroachment into the westerly finger of the Class II wetland
and its associated 50' wide buffer in two (2) locations. In addition, there are numerous
Class III wetland and wetland buffer encroachments by buildings, building envelopes,
and roadways. The wetland impacts of the proposed master plan are minimal relative to
the surface area of wetlands on the subject property. The applicant's wetland consultant,
Art Gilman, submitted a memorandum dated June 4, 2004, addressing the criteria in
Section 12.02(E) of the Land Development Regulations.
In addition to wetland constraints, there are significant wildlife habitat impact concerns
on the subject property. The large swath of wetland area covering the property will serve
as a significant open space corridor to facilitate wildlife habitat and movement. The
large wooded area along the easterly property boundary, known as the "Great Swamp",
has been identified as one of the most significant natural areas in South Burlington. Due
to these wildlife concerns, the applicant has not proposed any buildings or building
envelopes in this area, thus leaving the area intact.
However, there is another wooded area to the west of the larger one referenced above,
located in between the two (2) fingers of the large Class II wetland. This "ridge" area,
by virtue of its location between the "Great Swamp" and five -acre residentially -zoned
areas and associated woodland areas to the south in Shelburne, also contains features
that make it suitable as wildlife habitat. The applicant has proposed 111 units in and
adjacent to this wooded area, making up Phase 3: The Ridge. In addition, the east -west
roadway connecting Spear Street to Midland Avenue is proposed to cross through the
southerly portion of this wooded area. The applicant's certified wildlife biologist, Dave
Capen, submitted a wildlife study dated June 2004, addressing the project's wildlife
impacts.
The City has identified housing, the connection of neighborhoods, and wildlife protection
as three (3) major priorities in the development of South Burlington. There is a
challenge in balancing these priorities, as they are all in conflict with regard to Phase 3
of the proposed Master Plan. It is staff's opinion that the 65 units and lots that comprise
the upper portion of Phase 3 should be displaced elsewhere within the project. This
would entail removing seven (7) multi -family buildings, eight (8) single-family lots, and
the roadways, driveways, and parking areas serving them. This in turn will preserve a
vast majority of the wooded area and protect the integrity and functionality of the open
space and wildlife corridor in this area. Staff feels that the 46 units and lots that
comprise the lower portion of Phase 3 could remain. From a wildlife standpoint, it may
be beneficial to replace some of the proposed buildings and lots in the lower portion of
Phase 3 with the apartment buildings, as larger multi -family units could have less of an
impact on wildlife movement.
11
Staff feels very strongly that the east -west roadway connecting the proposed project to
Midland Avenue must be constructed. Dorset Farms was permitted with the explicit
understanding that Midland Avenue would be connected to Allen Road. In addition, the
proposed project coupled with Dorset Farms will create a significant number of housing
units in this area, and it is very important that they are connected from a safety, traffic
management, and community planning perspective.
4. §15.18(B)(4) Consistent with (1) through (3) above, dedicated open spaces shall
be designed and located to maximize the potential for combination with other
open spaces on adjacent properties.
The layout proposed through this Master Plan will create over 152 acres of dedicated
open space, mainly in the central and easterly portions of the subject property. The
location of this open space will create contiguous space corridors with the properties to
the south and north of the subject property.
5. §15.18(B)(5) The conservation of existing agricultural production values on
lands in the SEQ is encouraged through development planning that avoids
impacts on prime agricultural soils as defined in the South Burlington Open Space
Strategy and provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and
new development, roads, and infrastructure.
There are no existing agricultural operations on the subject property. However, the
Master Plan includes a 35-acre community -supported farm, which will reinstate active
agricultural operations into the area.
6. §15.18(B)(6) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas shall be
established by the applicant describing the intended use and maintenance of each
area. Continuance of agricultural uses or enhancement of wildlife habitat values
in such plans for use and maintenance is encouraged.
The applicant shall create an open space management plan for the subject property.
This plan should include the management strategy for the wetlands, woodlands, and
wildlife habitat. In addition, the applicant shall create a management plan for the
proposed community -supported agricultural area.
7. §15.18(B)(7) In the absence of a specific finding by the DRB 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.
The Proposed Master Plan is in compliance with the South Burlington Official Map, last
revised February 14, 2004.
12
Other Applicable Criteria
1. § 9.08(B) In connection with approval of a PUD, the Development Review Board
may allow development activities in addition to those authorized under Section
9.06(B) to occur in restricted areas or allow residential lots or portions of
residential lots to be located in restricted areas provided the Development Review
Board determines that such development activities are consistent with the intent
and purpose of the Southeast Quadrant District.
The subject property has a number of "restricted areas" on it. These "restricted areas"
were established to protect land for one (1) of the following reasons: to facilitate planned
roadways; to protect scenic views; or to protect wetland and other natural resources.
The proposed Master Plan does have buildings and building lots within these "restricted
areas". Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 all have development proposed in a "restricted
area" designated to facilitate planned roadways. The applicant has proposed a roadway
network through the property that connects Midland Avenue to Spear Street, in addition
to providing a means of access to the property to the north. Thus, the "restricted areas",
designed to facilitate planned roadways, as labeled on the "Southeast Quadrant Official
Zoning Map", are no longer necessary.
Phase 1 and Phase 2 have development proposed in a "restricted area" designated to
protect scenic views. Most of this "restricted area" overlaps the Spear Street — Allen
Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District. The applicant is following the building
height requirements for the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay
District, as outlined in Section 10.03(F) of the Land Development Regulations. Thus,
development in the "restricted area" that overlaps the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic
View Protection Overlay District is warranted. In addition, the application is proposing
development in the "restricted area" along Spear Street that is designated for a scenic
view corridor. This development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the
Southeast Quadrant Zoning District, as development in this "restricted area" allows the
applicant to cluster more of the units towards the westerly portion of the property, away
from the wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources that comprise the control
and easterly portions of the property.
Phase 3 of the proposed Master Plan has development proposed in a "restricted area"
designated to protect natural resources. These buildings and building lots are located in
a area that the City believes is utilized as a significant wildlife corridor, and therefore
should be protected from development. Thus, development in this "restricted area" is
not warranted, as it is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the Southeast
Quadrant Zoning District. The proposed buildings and building lots that fall within this
"restricted area" must be displaced elsewhere on the property.
13
DRAFT DECISION
Based on the above Findings of Fact, the South Burlington Development Review Board
approves Master Plan application #MP-04-01 of South Villages Communities, LLC for
334 residential units, a 100-student school, and a 35-acre community -supported farm.
Pursuant to §15.07(D)(1) of the Land Development Regulations, Master Plan Application
#MP-04-01 is hereby approved with conditions.
A. Decision with Respect to Master Plan Umbrella Criteria:
The Development Review Board approves the following Master Plan "umbrella criteria"
pursuant to §15.07(D)(3) of the Land Development Regulations:
a. Overall density and number of residential dwelling units: A maximum
number of 334 residential dwelling units are approved for a total density
of 1.5 units/acre. The base density in the Southeast Quadrant of 1.2
units/acre yields a total of 223 units. The 25% density bonus for providing
mixed -rate housing, as determined by Section 13.14 of the Land
development Regulations, accounts for the additional 67 units.
b. Building and impervious coverage: A total building coverage of %
and a total impervious coverage of % are approved for the master
plan. These are overall limits for the entire South Village property subject
to this approval. Within the individual development phases, as described
and approved in this decision, these overall limits may be exceeded
provided the applicable Southeast Quadrant zoning district limitations of
fifteen percent (15%) for buildings and thirty percent (30%) overall are
met.
c. Location, layout, capacity and number of collector roadways: The
collector roadway system is approved as shown on the Master Plan.
d. Land development proposed in any area previously identified as
permanent open space in the approved Mater Plan application: All areas
not approved as development areas in this Master Plan are to be utilized
exclusively for open space use.
e. Maximum number of vehicle trip ends — A maximum of 345 PM peak hour
trip ends from all approved residential and non-residential uses is
approved for the South Village property.
B. Decision with Respect to Individual Development Areas - Proposed as Part
of this Master Plan Application:
(1) Phase 1: Village Center: This phase of the master plan, as proposed through
this application, is approved as a development area.
(2) Phase 2: Fields Edge: This phase of the master plan, as proposed through
this application, is approved as a development area.
(3) Phase 3: The Ridge: This phase of the master plan, as proposed through
this application is only partially approved as a development area. The 65
buildings and building lots that comprise the upper portion of this phase are
HE
not approved for open space and wildlife considerations. However, the 46
buildings and building lot that comprise the lower portion of this phase are
approved, as proposed through this application.
CONDITIONS
The Development Review Board finds and concludes that the following conditions are
necessary for the Master Plan application to meet the City's requirements and standards
for approval:
1. Pursuant to Sections 15.07(D)(2) and 15.07(D)(4) of the Land Development
Regulation, the Development Review Board requires each of the three (3) phases
included in this Master Plan to obtain separate preliminary plat approval and final plat
approval in accordance with Section 15.18 of the Land Development Regulations.
2. Any application for amendment of the Master Plan or preliminary plat plan 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;
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.
3. Pursuant to Section 15.07(D)(5) of the Land Development Regulations the following
minor land development activities will not require Development Review Board approval
and may be undertaken pursuant to issuance of a zoning permit:
a) The addition of decks to dwelling units;
b) The addition of porches to dwelling units;
c) The addition of patios (these do not need a zoning permit either);
d) The enclosure of decks;
e) The addition of accessory structures, pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Land
Development Regulations;
f) Other minor land development activities at the discretion of the Administrative
Officer.
4. Pursuant to Section15.18 (B)(6) of the Land Development Regulations, the applicant
shall submit a plan for the management and maintenance of the dedicated open spaces
created through this Master Plan. The management and maintenance plans shall be
submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning and Zoning, prior to recording of
the Master Plan.
15
5. The Master Plan shall be revised to show the following changes. Four (4) copies of the
approved revised plat plans shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to
recording:
a) The plans shall be revised to remove the 65 buildings and building lots that
comprise the upper portion of Phase 3, and displace them elsewhere in the
project if the applicant desires.
b) The plans shall be revised to comply with the requests of the Recreation Path
Committee, as outlined in the memorandum from Tom Hubbard, dated
September 2, 2004.
6. The roadways, sidewalks, and recreation paths comprising this Master Plan can be
constructed in conjunction with each of the three (3) phases. The roadway connection to
Midland Drive shall, at the latest, be constructed in conjunction with Phase 3 of the
master plan.
7. The Development Review Board approves the following waivers from the Land
Development Regulations:
A. Minimum pavement width for Public Collector streets from 30' to 28'
with parking on one side and bulbouts and 20' at wetland crossings.
B. Minimum pavement width for Public Local streets from 28' to 26' with
parking on one side, 24' with no parking, and 18' at wetland crossings.
C. Minimum pavement width for Private Local streets from 26' with
parking on one side and 20' without parking 24' parking on one side
with single loaded lots or low density and 18' at wetland crossings.
D. Minimum radius of curves for Public Collector streets from 500' to
260'.
D. Minimum radius of curves for Public Local streets from 300' to 200'.
E. Minimum tangent length between curves for Public Collector streets
from 150' to 50'.
F. Minimum tangent length between curves for Public Local streets from
100'.
G. Minimum distance between centerline offsets for Public Local streets
from 200' to 150'.
H. Minimum vertical sight distance for Public Collector streets from 300'
to 150'.
I. Minimum vertical sight distance for Public Local Streets from 200' to
150'.
J. Minimum horizontal sight distance for Public Collector streets from
500 to 275'.
K. Minimum horizontal sight distance for Public Local Streets from 300 to
275'.
8. Any future requests for waivers will be reviewed in conjunction with the site -specific
preliminary or final plat reviews for individual development areas.
9. Any changes to the final plat plans shall require approval of the South Burlington
Development Review Board.
16
10. The Master Plan (sheets S1.0 and S1.1) shall be recorded in the land records within
90 days or this approval is null and void. The plans shall be signed by the Board Chair
or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording of the Master Plan, the applicant shall
submit a copy of the survey plats in digital format. The format of the digital information
shall require approval of the Director of Planning & Zoning.
Staff recommends that the South Burlington Development Review Board continue Master
Plan application #SD-04-01.
Respectfully submitted,
Brian Roberton, Associate Planner
Copy to: David Scheuer, Applicant
Dave Marshall, Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.
17
i ao
The Retrovest Companies
B U I L D E R S& D E V E L O P E R S
By Fax: 846-4101
September 7, 2004
Re: South Village Communities, LLC
Mr. Brian Robertson
Department of Planning and Zoning
City of Burlington, Vermont
Dear Brian:
Pursuant to our phone conversation this morning, please be advised that we are
requesting a postponement- of the hearing scheduled for this evening. It has come to my
attention in the last twenty-four hours that our lead expert, Rick Chellman, cannot be
available due to a very serious family medical emergency.
We believe it is in the interest of all concerned that our presentation begins with Mr.
Chellman's introduction of the project, as this will provide the most clarity to a complex
project. Accordingly, we appreciate your flexibility and regret this inconvenience to your
staff, the Development Review Board and the public.
Sincerely,
David Scheuer
President
70 South Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT 05401-3830 802-863-8323 800-679-1929 F 802-863-1339 www.retrovest.coni
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
Report preparation date: September 3, 2004
\sub\south village\preliminary_phasel.doc
Plans received: July 16, 2004
SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-04-55
Agenda #5 Meeting Date: September 7, 2004
Owner
Applicant
Paul Calkins
South Village Communities, LLC
P.O. Box 82
70 South Winooski Avenue
L ndonville, VT 05851
Burlington, VT 05401
Engineer
Property Information
Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.
Tax Parcel 1640-01840-F
928 Falls Road
Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) District
Shelburne, VT 05482
39.8 acres
Location Maxe
low
T.
:x
...,
♦
Of
f
Subject
Property
40
1
�
h
• s
ri,
A `
40
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING
\sub\south village\preliminaN phasel.doc
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
South Village Communities, LLC, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is requesting preliminary
plat approval of a planned unit development consisting of 156 residential units and a 100-
student educational facility, 1840 Spear Street. This project is Phase 1 of a master plan
consisting of 334 residential units, a 100-student educational facility, and a 35-acre community
supported farm. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on September 7, 2004.
David Scheuer represented the applicant.
COMMENTS
Associate Planner Brian Robertson and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as
Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on July 16, 2004 and have the following comments.
Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements
1. The applicant shall submit detailed dimensional information (minimum lot size; minimum front,
rear, and side setbacks, building coverage; and overall coverage) for the proposed project, prior to
preliminary plat approval.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall
comply with the following standards and conditions:
Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of
the project.
According to Section 15.13(B)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the
existing public utility system shall be extended to provide the necessary quantity of water, at an
acceptable pressure, to the proposed dwelling units.
The water utility line plans are depicted on sheets C6.0 through C6.3 of the plans. The South
Burlington Water Department shall review the water plans prior to preliminary approval.
2. The South Burlington Water Department shall review the water plans prior to preliminary
approval.
According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider
or developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system
approved by the City and the State in any subdivision where off -lot wastewater is proposed.
The sewer utility line plans are depicted on sheets C6.0 through C6.3 of the plans. The City
Engineer reviewed the plans and provided comments in a memorandum dated September 2, 2004
(attached).
3. The plans shall be revised to comply with the requests of the South Burlington City Engineer, as
outlined in his memorandum dated September 2, 2004, prior to submittal of the final plat
application.
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING
\sub\south village\preliminary phasel.doc
Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to
prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the
subject property and adjacent properties.
The grading and drainage plans are depicted on sheets C5.0 through C5.5 of the plans. The
erosion control plans are depicted on sheets C7.0 through C7.10 of the plans. The grading and
erosion control plans were reviewed by the City Engineer.
4. 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 project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.
Access to this project is proposed via a 48' wide pubic roadway directly across from Allen Road
and a 24' wide roadway approximately 1,260' south of Allen Road. Both of these public roads
access onto Spear Street and have a 60' wide right-of-way. They feed into a public roadway
network within the project boundaries. At this time, the applicant is proposing to close the street
network with two (2) cul-de-sacs: one (1) to the north of the project and one (1) to the south of
the project. These cul-de-sacs will only be temporary, as the Master Plan, of which this project
is Phase 1, depicts this public roadway network extending to the north and to the east.
Circulation on this property appears to be adequate. There applicant is currently proposing two
(2) points of ingress and egress, and the master plan proposed two (2) additional points of
ingress and egress for the overall project. In addition, the master plan depicts a right-of-way to
the property to the north, which could facilitate and additional point of ingress and egress in the
future.
The applicant submitted a traffic impact study prepared by TND Engineering, dated April 8,
2004. The applicant also submitted a traffic impact study addendum, dated June 17, 2004.
Both of these documents were submitted to Fuss and O'Neil for technical review. The specific
traffic management strategies to control access and circulation for the proposed project will be
provided as they become available.
5. The applicant shall pay all applicable traffic impact fees prior to issuance of a zoning permit
for each unit.
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.
This phase of the master plan overlaps some Class III wetlands and is adjacent to the major Class
II wetland on the property. There is no development proposed in the Class II wetlands or its
respective 50' buffer. However, there is encroachment into the Class III wetland and/or their
respective 50' wide buffers. The Natural Resource Committee reviewed the proposed project on
July 22, 2004 and recommended approval of the preliminary plat plans with the following
conditions:
1. DRB should require management plan for open spaces and quite plats with final plat
application;
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING
\sub\south village\preliminary phasel.doc
2. no application of pesticides/herbicides in wetlands or their buffers;
3. add natural fencing (hedge or wood) between lots #55-66 and the Class II wetland
buffers;
4. add natural fencing (hedge or wood) between parking areas along "D Street" and the
Class II wetland buffers.
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 districts) in
which it is located.
Pursuant to Section 9.01 of the Land Development Regulations, the Southeast Quadrant District
(SEQ) is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural
resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agricultural use, and well planned
residential use in the largely undeveloped area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant.
The open 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 location and clustering of
buildings and lots in a manner that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will best
preserve the open space character of this area shall be encouraged.
In order to analyze this project's visual compatibility with the area, the entire master plan, of
which this project is phase 1, must be considered. The master plan is visually compatible with
the planned development patterns of the Southeast Quadrant. The buildings, building lots, and
roads are clustered and concentrated towards the westerly portion of the property, creating
significant open space areas in the central and easterly portions of the subject property. The
more than 132 acres of open space preserved through this master plan will maintain the open
character of the Southeast Quadrant and will protect wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife habitat.
This project has five (5) lots that intersect the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection
Overlay District. These lots shall comply with the building height restrictions outlined in Section
10.03(F) of the Land Development Regulations. As long as these lots comply with these height
restrictions, the project will offer scenic view protection.
6. The plans shall be revised to indicate that maximum building heights for the five (5) lots that
intersect the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District, as outlined in
Section 10.03(F) of the Land Development Regulations, prior to submittal of the final plat
application.
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.
In order to analyze this project's open space areas, the entire Master Plan, of which this project
is Phase 1, must be considered. The layout proposed through this Master Plan will preserve
over 152 acres of dedicated open space, mainly in the central and easterly portions of the
subject property. The location of this open space will create contiguous open space corridors
with the properties to the south and north of the subject property.
The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to
ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided.
The South Burlington Fire Chief has reviewed the plans and provided comments in a
memorandum dated September 2, 2004 (attached).
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING
\sub\south village\preliminary phasel.doc
7. The plans shall be revised to comply with the requests of the South Burlington Fire Chief, as
outlined in his memorandum dated September 2, 2004, prior to submittal of the final plat
application.
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 landowners.
All of the proposed infrastructure and services proposed for this project are consistent with the
infrastructure and services proposed in the Master Plan, of which this project is Phase 1. These
services and infrastructure have been designed to facilitate extension to adjacent properties.
Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards.
The applicant submitted proposed street lighting details (cut -sheets) for the project (attached).
Staff does not feel that the proposed street lights are appropriate for this property, as we are trying
to coordinate the street light fixtures in all of the new streets in the Southeast Quadrant. Staff
suggests that the street lights used in the Vermont National Country Club development be used for
this project.
8. The applicant shall submit street lighting details (cut -sheets) for the street light fixtures used in
the Vem7ont National Country Club development, with the final plat application.
The proposed recreation path is depicted for the entire master -planned development, of which this
project is Phase 1. The Recreation Path Committee reviewed the recreation path and provided
comments in a memorandum from Tom Hubbard, dated September 2, 2004 (attached).
9. The plans shall be revised to depict the proposed recreation path on all applicable sheets of the
plans for this project, prior to submittal of the final plat application.
10. The plans shall be revised to comply with the requests of the Recreation Path Committee, as
outlined in the memorandum from Tom Hubbard, dated September 2, 2004, prior to submittal of
the final plat application.
The water utility line plans are depicted on sheets C6.0 through C6.3 of the plans. The South
Burlington Water Department shall review the water plans prior to preliminary approval.
The City Engineer reviewed the plans and provided comments in a memorandum dated
September 2, 2004.
11. All of the proposed roadways and sidewalks shall be compatible with the approved Master
Plan.
12. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new
utility lines shall be underground.
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING
\sub\south village\prelimina!y phasel.doc
The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
Staff feels the proposed project is consistent with the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan and
the South Burlington Land Development Regulations.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD
shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development
Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications:
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 feels the proposed project accomplishes a desirable transition from structure to site and from
structure to structure. Staff also feels the site provides for adequate planting and safe pedestrian
movement.
According to Table 13-1 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the proposed
residential units will require 340 parking spaces (94 for the single-family lots and 246 for the two-
family and multi -family dwellings). In addition, the school will require a specific number of parking
spaces. Table 13-1 of the Land development requires information on the type of school, the
number of classrooms, and the number of students of legal driving age. The applicant shall submit
information on the total number of parking spaces provided in the project, so that the Development
Review Board can analyze the parking requirement in relation to the number of parking spaces
provided.
13. The applicant shall submit, with the final plat application, information on the type of school, the
number of classrooms, and the number of students of legal driving age for the proposed school.
14. The applicant shall submit, with the final plat application, information on the total number of
parking spaces provided in the project_
Pursuant to Section 13.01(G)(5) of the Land Development Regulations, bicycle racks shall depicted
on the plans. The plans do not depict bicycle racks.
15. Pursuant to Section 13.01(G)(5) of the Land Development Regulations, the plans shall be
revised to depict at least one (1) bicycle rack, prior to submittal of the final plat application.
Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable.
The proposed parking plan for the residential units is in compliance with this requirement. The
parking lot proposed to sere to the school is not in compliance with his requirement. However, the
fact that the school essentially has frontage on three (public roads) and has a working farm behind
it makes it difficult to comply with this requirement. Thus, staff feels the proposed location of the
parking lot is adequate.
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING
\sub\south village\preliminaa phasel.doc
Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and
scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings.
The maximum height for buildings with a pitched roof is 40' from average pre -construction grade.
The maximum height for buildings with a flat roof is 35' from average pre -construction grade. The
application has stated that the proposed buildings will be in compliance with this requirement.
However, more detailed information on building heights shall be submitted with the final plat
application.
In addition, five (5) of the propose lots fall within the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View
Protection Overlay District. These lots shall comply with the building height restrictions outlined
in Section 10.03(F) of the Land Development Regulations. Staff has already stated that the
plans shall be revised to indicate that maximum building heights for these five (5) lots.
16. The applicant shall submit detailed information on the proposed building heights of the school,
the two-family dwelling units, and the multi -family dwelling units with the final plat application.
17. The applicant shall submit building elevation plans for the school, the two-family dwelling units,
and the multi -family dwelling units with the final plat application.
Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior
alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground.
Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new
utility lines shall be underground.
The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural
characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive
transitions between buildings of different architectural styles.
Staff feels this criterion is being met.
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.
Staff feels this criterion is being met.
Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the
South Burlington Land Development Regulations:
The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting
properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial
of collector street; to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to
improve general access and circulation in the area.
It is not necessary for the Development Review Board to require any addition easements for this
project (Phase 1 of the Master Plan).
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING
\sub\south village\preliminary phase1 doc
Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be
underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to
have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site.
Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new
utility lines shall be underground.
All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any
recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with
opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).
The plans do not depict any dumpsters on the subject property. The single-family lots will not use
any dumpsters, but the two-family and multi -family dwelling units, and the school may. If
dumpsters are proposed, they should be clearly depicted on the plans and adequately screened.
18. If dumpsters are proposed on the subject property, they shall be clearly depicted on the plans
and adequately screened, prior to submittal of the final plat application.
Landscaping and Screening Requirements
Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and
screening shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The minimum
landscape requirement for this project is determined by Table 13-9 of the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations. The costs of street trees are above and beyond this minimum
landscape requirement. The applicant must submit information on the estimated buildings costs of
the proposed project and a landscape budget indicating the value of the proposed landscaping.
The applicant's landscape plans for the proposed project are included on sheets L-2 and L-3 of the
plans. Sheet L-3 shows typical landscaping details for the two-family dwelling units and one type of
single-family dwelling unit. The landscape plans need to be revised to include details for the all of
the proposed types of dwelling units, including all of the proposed single-family dwelling unit types
and multi -family dwelling unit types, and the proposed school. In addition, if the applicant is going
to propose typical landscape plans for each dwelling unit type, all of the dwelling units must
incorporate the landscaping that their specific type is approved for. If the landscaping throughout
the project is going to vary, then an overall landscaping plan for the entire project must be
submitted. The street tree plan that the applicant submitted must be prepared by a landscape
architect or other landscape professional, in accordance with Section 13.06(F) of the Land
Development Regulations. In addition, the applicant must submit a landscape budget indicating
the value of the landscaping in the proposed street tree plan. The City Arborist reviewed the
proposed street tree plan and provided comments in a letter dated August 11, 2004 (attached).
19. Pursuant to Section 13.06(C)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any
dumpsters and utility cabinets on the site shall be effectively screened to the approval of the
Development Review Board.
20. The applicant shall submit information on the estimated buildings costs of the proposed project
with the final plat application.
21. Pursuant to Section 13.06(G) of the Land Development Regulations, the applicant shall submit
a landscape budget indicating the value of the proposed site landscaping and street tree
landscaping, with the final plat application. The site landscaping budget shall be separated from
the street tree landscaping budget.
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING
\sub\south village\preliminary phase1 doc
22. The landscape plans shall be revised to include details for the all of the proposed types of
dwelling units, including all of the proposed single-family dwelling unit types and multi -family
dwelling unit types, and the proposed school, prior to submittal of the final plat application.
23. The site landscaping plans and the street tree landscaping plans shall be revised to indicate the
landscaping professional who prepared them, prior to submittal of the final plat application.
24. The landscaping plans shall be revised to comply with the requests of the City Arborist, as
outlined in his letter dated August 11, 2004, prior to submittal of the final plat application.
Restricted Areas
This project has buildings and building lots proposed in designated "restricted areas", as
depicted on the Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map. The project has development
proposed in a "restricted area" designated to facilitate a planned roadway. The applicant has
proposed a roadway network through the property that will connect Midland Avenue to Spear
Street. Thus, the "restricted area", designed to facilitate the planned roadway, as labeled on the
"Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map", is no longer necessary.
The project also has building lots proposed in a "restricted area" designated to protect scenic
views. A portion of this "restricted area" overlaps the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View
Protection Overlay District. The applicant is following the building height requirements for the
Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District, as outlined in Section
10.03(F) of the Land Development Regulations. Thus, development in the "restricted area" that
overlaps the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District is warranted. In
addition, the application is proposing building lots in the "restricted area" along Spear Street that
is designated for a scenic view corridor. This development is consistent with the intent and
purpose of the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District, as development in this "restricted area"
allows the applicant to cluster more of the units towards the westerly portion of the property,
away from the wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources that comprise the central
and easterly portions of the property.
Street Names
25. The applicant shall submit street names for the proposed project, as approved by the South
Burtington Planning Commission, with the final plat application.
E911 Addresses
26. The applicant shall submit E911 addresses for the proposed project, in conformance with the
E911 addressing standards, with the final plat application.
Other
27. The applicant shall pay all applicable impact fees prior to issuance of the zoning permit for each
unit.
28. Pursuant to Section 15.08 (D) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the
applicant shall submit homeowner's association legal documents with the final plat application.
The documents that include language that:
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING
\sub\south village\preliminary phase1 doc
a. ensures that the garages will not be converted to living space;
b, prohibits the storage and parking of recreational vehicles within the development,
c. prohibits clearing of land, disturbance of land, or application of pesticides within
wetlands or wetland buffers, except for the Class 111 wetland on Lot 16 and the Class 111
wetland to the west of Lot 20;
d. ensures that the association shall assume all maintenance responsibilities for the
sewage pumping station;
AND
e. ensures that the association shall assume all maintenance responsibilities for the
stormwater drainage facilities until such time as a future City stormwater utility accepts
the stormwater infrastructure.
29. Pursuant to Section 15.17 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, prior to
issuance of the first zoning permit or start of utility or road construction, the applicant shall
submit all appropriate legal documents including easements (e.g. irrevocable offer of dedication
and warranty deed for proposed public roads, utility, sewer, drainage, water, and recreation
paths, etc.) to the City Attorney for approval and recorded in the South Burlington Land
Records.
30. Prior to the start of construction of the improvements described in condition #29 above, the
applicant shall post a bond which covers the cost of said improvements.
31. Pursuant to Section 15.14(E)(2) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations,
within 14 days of the completion of required improvements (e.g. roads, water mains, sanitary
sewers, storm drains, etc.) the developer shall submit to the City Engineer, "as -built'
construction drawings certified by a licensed engineer.
Staff recommends that the South Burlington Development Review Board continue Preliminary Plat
application #SD-04-55.
Respectfull submitted,
rian Robertson, Associate Planner
Copy to: David Scheuer, Applicant
Dave Marshall, Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.
.. � _ - -. _ � � /'r it '� ' -�' �• }i ¢7
{ � - .tea —r-• � � �
,ws'
No Text
1: f
!_
.
TF,
i
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text
i "�+ — � t
'� � + � rti . � � . Yi
4; �, -'Y , r � '
t
1 R' �
r '�` �y , �� r r I' .
1 _. � ' ,,, t� �
�'�• 1� r.;• .. t
r
'� (� 1
.,,.,,'•
1'
tn�. '.� {'�{.
��'
,` .
�,
r �� ;'S
�,n
��
l
—r a
...� �"'.
:., . _�'
�i
� � _ .�-��
�. I
,/ —'�
1
._.,_...r.. _ . �....- 9�
nJ�
i :. - .
6 4
���'. 1
�.. s :. _� .s..
� �.
1 � ` ...i. ��. ..
1
_ � � +t µ
r � r
i � �_ r�
1 „i .. ';.
South Burlington Public Works
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
TEL: (802)658-7961
SAX: (802)658-7976 0 ce
101 LANDfILL RC
Memorandum
TO: Development Review Board
FROM: Bruce K. Hoar, Public Works Director
DATE: September 7, 2004
CC: Ray Belair, Zoning Administrator
RE: South Village
The following are comments on the latest set of plans dated August 2004. The comments are an
addition to my memo dated 11/21/02. Because of all the waivers that are being ask for it is highly
recommended that the board ask for review of any waivers by an engineer independent of the
developers. We have granted waivers as explained in the memo from 11/21/02. The developer
needs to show the city that the waivers for non -curbed streets are for the benefit of storm water
treatment.
• The intersection of Spear and Allen will be traffic light controlled as a result of this
development. The developer shall confirm that the ROW exists for the infrastructure to light
the intersection. The city has used most of its ROW on the Northwest and the Southwest of
the intersection. There may have to be additional ROW purchased to equip this location and
should be dealt with at the beginning of this process.
• Project needs to comply with South Burlington Specifications for Construction, except where
waiver granted.
• 1 would not grant the waiver for AL-26 road if this were the only road frontage for a lot. The
city would probably end up owning these roads in the future. If this street is just and alley
way behind a property as originally proposed then I have no problem with them.
• Hard to tell from plans but the section of road that runs North to South on the East side of the
proposed farm land seems to have changed from what was agreed to.
• If utilities are to be place in City ROW then they need to be placed as called for by the City
Engineer and not by the utilities. There is to be no agreements between the developer and
the utilities that have to do with our ROW (no easements).
• City sewers need to be run in our ROW in the center of the streets and not through wetlands
or back of properties as shown on plans.
• All sidewalks are to comply with new ADA rules. Truncated Domes at all ramps.
• Checker board grates for catch basins are to be 24" square.
• All round covers for manholes on sanitary or storm sewers are to be 26".
• All connections for change in direction for under ground pipes, sanitary or storm, except for
foundation or sanitary service connections, need to be made in structures.
Smith Btirlington Street Department
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
TEL: (802) 658-7961
OFFICE
104 LANDFILL. RP
Memorandum
TO: Design Review Board
FROM: Bruce K. Hoar, Public Works Director
DATE: November 21, 2002
CC: Ray Belair, Zoning Administrator
RE: South Village Street Widths
After a number of meetings with the developer and his team we have reached agreement on changes to
pavement widths for their development. The following deals with street width only, and not for waivers on
other things such as changes in stopping sight distance etc., for those that are to remain public. I would
recommend that the board keep in mind that the lowest speed limit that can be legally posted in the state of
Vermont is 25 mph. All the roads that are public are to be designed for this speed limit. I would also ask
the board to keep in mind that it is a possibility that the city may own all the roads in this development
some time in the future. It may be beneficial to have a traffic engineer hired by the city review any changes
for which waivers are granted.
Changes to our rules that I have agreed to are as follows:
• Right of Way widths are to be 60' for both Public and Private roads with one exception and that is the
cross section labeled AL-26.
• The cross section RD-60 is agreed to if the Developer enters into agreements to keep the area
designated as agricultural.
• Paved road width for the public wet lands crossing shall be 20'.
• Any area where there is a wetlands crossing must be permitted so that the city has the ability to make
changes to the width without having to reapply for a new permit.
• All construction shall be to city specs with the exception of widths.
• The other cross sections that have been agreed to are ST-60b, BV-66, ST-60Pa, ST-60, ST-60Pb and
ST-60P
• The sub -base for ST-60Pa is to be constructed for a 28' pavement width.
All signage for this project is the responsibility of the developer and all stripping shall be of 3M Tape or
Thermal Plastic. The developer shall provide fire hydrant flags.
I I
South Burlington Fire Department
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4110
Douglas S. Brent, Fire Chief
September 2, 2004
Ms. Juli Beth Hinds, Director of Planning and Zoning
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Re: South Village Project
Spear Street
Dear Juli:
I have reviewed the proposed Master Plan for the South Village project. I have
kept most of my comments generalized as each phase of the project will most likely
present its own specific issues.
Road widths and turning radii should be monitored throughout.
2. Trees, fences and floral outcroppings should be placed so as not to
interfere with the deployment of hoselines, portable ladders and other
equipment.
3. Hydrants are generally not an issue as they are situated to comply with the
city water regulations.
4. The need for sprinklers and alarm systems will generally follow the Labor
and Industry Fire Prevention codes.
At this time these are my main concerns. Should you need any further
information please feel free to contact me.
Spimerely,
Douglas S. Brent
Fire Chief
SOUTH BURLINGTON WATER DEPARTMENT
403 Queen City Park Road
South Burlington, VT 05403
Phone: (802) 864-4361
Fax: (802) 864-0435
January 13, 2005
Civil Engineering Associates
Mr. Dave Marshall
P.O. Box 485
Shelburne, VT 05482
RE: South Village
Dear Dave:
The South Burlington Water Department has reviewed the Master Plan for the above
referenced project. Although these plans do not show enough detail to offer specific
remarks on the water distribution system, I would like to offer the following comments to
assist you in future design changes as the review process continues. Please refer also to
my previous comments on this project.
1. The attached Application for Water Allocation must be completed and returned to
the South Burlington Water Department as soon as possible. As your project
continues, the Application for Water Allocation will need final approval from this
Department, which will be contingent upon available water storage capabilities
within the City. Current water distribution system upgrades have been
substantially completed that should allow for the construction of your project,
pending approval of all other local and State requirements.
2. All construction drawings and plans shall have a note stating the following "All
water line and related work to be performed in accordance with the Specifications
and Details for the Installation of Water lines 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, (henceforth the "CWD
Specifications.") You have included this note in your current drawings. However,
you may remove the last sentence in your note that states "Details should be
modified to the above referenced specifications" as that was a note I requested
specific only to a former set of plans we reviewed.
3. 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.
4. Looping of all water lines shall be a design requirement. All looping connections
shall be at a point so as to eliminate any dead ends on any water main.
5. 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 mains shall be six feet
(6') to the top of the pipe. DI water pipe shall be Class 52, cement lined.
Polyethylene pipe sleeve encasement shall be required for all DI pipe installed for
this project.
6. Gate valves shall be installed a maximum of 500' apart. All tee intersections shall
have a minimum of three (3) gate valves. Cross sections (four-way intersections)
shall have a minimum of four (4) gate valves. All gate valves in this project area
shall be made from a corrosion resistant material, and have stainless steel bolts in
the valve body.
7. 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
aforementioned CWD Specifications, and a hydrant flag shall be supplied with
each hydrant. Hydrant drains shall have all drains plugged prior to installation.
Note: Waterous fire hydrants must be installed with a "Boston Operating Nut."
8. Generally, single-family residences shall have 1/4" K-copper service lines tapped
directly into DI pipe six -inches in diameter and larger. A curb stop, concrete
block, and Erie box with stainless steel rod shall be installed just inside the right-
of-way for each service, per the above referenced CWD Specifications.
9. Fire flow conditions must be able to meet the requirements stated in the CWD
Specifications, as well as meeting any conditions set forth by the Fire Department.
This project is at the end of end of an area served directly by the South Burlington
East (Dorset Street) water storage tank that has recently been raised to a
maximum fill level of 555' that should provide sufficient fire flows and pressures
to meet the above referenced CWD Specifications. None -the -less, sufficient
engineering and design must be performed in order to meet State Water Supply
Rule and the above CWD Specification requirements.
10. Normal working pressure in the distribution system for this project shall be
designed to produce 60 psi and not less than 35 psi. Further, the CWD
Specifications requires all hydrants in a residential development be able to supply
no less than 500 gpm. at 20 psi at the worst -case hydrant residual pressure. The
developer and his engineer are responsible for ensuring any hydraulic design for
this project considers these requirements. The developer and engineer are
responsible for all inadequacies in water supply pressure within the project
boundaries, for fire and domestic requirements, including those associated with
the aforementioned changes. It may be necessary, after your firm reviews
hydraulic modeling, to include a booster pump station for this development.
11. 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 above referenced 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.
12. Separation between the water main and service line and nearby sanitary and storm
sewer lines shall comply with the VT WSR requirements and the above
referenced CWD Specifications.
13. Prior to any building construction, the building contractor must contact this
Department to discuss City requirements for meter sizing, meter settings, and
backflow protection.
14. 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
above referenced Specifications.
15. The SBWD shall be notified prior to backfilling to inspect all joints, fittings, main
line taps, appurtenances, water line crossings, and testing.
16. Further review changes may be required as this project proceeds through the
permit process.
17. A hard copy set of As-Builts as well as one electronic copy in Auto-CAD.DWG
Version 14 Format or newer shall be supplied to this department upon completion
of the water system improvements.
Comments specific to the Master Plan review, on pages S1.1, C-6.0-6.6, C-9.2
1. Sheet C6.0
a. The future water connection point to Spear Street in the southwest corner
shall be removed.
b. A future water connection point to Spear Street may be required at the
northern entrance to this project, in the future. This connection point will
be through a PRV and vault.
2. Sheet C-6.1:
a. Please define an "Air Release Hydrant"
b. All tee intersections shall have a minimum of three (3) gate valves. Cross
sections (four-way intersections) shall have a minimum of four (4) gate
valves.
c. Fire hydrants shall be placed at each intersection, with a maximum of 500'
between hydrants.
d. Water main extensions shall be continuous to the furthest property line of
the project. A dead-end water main shall have a hydrant installed at the
end of the water main or a temporary blow off for water quality flushing
purposes.
3. Sheet C-6.2
a. The proposed eight -inch water main shall not extend to or connect with
the Spear street water main. The line shall be removed from future plans
at the corner of this subdivision.
b. Please define an "Air Release Hydrant"
c. All tee intersections shall have a minimum of three (3) gate valves. Cross
sections (four-way intersections) shall have a minimum of four (4) gate
valves.
d. Fire hydrants shall be placed at each intersection, with a maximum of 500'
between hydrants.
4. Sheet C-6.3
a. The proposed 12" water main shall be connected to the Spear Street water
main on the west side of Spear Street. A pressure -reducing vault with an
approved pressure -reducing valve shall be installed on the proposed water
main east of this intersection on the north side of the new road from South
Village to Spear Street across from Allen Road, in the green belt. This
will require the boring and sleeving under Spear Street for the new water
main, and a wet tap on Spear Street on the existing 12" water main. There
will also have to be installed a second sleeve of the same size or larger, for
a future water line that will connect from the SB Main Service area to this
water distribution system.
5. Sheet C-6.4
a. Please define an "Air Release Hydrant"
b. All tee intersections shall have a minimum of three (3) gate valves. Cross
sections (four-way intersections) shall have a minimum of four (4) gate
valves.
c. Fire hydrants shall be placed at each intersection, with a maximum of 500'
between hydrants.
d. The proposed 12' water main shall not go under the footings of the future
bridge, but instead shall go around the north end of the footings while
maintaining proper burial depth.
6. Sheet C-6.5
a. The proposed future water main shall not go under the future box culvert,
but instead shall go around the north end of the culvert while maintaining
proper burial depth.
b. Gate valves shall be installed a maximum 500' apart.
7. Sheets 6.6, 9.2
a. Please modify all Water Details to those found in the above referenced
CWD Specifications. Specifically, concrete shall not be poured
underneath any gate valve.
If you have any questions or I can be of further assistance, please call me.
Sincerely,
hJaadeau
Superintendent
CC. Brian Robertson
DD. Doug Brent
Plan Reviews: South Village -prelim 1-05
South Burlington Planning &Zoning
To: Dorset Farms Homeowners Association
Dan Wetzel
From: Juli Beth Hoover, AIC
Director of Planning & ning
RE: Notification for South Village Hearings
Date: August 24, 2004
cc: Chuck Hafter, City Manager
Amanda Lafferty, Esq., Stitzel Page & Fletcher
The Department of Planning and Zoning has received numerous differing requests for
notification and information related to upcoming meetings of the Development Review Board
involving the Retrovest "South Village" project. Consistent with its staff and financial resources,
Vermont law, and City regulations and policies, the Department provides public notice of all
land development in South Burlington. Citizens interested in the process should take some
measure of responsibility for using available sources of information.
Consistent with the City's Land Development Regulations and applicable Vermont statute, the
Department will observe the following policy with respect to public notice for meetings involving
the South Village project:
(i) Notice of public hearings (preliminary plat, master plan, and final plat applications) will be
published in Seven Days at least fifteen (15) days prior to any public hearing held by the DRB.
Seven Days is issued weekly on Wednesdays, and is free and available at many places of public
accommodation throughout Shelburne and South Burlington. Classified and legal notices in
Seven Days are also available on the newspaper's website, www.sevendaysvt.com.
(2) Both a tentative schedule of meetings and Development Review Board agendas are posted on
the City's website, www.sburl.com. DRB agendas are posted on the website on the Friday before
the Tuesday meeting.
(3) DRB agendas are posted, on the Friday before the Tuesday meeting, at Hannaford
supermarket on Shelburne Road, Gracie's market on Hinesburg Road, the Grand Union
supermarket on Hinesburg Road, and in the front window of the municipal office building, 575
Dorset Street.
(4) The Town of Shelburne and all abutting property owners of record, without respect to
intervening rights -of -way, will receive a letter via first class mail sent out on the day the notice is
published in the newspaper. As noted in (1), this will occur a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior
to any public hearing. In the event staff are not able to send out the notice via first class mail on
the same day the notice is published, the notices will be sent as soon as possible therafter.
(5) The Dorset Farms Homeowners Association will receive the same first-class mailing sent to:
Dorset Farms Commons Association, c/o MBL Associates, 25 Pinecrest Drive, Essex Junction,
Vermont 05452•
(6) Individuals who contact the Department of Planning and Zoning personally and ask to be
added to the mailing list will be added. With the present list of 49 parties, it costs the City $38
per mailing. Notifying 250 parties by first-class mail would cost the City $120 per mailing.
Those who would be willing to receive an e-mail notification instead of mail would help reduce
the City's expense.
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLA1 NEI� iG & ZONING
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
(802) 846-4106
FAX (802) 846-4101
August 13, 2004
David Scheuer
Retrovest
70 South Winooski Avenue
Burlington, VT 05401
Re: South Village
Dear Mr. Scheuer:
Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Board meeting
and staff comments to the Board. Please be sure that someone is at the meeting
on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall Conference Room,
575 Dorset Street.
If you have any questions, please give us a call.
Sincerely,
e t� UC
Betsy McDonough
Administrative Assistant
Encl.
Do Do Do
The Retrovest Companies
B U I L D E R S& D E V E L O P E R S
August 12, 2004
Ray Belair, Administrative Officer
City of So. Burlington
][Ymr Ray --
You and I had discussed sending a South Village "plan' book to the members of the
Design Review Board a week prior to the hearing. Do you still think that would be a good
idea. As you will see, the plan book is out of date and I have stamped it CONCEPUTAL.
Also enclosed is an illustrate site plan and home type by lot plan that is representative of what
they will be reviewing on September 7, 2004.
Lets discuss how to handle this after you return next week.
Thank �u tdi
ut&
Michelle
70 South Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT 05401-3830 802-863-8323 800-679-1929 F 802-863-1339 www.retrovest.com
E
MEMORANDUM
To: Development Review Board
From: Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer
RE: South Village Communities, LLC
Sketch Plan #SD-04-62
Date: August 10, 2004
On Tuesday, August 17th, the DRB will review the Sketch Plan application of
South Village Communities, LLC for the South Village project. A public hearing
on the Master Plan application for the same project has been warned for Tuesday,
September %th.
The DRB last reviewed the sketch plan for this project on December 3, 2002. The
minutes of that meeting are enclosed.
Section 15.05(C) of the Land Development Regulations requires the DRB to
review a sketch plan again if the prior sketch plan review took place more than six
months prior to submittal of the subdivision or Master Plan application. Thus,
the DRB must review the sketch plan application for this project in advance of the
September 7th public hearing on the Master Plan.
As the current sketch plan application is substantially unchanged from the
application reviewed in December of 2002, staff recommends that the DRB allow
the sketch plan to proceed to the Master Plan public hearing on September 7th.
On that date, the DRB will conduct a detailed review of the Master Plan
application.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
3 DECEMBER 2002
PAGE 3
Mr. Boucher asked about a possible right-of-way to the rear of the property if the
adjacent property is developed. Mr. Smith said he was willing to do that and would make
changes to accommodate it.
Mr. Cameron asked if would be reasonable to close curb cuts here. Mr. Bolton said if the
building were turned and there were diagonal parking, it would make it easier to use the
future access. Mr. Smith said the design is based on what they have today. Mr. Bolton
felt it would be hard to improve traffic flow if the building is located where it is. Mr.
Kupferman said a trade-off for him in the future would be 1 front access for the rear
access.
Mr. Boucher moved to approve application #CU-02-54 and Site Plan Application
#SP-02-54 of Jolley Associates subject to the stipulations in the draft motion of 3
December 2002. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed 6-1 with Mr. Bolton
opposing.
Mr. Cameron said he didn't understand the rationale for closing curb cuts. He felt this
was an ideal spot to close a curb cut, especially with the possibility of a future access in
back. Mr. Belair said they look at additional traffic, use, etc. Almost all gas stations
have 2 curb cuts. This one operates as a one curb cut for incoming and one for outgoing
traffic. It is an existing situation.
7. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-02-44 of Retrovest Associates, Inc.,
for a planned residential development consisting of 310 single and multi-
family units on 242 acres, and a 35 acre working farm, 1840 Spear Street:
Mr. Anderson, representing the Vallees, gave the Board information on their position.
The Board also received a memo from Bruce Hoar regarding Public Works issues.
Mr. Scheuer presented the plan. He noted the location is at Spear St. and Allen Road.
The goals of the project include environmental stewardship, and the plan is designed
based on what they found on the site. There will be an innovative stormwater plan,
integration of landscape architecture and land planning to create places where people
want to congregate. There will be a mix of housing types and prices. The project will
incorporate a density bonus consistent with what is being proposed by the city. The units
created as a result of the density bonus will be "affordable."
Mr. Scheuer then spoke of the partnership with Intervale Association to reintroduce
agriculture to this site as well as a network of trails.
Mr. Schulman, project engineer, the showed the details of street design and connections
between neighborhoods. He reviewed the optimal speeds for traffic in certain areas and
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
3 DECEMBER 2002
PAGE 4
for a mix of motorists and non -motorists. The are proposing both public and private
streets. Mr. Schulman noted there is an amendment to the Zoning Regs pending which
will allow this. Private streets will be designed for 20 mph traffic; public streets would
be designed for 25 mph. Mr. Hoar recommended 25 mph for both as the city cannot
enforce a 20 mph speed limit. Mr. Schulman said they are requesting a 20 mph design
but would not post the street for that speed.
Mr. Dinklage said that staff recommends the city hire a traffic consultant to analyze the
street layout. There is a question of liability if this is considered unsafe and the city has
allowed it. Mr. Kupferman asked whose liability it is (city, homeowners, etc.). He said
he appreciated the arrangement for roads designed for safe speeds. But he noted the
Board doesn't have control over what is being proposed here. Mr. Dinklage asked for a
proposal that everyone can live with. Mr. Belair suggested the traffic consultant be asked
to look at traffic and roadway engineering. Members agreed.
Mr. Bolton asked if the proposed private roads would remain private. Mr. Dinklage said
this would have to be very clear in the deeds. Mr. Bolton noted this has been a problem
before when residents demanded that the city maintain streets because people are paying
taxes. Mr. Scheuer said there will be paperwork to preclude this problem. It will be a
deed restriction. Mr. Bolton said road maintenance is expensive, and if people are paying
$34,000 in taxes they will petition the city to take over the roads.
Mr. Boucher moved to invoke technical review for both traffic and roadway engineering.
Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Schulman then showed the relationship of buildings to the street. There are 9
different street types proposed in the project, some with rear alleys. There are no streets
without buildings on them. There will be a 60 ft. r.o.w. at the principal entrance. All
other rights of way are 60 ft.
Mr. Hoar said r-o-w width is key so changes can be made if necessary. He said this was
the problem at Valley Ridge where there isn't sufficient right-of-way.
Mr. Cameron asked what the typical setback would be. Mr. Schulman said it depends on
the type of building and would range from 0 to 10 ft.
Mr. Dinklage asked about the size of a fire truck. Mr. Belair said this cannon
accommodate a ladder truck. A specific kind of fire truck may be needed. Mr. Marshall
said they have agreed to apply information from the Fire Chief to their preliminary plat
design. They will meet the Chief s needs.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
3 DECEMBER 2002
PAGE 5
Mr. Bolton said he liked the concept but didn't know anything like it near Burlington. He
felt it could establish a trend in development. He said he needed to get over the feeling:
"...it looks good on paper, but..."
Mr. Scheuer said they built a project in Stowe Village and would be willing to arrange a
visit for the Board. This would provide a visual image. Mr. Schulman said they have
done over 100 of these projects in the country and all are successful.
Mr. Dinklage and Mr. Belair reviewed staff notes:
Mr. Dinkiage noted density will require an ordinance change which is now being
considered by the Planning Commission. The number of lots served by a private street
will also require ordinance changes.
Mr. Belair said the lots are quite small. He didn't have a problem with that but didn't
want a small lot with 95% coverage. He would like a coverage limit for each lot and one
for the whole project. He had no problem with the 0 setback as long as there is a 60 ft.
r.o.w. He felt they applicant had done an excellent job a showing parking.
There are still some issues regarding wetland buffers which are part of lots. Restricted
areas also need to be shown. Mr. Dinklage stressed the importance of the applicant
meeting with the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. Cameron asked what the project means in the context of affordable housing. Mr.
Scheuer said they haven't looked at the degrees of affordability. Every unit they build
under the bonus provision will be affordable. He stressed that they couldn't build any
affordable units without the bonus provision. They are also looking at issues regarding
perpetual affordability.
Mr. Anderson noted that the Vallees own the property immediately south of this proposed
development. He said they want a proposal that is consistent with what the city has felt
about the Southeast Quadrant for a long time. He felt that higher density housing may be
appropriate on the western side of the property and possibly on the eastern side. In the
middle, however, there is a large wetland and significant wildlife area which they feel
should remain in tact. They felt the project should be scaled down to a level that
characterizes South Burlington and there shouldn't be roadways going across the
wetlands. He felt there could still be a good project without these incursions.
Mr. Anderson said the work done by the applicant was done in August when the area is
much drier. He noted that the Vallees have hired a consultant and are working on a way
to have him get on the land.
Mr. Anderson also noted that the Agency of Natural Resources commented about the
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
3 DECEMBER 2002
PAGE 6
intact wildlife area and also said densities are too high to be compatible with this. He
also provided information on roadway decisions which indicate you can't build a
roadway through a wetland except as a last resort and you must consider alternatives.
Mr. Anderson asked the Board to look at density issues. He said he calculated 265 units
or about 2000 people per sq. mile, and South Burlington is now about 350 per sq. mile.
Mr. Dinklage noted that the proposed number of units meets the present ordinance. Mr.
Anderson said that is the absolute maximum if you adhere to environmental amenities on
the site. He said the Board doesn't automatically grant that density. He added that the
current owner of the land has submitted testimony to Act 250 that they were astounded
by the density that would be allowed on this land and felt no more than 100 units should
be the maximum. This plan is for 3 times that.
Mr. Anderson said they also believe the overall design has to meet very firm criteria to
build in the restricted zone and he didn't think they had. Mr. Dinklage said that will be
addressed at preliminary plat.
Mr. Dinklage noted that a wetland study was done and the Board has a letter on that. Mr.
Anderson noted that access to the land for that study was through the Vallee's property
and they assumed the same courtesy would be given to them. He said they believe there
are inaccuracies in the study that was done. He also said they are being told they can't go
on the site except under some unprecedented conditions. Mr. Scheuer said they haven't
denied access, they just want appropriate sharing of information.
Mr. Valley said he will suggest that the Army Corps of Engineers be invited to participate
in the study of the property. He also said that the suggestion that the state agrees with the
boundaries is not true. He stressed that the wetland analysis should be done with a great
deal of care. The city's own wetland maps show a significant area that the wetlands
experts missed entirely. Mr. Dinklage asked the applicant to provide information to the
Natural Resources Committee. He also said that wildlife issues are reviewed at Act 250.
Ms. Hoover felt it would be appropriate to get input from the Planning Commission on
assessment of Comprehensive Plan policies.
Mr. Dinklage said if issues discussed are resolved, the project will go to preliminary plat.
08/10/2004 13:15 802626'
DATEt
TO
FAX Il
rRON s
RE:
I PAOICS
CALKINS
CALKINS ROCK PRODUCI'S9 INC.
PAUL R. CALKINS, PRESIDENT
P.O. BOX 82, LYNDONVILLE, VERMONT OW I
(8M 626-5765 FAX (8M 626-1160
F A C S I M I L E
F A C E S H E 9 T
IEr ANY PART or THIS TRANSMISSION WAS MISSING OR UNABLE TO BE READ. —FAX
US A RKQUIIST VOR A SECOND TRANSMISSION.
THANK YOU.
PAGE 01
08/10/2004 13:15 8026261'r0 CALKINS
6ENI BY: HETHOVEST COMPANIES; 1 802 863 1339; AUG-9 3:51PM;
'emit Numba SP• -
PAGE 02
PAGE 214
Yage 1 of
Permit Number SD -
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
qll information requested on this application must bo completed in full. Failure to provide the requcstcd information
,ither on this application fo m or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review
)cfore the Devolopinent Review Board. For amendments, please provide pertinent information only.
mailing address, phone and fax #)
0n6Orwr4r /x/t)97 .SaBurl.,tQnd<?rc
2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and paF #) g&
9L&a9t A1a arc. ✓Zi 0, Ml. /off /o
3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) A2UrA ► lAyAdit ComquNiritrs. LLC
70 &wry /Yimooa&f Alen, $�J�i�.in�CiYPW, Yr ggG► -9,u3
d,r aw S10.9 - /.19
4) APPLICANT'S LEGAL INTEREST IN THE PROPFATY (fee simple, option, etc,)_._
5) CONTACT P13RSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) VAY10 Ar.
70 ap. /Naos�� .�r�l 1 u� c m�� Kr- osNoj
b) PROJECT STMT T AUORF.SS: I fto aae-4,gsr. .50,6yx,��✓e - 05g03
7) TAX PARCEL, TD # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) / G y0 - 0IhlO • r- .
8) PROTECT DESCRIMON
A) Existing Uses on Prgperty (including description and size of each scparatc use)
oo-ye
b) Proposed Uses on property (includc douzipdon and size of each now use and existing uses to remain)
A i M oR .'.l� ju homes
c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain)
� V //lam _
d) Proposed height of building (if applicable)
o) Number of resid"al units (if applicable, new unite and existing units to remain)
� Other (list any odw information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if overlay
8/9/2004
08/10/2004 13:15 8026261'S0 CALKINS
SENT BY: RETROVEST COMPANIES; 802 863 1339; AUG-9- 3:52PM;
'emvt N mber SP-
PAGE 03
PAGE a/a
Page L of
)istiiets are applicable)
)) LOT COVEALAGE
a) Building: Existing_ 0• ox % Proposed J6 %
b) Overall (buildin& parking, outside stonNM etc)
Baftling% Proposed -%
c) Front yard (along each street) Existing % Proposed %
10) TYPE OF gXISTTNG OR PROPOSED ENCLUBRANCES ON PROPERTY (casements, covenants, Ica. -,Cs, rights
of way, etc.) Cwfifil , & elednCai ej&&tf&-,at south end of prop", ?M&-a/
>ro ryiEar�ancr 64.2 warms
11) PROPOSED EXTENSION, RELOCATION, OR MODIFICATION OF MUNICIPA1, FACILITIES (san1 tars
sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage. etc.) W0W-MiJIMAY e'pst�tslod SYS art LP9e��M�Auwv rrq r�ar,r5�
7o evL&sZ7*4S}jry�AL.LjW_Ry 6ArdR. uO�uf eoomedriA)n 7"D PoRStCrrAA04S WITU
- urlfAst OAIN1 IpN� 7a j7W(Se ' Fyn ig-irr.
12) OWNERS OF RECORD OF ALL CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES & MAILING ADDRESSES (this may be
�inovidod on a separate attached sheet)
13) ESTDAATED PROAdCT COMPLETION
bATE �dl+,J
14) PLANS AND FEE
Plat plans seals be submitted which show3 the infonnation listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size cUPies
and one reduced copy (I I" x 17") of the plans must be submitted. A sketch subdivision application fee is $125,
8/9/2004
08/10/2004 13:15 8026261";0 CALKINS PAGE 04
StW1 UY: NtINUVttiI GUMeANltai i due coo 1JJy1- AUU^J J.JLrIV,r r.+u: vi-
'ermit Number SP- - rage -1 o[
hereby ftr6f ► d ittformati0n Mquestod as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the
,est of my know"sp. ) /% -11000'
SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER
Leo not write below this line
DAIL OF SUBMISSION:
I have reviewed thin sketch plan application and find it to be:
❑ coalplew ❑ LIC01Uplcte
Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date
srorzooa
Cl8/1! Els IGII IIE;RII IGi A"SJ JCIAQPSO, ll`Ir�
928 Falls Road
P.O. Box 485
Shelburne, VT 05482
July 16, 2004
Mr. Brian Robertson, Planning Associate
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Re: South Village PRD
Calkins / South Village Communities, LLC
Phase 1 Preliminary Plan Application
Dear Mr. Robertson:
Phone: 802-985-2323
Fax: 802-985-2271
E-Mail: mail@cea-vt.com
South Village Communities, LLC is pleased to submit this Phase I Preliminary Plan
application for the South Village residential neighborhood proposed to be located off of
the east side of Spear Street near Allen Road.
To assist the Development Review Board in evaluating this application, we have
summarized the components of the application in a format consistent with the
requirements set forth in the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations.
15.05 (B) Site Plan Information - All applicable information required for Site Plan
approval as outlined in Section 14.05 shall be submitted at the preliminary
plat stage for subdivisions involving multi -family uses or planned unit
development.
15.07 (B) Master Plan Required - For all projects in the Southeast Quadrant
Zoning District with 10 or more proposed units. This has been
previously submitted.
15.08 (A) PUD Approval Procedure - Preliminary Plat Application - The applicant
requests that the City accept this Preliminary Plat application after the 6
month time frame in light of the adoption of the new Land Development
Regulations which had a direct impact on this project in the intervening
time frame.
The following information is required to be submitted with the preliminary
Plat application.
Mr. Brian Robertson
Page 2 of 12
July 16, 2004
(1) All Sketch Plan items -These have been updated or
supplemented. Some have not been submitted as they relate
more to the master Plan application process.
15.11 Relation to Scenic View Protection Overlay District (Article 10) -
Article 10 does provide some opportunities on the south side of the view
protection zone relative to the placement of structures within the view
protection zone. At this time, no structures are proposed in this area.
15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation in PUD's and
Subdivisions - Please note that previously design discussions with Mr.
Bruce Hoar have produced a memorandum of understanding on the
proposed road sections associated with this project which do vary from
that outlined in this section of the regulations.
(E) Entrances - The traffic study submitted with the Master Plan application
addresses the traffic circulation and safety issues at each one of these
locations.
(F) Stormwater Management - We request that the City rely upon the
issuance of a Stormwater Discharge Permit from the State that the
applicant has met its burden of proof relative the requirements of this
section. We will be submitting the required information to the State in a
timely manner which will allow for review and approval by the time Final
Plat approval is sought.
15.14 Required Improvements
(B) Reference Monuments - shall be installed at the corners of the PUD
property and along the new roads. We would propose that these be
installed as part of the construction phase to reduce replacement costs.
15.18 (A) General Standards -
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.
This information submitted with the recent Master Plan application
has been attached in this application.
b. Boundaries of existing zoning and special districts on the subject property
and adjacent zoning and special district boundaries. This has been
depicted on the existing conditions plans.
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. This has been depicted on the existing conditions plans.
Mr. Brian Robertson
Page 3 of 12
July 16, 2004
d. Streams, drainage ways, and associated stream buffer areas as set forth
in Article 12. This has been depicted on the existing conditions plans.
e. Reservations, easements and areas dedicated to public use, if known,
shall be shown. No areas are specifically to be dedicated to the City
other than the proposed public streets and pedestrian path. The
remaining trail systems will be open to the public.
f. Lot dimensions and survey data, and section and lot numbers of the
subject property. This has been depicted on the survey plat plans.
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 referred scale shall be not less than one (1) inch
equals thirty (30) feet. The above information has been included on
the plans. Please note that due to the size of the project, some plans
are at a scale of larger than 1 " = 30
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 (100) 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.
These are all shown on the orthophoto based plans and many of
these structures are shown on the remaining plans.
C. Such map shall show proposed structures, access points, and general
internal circulation. This is depicted on all of the proposed plans
including the proposed sidewalks and pedestrian paths plan
prepared by Land -Works.
d. Existing and proposed contours at a maximum vertical interval of two (2)
feet. 2' contour intervals have been provided.
3. Existing conditions:
a. Location of existing structures on the site. These are all shown on the
orthophoto based plans and many of these structures are shown on
the remaining plans.
Mr. Brian Robertson
Page 4 of 12
July 16, 2004
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. These are all shown on
the orthophoto based plans and many of these structures are shown
on the remaining plans. Please note that there are no FEMA
identified flood ways on this property.
C. Topographic contours and profiles as needed. We have prepared
profiles of the proposed roads on Sheets C4.4 through C4.7.
d. Existing structures and access points on adjacent properties, including
those directly across a public street. These have been shown on all of
the various plans with a 1 " = 20' scale plan of the improvements at
the Allen Road intersection.
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. These
points are shown on the grading and drainage plans together with
the paths plan prepared by Land -Works.
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, outside 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.
This is required for any structure other than a single family unit.
Information on the proposed footprints for the various single family,
duplex and triplex units is forthcoming from the Architect.
C. The location and layout of any off-street parking or loading areas, traffic
circulation areas, pedestrian walkways, and fire lanes. We have shown
a number of off-street garden parking pods and lanes.
d. Analysis of traffic impacts, if required by the traffic overlay district and/or
the DRB. This is outlined in the previously submitted traffic study
prepared by TND Engineering.
Mr. Brian Robertson
Page 5 of 12
July 16, 2004
e. Lot area in square feet and acres, and lot coverage calculations including
building, overall, and front yard coverage. Lot coverage calculations are
not possible just because of the residential nature of the project. We
will provide an estimate for this phase (with certain assumptions, if
requested). The overall density requirements for the Southeast
Quadrant District must be maintained.
The location of all proposed waterlines, valves and hydrants and sewer
lines or of alternative means of water supply and sewage disposal and
treatment. These are shown on the utility plans.
g. Cut sheets for all proposed outdoor lighting within the site. A copy of the
proposed outdoor street lighting is attached.
h. Preliminary grading, drainage, landscaping and buffering plan in
accordance with Article 13, Supplemental Regulations. LandWorks has
prepared the proposed landscaping plan. The proposed grading and
drainage is located on those same named sheets.
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. The intention is to make this a balanced site
except for the imported granular materials. The EPSC plans (Sheets
C7 series depict the temporary and permanent measures to be
implemented for this project.
The 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. The City will be copied on all information
submitted to the State concerning the stormwater design for this
phase of the project.
k. Detailed specifications and locations of planting, landscaping, screening,
and/or buffering materials. Land -Works has prepared the proposed
landscaping plan.
The general location of any free-standing signs. Land -Works has shown
this on the proposed landscaping plan.
Mr. Brian Robertson
Page 6 of 12
July 16, 2004
M. The location of all existing and proposed site improvements, including
drains, culverts, retaining walls and fences. These have been shown
on the civil plans.
n. 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. This will be addressed with
subsequent site plan application for the proposed multiple unit
buildings.
o. Location and design of all energy distribution facilities, including electrical,
gas, and solar energy. These are shown on the Utility Plans.
p. 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. Metes and bounds have
been shown for the common areas and proposed public roadways.
q. Estimated project construction schedule, phasing, and date of completion.
of development. Break ground Summer 2005 with completion of
infrastructure in 2006 and full structure build out in 2009.
r. Estimated cost of all site improvements. This will be provided.
S. Estimated daily and peak hour traffic generation, and an estimate of traffic
generation during the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. This is
outlined in the previously submitted traffic study.
t. Finished grades of walls, pavements, and storm drains. These are
shown on the Grading and Drainage Plans.
U. Detailed plans of retaining walls, steps, ramps, paving, and drainage
structures. Detail sheets have been included for any special
structures.
V. 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. The intention is to make this a balanced site
except for the imported granular materials. Any import of material
other than what is necessary for the defined construction
improvements will not be allowed without prior approval of the City.
Mr. Brian Robertson
Page 7 of 12
July 16, 2004
W. Location and dimensions of all proposed water supply, sanitary sewerage,
stormwater system, and other utility lines and equipment, including
connections to existing facilities. The proposed utilities are shown on
the Utility Plans.
X. 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 13,06, Landscaping, screening, and Street Trees.
Land -Works has prepared the proposed landscaping plan.
y. Locations, types, and cut sheets for all exterior lighting. We have
enclosed a copy of the proposed exterior lighting catalog cut.
6. 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.
A. General Standards. The general standards applicable to all PUDs, subdivisions and
Master Plans are:
Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet
the needs of the project in conformance with the 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. Please find attached a summary of the
design water and sewer flows for Phase I and for the Master Plan. A letter
of allocation from the City will be required prior to the submittal of any
applications to the State.
2. Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and
after. construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or
dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The
applicant prepare Sediment and Erosion Control Permit application in
conformance with submittal requirements for application for "Permit to
Discharge Stormwater from Construction Sites". Some of this information
is included in the C7 series plans.
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. This has been previously reviewed with Mr. Bruce Hoar and
Mr. Brian Robertson
Page 8 of 12
July 16, 2004
further supported in the submittal of the traffic study as part of the Master
Plan application.
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. The applicant is currently
appearing before the NRC on these issues.
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 project respects the view
protection corridor and restricted area concepts for this part of the
Southeast Quadrant.
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 project has been designed to respect the
large wetland bodies and streams that pass through them. A 400' wide
wildlife corridor has been provided between Phase 2 (The Ridge) and
Phase 3 (The Groves) as a means of maximizing the contiguous
undeveloped land forms in this areas.
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 water distribution system has been designed (at the
Master Plan level) to provide ample looping to minimize service
disruptions. Water flow and pressures have been discussed with Mr. Jay
Nadeau from the Water Department. The street widths have been reviewed
with Chief Brent and Mr. Bruce Hoar regarding access and maintainability.
The turning radii at intersections and sharp turns, and hydrant locations
will be reviewed during the preliminary plat submittal stage of the project.
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
proposed road and utility systems have been designed to extend northerly
Mr. Brian Robertson
Page 9 of 12
July 16, 2004
to the abutting property in accordance with the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan.
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. The proposed road
typical sections do represent a departure from the Standards outlined in
the Development Regulations but have been reviewed and approved by the
Street Department and Staff in support of the previous sketch plan
submissions.
10. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan for the affected district(s). The project has met the comprehensive plan
goals of improved transportation corridors, clustering of development,
retention of agricultural production values, protection of natural resources,
mix of housing types, affordable housing, and retention of wildlife
corridors as further outlined below.
B. Southeast Quadrant District. A Master Plan or PUD in the Southeast Quadrant
District shall comply with the following standards.-
1 Open space and development areas shall be located so as to maximize the
aesthetic values of the property in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan goal
of preserving and enhancing the open character, natural areas, and scenic
views of the Quadrant, while allowing carefully planned development.
The project has been designed to respect the view protection zone from Spear Street
looking easterly while minimizing the proposed impacts to the extensive amount of
wetlands on the property. The northeast corner of the property is not proposed for
development as a means of furthering the retention of mid -range background open
space features. The proposed layout of the residential components proposes a high
density clustering of village clusters as a means of maximizing the available open
space.
2. Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner that
maximizes the protection of the open character, natural areas, and scenic views
of the Quadrant identified in the Comprehensive Plan, while allowing carefully
planned development at the overall base densities provided in these
Regulations. This goal has been achieved through the use of a traditional
neighborhood design which utilizes narrower than normal streets as a means of
condensing the development footprint which allows for greater retention of the natural
resources on site.
Mr. Brian Robertson
Page 10 of 12
July 16, 2004
3. Existing natural resources on each site shall be protected through the
development plan, including streams, wetlands, flood plains, wildlife habitat
and corridors including those areas identified in the South Burlington Open
Space Strategy, and special natural and/or geologic features such as mature
forests, headwaters areas, and prominent ridges. The project has retained a 400'
wide wildlife corridor along the eastern portions of the site in accordance with Staff's
requests as a means of providing a connection between two separate Class II
wetland complexes. The main body of the Class II wetland fully situated within the
Calkins property has been retained essentially in its existing condition except for three
stream crossings typically located at the point of minimum impact.
The project proposes to re-establish the native species of the area through the
phased removal of the invasive species prevalent on this property.
4. Consistent with 1 through 3 above, dedicated open spaces shall be designed
and located to maximize the potential for combination with other open spaces
on adjacent properties. The property lies amidst a shallow valley draining from
north to south and a second valley located in the properties southeast quadrant which
drains from south to north. These riparian corridors have been retained in their
natural condition except for the proposed roadway crossings. The project has
retained a 400' wide wildlife corridor along the eastern portions of the site in
accordance with Staff's requests as a means of providing a connection between two
separate Class II wetland complexes.
5. The conservation of existing agricultural production values on lands in the SEQ
is encouraged through development planning that avoids impacts on prime
agricultural soils as defined in the South Burlington Open Space Strategy and
provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new
development, roads, and infrastructure. This project specifically enables a long
term commitment to agricultural uses on the property through the proposed lease of
the agricultural lands along Spear Street to the Intervale Foundation. This area is
ringed with access roads in support of providing a buffer from the agricultural use to
the residential use. Most of the prime agricultural soils on the property are on the
lowest end of the scale relative to quality. However, the clustering of the project has
enabled the retention of over one-half of the mapped prime agricultural soils.
6. A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas shall be established
by the applicant describing the intended use and maintenance of each area.
Continuance of agricultural uses or enhancement of wildlife habitat values in
such plans for use and maintenance is encouraged. The Master Plan sheets
include the proposed limits of agricultural lands to be retained while also providing a
master plan for the reduction in the number of invasive non-native plant species and
re-establishment of a more robust native species community.
Mr. Brian Robertson
Page 11 of 12
July 16, 2004
7. In the absence of a specific finding by the DRB 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.
This project specifically addresses the Comprehensive Plan goals of creating an east -
west transportation link (including recreation paths) across the property with
provisions for extensions in the northerly direction. The water main has been
designed to enable the same east -west connection from Dorset Farms to Spear
Street.
D. 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 plat 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,
or not more than sixty (60) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (100)
feet of frontage, showing or accompanied by the following information-
1 . Items 1 through 9 in Section 15.5 above. As previously outlined.
2. For applications including commercial or industrial uses or multi -family dwellings,
or applications made as a PUD, all information required for site plan review in
Section 14.05 (D) of these Regulations. No site plan review components are
proposed as part of this application.
3. Plans and profiles showing existing and proposed elevations along center lines
of all streets within the subdivision. These are depicted on the C4.4-C4.7
Sheets.
4. Plans and profiles showing location of street pavements, curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, manholes, catch basins and culverts. The grading and drainage
plans show this information.
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. These are shown on
the Utility Plans (C6 series)
6. Details of proposed connection with the existing sanitary sewage disposal
system or adequate provision for on -site disposal of septic wastes. The
proposed connection will be into the existing gravity collection system
recently installed on Allen Road.
Mr. Brian Robertson
Page 12 of 12
July 16, 2004
7. Preliminary designs of any bridges or culverts which may be required. The
proposed stream crossings have been left out of Phase L
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. CEA
will provide centerline road layout in the field prior to any scheduled site
walk.
9. List of waivers the applicant desires from the requirements of these regulations.
These requested waivers are attached.
10. Base flood elevation data for proposed development that contains at least fifty
(50) units or five (5) acres, if appropriate. There is no FEMA based flood
information for this area. By inspection, the buffers from the stream
provide more than adequate separation from the 100-year storm event.
This completes our summary of the design and review issues associated with the South
Village Master Plan application. If you should have any questions, please feel free to
contact me at 985-2323.
Respectfully,
David S. Marshall, P.E.
Project Engineer
\dsm
Attachments:
Plans (1 full size, 8 reduced to 11"x 17")
Preliminary Plan Application
Application Fee (Check $15,510)
Abutters List
Outdoor Street Lighting Cut
Waiver Request
cc: David Scheuer, Michelle Holgate, David Capen, Rick Chellman,
Art Gilman, David Raphael (all with attachments) CA1 Let\01 243\RobertsonPrelPlatLet.wpd
CA1 Let\01243\RobertsonPrelPlatLet wpd
Permit Number SD- 6 7 - f
CITY OF SOUTH BUF LINGTON
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT 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 rejected
and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board.
1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #)
Pai-4I R. CALl,11(1/5 , -PO. aOX 8.2, Lyrld6ny1/1e V7T O.SF,S/
PhOhe. 00A - Gam& - 579.3 Fax 60-2 - &,V, - iieo
2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) DEtO DArE /2/2-197 Vgl9, -P9. *54-`f55-
3) APPLICANT (Name, availing address, phone and fax #) 5�)L1rH 11L-IAGE COA4A4uAji7-leS
70 -'59LITH vV/,voO6K1 Ari, OuRL-lAm-or✓ VT O5401 PhoIc 50,2 81,_3-R3-23
rclxC
4) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailingaddress, phone and fax #)
DA v1 o 5cNe a,6gZ - 5A t-i E'
3 -1332
s) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS 1840 5PtAR 5T. -')OuTN VT
6) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) l e-LIO - O/ 84 0. F
7) DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
LLC
a) Existing uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use) 6- - Q0/'C-5
9f faun lid no 16t-7q Cr- In use, W /7 ur�occupl ed s/ r�q/�, �cvn� /u Ous e
b) Proposed uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to
remain) PHASE / - 04LAC-7E C&vTEF, - 150 RES1,96 7-1/-11_.. L/n/1T5 p4.U- '
l00 `S7u1DEnIT .5ng0GL
c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain)
1,44 (,407LIA1- ?D i5'f11f,167�
d) Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify
if basement and mezzanine) �%0 t 14el BHT /-lt4x1muN/ FOB ROdxs� 35/ToR 67yr S
e) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain) 3341 u v/7S OF
HOuS/nIC? EX/ST1NC7 R 5/fl 1AL- SUILOit&j TO 8Z eoN✓en7, .) -fb 4CcESSo4Y
U56 0/Z C00VD1T10NAL.- LlSE (To jet �t7tRM1�cD
0 Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office
employees) Nor A ppc ieA BLt
g) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above,
please note if Overlay Districts are applicable)
h) List any changes to the subdivision, such as property lines, number of units, lot mergers, etc.
8) WETLAND INFORMATION
a) Are there any wetlands (Class I, II, or III) on the subject property?
Yes
b) If yes, is the proposed development encroaching into any of these wetlands or their associated 50'
buffers?
yes - Me- prQp2sed carirzecfor'road any G 1//11u lo_ita.//aho`l c.)t// C'2oss a-
wet/ond and s>rea.tn. 6e. fJlMl l fed
c) If yes, this project MUST be reviewed by the Natural Resources Committee prior to review by the
Development Review Board. 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 Wetlands 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).
9) LOT COVERAGE (ALL information MUST be provided here, even if no change is proposed)
a) Size of Parcel: 3(?, 8
b) Building Coverage:
Existing 1500 square feet 0, O�2, %
Proposed square feet o?0 %
c) Overall Coverage (building, parking, outside storage, etc):
Existing 31700 square feet G, 04 %
Proposed square feet %
2
d) Front Yard Coverage(s) (commercial projects only):
Existing AIA square feet A!A %
Proposed NA square feet NA %
10) WAIVERS REQUESTED
a) List any waivers from the strict standards in the Land Development Regulations (e.g., setbacks,
height, parking, etc.) that the applicant is seeking Please See cajt ac hecl l tst .
11) COST ESTIMATES
a) Building (including interior renovations) $ 1\/4 - R E51 gi l-TI A L-
b) Landscaping (see Section 13.06(G) of the Land Development Regulations) $
c) Other site improvements (please list with cost)
12) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC aH45, l -rO74 L
a) Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out) 11-/58 3.Z20
b) A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out) /Cod 3a2�
c) P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out) / S S .3,15
13) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION 5— 40 P
14) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION
15) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE .2o13
16) 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 (I V x 17") of the plans must be submitted. A subdivision application fee shall be paid to the City at the time
of submitting the final plat application (see Exhibit A).
3
I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted
and is accurate to the best of any ledge.
^ SIGNATU OF APPLICANT
l
SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER
Do not write below this line
DATE OF SUBMISSION` / d
I have reviewed this preliminary plat application and find it to be:
LS Complete 11117 ❑ Incomplete
Planning & Zoning or Designee
4
SOUTH VILLAGE - ABUTT. � LIST - JUNE 23, 2004 (2 pgs., )
William Stanley
306 South Beach Road
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Mary Pappas
1809 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Stuart & Helen Hall
1815 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
George & Shelly Vinal
1845 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
William Reed
1967 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Alan & Diane Sylvester
1985 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Patrick & Juanita Clifford
4047 Spear Street
Shelburne, VT 05482
Littleton Long
1702 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
William & Gail Lang
1675 Dorset Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Harold & Eleanor Bensen
1803 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Donald & Lynn Cummings
1811 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Harry & Patricia Davison
1827 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Warren Shatzer
109 N. Kentucky Ave., Suite Z
Lakeland, FL 33801
Harry Stone
29 Rangely Rd.
Chestnut Falls, MA 02160
Kenneth & Cheryl Goodwin
306 South Beach Road
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Rodolphe & Denise Vallee
4043 Spear Street
Shelburne, VT 05482
Lucien & Jane Demers
P.O. Box 359
Essex Jct., VT 05452
Shane & Holly Deridder
192 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Janet Farina
1807 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
William & Ayse Floyd
1813 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Patricia Calkins
1835 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Barbara Lande
1865 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
James McNamara
211 Killarney Dr.
Burlington, VT 05401
Harlan & John Sylvester
51 South Street
Burlington, VT 05401
Littleton & Carolyn Long
1720 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Richard & Dawn Derridinger
1575 Dorset Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Timothy & Jennifer Owens
197 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Matthew & Beverly Broomhall Brian & Carolyn Terhune Stanley & Carolyn Pallutto .
37 Floral Street 35 Floral Street 33 Floral Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403
1
Michael Bouvier Dorset Farms Commons Assoc. Kirk & Nancy Weed
31 Floral Street c/o MBL Associates 190 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403 25 Pinecrest Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403
Essex Jct., VT 05452
Mark & Deborah Fay Bhagwat & Gita Mangla Dirk & Deborah Marek
188 Catkin Drive 195 Catkin Drive 193 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403
t.Tohn & Ritika Paul Philip & Darcy Carter Dan Wetzel
191 Catkin Drive 187 Catkin Drive 183 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403
Anthony & Nancy Bianchi James & Christina Robert Jared & Karen Larrow
29 Floral Street 79 Bower Street 77 Bower Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403
Pasquale & Deborah Distefano Donald and Lisa Anqwin
75 Bower Street 73 Bower Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403
South Village Master Plan
Design Flow Summary
June 21, 2004
Wastewater Design Flows
Qty Desc.
Flow Description
Flow
School
100 Students x
100% x
25 GPD/Person =
2,500 GPD
Shool Employees
20 Employees x
100% x
15 GPD/Person =
300 GPD
Subtotal
2800
Municipal WW Flow Credit
20%
(560)
Housing
334 Units x
100% x
210 GPD/Unit =
70,140 GPD
Total Design Flows 72,380 GPD
Water Design Flows
Qty Desc.
Flow Description
Flow
School
100 Students x
100% x
25 GPD/Person =
2,500
GPD
Shool Employees
20 Employees x
100% x
15 GPD/Person =
300
GPD
Housing
334 Bedrooms x
250% x
150 GPD/Bedroom =
125,250
GPD
Subtotal
128,050
Low Flow Fixture Credit
10%
(12,805)
Total Design Flows
115,245
GPD
South Village - Phase I
Design Flow Summary
July 15, 2004
Wastewater Design Flows
Qty Desc.
School 100 Students x 100% x
Shool Employees 20 Employees x 100% x
Subtotal
Municipal WW Flow Credit
Housing 15p Units
Total Design Flows
Water Design Flows
Flow Description Flow
25 GPD/Person = 2,500 GPD
15 GPD/Person = 300 GPD
20%
x 100% x 210 GPD/Unit
2800
(560)
= 31,500 GPD
33,740 GPD
Qty Desc.
Flow Description
Flow
School
100 Students x
100% x
25 GPD/Person =
2,500 GPD
Shool Employees
20 Employees x
100% x
15 GPD/Person =
300 GPD
Housing
150 Bedrooms x
250% x
150 GPD/Bedroom =
56,250 GPD
Subtotal
59,050
Low Flow Fixture Credit
10%
(5,905)
Total Design Flows 63,145 GPD
21�
3�
C CC-,
'SS t 17� cYv)
Wastewater Pump Station Analysis
South Village Main Pump Station #1
July 15, 2004
Design
Conditions
Design Flow
72,380
GPD
Infiltration
:
GPD
20% Municipal Credit
Total Design Flow
74,780
GPD
Average Daily Flow
77.90
GPM
Peaking Factor
Peak Flow
327.16
GPM
Required Storage 18,695 gallons
Storage Provided 20,000 gallons
Force Main Dia.
6.00
Inches
Min. Cleansing Velocity
2.50
FPS
Min. Pumping Rate
220.19
GPM
Chosen Pumping rate
315.00
GPM
Length of FM
1,800,00
feet
Friction Losses
12.26
feet
High Point of FM
377.00
feet
Low elev. in PS
342.00
feet
Elevation Change
35.00
feet
Minor headlosses
4.00
feet
Residual
0.00
feet
TDH
51.26
feet
Pump Cycle Storage
1,800
Gallons
Run Cycle
7.59
Minutes
Wet Well Detention Time
23.11
Minutes
Pump Efficiency
I %
Pump Size
6.80 Hp
System Curve
GPM
TDH
300
50.2
330
52.4
350
53.9
400
58.1
Hydromatic SFPX, 8.25" Impeller, 7.5 HP single phase, 1750 RPM.
South Village
Preliminary Plan Submittal
July 16, 2004
Request for Waivers
The following waivers are requested in support of the development of a neighborhood friendly
roadway system and layout of a traditional village style environment.
Planned Residential Developments
Section Title Description & Reason
26.15 General Standard - Planned Residential Developments shall meet the requirements of
the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations. Request to waive the following
requirements of Table IV-1 of the Subdivision Regulations:
A. Minimum right-of-way width for Collector from 80' to 60' - This waiver is
required to facilitate the character of a close knit neighborhoods by allowing
the buildings to be located closer to the street. Alternates to this waiver would
be allowing a zero foot setback from the street and providing an easement from
the City to Green Mountain Power to locate the electrical distribution lines
within the right-of-way.
B. Minimum right-of-way width for Private Local street from 60' to (20'
for lanes and alleys) - This waiver is required to facilitate the character of a
close knit neighborhoods by allowing the buildings to be located closer to the
street. Alternates to this waiver would be allowing a zero foot setback from the
street and providing an easement from the City to Green Mountain Power to
locate the electrical distribution lines within the right-of-way.
C. Minimum pavement width for Collector from 32' to (20' at wetland
crossing, 28' with parking on one side and bulbouts) - This waiver is
requested to support the traffic calming efforts within each neighborhood area.
The variable width is dependent on the amount of on street parking that could
be expected within a particular portion of the project area.
D. Minimum pavement width for Public Local street from 30' to (18' at
wetland, 26' with parking on one side, 24' with no parking - This waiver
is requested to support the traffic calming efforts within each neighborhood
area. The variable width is dependent on the amount of on street parking that
could be expected within a particular portion of the project area.
E. Minimum pavement width for Private Local street from 30' to (26' with
parking on one side, 24' parking on one side with single loaded lots or
low density, 20' no parking, 18' crossing of wetland, no parking). - This
South Village Request for waivers
Page two
July 16, 2004
waiver is requested to support the traffic calming efforts within each
neighborhood area. The variable width is dependent on the amount of on
street parking that could be expected within a particular portion of the project
area.
F. Minimum radius of curves for Collector from 500' to 260'. The project
will provide the connective route from Dorset Farms to the Allen Street
intersection but seeks to reduce the travel speeds through the introduction of
narrower street and tighter center line radii consistent with the goals of
creating livable neighborhoods and attempting to reduce the amount of cut
through traffic through the project area. The reduction in the provides
centerline radius is consistent with a design speed of 25 mph. The goal of
reducing commuter or cut through traffic is supported by the presence of
Barstow Road just to the south of the project area.
G. Minimum radius of curves for Public Local street from 300' to 200' - The
intent is to utilize smaller radii with a design speed of 25 mph within the
neighborhood as part of the traffic calming techniques in support of the
creation of livable neighborhoods.
H. Minimum radius of curves for Private Local street from 300' to 120' -
The intent is to utilize smaller radii with a 20 mph design speed within the
neighborhood as part of the traffic calming techniques in support of the
creation of livable neighborhoods.
Minimum tangent length between curves for Collector from 150' to 50' -
With the implementation of multiple traffic calming techniques, the need for
excess distances between horizontal curves for the driver to perceive and react
to the change in direction of the roadway will be reduced.
J. Minimum tangent length between curves for Local Street from 100' to
50' - With the implementation of multiple traffic calming techniques, the need
for excess distances between horizontal curves for the driver to perceive and
react to the change in direction of the roadway will be reduced.
K. Minimum distance between centerline offsets for local streets from 200'
to 150'. With lower design speeds and a street grid pattern that eliminates
large queuing distances at intersections, the need for the traditional distance
between intersections can be reduced.
South Village Request for waivers
Page three
July 16, 2004
L. Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 300' to 150' for Public
Collector roadways (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed
limit from 42 mph to 25 mph). With a reduced posted speed and ample
traffic calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe stopping
distance for a higher speed road can be reduced.
M. Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 200' to 150' for Public
Local Streets (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit
from 30 mph to 25 mph).- With a reduced posted speed and ample traffic
calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe stopping
distance for a higher speed road can be reduced.
N. Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 200' to 125' for Private
Local Streets (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit
from 30 mph to 20 mph).- With a reduced posted speed and ample traffic
calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe stopping
distance for a higher speed road can be reduced.
O. Minimum horizontal (corner) sight distance for Collector from 500 to
275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 45
mph to 25 mph).- With a reduced posted speed and ample traffic calming
measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe stopping distance for a
higher speed road can be reduced.
P. Minimum horizontal (corner) sight distance for Public Local Streets
from 300 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit
from 30 mph to 25 mph). - Similar issues to those outlined in Items J
through L.
Q. Minimum horizontal (corner) sight distance for Private Local Streets
from 300 to 225' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit
from 30 mph to 20 mph). - Similar issues to those outlined in Items J
through L.
South Village Request for waivers
Page four
July 16, 2004
Southeast Quadrant District
Section Title Description & Reason
6.503 Development Restrictions - In the Southeast quadrant District, all requirements of
Article XXV governing lot size, density, frontage, and setbacks shall apply. The
request is to waive the following requirements:
25.00 Table 25-1 Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements - The following wiavers are
requested to allow greater interaction between the proposed buildings in support of
enhancing the fabric of the neighborhood.
A. Single Family Minimum Lot Size from 12,000 SF to 3,600 SF. -
B. Single Family Lot Front Frontage on Local Streets from 85' to 40' -
C. Single Family Lot Front Frontage on Collector Streets from 100' to 60'
D. Single Family Max. Building Coverage from 20% to 42%.
E. Single Family Max. Lot Coverage from 40% to 61 %.
F. Single Family Front Yard Setback from 20' to 10'.
G. Single Family Rear Yard Setback from 30' to (10' to 5' for rear lanes).
H. Single Family Minimum Lot Size from 12,000 SF per unit to 3,600 SF.
I. Multi -Family Lot Front Frontage on Local Streets from 85' to 60'
J. Multi -Family Lot Front Frontage on Collector Streets from 100' to 60'
K. Multi -Family Max. Building Coverage from 20% to 50%.
L. Multi -Family Max. Lot Coverage from 40% to 65%.
M. Multi -Family Front Yard Setback from 20' to 10.
N. Multi -Family Rear Yard Setback from 30' to 5'.
25.10 Additional Requirements for all Districts
25.103 New arterial and collector streets, as designated by the Planning
Commission, shall be subject to the provisions of Section 25.101 and
25.102 and the minimum lot requirements of Section 25.00. Request is
to waive the 50' front yard setback in favor of a 0' setback on the
portion of the roadway system connecting Allen Road to Midland
Avenue which the Comprehensive plans calls for this to be designated a
collector roadway. This request is made in support of the goal to create a
greater interaction between the buildings on both sides of the street and to
create a greater level of 'friction " between the automobile and the
pedestrians as part of the traffic calming measures proposed within this
project.
William D. Countryman
Environmenial.Assessment & Planning
868 Winch Hill Road, Northfield, VT 05663
Ph: (802) 485-8421; FAX: (802) 485-8422
wdcenvAtogether. net
lui211& _ ►1� lu
To: Dave Marshall, PE
From: Aft Gilman, Errol Briggs
Date: 4 June 2004
Re. South Village Wetlands, for City of South Burlington Land Development
Regulations
Under the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations, adopted 12 May
2003, a project that will impact wetlands must be reviewed by the Natural Resources
Committee. Submittals to the Committee include 1) a wetland delineation of the entire
property and 2) a response to criteria in Section 12.02 E of the Regulations.
1) We have reviewed the map of the delineations and believe that it is accurate.
Following initial concerns that our 2001 delineations missed some areas, we re -delineated
certain areas, and have reviewed the delineations in the field with personnel from the US
Army Corps of Engineers, the Vermont Wetlands Off=, and with Dori Barton of
A.rrowwood Environmental. We believe that that there is now general concurrence that
the wetland boundaries are accurately portrayed.
2) For response to Section 1202.E (Standards for Wetlands Protection), each
standard is given below with our response:
(1) Consistent with the purposes of the Section, encroachment into wetlands
and buffer areas is generally discouraged
The South Village project has been laid out with avoidance of wetlands in mind,
and specifically avoids the large central wetland and the forested swamp on the
eastern property boundary. The requirements of the City to have a through road,
however, necessitates crossing the major wetlands in two locations.
Encroachment into the 50' buffer zones designated under the Vermont Wetland
Rules has also been minimized.
(2) Encroachment into Class 11 wetlands is permitted by the City only in
conjunction with issuance of a Conditional Use Determinatirm (CUD) by the
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the
DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3). below
RECEIVED
JUN o 7 2004
CEA, Inc.
An application for a Conditional Use Determination will be submitted to the
DEC.
(3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III
wetland buffers, may be permitted by the DRB uponfinding inding that the proposed
project's overall development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system,
provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following
standards for wetland protection:
(a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property
to carry or storefloodwaters adequately;
The flood storage capacity of the wetlands on this property is significant
and is primarily related to the large central wetland. The capacity of the
small Class III wetlands is not significant individually, nor, in our
estimation, in the aggregate - being altogether much less than the large
central wetland. Encroachment into this wetland is limited to crossings;
these will be adequately culverted to avoid impounding waters;
furthermore, the various stormwater controls will serve to slow the flow of
water into the large wetland.
(b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed
stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state
standards.
It is our understanding that all stormwater control measures will be
undertaken outside of existing wetlands, i.e., the creation of Stormwater
Treatment Trains. These are intended to filter out sediments, sequester
any toxicants or pathogens, and uptake nutrients. Therefore, there will be
no diminution of capacity of the wetlands to cleanse waters, which is a
recognized function of these wetlands. We observed, and will note for the
record, that following heavy rains, the stream through the wetlands runs
cloudy, even though the entire area is fully vegetated - an indication of
natural erosion of the clay soils.
(c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and
values ident f ed in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized
or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment and/or other
mitigation measures.
The small Class Three wetlands were found to be significant primarily for
water -quality maintenance, and as noted above, we believe the proposed
stormwater treatment, which is quite innovative, will suffice to minimize
or offset any impact to this function.
The large, contiguous Class Two wetland was found to be significant for
numerous functions and values, which we discuss individually here:
1) Stormwater storage - the storage capacity of the wetland will not
be diminished
2) Water quality through trapping of sediments, toxicants, and
pathogens - the capacity of the wetland will not be significantly
diminished, and with the stormwater treatment in place, there
should be little or no additional input
3) Water quality through uptake of nutrients - we would note that the
main wetland is dominated by lake sedge which is very well suited
to uptake of nutrients; there should be no impact
4) Fisheries - we do not believe the- wetland is significant for fisheries
although there may be minnows in the manmade pond; the stream
channel is ephemeral and only suitable during a portion of the year.
We believe there would be no impact to this function
5) Hydrophytic vegetation - the forested swamp along the eastern
edge of the property is likely a significant area for hydrophytic
vegetation as a community, but no development is proposed within
it or within 50' of it. Otherwise, we have not identified any
significant hydrophytic vegetation, but have indicated that we will
revisit one wetland locale later this summer to determine if a
species of bedstraw (Galtwn) observed there is a rare species (it
was unidentifiable when observed in 2003). If so, then we would
advise Retrovest that a slight project redesign should be
undertaken to avoid the location.
6) Wildlife - we refer you to the studies of Dr. Dave Capen in regard
to wetland -dependent wildlife.
'} Recreation - as generally construed, this wetland would not be
significant for this function
8) Education - as generally construed, this wetland would not be
significant for this function
9) Erosion control - as generally construed, this wetland would not be
significant for this function
SOUTH VILLAGE WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT
Prepared by David E. Capen, Ph.D.
Certified Wildlife Biologist
Research Professor, University of Vermont
June 2004
Introduction
This report provides a record of field studies conducted to document wildlife occurrence
on the proposed South Village project site in South Burlington, Vermont. The specific
purpose of this study was to survey the site frequently during winter, spring, and summer
months, 2002, to document use by wildlife and to assess habitat for wildlife. In winter,
observations focused on detecting and identifying tracks left by mammals. In spring and
summer, surveys featured birds. Occasional visits throughout 2003 and 2004 have
supplemented the initial surreys.
South Village
The Retrovest Companies plan to build a series of innovative neighborhoods in South
Burlington, Vermont, using design concepts reflecting historic Vermont settlement
patterns. Known as South Village, the new community will be situated on a 220-acre
property on the east side of Spear Street at Allen Road. Currently, the land includes a
substantial acreage of fallowed agricultural farm fields dominated by non-native
agronomic grasses and forbs, and areas that are being reinvaded by shrubs and
saplings; a large central wetland area; mixed forests and pine plantations; and a forested
wetland. Except for the forested wetland (an unusual example of a Calcareous Red
Maple -Tamarack Swamp that also support a number of species characteristic of acidic
wetlands) the land supports a typical diversity of plant communities and wildlife habitat
found in many areas of South Burlington and surrounding towns.
Wildlife Surveys
Methods
Field surveys were conducted systematically from January -July 2002 to document use of
the South Village property by mammals and birds. Surveys for mammals consisted of
locating and identifying tracks in snow. Tracking was conducted during 13 visits from 18
January to 2 April 2, by Tina Scharf (M.S. Wildlife Biology, Univ. of Vermont). The winter
of 2002 was not one with abundant snow, but nevertheless 11 surveys were conducted
on snow. Bare -ground surveys were done on two occasions to find other animal sign,
such as scats and runways. Most surveying was done by following north -south and east -
west transect lines. Animal tracks also were followed on occasion to determine
movement patterns, with a special interest in determining if and where animals moved
onto and off the property.
Surveys for bird species were conducted done primarily in late spring and early summer,
when breeding birds are most conspicuous, although sightings also were recorded in
winter and early spring while surveying for mammals. The majority of bird species were
found on five trips to the property between 24 May and 15 June. Tina Scharf also
conducted survey for birds, accompanied on one day by Ernest Buford, a local expert in
bird identification.
Additional visits to the site to observe wildlife have been made (D. Capen) in April 2003,
June 2003, December 2003, and April 2004.
Results —Mammal surveys
Tracks were detected for 13 species of wild mammals on the 13 days when tracking
surveys were conducted (Table 1). The Eastern cottontail was the most consistently
abundant mammal, and was recorded on all 13 surveys. Red fox tracks also were
recorded during all surveys. Coyote tracks were seen on 12 of the 13 survey dates.
For these three species, it was common to note that three or more individuals had left
tracks in the snow. Other predatory species detected included long-tailed weasels, an
ermine, and a bobcat. The ermine and bobcat were detected only once, but the long-
tailed weasel had been active prior to four survey dates.
White-tailed deer tracks were not found regularly throughout the winter, but their tracks
were common and widespread in late winter and early spring, when weather was
uncharacteristically mild, and snow cover was inconsistent. There is evidence from
runways, scats, and buck antler rubs that deer occupy the property most of the year.
Winter food may be lacking, however, because there is very little woody understory in
the forest. There also was evidence --bark stripping on small red maple trees --that
moose have been present in the past, and one set of fresh moose tracks was observed
in late spring.
Small mammals, including Eastern cottontails, meadow voles, white-footed mice, gray
squirrels, red squirrels, eastern chipmunks, moles, and shrews, appear to be plentiful on
the site, even though some of these species were not represented by track counts.
These species obviously support the small and mid -sized predators mentioned above.
The property is part of the home ranges of at least two red foxes and perhaps three
coyotes. It was common to see their tracks throughout the property, sometimes even
quite close to —but never crossing-- Spear Street. Beds of two coyotes were found in the
northeastern corner, but no dens were found. One or two bobcats had visited the
property on one survey day. No place looks like a characteristic den site for bobcats
within the South Village property, so it is assumed that the area is a part of a bobcat's
extended territory.
A raccoon was seen during spring bird surveying, but no tracks were found in the winter.
No sign was found of skunks, flying squirrels, woodland or meadow jumping mice, or
woodchucks; but it is likely that they do exist on the property. Bats are not present in the
winter, but probably could be found in the summer.
Table 1. Results of tracking surveys for mammals on South Village property, 2002. Numbers indicate
evidence of at least that many animals.
Species
Survey
Dates
18-Jan
21-Jan
25-Jan
28-Jan
5-Feb
9-Feb
12-Feb
15-Feb
18-Feb
28-Feb
19-Mar
21-Mar 2-Apr
Masked shrew
3
Eastern cottontail
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Eastern chipmunk
1
Gray squirrel
3
3
1
1
Red squirrel
3
2
1
2
1
2
1
White-footed mouse
1
1
1
1
Meadow vole
2
2
3
1
3
3
3
Coyote
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
1
2
2
Red fox
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
2
3
3
Long-tailed weasel
3
1
2
2
Ermine
1
Bobcat
2
White-tailed deer
2
1
1
3
3
3 3
House cat
1
1
1
Results —Bird Survevs
Fifty-seven species of birds were observed during observation periods that ran from
January through July 2002 (Table 2). Observations during winter, however, were
incidental to searching for mammal tracks. Sixteen species seen or heard during winter
included three species —mallards, red -winged blackbirds, and American robin —that
were present because of the mild winter. The remaining 13 bird species would be
expected to occur on the site throughout the year.
During the breeding season, May -July, 54 species were detected on the site. Most of
these are birds that might be found nesting in one of the habitat types on the South
Village property. Exceptions are alder flycatcher, rusty blackbird, white -throated
sparrow, and purple finch, species that normally nest farther north, or at higher
elevations, and were likely seen while on migration. Several other species require large
trees or dense forest for nesting and probably find nest sites in the mature forest east of
the boundary of South Village property. These species include red-tailed hawk,
American kestrel, ruffed grouse, wild turkey, barred owl, pileated woodpecker, great -
crested flycatcher, scarlet tanager, and ovenbird. Other woodland species include
Eastern wood -pewee, great -crested flycatcher, northern flicker, ruby -throated
hummingbird, American crow, blue jay, black -capped chickadee, tufted titmouse, white -
breasted nuthatch, brown creeper, veery, wood thrush, and Eastern towhee.
Grassland species included field sparrow, song sparrow, savannah sparrow, brown -
headed cowbird, eastern meadowlark, killdeer, and bobolink. Shrubby habitat is
preferred by species such as yellow warbler, common yellowthroat, brown thrasher,
northern cardinal, and chipping sparrow. Several species were present because of
wetland habitats: willow flycatcher, red -winged blackbird, common grackle, swamp
sparrow, and mallard. The wetland areas, in combination with abandoned pastures
attracted two northern harriers, which were seen on 13 June, 2002, but not on
subsequent visits to the site.
In April 2003, Canada geese and an American bittern were observed on or near the
small pond on the property. Geese were observed again in 2004, but the bittern was not
observed again, either in June 2003 or April 2004. In mid -April, 2003 and 2004, visits to
the site were made at dusk to document use of the shrubby fields by American
woodcock. At least two different male woodcock were observed in their courtship flights
during these visits.
ble 2. Birds observed during winter, spring, and summer, 2002, on South Village property.
Species ---------------------------------------------- Winter/Spring___________ Spring/Summer_______
Mallard
X
X
Red-tailed hawk
X
X
American kestrel
X
Ruffed grouse
X
X
Wild turkey
X
X
Killdeer
X
Mourning dove
X
X
Barred owl
X
Northern harrier
X
Black -billed cuckoo
X
Pileated woodpecker
Northern flicker
X
Ruby -throated hummingbird
X
Great -crested flycatcher
X
Eastern wood -pewee
X
Eastern kingbird
X
Willow flycatcher
X
Tree swallow
X
Alder flycatcher
X
Barn swallow
American crow
Blue jay
Black -capped chickadee
Tufted titmouse
White -breasted nuthatch
Brown creeper
House wren
Veery
Scarlet tanager
Wood thrush
American robin
Gray catbird
Brown thrasher
Cedar waxwing
Red -eyed vireo
Yellow warbler
Common yellowthroat
Ovenbird
Northern cardinal
Chipping sparrow
Eastern towhee
Field sparrow
Savannah sparrow
Song sparrow
Swamp sparrow
Bobolink
White -throated sparrow
Red -winged blackbird
Eastern meadowlark
Rusty blackbird
Common grackle
Brown -headed cowbird
Baltimore oriole
R
10
X
European starling X
Purple finch X
American goldfinch X
House sparrow X X
Discussion
The South Village property offers a mix of habitat types for wildlife, despite the
detrimental effects of recent agriculture practices on the structure of natural
communities. The acreage is a diverse mix of wetlands, shrubs, and forest stands of
different ages and species. It is clearly a mix of communities in transition. What were
pastures only 10-15 years ago have now succeeded to brush, and could become
forested in another 15 years. The white pine forest on the property appears to have
become established naturally during a rest from grazing or as a result of low -density
grazing. The virtual absence of natural understory vegetation in the white pines
suggests that grazing may have occurred as pines became established on the site or,
alternatively, that soil compaction from previous grazing has prevented a dense
understory of native species from becoming established and has favored a number of
invasive exotic species.
A diversity of mammals and birds was documented on the South Village property. None
of the species detected was a surprise, because all are common in habitats of this type
in suburban areas of the Champlain Valley. No species found is listed as Endangered or
Threatened in Vermont; indeed, all but the rusty blackbird are common. The Natural
Heritage database maintained by the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife shows
that the upland sandpiper, a Threatened species, was found on or near this property
about a decade ago. This is an easily observed species and one that many bird
watchers seek in the proper habitat, yet there have been no recent reports. The
grasslands on the South Village property are no longer sparse enough to attract the
Upland Sandpiper. When this species used this site, fields were still being grazed by
cattle, which produced a sparse, patchy condition preferred by this bird.
The South Village property remains as one of the most substantial parcels of
undeveloped land in the Southeast Quadrant of South Burlington. But, these acres have
rapidly become isolated from some of the other undeveloped parcels in the vicinity. The
west boundary of South Village abuts busy Spear Street and increasingly dense
suburban develop west of Spear Street. It is unlikely that any significant movements of
mammals to and from the property occur to the west. To the north, the western half of
the boundary is adjacent to some small fallow fields that mix with residential properties.
But, the eastern boundary blends into a large, 100+ acres, patch of mature forest that
also forms most of the eastern boundary of the property and likely serves as a reservoir
for many of the wildlife species detected on the South Village property. North of this
forested area, however, is now a large golf course and surrounding residential
development, so wildlife movements in this direction are quite limited.
The southern boundary of South Village abuts some fallow fields, residential property,
and wetlands along the Spear Street side of the property. This open land extends for
about 2500 feet before intersecting Barstow Road. On the eastern portion of the south
boundary, large, residential lots predominate. At the southeast corner of South Village,
one finds a funnel-like feature of vegetation types where wetlands, open fields, and
woodlands converge. This corner, until recently, likely was the point of greatest ingress
to the property for those wildlife species that have large home ranges and might
disperse from extensive areas of undeveloped land to the east of Dorset Street.
However, the area of connecting habitat between South Village and areas east of Dorset
Street, which includes the Shelburne Pond natural area, has been thoroughly dissected
by an extensive housing development, Dorset Farms.
Thus, the South Village property, and the adjacent forest to the east have been
progressively isolated from surrounding areas that formerly shared their undeveloped
character. This area is not yet an "island" of habitat for wildlife, but roads and housing
developments have almost surrounded the property and usurped travel corridors for
wildlife. Scattered patches of forest and open fields, interspersed with houses and
driveways, still exist south and southeast of the South Village property, but even these
areas are bounded by roads with increasingly heavy flows of traffic.
Impact of South Village Development on Wildlife Habitat
South Village proposes to establish more than 300 housing units, yet % of the 220-
acre property will remain in a natural state or part of a small, working farm. Indeed, the
plan for ecological restoration should assure improvement of the condition of all habitat
types, except perhaps the amount of shrubland, which is temporary stage in the
transition of fields to forest. Most importantly, the forests and wetlands on the eastern
portion of the property will be left largely undeveloped, but will be restored to a more
natural condition. The only housing proposed for this section of the property is in the low
quality (i.e., low diversity of plants species and habitat structure) white pine forest,
adjacent to existing development of Dorset Farms. Certainly, South Village will be busy
with people and their activities, but most species found today on this property have
already adapted to humans and their activities, and are quite common in suburban
areas.
One of the unique aspects of the South Village proposal is the plan for ecological
restoration of natural communities on undeveloped parts of the property. The restoration
plan is being developed by Applied Ecological Services (AES), a company that is widely
respected for such work. The plan is described below.
The ecological restoration program for South Village seeks to encourage plant
communities, dominated by native plant species, that resemble the structure and spatial
patterns of natural communities found on this land before recent agricultural uses. The
term restoration is used to mean that the existing vegetation systems will be enhanced
through active management or that existing degraded vegetation will be completely
replaced with native plant species. Other goals are to stabilize soils, hold nutrients on
the land, and manage stormwater runoff from the existing site, and future development
as an important asset and resource. These measures can enhance the quality of habitat
for wildlife, even though the extent of wildlife habitat will be reduced.
The restoration plan is comprised of two periods. The remedial period involves the
major tasks such as brushing buckthorn from the forests, replanting native grasslands,
conducting reforestation, and installing the Stormwater Treatment Train system. This
period usually lasts 3-5 years. The maintenance phase of this program includes
perpetual tasks done annually to maintain and enhance the ecological systems. Such
activities might include prescribed burning and noxious weed management. The
conceptual restoration plan was developed from the natural resources assessment,
while at the same time integrating the development intent, with its recreation and open -
space component, and the Stormwater Treatment Train for stormwater management.
An outline of major restoration tasks is as follows:
Forests and Savannas
A diverse understory vegetation will be restored in the forests. This will be done
by seeding, plugging, brushing, and prescribed burning. Invasive shrubs and
saplings of buckthorn, tartarian honeysuckle, boxelder, and other noxious or
invasive plant species will be removed, allowing ample light to the ground to
encourage growth of ground cover vegetation. Some forest areas, now
dominated by undesirable and invasive tree species, will be converted to native
species. Finally, dense white pine stands will be thinned to allow hardwood
regeneration to occur and native understory vegetation to be reestablished.
These practices will enhance, considerably, a portion of the property that now
lacks vertical plant diversity that is a key to a diverse wildlife community.
2. Conversion of Old Farm Fields to Native Grasslands
Parts of the followed farm fields now growing in agronomic grasses and weeds
will be restored to native grasses. The existing weedy vegetation in these areas
will be eradicated using selective herbicides, followed by preparation of soil, then
seeding and plugging of native plants. Prescribed burning and other methods
will be used for maintenance of the native grasslands. Although native prairies
probably were never present in Vermont, grasslands have become part of the
Vermont landscape. A number of grassland bird species are in serious decline in
the Northeast and are featured in conservation activities that promote grassland
management. The South Village site could contribute substantially as a
sustainable habitat for some of these species.
3. Wetland Restoration and Enhancement
Most of the small wetlands that will be retained in the development are within
upland settings and will be restored by planting and managing the areas as
diverse sedge meadows, and various other native wetland types. Existing
drained wetland areas that border the large wetland area will be restored, where
these areas fall within buffer areas. Patches of reed canary grass, stinging
nettles, and cattails will be reduced, and the sites will be enhanced by addition of
native species. These areas also will be managed with prescribed burning and
other methods. Wetlands are among the most manageable of wildlife habitats,
and it is well known that wildlife productivity, including enhanced species
diversity, can respond to active management.
4. Stormwater Treatment Train
Stormwater management is a critical concern in any development. Here, we
propose to integrate native and ornamental landscaping treatments combined
with some engineering strategies to effectively manage the volume and quality of
water within and departing the property. The Stormwater Treatment Train (STT)
is a series of linked landscape elements that begin to manage water as soon as
precipitation hits the ground, and throughout its tenure on the property. The goal
of the STT is to reduce the volume of water leaving the land as surface runoff
(through infiltration, evaporation, and evapotranspiration), to reduce the rate at
which the remaining volume leaves the land by holding the water in
microdepressions, routing it through native grasslands, forests, wetlands, and
ornamental landscaping designed to hold, and beneficially utilize the runoff. The
benefactor of this volume and rate management for stormwater is increased
quality of water leaving the uplands.
5. Landscaping
Most open space in the South Village property will emphasize native landscaping
using the same native species proposed for the larger project restorations.
Lawns and ornamental landscapes are envisioned to be a necessity in some
areas. Native landscaping in yards, if any, will primarily be focused within
backyards and perhaps as an ornamental formal landscape (at the discretion of
the homeowner in front and side yards around homes) in other locations of the
yard. The project team will encourage use of native landscaping in as large an
area of the development as possible even in yards to reduce mowing, irrigation,
fertilizer and other contaminant loads generated by the development.
South Village and Act 250
Criterion 8a of Act 250 states that development "shall not imperil significant wildlife
habitat." Significant wildlife habitat is defined as that habitat important to the continued
existence of a population or species. "Habitat" is often defined as the place where a
species lives. It is usually characterized by site conditions (e.g., wetlands vs uplands)
and by plant communities and structure. Habitat may also include a reference to space
(e.g., a species such as the pileated woodpecker requires 200 acres for a breeding
territory). Significantly, habitat should be viewed —especially in the context of Act 250—
as being species specific. Thus, many different species find habitat on the South Village
property because the area offers diverse habitat conditions. It is unlikely that habitat for
any of these species will be lost, as a result of development. The amount of space
available for wildlife will be reduced, however, perhaps resulting in lesser numbers of
some species, but certainly not posing a threat to the continued existence of a
population or species. The Retrovest Companies is committed to a unique plan of
ecological restoration on this property that should be a substantial mitigation for loss of
acreage available for wildlife_
Memorandum in Su)Port of Request for Waivers
To: Ken Braverman
From: Chester "Rick" Chellman, P.E.
Date: 7/31/02
Re: Request for Waivers -South Village,
South Burlington, Vermont
As a more walkable, neighborhood -scaled community, the concept of South
Village and many of its goals and objectives embodied in its design find support -
both explicit and implicit- in the State and local planning legislation and
regulations. In fact, the City patterns the purposes of its regulations very well
with the State enabling legislation, which is where this memorandum will
commence.
Act 200, Vermont's Planning and Development Act (The Act) is the enabling
legislation that provides the City with the authority to prepare and implement its
Comprehensive Plan, its Subdivision Regulations and its Zoning Ordinance. As
such, several of the provisions of The Act provide a relevant backdrop for South
Village, and the following rationale for waivers from certain provisions in the
City's regulations.'
The Act sets forth several criteria and goals relating to the development of land
and public planning documents. The Act notes as general purposes that land
should be developed so as to promote- "public health ... comfort... (and) good
civic design." The Act further seeks to protect "residential, agricultural and
other" areas of the State from "the invasion of through traffic. ,2
Finally, The Act notes that it "shall be used", in pertinent part, to: " maintain the
historic settlement pattern of compact village and urban centers," specifically
including the encouragement of "intensive residential development... primarily in
areas related to community centers" as opposed to "strip development along
highways. ,3
South Village has been planned in a manner that is wholly consistent with these
broad criteria. In order to achieve these goals, and other goals more fully
enumerated below, South Village is hereby proposed as a Planned Residential
Development so that it will afford an opportunity to "encourage innovation in
design and layout, and (the) more efficient use of land. 4
I See: "Section 102 Statement of Purpose", in the City of South Burlington Subdivision
Regulations; Chapter 1, B "Authority" in the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan and
"Purpose" in the City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations.
2 Vt Stat. Ann. title 24, §4302 (a).
3 Vt Stat. Ann. title 24. §4302 (c).
4 Section 26.15 of the City of South Burlington Zoning Ordinance
As a form of development that is implied in the local and State-wide goals, but
also as a form not fully contemplated in several of the City's land use regulations
South Village is also requesting a series of design waivers pursuant to Section
6.607 of the Zoning Regulations that will be necessary to successfully achieve
these goals.
A general overview of some of the design philosophies, the specific waivers, and
the underlying rationale for their approval follow below.
Street Design: Relevant History and TND Design
Streets form one of the most fundamental divisions of land; the design of streets
is critically important for both neighborhood function and the movement of motor
vehicles, pedestrians, transit and bicyclists.5 The details of the streets in South
Village form a critical part of the overall makeup of the project. Before detailing
the specific waiver requests, some additional information is required.
The design of streets, and in particular streets that are predominantly residential
in character has been undergoing significant change in recent years. In 1992 the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) first recognized that "Traditional
Neighborhood Development" (TND) was different from conventional "subdivision"
design (CSD): in fact it has further been acknowledged that many design criteria
that are appropriate for auto -dominant subdivisions are not appropriate for
neighborhood streets where a higher number of pedestrians and bicyclists are
expected to be found.
The ITE established a committee to pursue the goals of identifying the design
distinctions between TND and CSD projects and prepare a document
establishing a different set of criteria and design philosophies appropriate for
TND street design. This effort, including an approximate two-year peer review
process, culminated in the adoption in 1999 of the ITE's Traditional
Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines, a Recommended Practice of the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (Guidelines).
The Guidelines note in the Introduction the following:
Street design involves the design of some of the most important, and most used,
public spaces. While always true, this is especially so for TND design where the
designers' perspectives are broadened to include the divergent needs of
pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, motor vehicles and the street's relationships to
5 In 1992, hurricane Andrew destroyed vast areas of southern Florida CSD, such that no buildings
or other above ground improvements remained. The author of this memo worked with a team of
other volunteers who attempted to re -plat the "sprawl" into neighborhoods. This was found to be
impossible without a wholesale taking of all properties due to the layout of the streets.
adjacent and future land uses, and many factors must be compared, considered
and decided in order to develop the final design solutions.6
Designers have also inquired recently into the origins of many current CSD street
design requirements. Research has shown, somewhat surprisingly today, that
the genesis of many current CSD street design criteria came about in the 1950's
when the American Association of Highway Officials (AASHO, the predecessor
agency to today's AASHTO) civic defense committee's determination that all
streets- including residential- should be designed to accommodate evacuation
before, and cleanup after the nuclear war that was expected to occur.7
One particular problem that this design intent introduced was streets wide
enough to accommodate very heavy equipment for the expected cleanup
process; when the streets are devoid of such equipment, however, they are
usually too wide for the more prevalent automobiles and the autos often end up
traveling at speeds that are not appropriate in neighborhoods.$ As a result, many
communities today, South Burlington included among them, are investigating
"traffic calming" as a means of dealing with speeding cars.
Streets that are appropriately designed at the outset, however, usually do not
require traffic calming measures. The streets proposed for South Village have
been designed and laid out to encourage such a balance among all of the users
of the street: motorists and non -motorists. This is further in keeping with
provisions of The Act which again notes that it "shall be used" to provide safe
transportation systems and that "highways... and other means of transportation
should be mutually supportive, balanced and integrated."9
Few would argue with the intent to "balance" all of the users of a street. When it
comes to details, however, some of the conflicts with CSD become apparent.
On a local residential street, the design speed of the street is often not
considered or prescribed, but it is implicit in certain criteria such as minimum
centerline radius_ The Subdivision Regulations require minimum centerline radii
of 1000', 500' and 300' respectively for Arterial, Collector and Local streets.
These radii equate to design speeds of 45 mph, 37 mph and 30 mph
respectively.10
Vehicular Speed, Safety and Walking
While motor vehicle speed is important in all neighborhoods, it is particularly
important in a TND project:
5 Traditional Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines, a Recommended Practice of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC October 1999, page 2.
Street Design- Design Intent History and Emerging Concepts, Chester `Rick" Chellman, Urban
Land Institute, Land Development, Spring -Summer, 1995, page 14.
8 Ibid, page 16.
9 Vt Stat. Ann. title 24. §4302 ( c ), 4.
10 Assuming no superelevation. With superelevation the implicit design speeds are higher.
The desired upper limit of actual motor vehicle speeds on TND streets is
approximately 20 mph (29.3 ft/sec). This speed allows the creation of the safest
streets for a TND or other pedestrian enhanced neighborhood. Because a
vehicle's kinetic energy, sound, and the difficulty of seeing the driver all increase
dramatically with vehicular speed, speeds at and below speed 20 mph are also
the speeds which are generally the most pleasing aesthetically for pedestrians
and bicyclists. Pedestrian perceptions are also very important; it has been noted
that it is actually the "feeling of being unsafe, the experience of a certain threat
emanating from traffic" which ends up dedicating streets to primarily vehicular
travel and discouraging pedestrian traffic."
Data and analyses also show that pedestrians' perceptions may be grounded in
kinetic realities because of the substantial differences associated with pedestrian
injuries when vehicular speeds exceed 20 mph. Research has shown that
pedestrians are usually not seriously injured when hit by a car moving at a speed
of less than 20 mph (30km/h) at the time of impact; "if impact speeds are
between 20 and 35 mph (30 and 55 km/h), injuries are usually serious, while at
or above 35 mph (55 km/h) they usually endanger life or are fatal".12
7
Motor vehicle accident reconstruction analysis techniques provide another
indication of the likely degree of injury associated with vehicle speed at the time
of impact. The results of the actual analytical formula used to approximate what
is terms the "abbreviated severity index", or AIS, are depicted below-, an AIS of 6
indicates a probable pedestrian fatality.
Vehicle Impact Speed vs. Pedestrian Injury
(initial impact only)
8.0 —
AIS 6.0
Severity 4.0 _
(6=fatal) 2.0
10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38
Impact Speed (mph)
11 Street Design: Design Intent, History and Emerging Concepts, Ibid, page 16.
12
ITE Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, p. 64
Finally with respect to vehicle speed, the time required for a driver to perceive a
need to stop, decide to stop and the actually stop a moving motor vehicle is a
three -step process. The first two steps of this process have been abbreviated
below as "reaction", with "braking" indicating the distance a car will slide after the
brakes have been applied.
j Reaction & Braking Distances v.
Speed
350'
300'
250'
200'
150'
100'
50'
0'
- ❑ Braking
❑ Reaction
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Vehicle Speed (mph)
I
Vehicle speeds of 30 to 35 mph are not unusual in and near CSD projects, as
can be seen above and in the previous chart the much greater energy associated
with higher vehicle speeds is a serious matter. The perception of danger
associated with such streets diminishes the "walkability' of such streets.
On the other hand, streets such as TND streets where moving vehicles are a
balanced part of the street- on equal levels of importance as bicyclists and
pedestrians- walkability increases, as does actual walking, which in turn
increases the probability of a more healthy neighborhood due to the increased
walking. The Surgeon General's Office website estimates that in 1999, 61 % of
US adults were obese and that daily walkinlq would be a great aid to reducing
that percentage and improving overall health. s
Where a TND project such as South Village is actively promoted as more
pedestrian friendly, certain reasonable expectations are created in the minds of
prospective residents and visitors. 14 It is incumbent on the design team to assist
in meeting those expectations and walkability is certainly one such expectation.
13 http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calitoaction/fact_ whatyoucando.htm
14 See, for example, "South Village" project booklet prepared by the Retrovest Companies, sheets
3.6-8, 14, 16 &17
The street elements proposed for South Village have been proposed as they are
to promote and enhance walkability while at the same time accommodating
reasonable vehicular use_
The comprehensive plan states that it is a goal of the city to "improve and expand
all modes of transportation....with equal access for all income levels and
abilities."15 To effect this goal requires special attention to pedestrians, who are
often forgotten in the design process. While the City's street design standards do
include sidewalk specifications, the definition of "street" in the City's Subdivision
Regulations does not mention non -vehicular use at all.'s
Seniors, children and others who cannot drive are disenfranchised by any
environment that is motorist -predominated or ill -served by transit. It is unfortunate
to note that in many CSD projects, even able bodied adults drive to areas where
they feel it safe to walk. The net effect of a motorist -dependent environment is
hobbling to both drivers and non -drivers. TND design allows the possibility of
non -motorist travel and the replacement of some vehicular trips with non -
vehicular trips.
Good neighborhood design can produce less automobile travel. Studies in
California comparing new "traditional" neighborhoods with direct street
connections to conventional suburban subdivisions with curvilinear street
patterns and cul-de-sacs, found that daily VMT could be as much as 50 percent
lower, and CO emissions more than 40 percent lower than CSD design."
The City has acknowledged the desires to "promote walking and bicycling... to
minimize complete dependence on the automobile for local circulation".18 TND
design specifically promotes these goals through detailed design measures.
Street Width-: Rights of Way and Travel Surface
A TND street network provides more connectivity than a standard CSD dendritic
layout. IN a CSD project the cul-de-sacs feed the local streets that feed the
collectors, and then the arterials. By collecting and focusing traffic, the larger
streets quickly become auto -dominant and both unfriendly and unsafe for
pedestrians. Conventional CSD planning also predicts the need to widen roads
as traffic increases over time.
15 City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, April 16, 2001, page 8.
16 Subdivision Regulations, Ibid. section 103.
17 Calthorpe Associates. "Transit -Oriented Development Impacts on Travel Behavior," In Making
the Land Use Transportation Air Quality Connection. 1000 Friends of Oregon, 1992
18 2001 Comprehensive Plan, Ibid, Chapter VII, Transportation
In addition, since most CSD streets are not constructed to invite and enhance
pedestrian travel, residential buildings are typically set back from the street which
practice in turn underscores the auto -dominant nature of that environment.
In a TND neighborhood, the space between buildings on opposite sides of a
street is planned as an "outdoor room" where the buildings enclose the space so
as to enhance the streetscape. Many TND zoning ordinances preclude any
building setback and require instead front lot "build -to" lines that place buildings
at the street right of way, or along a fixed, short distance therefrom.19
With large buildings, larger streets may be enclosed to create this outdoor room
effect; for residential buildings, as proposed here, it is important that the overall
width of the area planned for streets is not too wide.
The City's street design standards are good examples of typical suburban
dendritic street standards. However, just as the ITE determined a few years ago,
these standards are not appropriate for TND design as they do not allow
pedestrian -scaled streetscape to be created in a residential neighborhood.
TND streets in neighborhoods such as South Village, except connector streets,
typically do not function as independent "lanes" of travel. Rather, TND streets
usually, and s proposed here, act as spaces where buildings are at or near the
edges (typically with a front porch), then a sidewalk/dooryard area then a street
travel space where bicyclists and parked vehicles are typically found nearer the
sides and moving motor vehicles are found near the center.
To design for the continuous opportunities for completely freely -flowing vehicles
(as is the case with 10 feet and wider travel lanes), creates situations where most
of the time passenger cars - far and away the predominant vehicle- will travel at
speeds greater than are desirable for nearby pedestrians. AASHTO has
recognized the functionality of narrower streets- even in CSD projects- noting
that "[t]he level of user inconvenience occaisioned by the lack of two moving
lanes is remarkably low in areas where single-family units prevail_"20
AASHTO also notes that in many residential areas streets are typically twenty-six
feet in width, with this dimension affording two seven -foot parking lanes and a
center twelve -foot travel lane, where [o]pposing conflicting traffic will yield and
pause on the parking lane area until there is sufficient width to pass." yield
streets are termed "yield streets." For South Village, the connector street is
proposed to have a 26' wide travel surface with unstriped parking allowed on one
side.
19 See, for example, TND Zoning Ordinance, Dade County, Florida.
20 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets Washington, DC, 2001, Page 396.
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, lbid, page 396
Waivers
If the City, through its Planning Commission, agrees that the goals of South
Village as are somewhat enumerated above, are in keeping with its own goal to
"strive to encourage well planned residential development" in this area, then TND
streets standards must be allowed in a TND Neighborhood. Such a decision
would be in keeping with the waiver provisions of the Subdivision Regulations
due to the "special circumstances" presented with this TND proposal, that are "in
the interest of public health (and) safety".22
The following are the specific street -related waivers:
Collector Street: There is one street in South Village that could be termed a
Collector. The following requests pertain to that street:
• Right-of-way width 60',
• To require a travel pavement width of 26';
• Designate this street in South Village as a "connector' street,
• To waive setback criteria for lots on connectors; and
• To require design and posted speeds of 25 miles per hour.
Local Streets: Most of the Streets in South Village are local streets:
• Right-of-way width 50',
• To require a travel pavement width of 24';
• To waive setback criteria for lots on local streets,
• To require minimum centerline offsets of 150' between local streets
• To require two -legged tee intersections between local streets;
• Designate these streets in South Village as a "TND" streets, and
• To require design and posted speeds of 20 miles per hour.
Lanes: South Village proposes some "lanes" that will afford one-way access to
homes and sites facing small parks and greens. For these lanes, the following
requests are made:
• Right-of-way width 35',
• To require a travel pavement width of 18%
• To waive setback criteria for lots on lanes;
• Designate these streets in South Village as a "TND" lanes, and
• To require design and posted speeds of 20 miles per hour.
Rear Lanes: South Village proposes some "rear lanes" that will afford additional
access behind some homes and sites. For these rear lanes, the following
requests are made:
• Minimum right-of-way width 20',
• To require a minimum travel pavement width of 14";
22 Subdivision Regulations, Ibid. Section 513.1
• Designate these rear lanes in South Village as a "TND" rear lanes;
• To require design and posted speeds of 15 miles per hour.
As noted previously, the enabling Act seeks to protect "residential, agricultural
and other" areas of the State from "the invasion of through traffic." 2 These
requests would further that goal and the City's own goals to "encourage
innovation in design and layout, and (the) more efficient use of land"24
.
These requests will also facilitate a more compact village -scaled community by
allowing buildings to be located closer to each other, as well as preserving larger
contiguous areas of open space while reducing environmental impacts, including
a decrease the volume of stormwater.
Finally, these requests will allow the creation of a new TND neighborhood in
Vermont.
In a summary sense, "modern" development is represented below by the upper
part of the diagram, while TND development is schematically indicated below.
One can insert most any land use in the upper part of the diagram, e.g. homes,
offices and shopping. Since there are seldom any real walking connections
available, every possible trip involves the use of an automobile, and that in turn
places a great demand on the "collector' road that then needs to distribute those
auto trips.
2
3 Vt Stat. Ann. title 24, §4302 (a).
24 Zoning Regulations, lbid, Section 26,15
The upper part of the diagram also represents, in schematic form, most of what
has happened in terms of development in the US since the Second World War.
There are, however, a number of newer projects nationwide that are building new
neighborhoods that emulate the more walkable neighborhoods of the past.
In the lower part of the diagram, one can imagine many older Vermont
communities, of Portland, Portsmouth, New Hampshire or any number of other
places where walking, biking and transit are all made more possible by the mix of
uses, provision of sidewalks, and interconnected streets.
South Village emulates not all, but many of the best attributes of historic
neighborhoods. It also could be Vermont's best chance at a new and real model
of a "historic settlement pattern of [a] compact village" as the Act states and was
noted previsousiy. Models are important, because banks and developers
generally do not want to take chances or to try something new, even where "new"
is actually a repetition of an older form of development.
APPLICATION for MASTER PLAN REVIEW
Permit Number MP - U y - 0
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.
Owner of Record (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #)
R4u1 R. eCLIkInS P.O. doX Rz, L.y17d0n✓111e , ✓T- o-1-8sl
Phone- 809-l0.210 - 5-7
Location of Last Recorded Deed (Book and page #) PEED DATE AZ/1 /97
10. Burl. ,Cal101 Rec . V41Z Y-15V - ys5". S,y�au�ZNt: Z4A/0 A?&Z. Y210io 7
Applicant (Name, mailii
70 .50urH Wi"OosKi
address, phone and fax #) t-�gUrH ✓11-446t d04A4uN1rie 5_ LLe—
✓k 4• &94.'Are, ray ✓7- ,vhuae- itg 063 ,U2 3
�Fctr au 863 /33?
Applicant's legal interest in the property (i.e. fee simple, option, etc.)
G* iorl /o Joumit Se -
Contact. person (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) .,4;1,
,5QU-hHY/c.446K C'6M111unl1r1L-S LLO 7U . qury Win e7f7.< kj .
Project street address: I8Ff0 SPEq,Z SZ: 5b &U2 L/Nfi 7D Al _ Y%
Tax parcel ID # (Assessor's office) /G 4/0 " 0 / 84/0 - F
Project description
Existing uses on property (please describe sizes of each separate use, if
applicable) .-Z(o61-1 c?cres of fw'1n land nc longer Ir7 use, Wd
JJr1 odcuare.d single Faftilig ouse..
Proposed uses on property (please describe the size or number of units and
nature of all proposed uses) 7MD177OA1,44. AlEil7N80ki"D D8.�cnr oF' cro m 355 4GpalIEs,
b—CUDIAJ6 5'11V6L.: r'.4t41,-Y, C017A6t5 ond7awivHo.Mt,f j' PRl✓47E-,,cy0o,- AjvD A
COMHuNIrY Saliwiyci ro -54�Ayg-r 35•ACQE C"o t44ikiTY,3UP ORrr-D f-49AI.
Maximum total number of residential units and/or square footage of uses to be
developed, including any existing units and/or uses to remain: 3311 9-65/DEnn/AL
11Nrr5 24446 4 loo 61UA� rr 6nVOOL..
APPLICATION for MASTER PLAN REVIEW
Maximum proposed building height (if applicable) a--/z StCr/0n/ 3.07 •Dvnd 6.
Proposed phasing (please describe the number of total phases and, if applicable
at this time, the number of units or SF of uses to be proposed in the first phase):
PHASE / • YIL.446C Ce"reg MAX/MUM /50 Uv/rs P405 gnrlooL_
'PH,45E .Z
THE R/UbE
A1-4 X/MUM
7`1
UN/TS
P1445 ,3
7H6 6ROYE
MAX/MuN
7-2
4/N/75
P14,15e 4
-F-IEtOS EDcnE
MA)CIMUN/
S9
41AV/r5
MASTER PLAN UMBRELLA CRITERIA
Total acreage of involved property(ies)
�7 4. 8
Total acreage of first phase for development (if known at this time) 30.9
Total number of residential units and/or SF of all uses requested
33AI 96510,t�)VT IAL_ UAPT.S
/00 Sru,Ot'n/T .SCHoac.- (Sf. uaknOWn)
Existing impervious coverage, entire site (SF and %) 3. 900 6f• 0.04 %
Maximum proposed impervious coverage, entire site (SF and %) `/D
Maximum existing building coverage, entire site (SF and %) /500 sf. Q.02 %
Maximum proposed building coverage, entire site (SF and %) -20 tl/c,
Estimated number of existing PM peak hour vehicle trip ends 10
Maximum proposed number of PM peak hour vehicle trip ends 3y6-
Existing or proposed encumbrances on property (easements, covenants, leases,
rights of way, etc.) exu5hno /50'w/de ckcfrica/caurner-1f at SOuiN en/y
OF PKonCftrY 7D 11,694QMr 6A5 SY57c,,4S
Proposed extension, relocation or modification of municipal facilities (sanitary
sewer, water supply, streets, stormwater, etc. — please describe briefly
NON• SAaffARY COL.C�C71OW SY579M (PR//4r9 llUr1P STArio*is) 7D COLL6-rrIaW
SYSTEM aM ALI-EN &ADD Wg764 SUPPLY CONnI,6 7/VVC? AT DmLer FAR,,is
WITH 'FLUWU CdNNE^TIa" ?D DaKSET 57IZtEl ,
Owners of record of all contiguous properties, and mailing addresses (please
attach list)
Estimated final project completion year -?o 13
APPLICATION for MASTER PLAN REVIEW
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 (=X17)
of the plans must be submitted. The application fee for Master Plan review is
$500, plus $io clerk's fees ($510).
I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this
applicn has been s 'tted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Signature of Applicant Signature of Property Owner
Please do not write below this line
DATE OF SUBMISSION
I have reviewed this application and find it to be:
ET COMPUTE , ❑ INCOMPLETE
— �� ( 714�
& ning or designee Da e
APPLICATION CHANGES
Item
12/2002
6/25/2004
Notes
Developer Applicant
The Retrovest
South Village
South Village
Companies
Communities, LLC
Communities, LLC
organized 5/6/03
Wetland Delineation
Mistaken
Expanded
Being checked
substantially
Zoning Ordinance
As it existed in 2002
Major revisions
Open Space
Located to maximize
Located to maximize
aesthetic enjoyment
opportunities for
creating continuous
open spaces between
adjoining parcels
and/or stream buffer
areas
Located to preserve
and enhance open
character and natural
areas
Natural
Wildlife habitat and
Resources
corridors identified in
the South Burlington
Open Space Strategy
must be protected.
Allowed
265
> 300
number of
units claimed
by developer
Other Development
No School
School
Number of Accesses
1
2
New access is located
to Spear Street
immediately across
road from someone
who cannot attend this
meeting due to lack of
notice.
Item
12/2002
6/25/2004
Notes
Through Road
Extended Midland
Avenue
Moved north
May be back at
extended Midland
Avenue
Phase III (The Grove)
Proposed
Proposed
Supposedly deleted
Street Configuration
Changed throughout
S:\Client Matters\72835\Miscellaneous\APPLICATION CHANGES CHART.doc
CIVIL ENGINEERING NJIN�o
928 Falls Road
P.O. Box 485
Shelburne, VT 05482
June 23, 2004
Mr. Brian Robertson, Planning Associate
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Re: South Village PRD
Calkins / South Village Communities, LLC
Master Plan Application
Dear Mr. Robertson:
Phone: 802-985-2323
Fax: 802-985-2271
E-Mail: mail@cea-vt.com
South Village Communities, LLC is pleased to submit this Master Plan application for
the South Village residential neighborhoods proposed to be located off of the east side
of Spear Street near Allen Road. This application seeks to lay out basis for this
traditional neighborhood design.
To assist the Development Review Board in evaluating this application, we have
summarized the components of the application in a format consistent with the
requirements set forth in the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations.
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 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. Sheets S1.2 through S1.3 specifically provide the 1" =100' scale
detail required in this section of the regulations. Please note that the lots have
not been dimensioned as part of the Master Plan application consistent with the
previous discussions with City Staff. The intent is to identify the street grid,
general limits of residential development areas and maximum number of units in
each phase and overall for the project.
Mr. Brian Robertson
Page 2 of 9
June 23, 2004
We have prepared the following plans in support of this requirement.
South Village Master Plan - Index of Plans
Cover Sheet
Proiect Master Plan
S1.0
Master Plat Plan
S1.1
Master Plan Phasing
S1.2
Master Plan Phasing 1" = 100'
North
S1.3
Master Plan Phasing 1" = 100'
South
S1.4
Master Plan Phasing 1" = 100'
East
C1.5
Proposed Site Plan
Existing
Conditions
C2.0
Overall Orthophoto Plan
C2.1
Existing Conditions Plan
C2.2
Delineated Soil Mapping Plan
E2.3
Ecological Existing Conditions
C2.4
View Corridor Plan
C2.5
Restricted Area Plan
Agriculture
F3.0 Proposed Overall Farming Limits
F3.1 Partial Farming Limits Plan
E3.2 Restoration Plan
Transportation
T4.0
Trail & Sidewalk Plan
T4.1
Street Hierarchy Plan
T4.3
Street Typical Sections
T4.4
Street Typical Sections
T4.5
Street Typical Sections
Utilities
C5.0 Sewer & Water Master Plan
C5.1 Stormwater Master Plan
a. Accurate and updated Sketch Plan data. The plans have been updated to
depict additional detail on the natural resources on this site and the
reconfigured development areas.
b. The name of the proposed Master Plan or an identifying title. The South
Village project name is included on all of the plan sheets.
C. Name and address of the land surveyor and plat designer. The
responsible design party, whether it be the surveyor, engineer, land planner,
traffic consultant or landscape architect has been shown on the plans.
d. The names of all subdivisions immediately adjacent and the names of
owners of record of adjacent acreage. The names of the abutters and the
one subdivision of note (Dorset Farms) adjacent to the project site have been
shown on Sheet C2.1 (Existing Conditions Plan).
Mr. Brian Robertson
Page 3 of 9
June 23, 2004
e. An overall plan for the property indicating the following:
The locations and total combined area of the property(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. Sheets S1.1 through S1.3 depict this
information.
ii. The location and total area of the property(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. The Survey Plat (Sheet S1.0) depicts the overall property
boundaries while Sheets S1.1 through S1.3 depict the approximate
limits of the proposed open spaces.
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. The public
amenities proposed for the project include new streets (Sheets T4.1
through T4.5), public water (C5.0), sewer (C5.0) and storm drainage
collections system (C5.1). No separate public land holdings are
proposed.
iv. The maximum impervious coverage proposed for the property or
properties subject to the Master Plan. This is shown on Sheet S1.1
(Master Plan Phasing Plat).
V. The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and/or number of dwelling
units proposed for the property or properties subject to the Master
Plan. In order to provide flexibility in the development of each of the
four phases of the project, a specific maximum number of units has
been proposed for each phase while being limited to an overall
maximum of 333 units as outlined on Sheet S1.1. The breakdown of
the density calculation is shown as follows:
226.79 acres Total Property Acreage
Mr. Brian Robertson
Page 4 of 9
June 23, 2004
2.61 acres
Acreage in Shelburne
223.18 acres
Acreage in South Burlington
1.2
Maximum Number of Units per Acre
267.8
Maximum Number of Units
25%
Maximum Market Rate Housing Density Bonus
334.7
Maximum Number of Units with Density Bonus
334
Number of Units Proposed + 100 Student School
33.4
Number of Affordable Housing Units Required
vi. The maximum number of vehicle trip ends (VTEs) and associated
parking proposed for the property or properties subject to the
Master Plan. These are depicted on Sheet S1.1 as derived from the
traffic study prepared by TND Engineering.
vii. The location and size of any existing sewers and water mains,
culverts and drains on the property or serving the property. There
is a 12" water main within Dorset Farms which is to be connected to
while the wastewater will be discharged to an existing gravity sewer
collection system on Allen Road. These are depicted on Sheet C5.0.
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.
Sheets T4.0 through T4.5 show the proposed street hierarchy and
typical sections for the proposed public and private right-of-way
improvements.
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. The existing condition
plans depict a 2' contour interval. Some sheets have retained the
original 5' contour interval for purposes of clarity.
x. A complete survey of any tracts to be subdivided completed by a
licensed land surveyor. The boundary survey for the parcel is shown
on Sheet S1.0.
Mr. Brian Robertson
Page 5 of 9
June 23, 2004
xi. 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. The proposed north and south street
intersections have been staked in the field and have been designed to
intersect existing driveways or undeveloped lots on the west side of
Spear Street.
xii. A list of waivers the applicant desires from these regulations.
A list of the proposed waivers is attached with the application.
A. General Standards. The general standards applicable to all PUDs, subdivisions
and Master Plans are:
1. Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to
meet the needs of the project in conformance with the 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. Initial discussions with the City
were that with the recent improvements to the Water Supply storage capacity that
there is adequate water supply capabilities to provide the 115,000 GPD of design
flow. A review of the unallocated reserve capacity at the Bartlett Bay wastewater
treatment facility shows that it has adequate capacity to receive the 72,000 GPD
of design flows. Permit applications to the State will proceed in conjunction with
the development of each phase of the project.
2. Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction
and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating
unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent
properties. The applicant will prepare a Erosion Prevention and Sediment
Control Plan and permit application in conformance with submittal requirements
for an application for "Permit to Discharge Stormwater from Large Construction
Sites" which is administered by the State of Vermont with each specific phase of
the project.
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
Mr. Brian Robertson
Page 6 of 9
June 23, 2004
staff or consultants. The traffic study prepared by TND Engineering outlines
the recommended improvements to mitigate any impacts from the project.
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. The project has been designed to avoid impacts to the majority of the
wetlands, streams and associated buffers. A 400' wide wildlife corridor has been
provided between Phase 2 (The Ridge) and Phase 3 (The Groves) as a means of
maximizing the contiguous undeveloped land forms in these areas. The attached
wildlife study summarizes the existing conditions and the recommended mitigation
measures to reasonably mitigate any impacts.
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 project
has been designed to embrace the clustering concepts from the Comprehensive
Plan. The Sketch Plan review by the City reconciled any issues associated with
the restricted area mapping and the proposed project limits.
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 project has been designed
to respect the large wetland bodies and streams that pass through them. A 400'
wide wildlife corridor has been provided between Phase 2 (The Ridge) and Phase
3 (The Groves) as a means of maximizing the contiguous undeveloped land forms
in this areas.
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 water distribution system has been
designed (at the Master Plan level) to provide ample looping to minimize service
disruptions. Water flow and pressures have been discussed with Mr. Jay Nadeau
from the Water Department. The street widths have been reviewed with Chief
Mr. Brian Robertson
Page 7 of 9
June 23, 2004
Brent and Mr. Bruce Hoar regarding access and maintainability. The turning radii
at intersections and sharp turns, and hydrant locations will be reviewed during the
preliminary plat submittal stage of the project.
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
proposed road and utility systems have been designed to extend northerly to the
abutting property in accordance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan.
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. The
proposed road typical sections do represent a departure from the Standards
outlined in the Development Regulations but have been reviewed and approved
by the Street Department and Staff in support of the previous sketch plan
submissions.
10. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The project has met the
comprehensive plan goals of improved transportation corridors, clustering of
development, retention of agricultural production values, protection of natural
resources, mix of housing types, affordable housing, and retention of wildlife
corridors as further outlined below.
B. Southeast Quadrant District. A Master Plan or PUD in the Southeast
Quadrant District shall comply with the following standards:
Open space and development areas shall be located so as to maximize the
aesthetic values of the property in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan
goal of preserving and enhancing the open character, natural areas, and
scenic views of the Quadrant, while allowing carefully planned development.
The project has been designed to respect the view protection zone from Spear
Street looking easterly while minimizing the proposed impacts to the extensive
amount of wetlands on the property. The northeast corner of the property is not
proposed for development as a means of furthering the retention of mid -range
background open space features. The proposed layout of the residential
components proposes a high density clustering of village clusters as a means of
maximizing the available open space.
Mr. Brian Robertson
Page 8 of 9
June 23, 2004
2. Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner that
maximizes the protection of the open character, natural areas, and scenic
views of the Quadrant identified in the Comprehensive Plan, while allowing
carefully planned development at the overall base densities provided in
these Regulations. This goal has been achieved through the use of a traditional
neighborhood design which utilizes narrower than normal streets as a means of
condensing the development footprint which allows for greater retention of the
natural resources on site.
3. Existing natural resources on each site shall be protected through the
development plan, including streams, wetlands, flood plains, wildlife habitat
and corridors including those areas identified in the South Burlington Open
Space Strategy, and special natural and/or geologic features such as mature
forests, headwaters areas, and prominent ridges. The project has retained a
400' wide wildlife corridor along the eastern portions of the site in accordance with
Staff's requests as a means of providing a connection between two separate
Class II wetland complexes. The main body of the Class II wetland fully situated
within the Calkins property has been retained essentially in its existing condition
except for three stream crossings typically located at the point of minimum impact.
The project proposes to re-establish the native species of the area through the
phased removal of the invasive species prevalent on this property.
4. Consistent with 1 through 3 above, dedicated open spaces shall be designed
and located to maximize the potential for combination with other open
spaces on adjacent properties. The property lies amidst a shallow valley
draining from north to south and a second valley located in the properties
southeast quadrant which drains from south to north. These riparian corridors
have been retained in their natural condition except for the proposed roadway
crossings. The project has retained a 400' wide wildlife corridor along the eastern
portions of the site in accordance with Staff's requests as a means of providing a
connection between two separate Class II wetland complexes.
5. The conservation of existing agricultural production values on lands in the
SEQ is encouraged through development planning that avoids impacts on
prime agricultural soils as defined in the South Burlington Open Space
Strategy and provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations
and new development, roads, and infrastructure. This project specifically
enables a long term commitment to agricultural uses on the property through the
proposed lease of the agricultural lands along Spear Street to the Intervale
Foundation. This area is ringed with access roads in support of providing a buffer
from the agricultural use to the residential use. Most of the prime agricultural soils
on the property are on the lowest end of the scale relative to quality. However,
Mr. Brian Robertson
Page 9 of 9
June 23, 2004
the clustering of the project has enabled the retention of over one-half of the
mapped prime agricultural soils.
6. A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas shall be
established by the applicant describing the intended use and maintenance of
each area. Continuance of agricultural uses or enhancement of wildlife
habitat values in such plans for use and maintenance is encouraged. The
Master Plan sheets include the proposed limits of agricultural lands to be retained
while also providing a master plan for the reduction in the number of invasive non-
native plant species and re-establishment of a more robust native species
community.
7. In the absence of a specific finding by the DRB 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. This project specifically addresses the Comprehensive Plan goals of
creating an east -west transportation link (including recreation paths) across the
property with provisions for extensions in the northerly direction. The water main
has been designed to enable the same east -west connection from Dorset Farms
to Spear Street.
This completes our summary of the design and review issues associated with the South
Village Master Plan application. If you should have any questions, please feel free to
contact me at 985-2323.
Respectfully,
David S. Marshall, P.E.
Project Engineer
\dsm
Attachments:
Plans (1 full size, 8 reduced to 11"x 17")
Master Plan Application
Application Fee (Check $510)
Traffic Study
Wildlife Report
Waiver Request
cc: David Scheuer, Michelle Holgate, David Capen, Rick Chellman,
Art Gilman, David Raphael (all with attachments) \\Dave\wLec\oiaa3\MascervzonertsonMascer.wpa
William Stanley
306 South Beach Road
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Mary Pappas
1809 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Stuart & Helen Hall
1815 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
George & Shelly Vinal
1845 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
William Reed
1967 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Alan & Diane Sylvester
1985 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Patrick & Juanita Clifford
4047 Spear Street
Shelburne, VT 05482
Littleton Long
1702 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
William & Gail Lang
1675 Dorset Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Harold & Eleanor Bensen
1803 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Donald & Lynn Cummings
1811 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Harry & Patricia Davison
1827 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Warren Shatzer
109 N. Kentucky Ave., Suite Z
Lakeland, FL 33801
Harry Stone
29 Rangely Rd.
Chestnut Falls, MA 02160
Kenneth & Cheryl Goodwin
306 South Beach Road
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Rodolphe & Denise Vallee
4043 Spear Street
Shelburne, VT 05482
Lucien & Jane Demers
P.O. Box 359
Essex Jct., VT 05452
Shane & Holly Deridder
192 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Janet Farina
1807 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
William & Ayse Floyd
1813 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Patricia Calkins
1835 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Barbara Lande
1865 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
James McNamara
211 Killarney Dr.
Burlington, VT 05401
Harlan & John Sylvester
51 South Street
Burlington, VT 05401
Littleton & Carolyn Long
1720 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Richard & Dawn Derridinger
1575 Dorset Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Timothy & Jennifer Owens
197 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Matthew & Beverly Broomhall Brian & Carolyn Terhune Stanley & Carolyn Pallutto
37 Floral Street 35 Floral Street 33 Floral Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403
Michael Bouvier
31 Floral Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Mark & Deborah Fay
188 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403
John & Ritika Paul
191 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Anthony & Nancy Bianchi
29 Floral Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Pasquale & Deborah Distefano
75 Bower Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Dorset Farms Commons Assoc.
c/o MBL Associates
25 Pinecrest Drive
Essex Jct., VT 05452
Bhagwat & Gita Mangla
195 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Philip & Darcy Carter
187 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403
James & Christina Robert
79 Bower Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Donald and Lisa Anqwin
73 Bower Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Kirk & Nancy Weed
190 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Dirk & Deborah Marek
193 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Dan Wetzel
183 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Jared & Karen Larrow
77 Bower Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
No Text
P14
\
1
1
\
1
1
I
I
1
1
I
l ,
1
1
\
\ 01
\
'-� -- ------ Z---------------------
-------------------
I
tz
l\
�
°1"t e� pI.,tLTI
O0
n. ne
t � � � ► ��,� pub'
pg . 4 ! FA AN(l LA - ,
.r.r ..r .0
14 f Jo,
Nm7r
1
hr h.
�O
NV
C
pSs
e
E
MATCH SHEET 67
I
I
cs
s� e � ozst ' o0R5
I=
rn OOOfi7
�m � R
(�
0296 f
OOR50
y��-
0296
O� 0254
00043
8 = O0
0
4
n
029 fi �. cc
E 0�38
R a
9
0 0p78
w
k 0296
n7oa
77
1 0254
oR
00 77
00 82
0254
0079 tl j
.. R III 0254
!p OORfi4
00035
o � k
0570
OIA75
- 0254
p 02_54 p00a9
00254 ORS 045t R 4
R
19602,
m OOOOSa7
OOo06 _.0211 m R••
R 9 ms,
O 0020R08
0002028
R
0 27 �R
k
R9 2
I 28
296
11
0296 ^
00R25
0296
OR14
t DOR24 C
ZZ
Hof 0001 S
RRR
0296 k RR
j OOR23
296
0296
000_11fi
02
OR�
117
0296 —
08ppR21
00
R
0 0254
20
R
0296
00019
__--�
—
.�
0296
OOR20
--
t 0254
♦�
a
00R18
: n
02037
�w
00035
R32 p4 ��5}
0024 00V16
/1
2 = JI
_ '•.. 00 30 ��
20
0678 j +v 0026 296 ` 0254
00 2 R OR26
Y 1
1 0254
p/+ 1
ppR21
j 06711 s 00Q14
i R s 00025 0678 ^
R(123.
7 y (123 . 00021 �v 'a.. > L '
R
0020519 /
' 0676
I
s' 00019 n
R y 0678 +
y OOR I +,4
0020R17
' 0254
•4 f 00010
R
g
... 00015 '�1j O�
00015
0678
ROO10 4 000008 ,•' 0018 a O9i' ♦ 0254
\ R t� 00011 /
9 R R
5
p0673� 0297
+ar
d 0pR 6pp78
p9 •per 4 ; ..4
7
/
0678 0297
OOR003
`\Ot ; i 067
w
Y►P P.-p— *r•
EnformfltiOII &
�/ To7M HOD20LIIr
�� PYOPl= U211 70Y ASHY
LOT Mm�C ar:
V1si1.81SZAYSOII
��--� i'" POLITY OR OTnaL
•' Y Y-O-V BOUNYY. MOT A P20P1RSS Lam
ROAD CODE NUMBER
Services
�•�_ LUM UKK OR 097C UL LOT IBM NM A PYOP=ff LUC
STREET ADDRESS
TArB D= HOLRMAYY
TYPE
50. RiD.w.
1
1
1
I
1
I
r
,
1!
1
I
11144
II
� o U r
s�{{ap
1
e(4—
`fwl� �
\ V
\
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1`
�
1
/
7
s
0570
OIR20
01630
60' R.O.W
EV-0OI;
,
,
,
,
/
/
,
,
/ r✓
057
017721 t /
\ /
\-.0 725 /
n/
N
/
/
/
j 0570
01775
I RR /
1 /
/
MATCH SHEET 77 —L `
YCJIi 1:1200 too 0 10O No ]0g
�THm YIP Ib !O: A4 4T m'"m
CXL7. R 6 90Y 70 $ 0�
1Gi[3821C11 0ONVIMA M 02
or LW"L IIII.L
00497
i
1
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A
00
00232
O
0.0c lhcm6�t
Traffic Impact Study Addendum
"South Village" Proposal: Mixed -Use; Residential, Agricultural & Educational
Spear Street and Allen Road
South Burlington, Vermont
Addendum
June 17, 2004
Prepared for:
Mr. David Scheuer, President
The RetroVest Companies
70 South Winooski Avenue
Burlington, VT.
Prepared by
TND Engineering
Chester Chellman, P.E.
1270 Route 16
PO Box 388
Ossipee, NH 03864-0440
Telephone 603.539.5999
Fax 603.539.7912
Email cheliman(cDTNDEngineering.com
This information is submitted to supplement the Traffic Impact Study dated April 8, 2004.
South Village Traffic Impact Study Addendum
June, 2004
Intersection Sight Distances:
The Project proposes three accesses to Spear Street: North, Central (at Allen Road) and
South. Civil Engineering Associates measured sight distances at each proposed entry.
Sight Distances (feet)
Intersection
Northerly
Southerly
North
Central
South
915
825
750
1500
1260
1250
In order for a driver to stop a moving vehicle, a three -step process ensues of: perception of
the problem, reaction (braking of the vehicle), and then the actual stopping of the vehicle.
These steps are all summed in what, from a design perspective is termed stopping sight
distance.
Spear Road is posted at 35 mph (56 km/hr). For a design speed of 40 mph, recommended
stopping sight distance is 305 feet.' Recommended sight distances for turns onto a major
road at stop -controlled intersections range from values of 130 to 170 feet,2 to 445 feet.3
Sight distances in all cases at the proposed South Village accesses are adequate.
At the central site access drive at the intersection of Allen Road, both northerly and
southerly sight distances, while adequate on both instances, may be improved by the
elimination of existing vegetation.
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 4th Edition, American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, , Washington, DC, 2001, Exhibit 3-1 p. 112; hereafter "Policy"
2 Traffic Engineering Handbook, 51h EditioOnlnstitute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, 1999,
Table 11-15, p. 376.
3Policy, Ibid, Exhibit 9-55, p. 665.
Page 2
South Village Traffic Impact Study Addendum
June, 2004
ADDITIONAL ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
Crash data was requested from the VAOT, the City of South Burlington and the Town of
Shelburne police departments for the most recent five-year period. The City recently
changed computer systems, such that researching crash data before the summer of 2003
has become less computer -based and more difficult to research.
A telephone interview with the South Burlington police department determined that, in the
time period from July 23, 2003 to April 15, 2004 there were 2 minor accidents and one
property damage accident at the Spear Street and Allen Road intersection.
VAOT data, available online was reviewed for the period starting January 1997 to
December 2001. Wilbur Smith & Associates obtained data from the City of South Burlington
data for the period starting January 1998 to December 2002
The VAOT data indicated a total of 10 accidents along Spear Street between Main Street
and just south of the Swift Street intersection during the five-year period between 1997 and
2001. Of the 10 accidents, 4 were reported at the Spear Street/Swift Street intersection.
Data was also secured from the Shelburne police for the Spear/Barstow and Barstow/Dorset
intersections. No severe accidents were recorded for the four years searched, while 2
"struck by deer" incidents were recorded, one at each Shelburne intersection.
Critical
Intersection Accidents AADT Rate Rate
Spear & Swift 26 26,442 0.90 0.89
Spear & Allen 9 17,150 0.48 0.99
Spear &
Barstow 3 7,400 0.28 1.23
Barstow &
Dorset 4 5,500 0.50 1.33
Source
Fuss & O'Neill- 3
years
Fuss & O'Neill- 3
years
CCMPO &
Shelburne Police- 4
years
CCMPO &
Shelburne Police- 4
years
Page 3
South Village Traffic Impact Study Addendum
June, 2004
Note that the Swift and Allen Road intersection critical rates are slightly different from the
values calculated by Fuss & O'Neill, due to a new statewide average rate of 0.411 accidents
per million miles of travel reported by VAOT this month
Queuing Analysis/ Left Turn Lanes.
In the report dated April 8, a left turn lane warrant analysis was completed for the site drive
at Allen Road. This particular analysis was completed prior to the signal warrant analysis,
which determined that a signal is warranted at this intersection. The general standard for a
separate left turn lane at a signal is to provide one if left turning volumes exceed 100
vehicles per hour.4 Left turn lanes may also be provided, based on judged need for lower
volumes. Here, the AM volumes are approximately 50 left turning entering vehicles,
increasing to approximately 80 in the PM peak period.
Part of the design considerations include queuing analysis for each approach. At the
central proposed entrance at Allen Road, separate southbound left turn entering lane and
the westbound exiting left turn lanes were considered and analyzed for queuing to
determine the effects of each and appropriate storage lane lengths of each for future
conditions.
Both the AM and PM future conditions were studied using both Synchro (Highway Capacity
Manual techniques) and SimTraffic (micro simulation techniques) modeling programs.
Multiple runs in SimTraffic showed that there is no overall benefit to providing a separate
southbound left turning lane. The maximum observed queues for southbound left turning
traffic in the PM peak period were 164 feet, with average queues being 103 feet for the
same movement. With the additional left turn lane, average queues drop to 45 feet for the
southbound left, but at the expense of increasing northbound traffic queues.
4 Policy, Ibid p. 688-689.
Page 4
South Village Traffic Impact Study Addendum
June, 2004
Intersection Details
Spear Street/Allen Road Intersection
This intersection should be configured so that the westbound roadway conforms with the
BV-66 section approved by the City of South Burlington in December, 2002. The
westbound left turn lane should be configured to be 75 feet in length, and 10-11 feet in
width.
Signal Optimization
The analysis previously submitted did not optimize the signal timing plans for any of the
signals analyzed, to reflect existing and future conditions in the same fashion as with prior
studies.
Optimization of the Swift Street/Spear Road intersection was analyzed for future PM peak
hour conditions, for this Addendum.
Presently, this signal has a PM cycle length of 78 seconds; initial review shows that optimal
cycle length may be 55 seconds. Future conditions for the existing cycle length shows that
an overall intersection LOS C will be achieved, but the northbound left turn movement will
operate at LOS F. With optimization, the overall intersection still operates at a slightly better
LOS C, but the northbound left improves to LOS E and the westbound through degrades to
LOS E.
The following pages provide additional detail, the optimized files have "2013 Build -Opt" in
the upper left header area of each page.
Page 5
Future ConditionsPMDHV South Village
2013 Build 06/17/2004
� � f- � *, I #
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
t
r
►`j
T
t
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Lane Width (ft)
10
10
10
12
10
12
12
10
12
11
16
12
Storage Length (ft)
0
150
75
125
75
0
80
0
Storage Lanes
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
Total Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Leading Detector (ft)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Trailing Detector (ft)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Turning Speed (mph)
15
9
15
9
15
9
15
9
Lane Util. 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
Frt
0.850
0.850
0.935
0.967
Flt Protected
0.993
0.971
0.950
0.950
Satd. Flow (prot)
0
1726
1478
0
1688
1583
1770
1626
0
1711
2041
0
Flt Permitted
0.916
0.570
0.259
0.446
Satd. Flow (perm)
0
1593
1478
0
991
1583
482
1626
0
803
2041
0
Right Turn on Red
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR)
319
53
70
26
Headway Factor
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.00
1.09
1.00
1.00
1.09
1.00
1.04
0.85
1.00
Link Speed (mph)
30
30
30
30
Link Distance (ft)
328
273
244
346
Travel Time (s)
7.5
6.2
5.5
7.9
Volume (vph)
36
201
437
161
113
45
234
185
141
93
404
113
Peak Hour Factor
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
Growth Factor
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
Adj. Flow (vph)
42
236
512
189
132
53
274
217
165
109
474
132
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
278
512
0
321
53
274
382
0
109
606
0
Turn Type
custom
custom
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Protected Phases
8
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
4
8
8
2
6
Detector Phases
4
4
4
8
8
8
2
2
6
6
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Split (s)
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Total Split (s)
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
43.0
43.0
0.0
43.0
43.0
0.0
Total Split (%)
44.9%
44.9%
44.9%
44.9%
44.9%
44.9%
55.1 %
55.1 %
0.0%
55.1 %
55.1 %
0.0%
Maximum Green (s)
31.0
31.0
31.0
31.0
31.0
31.0
39.0
39.0
39.0
39.0
Yellow Time (s)
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
All -Red Time (s)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Lead/Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Max
Walk Time (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s)
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Act Effct Green (s)
26.6
26.6
26.6
26.6
39.2
39.2
39.2
39.2
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
v/c Ratio
0.49
0.69
0.90
0.09
1.07
0.43
0.26
0.55
Control Delay
20.4
11.6
40.8
5.0
101.1
11.2
13.0
14.4
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest
TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7
Future ConditionsPMDHV
South Village
2013 Build
06/17/2004
Lane Group EBL
"EBT
EBR
WBL WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT NBR
SBL SBT SBR
Total Delay
20.4
11.6
40.8
5.0
101.1
11.2
13.0 14.4
LOS
C
B
D
A
F
B
B B
Approach Delay
14.7
35.7
48.8
14.2
Approach LOS
B
D
D
B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 78
Actuated Cycle Length: 73.9
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.07
Intersection Signal Delay: 26.5 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.0% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Swift St & Spear St
t L2
o4
43 s
JJ .t
Iy
T 06
�- Lii
4:3
35
Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest
TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7
Future ConditionsPMDHV
South Village
2013 Build
06/17/2004
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
t
r
t
t
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Lane Width (ft)
10
10
10
12
10
12
12
10
12
11
16
12
Grade (%)
0%
0%
0%
0%
Storage Length (ft)
0
150
75
125
75
0
80
0
Storage Lanes
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
Total Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Leading Detector (ft)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Trailing Detector (ft)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Turning Speed (mph)
15
9
15
9
15
9
15
9
Lane Util. 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
Ped Bike Factor
Frt
0.850
0.850
0.935
0.967
Fit Protected
0.993
0.971
0.950
0.950
Satd. Flow (prot)
0
1726
1478
0
1688
1583
1770
1626
0
1711
2041
0
Fit Permitted
0.916
0.570
0.259
0.446
Satd. Flow (perm)
0
1593
1478
0
991
1583
482
1626
0
803
2041
0
Right Turn on Red
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR)
319
53
70
26
Headway Factor
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.00
1.09
1.00
1.00
1.09
1.00
1.04
0.85
1.00
Link Speed (mph)
30
30
30
30
Link Distance (ft)
328
273
244
346
Travel Time (s)
7.5
6.2
5.5
7.9
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest
TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7
Future ConditionsPMDHV
South Village
2013 Build
06/17/2004
-•
'-
t
r
�-
1
-V
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
' SBR
Volume (vph)
36
201
437
161
113
45
234
185
141
93
404
113
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
Growth Factor
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
Heavy Vehicles (%)
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Bus Blockages (#/hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parking (#/hr)
Mid -Block Traffic (%)
0%
0%
0%
0%
Adj. Flow (vph)
42
236
512
189
132
53
274
217
165
109
474
132
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
278
512
0
321
53
274
382
0
109
606
0
Intersection Summary
Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest
TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7
Future ConditionsPMDHV South Village
2013 Budd 06/17/2004
-► --* f" -4- '1,-►
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
SBL
SBT
Lane Configurations
t
r
t
r
t
t
Volume (vph)
36
201
437
161
113
45
234
185
93
404
Turn Type
custom
custom
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Protected Phases
8
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
4
8
8
2
6
Detector Phases
4
4
4
8
8
8
2
2
6
6
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Split (s)
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Total Split (s)
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
43.0
43.0
43.0
43.0
Total Split (%)
44.9% 44.9%
44.9%
44.9%
44.9%
44.9%
55.1 %
55.1 %
55.1 %
55.1 %
Yellow Time (s)
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
All -Red Time (s)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Lead/Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
26.6
26.6
26.6
26.6
39.2
39.2
39.2
39.2
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
v/c Ratio
0.49
0.69
0.90
0.09
1.07
0.43
0.26
0.55
Control Delay
20.4
11.6
40.8
5.0
101.1
11.2
13.0
14.4
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
20.4
11.6
40.8
5.0
101.1
11.2
13.0
14.4
LOS
C
B
D
A
F
B
B
B
Approach Delay
14.7
35.7
48.8
14.2
Approach LOS
B
D
D
B
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 78
Actuated Cycle Length:
73.9
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.07
Intersection Signal Delay: 26.5
Intersection
LOS:
C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.0%
ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Swift St & Spear St
LL
Q4
41IJ:_
• 06
L:l
4_:
i�
Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest
TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7
Future ConditionsPMDHV South Village
2013 Build 06/17/2004
-,, --* '- t 1
Lane Group
EBL
EBT'
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
SBL
SBT
Protected Phases
8
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4,
4
8
8
2
6
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
MinimumSplit (s)
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Total Split (s)
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
43.0
43.0
43.0
43.0
Total Split (%)
44.9%
44.9% 44.9%
44.9%
44.9%
44.9%
55.1 %
55.1 %
55.1 %
55.1 %
Maximum Green (s)
31.0
31.0
31.0
31.0
31.0
31.0
39.0
39.0
39.0
39.0
Yellow Time (s)
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
All -Red Time (s)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Lead/Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Minimum Gap (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Time Before Reduce (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Time To Reduce (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Max
Walk Time (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s)
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90th %ile Green (s)
31.0
31.0
31.0
31.0
31.0
31.0
39.0
39.0
39.0
39.0
90th %ile Term Code
Max
Max
Max
Max
Max
Max
MaxR
MaxR
MaxR
MaxR
70th %ile Green (s)
31.0
31.0
31.0
31.0
31.0
31.0
39.0
39.0
39.0
39.0
70th %ile Term Code
Hold
Hold
Hold
Max
Max
Max
MaxR
MaxR
MaxR
MaxR
50th %ile Green (s)
31.0
31.0
31.0
31.0
31.0
31.0
39.0
39.0
39.0
39.0
50th %ile Term Code
Hold
Hold
Hold
Max
Max
Max
MaxR
MaxR
MaxR
MaxR
30th %ile Green (s)
25.2
25.2
25.2
25.2
25.2
25.2
39.0
39.0
39.0
39.0
30th %ile Term Code
Hold
Hold
Hold
Gap
Gap
Gap
MaxR
MaxR
MaxR
MaxR
10th %ile Green (s)
16A
16.4
16.4
16.4
16.4
16A
39.0
39.0
39.0
39.0
10th %ile Term Code
Hold
Hold
Hold
Gap
Gap
Gap
MaxR
MaxR
MaxR
MaxR
Intersection Summary,
Cycle Length: 78
Actuated Cycle Length: 73.9
Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord
90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 78
70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 78
50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 78
30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 72.2
10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 63.4
Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest
TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7
Future ConditionsPMDHV South Village
2013 Build -Opt 06/17/2004
---"
--►
---r
4'
'-
-
t
/,.
l
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
" SBR
Lane Configurations
t
in
t
r
t
t
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Lane Width (ft)
10
10
10
12
10
12
12
10
12
11
16
12
Storage Length (ft)
0
150
75
125
75
0
80
0
Storage Lanes
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
Total Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Leading Detector (ft)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Trailing Detector (ft)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Turning Speed (mph)
15
9
15
9
15
9
15
9
Lane Util. 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
Frt
0.850
0.850
0.935
0.967
Flt Protected
0.993
0.971
0.950
0.950
Satd. Flow (prot)
0
1726
1478
0
1688
1583
1770
1626
0
1711
2041
0
Flt Permitted
0.914
0.567
0.297
0.480
Satd. Flow (perm)
0
1589
1478
0
986
1583
553
1626
0
864
2041
0
Right Turn on Red
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR)
340
53
105
39
Headway Factor
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.00
1.09
1.00
1.00
1.09
1.00
1.04
0.85
1.00
Link Speed (mph)
30
30
30
30
Link Distance (ft)
328
273
244
346
Travel Time (s)
7.5
6.2
5.5
7.9
Volume (vph)
36
201
437
161
113
45
234
185
141
93
404
113
Peak Hour Factor
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
Growth Factor
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
Adj. Flow (vph)
42
236
512
189
132
53
274
217
165
109
474
132
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
278
512
0
321
53
274
382
0
109
606
0
Turn Type
custom
custom
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Protected Phases
8
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
4
8
8
2
6
Detector Phases
4
4
4
8
8
8
2
2
6
6
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Split (s)
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Total Split (s)
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
33.0
33.0
0.0
33.0
33.0
0.0
Total Split (%)
40.0%
40.0%
40.0%
40.0%
40.0%
40.0%
60.0%
60.0%
0.0%
60.0%
60.0%
0.0%
Maximum Green (s)
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
Yellow Time (s)
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
All -Red Time (s)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Lead/Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Max
Walk Time (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s)
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Act Effct Green (s)
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
v/c Ratio
0.53
0.72
0.99
0.10
0.94
0.42
0.24
0.55
Control Delay
19.7
12.8
73.1
5.2
58.0
7.3
8.8
10.5
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Future Conditions 01/15/2004
PMdhv
Retrovest
TND Engineering
C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic
study\2013
PMDHV
Build.sy7
Future ConditionsPMDHV
South Village
2013 Build -Opt
06/17/2004
4
Lane Group EBL
EBT :
EBR
WBL WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT NBR
SBIL SBT SBR
Total Delay
19.7
12.8
73.1
5.2
58.0
7.3
8.8 10.5
LOS
B
B
E
A
E
A
A B
Approach Delay
15.2
63.4
28.5
10.2
Approach LOS
B
E
C
B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 55
Actuated Cycle Length: 55
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.99
Intersection Signal Delay: 24.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.0%
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Swift St & Spear St
Intersection LOS: C
ICU Level of Service E
t 02
Lit
33 :
?
06
OR
33s 122s
Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest
TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7
Future ConditionsPMDHV
South Village
2013 Build -Opt
06/17/2004
-•
'-
-
t
l
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
if
t
r
t
t
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Lane Width (ft)
10
10
10
12
10
12
12
10
12
11
16
12
Grade (%)
0%
0%
0%
0%
Storage Length (ft)
0
150
75
125
75
0
80
0
Storage Lanes
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
Total Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Leading Detector (ft)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Trailing Detector (ft)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Turning Speed (mph)
15
9
15
9
15
9
15
9
Lane Util. 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
Ped Bike Factor
Frt
0.850
0.850
0.935
0.967
Fit Protected
0.993
0.971
0.950
0.950
Satd. Flow (prot)
0
1726
1478
0
1688
1583
1770
1626
0
1711
2041
0
Fit Permitted
0.914
0.567
0.297
0.480
Satd. Flow (perm)
0
1589
1478
0
986
1583
553
1626
0
864
2041
0
Right Turn on Red
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR)
340
53
105
39
Headway Factor
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.00
1.09
1.00
1.00
1.09
1.00
1.04
0.85
1.00
Link Speed (mph)
30
30
30
30
Link Distance (ft)
328
273
244
346
Travel Time (s)
7.5
6.2
5.5
7.9
Intersection,
Area Type:
Other
Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest
TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7
Future ConditionsPMDHV
South Village
2013 Build -Opt
0I6/17/2004
#
fte Group
° U
" EBT1' Id 8R
\l�fO� 1NBT 'WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Volume (vph)
36
201
437
161
113
45
234
185
141
93
404
113
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
Growth Factor
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
109%
Heavy Vehicles (%)
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Bus Blockages (#/hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parking (#/hr)
Mid -Block Traffic (%)
0%
0%
0%
0%
Adj. Flow (vph)
42
236
512
189
132
53
274
217
165
109
474
132
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
278
512
0
321
53
274
382
0
109
606
0
Intersection Summary
Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest
TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7
Future ConditionsPMDHV
South Village
2013 Build -Opt
06/17/2004
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
SBL
SBT
Lane Configurations
t
r
t
r
T
t
Volume (vph)
36
201
437
161
113
45
234
185
93
404
Turn Type
custom
custom
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Protected Phases
8
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
4
8
8
2
6
Detector Phases
4
4
4
8
8
8
2
2
6
6
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Split (s)
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Total Split (s)
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
Total Split (%)
40.0%
40.0%
40.0%
40.0%
40.0%
40.0%
60.0%
60.0%
60.0%
60.0%
Yellow Time (s)
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
All -Red Time (s)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Lead/Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
v/c Ratio
0.53
0.72
0.99
0.10
0.94
0.42
0.24
0.55
Control Delay
19.7
12.8
73.1
5.2
58.0
7.3
8.8
10.5
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
19.7
12.8
73.1
5.2
58.0
7.3
8.8
10.5
LOS
B
B
E
A
E
A
A
B
Approach Delay
15.2
63.4
28.5
10.2
Approach LOS
B
E
C
B
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 55
Actuated Cycle Length: 55
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.99
Intersection Signal Delay: 24.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.0%
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Swift St & SDear St
Intersection LOS: C
ICU Level of Service E
tL
o4
1 OR
� OR
Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest
TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7
Future ConditionsPMDHV
South Village
2013 Build -Opt
06/17/2004
�---
t
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
SBIL
SBT
Protected Phases
8
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
4
8
8
2
6
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Split (s) '
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Total Split (s)
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
Total Split (%)
40.0% 40.0%
40.0%
40.0%
40.0%
40.0%
60.0%
60.0%
60.0%
60.0%
Maximum Green (s)
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
Yellow Time
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
All -Red Time (s)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Lead/Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Minimum Gap (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Time Before Reduce (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Time To Reduce (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Recall Mode
None
None
None
'None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Max
Walk Time (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s)
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90th %ile Green (s)
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
90th %ile Term Code
Max
Max
Max
Max
Max
Max
MaxR
MaxR
MaxR
MaxR
70th %ile Green (s)
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
70th %ile Term Code
Max
Max
Max
Max
Max
Max
MaxR
MaxR
MaxR
MaxR
50th %ile Green (s)
18.0
18.0
18.0,
18.0
18.0
-18.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0'
50th %ile Term Code
Hold
Hold
Hold
Max
Max
Max
MaxR
MaxR
MaxR
MaxR
30th %ile Green (s)
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
30th %ile Term Code
Hold
Hold
Hold
Max
Max
Max
MaxR
MaxR
MaxR
MaxR
10th %ile Green (s)
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
10th %ile Term Code
Hold
Hold
Hold
Max
Max
Max
MaxR
MaxR
MaxR
MaxR
Intersection Summary�
Cycle Length: 55
Actuated Cycle Length: 55
Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord
90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 55
70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 55
50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 55
30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 55
10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 55
Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest
TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPAR'T1VIENT OF PLANNING &ZONING
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
(802) 846-4106
FAX (802) 846-4101
September 3, 2004
David Scheuer
Retrovest
70 South Winooski Avenue
Burlington, VT 05401
Re: South Village
Dear Mr. Scheuer:
Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Board meeting
and staff comments to the Board. Please be sure that someone is at the meeting
on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall Conference Room,
575 Dorset Street.
If you have any questions, please give us a call.
Sincerely,
Betsy McDonough
Administrative Assistant
Encl.
SOUTH BU)INGTON RECREATIOn DEPARTMENT
575 DORSET STREET, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403
TEL: (802) 846-4108 - FAX: (802) 846-4101
""" "°'°' •. THOMAS HUBBARD, CPRP
RECREATION DIRECTOR
TODD GOODWIN
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
TO:
Brian Robertson
FROM:
Tom Hubbard
RE:
South Village
DATE:
Sept. 2, 2004
As a follow-up to the presentation at the last RPC meeting from South Village
representatives, the Recreation Path Committee has the following recommendations:
This link will provide a vital east -west connection from Spear Steer to Dorset Street, and
connect the South Village neighborhood with Dorset Farms.
The committee recommends that a 10 foot path be built along the north access road from
Spear Street into the development, or somewhere in the vicinity of the northern boundary
of the development and continue the entire length of Spear Street within the property.
The 10 foot path would continue along the southern boundary of the proposed
development connecting to the existing path in Dorset Farms.
The committee would like to see the path along Spear Street located in the most desirable
location to provide views, especially to the west. The path from the northern access road
to the middle access road, for example, might run along the east side of the open field in
this area rather than adjacent to Spear Street. It is also recommended that recreation path
access be provided to the proposed school site. Any path adjacent to streets within the
development could be 8 foot width.
The committee further recommends that the entire path be built at the same time and not
dead-end with phasing of the development.
The recreation path would remain open to the public indefinitely.
MEMBER: VERMONT RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION - NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION
Daniel & Marguerite Wetzel
183 Catkin Dr.
South Burlington, VT 05403
802-660-3117
September 2, 2004
South Burlington
Development Review Board
C/o Ray Belair
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
RE: MP —04-01 , South Village Communities, LLC, 355 unit PUD, 1840 Spear Street
Dear Board Members:
Regarding the proposed South Village PUD I would like to submit the following
comments.
David and Michele Holgate of Retrovest met with over 34 residents of Dorset Farms on
August 12, 2004 to present the revised master plan and discuss our concerns.
(Homeowners in Dorset Farms were invited to this private meeting by invitations
delivered via US mail; All Dorset Farms homeowners are currently being assessed taxes
on the common land abutting the proposed developments land).
Overall we find the concept of the project acceptable and the willingness of the developer
David Scheuer of Retrovest to work with the residents of Dorset Farms refreshing.
My summary of the three major concerns of the residents present at the August 12th
meeting follows.
1. The necessity of a connector road to Spear Street and resulting increased traffic
and speed of traffic on Midland Ave.
2. Dense development in restricted areas with subsequent loss of woodlands
and views.
3. The use of affordable housing density bonus points.
1. The necessity of a connector road to Spear Street and resulting increased traffic
and speed of traffic on Midland Ave.
Residents are concerned that the speed on Midland is already exceeded by many and that
a through connection to Spear Street/Allen Road will exacerbate this public safety
problem. Dorset Farms has many families with young children that bicycle, skateboard,
and scooter on Midland Ave. Many residents feel that this connector road is neither
desirable nor required.
Residents are concerned about the negative impact of this connector road on the wetlands
in the common area owned by all Dorset Farms homeowners as well as negative impact
on an important wildlife corridor of the "Great Swamp". This corridor is described in
the recent Arrowood Report to the PC.
We understand that the city's Natural Resource Committee also opposes this connector
road. We strongly urge the DRB and the City to re -consider the necessity of this East-
West connector. A gravel gated emergency access road, also usable as a bike path, would
be more appropriate.
If despite our wishes, the DRB and City insist on having the developer build this
connector road, then we respectfully request the DRB require the developer to meet the
following conditions:
a)- build as narrow a connector road as possible (less then 20 ft wide)
b)- speed tables be installed on each end of the new connector
c)- speed calming be installed on the already existing length of Midland Rd.
d)- a speed limit of 15 mph be established for the connector road
e)- the connector road be restricted to local residents only
f)- that no truck traffic be permitted on the connector road
g)- adequate accommodations for wildlife to cross over and under the road be installed
h)- no curbs be installed and vegetation be permitted to grow up to the edge of the road
(once annual grass cutting permitted for safety)
i)- no salt be used in the winter on the connector road
j)- sufficient (at least 3 deep) native confer landscaping be planted on the — 1000 ft South
Side of the connector to screen the view of the connector road from Dorset Farms
residents
k)- no or very minimal lighting be used on the connector to protect nocturnal animal
species hunting and mating behaviors
Also we would like assurance that the developer will not be permitted to use Midland
Avenue for access of construction vehicles (e.g. dump trucks, cement mixers , contractors
personal trucks) to the development site. There are too many children in Dorset Farms
that bike and play in and around Midland Avenue. Permitting construction traffic to
access the site via Midland is `an accident waiting to happen'.
In sum should the DRB decide a connector road is a necessity then we look to the DRB to
help prevent potential public safety problems and to limit any negative impact to this
sensitive natural area.
At our August meeting 12 the devoloper has indicated that he will work to mitigate
possible impacts.
2. - Dense development in restricted areas with subsequent loss of woodlands and
views.
Several residents expressed concern that the wooded ridge line to which their lots look
out is the planned site for many units (>50). Placing houses in this area will require
cutting down several acres of mature trees. (See attached images.) Many Dorset Farms
homeowners were sold their homes with the belief that this Ridge would not be
developed, per the cities SEQ zoning map which has indicate area as restricted for many
years.
As adjacent homeowners our preference is for this wooded ridge area to remain restricted
and undeveloped as was the original intent of the SEQ zoning map. The few remaing
acres of woodland in the SEQ need to be preserved. The city's Natural Resource
Committee also recommends that no units be placed in this area as does the Arrowood
report.
However, if the DRB decides to permit housing in this restricted area we request that the
DRB require the developer
a) -to limit unit height to 1 '/z story ( 25 feet) for units sited on the eastern side of the
ridge facing Dorset Farms
b)- not to place any lots directly abutting the Dorset Farms common land, or the
wetlands contiguous with our common land, so as to prevent land owners from
encroaching on the wetlands and/or clearing existing mature trees
c)- to maintain a significant wooded buffer (100ft) and the placement of adequate
screening and landscaping (rapid growing native conifer tree/shrub species), on
Retrovest property, to mitigate against the lost views to Dorset Farms homeowners.
d)- to include language in the master and appropriate sub -association bylaws that
prevents homeowners from cutting down mature trees.
The developer has indicated that he is also agreeable to protective landscaping.
3. The use of affordable housing density bonus points
Without bias to the present developer we respectfully request that as a condition of
granting a density bonus for affordable housing, that the DRB require a formal and
legally enforceable plan from the developer for administration of affordable units as well
as an explanation of how he can meet the calculation criteria, when other developers in
SEQ have found it difficult to do so.
Current land use regulations permit 1.2 houses per acre in the SEQ. The proposed
development is — 226 acres thus 271 houses would be the maximum permissible.
However the developer is proposing the use of a `density bonus' for affordable mixed use
housing for a total of 334 units.
The calculations for what constitute affordable housing are found in Land Use
Regulations Article 13.14.13. La
"Housing that is owned by it's inhabitants, whose gross annual household income does
not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the county median income, as defined by the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the total annual cost of housing, including
principal, interest, taxes and insurance, is not more than thirty percent (30%) of the household's
gross annual income."
80 % of a median income of $60K = 48K
48K x .30 = 14.4 K annual cost of housing
Using 7 %, interest, $3.5 k in taxes and $500 /yr insurance
a homeowner could afford — $130,000 mortgage
20% down would suggest a total price of — $165,000
The developer has indicated that the expected initial offering price of `affordable' houses
will be in the $200,000 range. Houses in Dorset Farms that were built as "affordable" are
selling for more then this at present (—$240K).
In addition the Land Use Regulations indicate that the criteria for awarding density
increases require a plan for continued affordability (Article 13.14 D.c), as well as
administration by the "City of South Burlington Housing Authority, if any or a bona fide
qualified non-profit".
Regarding our own PUD (Dorset Farms) we understand that there has been some
difficulty enforcing/maintaining the affordable housing condition of the granted permit.
If the city is granting a density bonus to the developer for affordable housing, we'd like
to be sure that these units remain affordable, particularly when these density bonuses are
being applied (directly or indirectly) to development in land that is zoned restricted.
We appreciate the developers and DRB's willingness to work with the residents of Dorset
Farms to resolve these minor issues. Recently I was in the Act 250 office reading the
entire file on the Dorset Farms development. I was amazed at how long it took (1988 to
1998) for Dorset Farms / MLB Associates to receive their final permit. We feel that if
the DRB and developer take our concerns seriously such a lengthy permitting period may
not be required for South Village.
Thank you for your patience.
Respectfully, r /�
ieI M. Wetzel
s s
-x
4. i• -
DarsFarms.-
_ -
._ ....
`e t Far � r��s-
fM 1- 1
great swamp a,a►r
........................................
...................................... .................... Qt �-_ 1 Dorset
akin lot li _` Farms
zoned for development ` ` boundries
in red
wetlands
R
s 'l
area of proposed units phase 2 town line
in pink
restricted zone wooded ridge, wetlands and swamp
View West to Calkin's Ridge from Dorset Farms
- entire viewable length of Ridge is currently zoned restricted
- housing is proposed for entire length of viewable ridge
y
wetlandsµ
Wetzel 20040817
t e
MEN
_ IL "
? c
proposed road
1985 Spear Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
August 23, 2004
Betsy McDonough, Administrative Assistant
City of South Burlington
Department of Planning & Zoning
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Dear Ms. McDonough:
Thank you for your Notice of a Public Hearing relating to the planned
developed of a City within the City of South Burlington! I will be out of
state on September 7, 2004. Therefore, I would like to share my opinions
with the Development Review Board.
My family has lived in South Burlington since 1968. We have lived at 1985
Spear Street since 1971.
This Plan, which would dump thousands of vehicles onto Spear Street on a
daily basis, is so massive and so out of proportion, that it should be, ipso
facto, rejected. However, on the chance the Board may give this
application serious consideration, here are my thoughts and comments.
For reasons I cannot comprehend, South Burlington's traffic control over
the years has been abysmal. A few brief examples, from my little corner of
the world which extends from my home on Spear Street to my office on
Pine Street in Burlington, are as follows: traffic control at the intersection of
Swift and Spear Street had to have been designed and implemented by
people who are visually impaired. It has been the source of accidents, and
will continue to be so. Traffic control at the new intersection of Eastwood
Betsy McDonough, Administrative Assistant
City of South Burlington
Page 2
August 23, 2004
and Farrell Drives is confusing, complex and convoluted. There will surely
be a serious accident there before long. The so-called solution to a
perceived traffic problem in the Meadow and Hadley Road area created
traffic safety problems elsewhere, and is causing delay and inconvenience
for the great majority of the residents and taxpayers of South Burlington.
wouldn't be surprised if the City's next move would be to make this area a
"gated neighborhood"!
While I don't claim any expertise in traffic control, intersection design, etc.,
there has to be more to it than placing cones, barrels and posts in problem
areas.
With the foregoing track record, which I am sure other residents in other
areas of South Burlington have had similar experiences, I hope you can
appreciate my concerns for a development that will turn an already
extremely crowded and congested area into Times Square at rush hour.
Surely you can do better.
i have spoken to several of my neighbors, all of whom have property near
the proposed development. They are Jon and Amy Averill, 3958 Spear
Street, Harlan Sylvester, 2003 Spear Street, and Robert Foley 4070 Spear
Street. They are all unanimous in their opinion that any increase in Spear
Street traffic at or near the intersection of Allen Road would create a
serious traffic safety hazard, and cause significant congestion and delays.
Very truly yours,
Alan F. Sylvester
Gail Schramm
Jane Primm
1971 Spear Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
802-863-3865
September 2, 2004
South Burlington Development Review Board
C/o Ray Belair
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
RE: South Village Communities, LLC,1840 Spear Street
Dear Board Members:
This letter is in regard to the proposed South Village. As residents of Spear St. in
South Burlington directly west of the proposed development, we would like to
share with you our concerns.
1. Environmental
This development will disturb unique habitat in our city and a road will
cross Class 2 wetlands. Though changes in the locations of some units
have been made in recent months, the impact to the wildlife corridor will
be substantial. No matter how "low impact" a design it has, the road
crossing the wetlands (and its associated underground structure and
utility services) will be a barrier and a road -kill hazard to the natural
inhabitants of the area,
2. Traffic
With this development, Spear Street will be required to accommodate an
additional 668 cars (at least 2 cars per household), and that is not taking
into account the traffic that will cross town from Dorset and the additional
developments proposed on that side of the city. Add to that those
residents of Shelburne and Charlotte who already use Spear, and the
increase in development in those areas, which will in turn significantly
impact the residents of Spear St. in the following ways:
A. The proposed traffic signal at Allen and Spear will cause backup of
traffic in both directions, causing it to be impossible for Spear St.
residents to safely and conveniently turn north out of their
driveways. Can the city afford to add suicide lanes to
accommodate Spear St. residents?
B. Lack of designated turn lanes into the complex in three different
sites will cause further slow downs to through -traffic and blockage
of driveways. To avoid this it would seem prudent to widen Spear
St.; can the city afford that?
C. The sheer increase in traffic noise and pollution.
3. Public Safety
A. The addition of this many people in a high density fashion is
virtually the equivalent of any small town in Vermont. Has any
foresight been given to the burden that will be placed upon the
city's public services? What is the capability of the South
Burlington Police Department, Fire Department and Rescue
Services? Will the city not have to increase its resident's taxes or
attempt to have a bond passed in order to accommodate this
burgeoning development?
B. Currently bicyclists and joggers attempt to use Spear St. for
the purposes of exercise or actually commuting to work. While a
lane exists, it is poorly designed and for anyone who has driven
down Spear St. when someone is biking, it is not an easy ride for
the biker and a difficult proposition for the driver to safely pass.
These residents who attempt to use Spear St. without the assistance
of a vehicle will be endangered further by the significant increase in
traffic and turning cars. Can the city afford to redesign the street to
accommodate these residents in a safe manner?
4. Density
The city has Land Use Regulations that permit 1.2 houses per acre in
the SEQ. Thus the proposed development on 226 acres would allow
271 units maximum. Although the developer is seeking a density
bonus, the calculations for what constitutes affordable housing as per
Land Use Regulations calculates out to $165,000.00 per unit, while the
Developer has indicated they will be selling units for $200,000.00.
The Land Use Regulations indicate that in order to award the
developer a density bonus requires a plan for continued
affordability as well as administration by the City of South
Burlington Housing Authority. We not only request but expect the
DRB to require a formal and legally enforceable plan from the
developer for administration of the proposed affordable units and
an explanation of how they can meet the calculated selling price of
$165,000.00 per unit.
5. Landscape
Though the above concerns will certainly affect us (the authors of
this letter), the proposed southernmost exit from the development
will affect us substantially. It is planned to enter Spear St. only feet
from our southern lot boundary and our driveway, and directly
across from the driveway of the building lot next door, where there
will eventually be a home. Currently we have a natural view from
our front rooms. With a third Spear St. outlet, we will have head-
lights from exiting cars streaming into our home. We request, and
expect the DRB to insist, that the developer adhere to the original
300 ft. buffer from Spear St., and that a landscaping plan to offset
this concern be submitted for review and public comment. We
request the placement of adequate headlight screening with rapid
growing native conifer/tree/shrub species to mitigate this.
Respectfully submitted,
I' WAO,7��
Gail Schramm Jane Primm
0
MEMO
South Burlington Planning &Zoning
To: Dorset Farms Homeowners Association
Dan Wetzel
From: Juli Beth Hoover, AIC
Director of Planning & ning
RE: Notification for South Village Hearings
Date: August 24, 2004
cc: Chuck Hafter, City Manager
Amanda Lafferty, Esq., Stitzel Page & Fletcher
The Department of Planning and Zoning has received numerous differing requests for
notification and information related to upcoming meetings of the Development Review Board
involving the Retrovest "South Village" project. Consistent with its staff and financial resources,
Vermont law, and City regulations and policies, the Department provides public notice of all
land development in South Burlington. Citizens interested in the process should take some
measure of responsibility for using available sources of information.
Consistent with the City's Land Development Regulations and applicable Vermont statute, the
Department will observe the following policy with respect to public notice for meetings involving
the South Village project:
(1) Notice of public hearings (preliminary plat, master plan, and final plat applications) will be
published in Seven Days at least fifteen (15) days prior to any public hearing held by the DRB.
Seven Days is issued weekly on Wednesdays, and is free and available at many places of public
accommodation throughout Shelburne and South Burlington. Classified and legal notices in
Seven Days are also available on the newspaper's website, www.sevendaysvt.com.
(2) Both a tentative schedule of meetings and Development Review Board agendas are posted on
the City's website, www.sburl.com. DRB agendas are posted on the website on the Friday before
the Tuesday meeting.
(3) DRB agendas are posted, on the Friday before the Tuesday meeting, at Hannaford
supermarket on Shelburne Road, Gracie's market on Hinesburg Road, the Grand Union
supermarket on Hinesburg Road, and in the front window of the municipal office building, 575
Dorset Street.
(4) The Town of Shelburne and all abutting property owners of record, without respect to
intervening rights -of -way, will receive a letter via first class mail sent out on the day the notice is
published in the newspaper. As noted in (1), this will occur a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior
to any public hearing. In the event staff are not able to send out the notice via first class mail on
the same day the notice is published, the notices will be sent as soon as possible therafter.
(5) The Dorset Farms Homeowners Association will receive the same first-class mailing sent to:
Dorset Farms Commons Association, c/o MBL Associates, 25 Pinecrest Drive, Essex Junction,
Vermont 05452•
(6) Individuals who contact the Department of Planning and Zoning personally and ask to be
added to the mailing list will be added. With the present list of 49 parties, it costs the City $38
per mailing. Notifying 250 parties by first-class mail would cost the City $120 per mailing.
Those who would be willing to receive an e-mail notification instead of mail would help reduce
the City's expense.
t
BuRmi,.ANDERSON
MELLONI PLC
Counsellors at Lmv
Michael l.. Burak°
Jon Anderson
Thomas R. Melloni°
Michael B. Rosenberg'
Shane 1V'. McCormack°tr
Gateway square • 30 Main Street
Post Office Boa 787
Burlington, Vermont 05402.0787
Phone: 802 862.0500
Fax 802 862-8176
e-mail: attorney@,.KlaNel.com
°Also admitted in NeN% lurk
.Not yet admitted in Vermont
•Also admitted in the District of Columhia
tAlso admitted in Massaehusctts
July 20, 2004
Ms. Lani Ravin, Chairperson
South Burlington Natural Resources Commission
M- 14 Stonehedge Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: South Village Condominiums Limited Liability Company
Dear Lani:
This letter asks you to support my clients, Skip and Denise Vallee, in protecting natural
resources located in the central area of land South Village Condominiums Limited Liability
Company ("South Village") proposes to acquire and develop intensively. In particular, we ask
you to oppose any proposal to reduce the protection afforded by South Burlington's zoning to
such natural resources including significant wetlands, wildlife habitat and a prominent ridgeline.
Skip and Denise asked me to send this letter because they are unable to attend your meeting
Thursday afternoon.
Thrr PnrtIPQ
Skip and Denise Vallee
Skip and Denise Vallee own a house on about 25 acres of land located immediately south
of the land South Village proposes to develop. The Vallees are good and responsible land
stewards. They maintain one dirt driveway to their house, among other reasons, to protect
wetlands and to maintain wildlife corridors and habitat in the area. Because they live in the area,
the Vallees are especially aware of and concerned to protect the natural resources in the area.
These include the one of a kind in South Burlington wildlife habitat on the South Village
property that supports such diverse species as bobcats and woodcocks.
South Village
South Village is apparently one of the so-called Retrovest Companies of which David
Scheuer is the President. One such company is formed for each real estate development.
Apparently, this is done to restrict the assets available to back up commitments made by each of
the Retrovest Companies as for example to protect the environment. South Village claims to be
Ms. Lani Ravin
July 20, 2004
Page 2 of 3
BURAK ANDERSON & MELLONIP►.c
environmentally sensitive. Whether this claim is true or merely a way to leverage approvals for
projects that are more damaging than could be approved otherwise remains to be seen. That the
latter is likely the case is evidenced by the following:
1. South Village significantly under identified the extent of Class 2 wetlands in the
area. This "mistake" was discovered by Dori Barton a wetlands consultant hired
by the Vallees. In a memorandum dated June 4, 2004, South Village claims that it
"reviewed the delineations in the field with ... Dori Barton." In fact, no such
review has been done with Dori. Nor are we aware that "there is now general
consensus that the wetlands boundaries are accurately portrayed." Indeed, South
Village filings to date present two different wetlands delineations. To resolve this
issue, the Vallees would support you in requesting the Development Review
Board to exercise its "authority to invoke technical review by a qualified wetlands
consultant ...", South Burlington Zoning Regulations ("SBZR'), § 12.02D(3), for
your review. Id. at § 12.021)(4).
2. South Village proposes to develop new roads running east and west entirely
across the southern portion of its property. In the same way, South Village claims
that Spear Street bars wildlife movement to the west of its development, the new
road will do so to the south.
3. South Village proposes to construct housing blocking what was identified as one
of two wildlife corridors within South Burlington by the South Burlington Open
Space Strategy (Map 9) (Attachment 1 hereto). This document locates the
wildlife corridor on the west side of the ridge dividing the two prongs of Class 2
wetlands on the south side of the property South Village proposes to purchase.
SBZR § 15.18B(3) unambiguously requires that "existing natural resources on
each site shall be protected . . . including . . . wildlife habitat and corridors
including those areas identified in the South Burlington Open Space Strategy."
Despite this clear language, South Village does not propose honoring this corridor
in any way. Instead, South Village proposes to locate substantial housing -- about
a quarter of its project -- and a network of several roads across this corridor.
4. South Village proposes to locate one or more other housing pods (Phase 2
comprising 74 housing units) on the ridgeline between these two wetland prongs.
Indeed, South Village proposes to capitalize on their location by labeling its Phase
2 "The Ridge". South Village proposes this despite zoning standards requiring
that existing natural resources on each site shall be protected including
"prominent ridges". SBZR, § 15.18B(3). "The Ridge" is a prominent feature of
the area.
5. The network of roads South Village plans to construct across the southern portion
of its property crosses what even South Village now identifies as Class 2
wetlands. Presumably, South Village will bridge over the wetlands in at least
three places although even this is unclear. South Village makes no provision for
Ms. Lani Ravin
i .dAK Al�'DERSON & MELLONIrL<:
July 20, 2004
Page 3 of 3
honoring the presumptive 50-foot wetlands buffer at these locations, much less
the 300-foot buffer requested by the State of Vermont (Attachment 2 hereto).
History of the South Village Project
South Village first proposed its project several years ago. Since that time, and in
response to South Village's requests, South Burlington reduced many environmental standards
otherwise prohibiting or restricting the project. These changes allow, for example, the waiver of
many zoning restrictions and increased density for affordable housing.
Having obtained all the legal concessions it can get, South Village now objects to the
literal reading of the remaining provisions.
The Opportunities
Skip and Denise Vallee do not oppose South Village's proposal per se. They have no
objection to the development as proposed in Phases 1 and 4. Development in these areas alone
allows South Village 209 units only 58 units less than the 267 units allowed if South Village
simply respects the 1.2 unit per acre maximum traditionally available for the southeast quadrant.
If it chooses, South Village can locate additional units simply by concentrating housing a little
better than it proposes to do in the developable areas of its site.
Conclusion
We ask the Natural Resources Commission not to participate in reducing again South
Burlington's commitment to protecting natural resources. We also ask you to request the
Development Review Board to require its own wetlands delineation.
Very trul ours,
rn nderson
JTA�rIm
cc: Mark G. Hall, Esq. (attorney for South Village)
South Burlington Planning Office
South Burlington Natural Resource Committee Members
SAClient Matters\72835\Letters\jte Tani ravin.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
.. �.AL n_
CJ r I LCJ/ LU CJ4 I J. 4 1
OUZ4.34ZIUZ
HKKUWWUUV tNV.
FAUt e1
Department of Fi
Department of PC
Department of Er
Slate Geologiet
RELAISFHVI--E
--800- 253-0191
1-000.253.01fly
Jan
Art
Wil
RD
Mot
Re:
State of Vermont
O RUTING
Wlidl lie
Parks and Recreation
lenlal ConARNWion
THE WEARING IMPAIRI~G N EIS DATE.
.Voice
>TDD t
y 27, 2004 1 / �� —Z�>
SUSPENDED L�
lman and Errol Briggs.
m D. Countryman Associates I!-`
Boy. 999 ._.....-,...,....�_..,.-�.—.--
ield, Vermont 05663
AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
rtment of Environmental Conservation
WATER QUALITY DIVISION
103 South Main StTeet
Building 10 North
Waterbury, VT 05671-0408
South Village, Spear Street, South Burlington, Wetlands Project #2001-274
Art and Errol,
FAX 802-241-3287
TEL 802-241-3770
Th you ,for meeting with us this month to discuss the project your client (Retrovest) is in
the rocess of planning for the above captioned property. While we have not seen any
pro Ised plans for the project, we understand that your client will be presentin' g a concept
pla o the City of South Burlington shortly. At this time we are providing you with some
gen al corrunents that we hope can be incorporated into the concept plan.
We ave been aware of this project for a few _years. In 2001, representatives from several
dill ent programs in the Agency (me and John Austin, Jodi Shippee of the Natural Heritage
Pro am, and Kinz Greenwood, Erosion Control Specialist) had the opportunity to visit this
site lith Retrovest representatives. Retrovest was interested in acquiring the property at that
tim and was soliciting comments on natural resource issues at the site. After the site visit,
sev al Agency staff met to discuss the parcel. These Agency staff made the following
ree emendations: 1) that any development on the parcel be clustered along the front of the
pro a y, so that the two large wetland complexes on the site could be retained and protected
fro development and 2) the plan, be designed to avoid crossing either of these wetlands.
The easoning for these recommendations is described below.
Du z ig our site visit we observed two large Class Two wetland complexes. One is in the
cen r of the property and runs north -south (this will be referred to as the "center wetland")
and h.e other is located. along the eastern boundary of the site (the "easteni wetland"). Both
of t ;se wetlands are protected by the Vern�iont Wetland Rules. Please note that any activity
in aI -lass Two wetland, or its associated 50-foot buffer zone, other than the allowed uses
spe lied in Section 6.2 of the Vermont Wetland Rules, requires a Conditional Use
Det enination (CUD) from the Agency of Natural Resources. According to Section 8.5 of
m the 'eront Wetland Rules, a CUD can only be issued if it is determined that the use will
hav, no undue adverse impact on protected functions, unless.such impacts are mitigated.
Mit ration treasures include avoidance and minimization of wetland impaets.
Boti of these wetlands are significant for several functions and values including wildlife
hab 3t, 'water quality protection'., flood storage, and erosion control. The eastern wetland is
Fiv�ior-,al cirrice:r EJY16;ItrC�ev�.I�.I.rr'I'I']IfS:'���IU�IGf��I�:����lr'��7fIe1C�'ti>t .7U1'ifiSl�UrY
CJ i / LtJ/ LCJU4 ID: 4 f tSJL4,�4L1F�1 AHHUWWUUD PqV. PAGE 03
MH
G3ilman and Errol Briggs
a2
significant for the hydrophytic vegetation function. These wetlands are both located in
impaired watershed. Therefore, maintenance of the existing water quality function of
3e wetlands is critical, both during and after construction, The project should be, planned
avoid impacts to these valuable wetland resources, and to maintain the integrity of the
fer zones,
best erosion prevention occurs during the planning stages of a project. This includes
ling areas that are likely to erode, providing adequate riparian (that is, strearn and
md) buffers, and designing the project construction with the least amount of impact to
r resources as possible. This also helps to maintain the hydrology of the site, an
�rtant consideration in not causing erosion problems as a result of altered water flows. It
Id be noted that this project will require authorization to discharge under the
,truction General Permit 3-9001 (2003). Authorization under the general permit can not
anted until the CUD has been issued for wetland and wetland buffer impacts,
red on our meeting last week, we understand that your client is proposing an
)roximately 300-unit housing development on this property. We are concerned that the
istruction of a dense housing development will adversely impact the wetland -dependant
dlife that currently depend on the habitat associated with this site. Based on our
ervations and those of your representatives, these wetlands are important for waterfowl,
iing birds, a myriad of songbirds, raptors including northern harriers, wetland -dependant
iearers such as mink and otter and other wildlife. 'Therefore, we. recommend that the units
concentrated away from these wetlands. During the Act 250 review process we will
ammend a 300-foot buffer zone for both the center and the eastern wetland for wildlife.
s buffer distance has been applied to other development projects in Chittenden County
t involved wetlands with significant wildlife functions and values.
continue to recommend that the housing be concentrated in the front of the site. It
:ars there is ample space for a residential development in this area. While there are Class
se wetlands all along the front of the site, in our vpinion these wetlands do not support as
y functions as the center and eastern Class Two wetlands.
in, we appreciate being contacted for comments early in your planning process. Please
l us a copy of any concept plants as they emerge so we can give you feedbKk on them. If
have any questions regarding this letter, feel free to: contact any of us.
eaely,
l J. Moul John Austin 11 Kim Greenwood
6ct Wetlands Ecologist District Wildlife Biologist Erosion Control Specialist
Julie Beth Hoover, City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning
Peter Keibel, Act 250 Coordinator
Mike Adams, Corps of Engineers
Michelle Holgate, Retrovost
?.4 a i. Si�9'..fi.' l.+l;ka i.:yc°c .y.'r� e'+.w
Memorandum
TO:
Design Review Board
FR®NE
Bruce I.C. Hear, Public Works Director
DAM
Noveanber 21. 2002
CC:
Ray Beiair, ?coning Administrator
RE:
South lAilage Street Widths
After a number oaf meetings witii the d veloper amid his 'teams we have reached 4greemnent on changes to
pavemeint widths Yor their development. The following deals with lrreet width only, and not for ,waivers on
other Bea s such as changes in stopping sight distance etc., for those that are to remain public. I would
recommend that `he board keep in mind that the lowest speed limit that can be legally posted in the state of
;Vermont is 25 mph. All the roads that are pubhc are to be designed for this speed Emit. I would also aslr
the board -w keep in main that it is a possibilitj that the city may own all the roads in this devetopment
some dmie in the f nure. It may be 31cneficial to llave a trafflic ,=ginydr hired by the city review any hmgis
for -whical waivers are ganated.
ClIanges to asap rules that I have .agreed to are :as follows:
D %ghl of .Nay widths we to be 60' for both Pubfic and Pritr--te mares with one exceotien and that is the-
,,ross section labeled AL-26.
Tne crass section RD-60 is agreed to if the Developer zmlem into agreements to seep the area
designated as agricuitural.
P7,✓ed mad width for the public wet lands crossing shall be 20'.
Any area where there is a wetlands crossing must be permitted so that the dty has the ability w make
changes to the width without having to reapply for a new permnit.
M construction shall be to city specs with the exception of widths.
'l dne other cross sections that have been agreed to are ST-60b, B V-66, ST-60PA, SST-60, ST-+ 0Fb.,3nd
ST-a0P
ID T&ae sub -base !or ST-6:OPa is to lse mnstraicted for a 28' pavement ividth.
AR side for his pr�rect is -le rxpomibility r)f flee ;kv,-Ibper and all gypping shaii be of 3ivi i me or
Thera;nal Plastic. T he de,:relo=- r shall provide Ee IWdrant fflags.
nuuumenLauscs ana vocalists.
All ages! Beginning through
advanced concepts taught with
clarity and patience. Questions?
Call Shane Hardiman, 279-8859,
Winooski. hipkeys@lycos.com.
► legals
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVEL-
OPMENT REVIEW BOARD
The South Burlington
Development Review Board will
hold a public hearing at the
South Burlington City Hall
Conference Room, 575 Dorset
Street, South Burlington,
Vermont on Tuesday, September
7, 2004, at 7:30 P.M. to consider
the following:
1. Master Plan Application #MP-
04-01 of South Village Commun-
ities, LLC for a planned unit
development consisting of. 1) a
334 residential unit traditional
neighborhood design to include
single family, two (2) family, and
multifamily dwellings, 2) a 100
student educational facility, and
3) a community building to sup-
port a 35 acre farm, 1840 Spear
Street.
2. Preliminary Plat Application
#SD-04-55 of South Village
Communities, LLC for a planned
unit development of Phase I
consisting of 150 residential
units and a 100 student educa-
tional facility, of a 334 residen-
tiaL unit project, 1840 Spear
Street.
Copies of the applications are
available for public inspection at
the South Burlington City Hall.
John Dinklage, Chairman
South Burlington Development
Review Board
August 18, 2004
STATE OF VERMONT
CHITTENDEN COUNTY, S.S.
CHITTENDEN FAMILY COURT
DOCKET NO. 310-4-97 Cndm
Office of Child Support/Nicole
Jennison,
Plaintiff
V.
Dennis Piper
Defendant
Summons and Order by
Publication
To the above -named Plaintiff,
Nicole Jennison:
You are hereby summoned and
required to serve upon Priscilla
B. Dube, Esq., Defendant's attor-
ney, address is, 27 Main Street,
P.O. Box 925, Burlington,
Vermont, 05402, an answer to
the Defendant's Motion in the
above -entitled action, within 20
days after service the date of the
first publication of the summons,
which is august 13, 2004. If you
fail to do so, judgment by
Nicole Jennison, Plaintiff. A
copy complaint can be
obta, the office of the
clerk oT a Chittenden Family
Court, 32 Cherry Street, Suite
200, Burlington, Vermont 05401.
It appearing from the affidavit
duly filed in the above -entitled
action that service cannot be
made with the due diligence by
any of the methods prescribed in
V.R.C.P. 4 (d) through (f) inclu-
sive, it is hereby ORDERED that
service of the above process
shall be made upon the Plaintiff,
Nicole Jennison, by publication
published once a week for two
consecutive weeks on August 13,
3004 and August 20, 2004 in the
Seven Days Newspaper, a news-
paper of general circulation in
Chittenden County, and a copy of
this order shall be mailed to the
Plaintiff, Nicole Jennison if her
address becomes known.
DATED at Burlington, Vermont
this 3rd day of August, 2004
So Ordered: Honorable Mark J.
Keller
STATE OF VERMONT
CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS.
CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR
COURT
DOCKET NO. 51117-03 CnC
Citibank, N.A., as Trustee,
Plaintiff
Darra Kell, United States of
America and Occupants residing
At 24 Bluff Road, Colchester,
Vermont,
Defendants
NOTICE OF SALE
By virtue and in execution of the
Power of Sale contained in a cer-
tain mortgage given by Darra
Kell to Chase Manhattan
Mortgage Corporation dated July
14, 1999 and recorded in Volume
316, Page 326 of the Land
Records of the Town of
Colchester, of which mortgage
the undersigned is the present
holder, for breach of the condi-
tions of said mortgage and for
the purpose of foreclosing the
same will be sold at Public
Auction at 10:00 o'clock A.M. on
the 2nd day of September, A.D.
2004, 24 Bluff Road, Colchester,
Vermont, all and singular the
premises described in said mort-
gage.
To wit:
(A) Leasehold only:
Being the lands and premises
which are the subject of a
Memorandum of Lease between
H.V.L. Vermont, LLC and Darra
Kell dated June 24, 1999 and
recorded July 16, 1999 in
Volume 316, Page 324 of the
Town of Colchester Land Records.
Being a portion of the lands and
premises conveyed to H.V.L.
Associates by Warranty Deed (_
William R. Hauke, Jr., Margaret
A. Lanzetta, and Lillian H.
Venner dated December 16, 1986
and recorded in Volume 124,
Page 217 of the same said Land
Records. More specifically, the
lands and premises which are the
subject of this lease are a por-
tion of those conveyed to
William R. Hauke, Jr., Lillian H.
Venner and Margaret A. Hauke.
(now Lanzetta) by Colchester
Properties, Inc. by Warranty
Deed dated December 28, 1959
and recorded in Volume 7, Page
234 of the same Land Records,
and a corrective deed recorded
in Volume 7, Page 280 of the
same said Land Records.
Being Lot Number 15 on the
above -described lands and prem-
ises, which has an address of
544 Milts Point, Colchester,
Vermont.
Reference is hereby made to the
aforementioned instruments, the
records thereof and the refer-
ences therein contained, in fur-
ther aid of this description.
(B) Building only:
Being a cottage or structure,
together with a garage, con-
veyed to Darra Kell by Quitclaim
Deed of Leonard D. Bullinger
dated July 14, 1999 and record-
ed July 16, 1999 in Volume 316,
Page 322 of the Town of
Colchester Land Records.
A camp or house -type building
being located at 544 Mills Point
on land in Colchester, Vermont,
owned by and leased from one
Hauke and being the cottage,
together with garage Located on
the Land heretofore leased by
Leonard D. Bullinger from
William R. Hauke, Jr., William R.
Hauke, Sr., Trustee, and
Chittenden Trust Company,
Trustee, d/b/a Colchester
Properties, under a lease agree-
ment dated June 5, 1986, and
recorded in book 115, Pages 8-
10 of the Colchester Land
Records, and being the same
cottage or structure, together
with garage, that was the sub-
ject of a Quitclaim Deed given
the by Walter L. Luce to Leonard
D. Bullinger, dated June 5, 1986,
and recorded in book 115, Pages
12-13 of said Land Records,
together with the contents of
said camp and garage. The land
which is the subject of this
Quitclaim Deed is that which
was the subject of said lease
agreement dated June 5, 1986,
Reference is hereby made to the
aforementioned instrument, the
record thereof and the references
therein contained, in further aid
of this description.
Terms of Sale: $10,000.00 to be
paid in cash by purchaser at the
time of sale, with the balance
due at closing. Proof of financ-
ing for the balance of purchase
to be provided at the time of
sale. The sale is subject to taxes
due and owing to the Town of
Colchester.
Other terms to be announced at
the sale or inquire at Law Offices
of Joshua B. Lobe, Esq., 35 King
Street, Burlington, Vermont
(802) 660-9000.
Citibank, N.A., as Trustee
By:
Joshua B. Lobe, Esq,
P.O. Box 4493
Burlington, VT 05406
STATE OF VERMONT
ORLEANS COUNTY
FILED AUG 2, 2004
ORLEANS FAMILY COURT
IN RE: M.E. & A.W.
)Vermont Family Court
)Orleans County
)Docket No. 47/48-6-03 OsJv
ORDER FOR SERVICE BY PUB-
LICATION
Based upon the motion filed by
the Commissioner of the
Department for Children and
Families dated July 29, 2004,
and the accompanying affidavits,
the courts finds that service of
process cannot, with due dili-
gence, be made upon George
Way and Chelsea Pierce other
than by publication.
It is therefore, ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED that
notice of a hearing to terminate
all residual parental rights of
George Way, father of M.E. and
Chelsea Pierce, mother of M.E.
and A.W. to be held on October
5, 2004, at 9;00 a.m. at the
Family Court of Vermont, 247
Main street, Newport, Vermont,
shall be published for two (2)
consecutive weeks in Seven
Days, a newspaper of general cir-
culation reasonably calculated to
give notice to George Way and
Chelsea Pierce. A copy of this
order shall be mailed to George
Way if his address can ever be
determined and Chelsea pierce if
her address can ever be deter-
mined.
THE HEALING JOURNEY
Women's Rape Crisis Cent(
a confidential ten -week si
group for women who ha%
vived sexual violence. But
area, call for location. 6-;
Free. Info, 864-0555.
DISORDERED EATING SI
GROUP: Do you struggle
anorexia, bulimia, or binc
ing? I am Looking to star
port group to help others
myself in moving forward
road to recovery. If you a
interested in joining a ne
cussion/support group an
over 20 yrs, please email
at jesslyn6@yahoo.com.
Together we can make sm
steps forward to a more fi
Lifestyle.
DECLUTTERS SUPPORT
Are you ready to make im
ments but find it overwhe
Maybe 2 or 3 of us can ge
together to help each sim
453-3612.
PARENTS TOGETHER: Sul
group will be meeting in I
on Monday evenings. Snac
childcare provided. All gro
are free and confidential.
call Amy at 247-5460 for i
information.
WOMEN CHANGING: A cc
os educational support grc
women who are interested
changing patterns in their
Wednesdays -ongoing. 12:3
2p.m. Call Angie at AWARE
Hardwick, 472-6463.
SUPPORT GROUP FOR W(
who have experienced inth
partner abuse, facilitated t
Battered Women's Services
Shelter of Washington Cow
Please call 1-877-543-9491
more info.
REIKI SUPPORT GROUP:.
18, 1-3 p.m. Fletcher Free
Library, Burlington. All levf
students and practitioners
welcome. For more info., c(
Joan at 860-4673 or Lynn
893-3064.
WANTED: Fellow painters t
together bi-weekly for cofh
to discuss our work. Suppo
each other's creativity! Sho
your work. Meet at local do
town coffee shops. Call 65E
2976, if interested.
AHOY BREAST CANCER St
VIVORS: Join our support c
where the focus is on livin
on the disease. We are a
dragon boaters. Learn a
thic narlrlla cnnrf and i
Perrriit Number SP-
Page I of 4
Permit Number SD- b (p p(
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH 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 rejected and a delay in the review
before the Development Review Board. For amendments, please provide pertinent information only.
1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #)
'Paul R, CoAtirrs. 'P-o ,Box 89. L-Yr7d0r70e11e, yr Osrff5,
PHOAI& BOA &;Z(o• ,0793 wag# 80,2 &.2G //&o
Oeaoo4rw /2/1/97 568 r/.4andRec.
V yr q, • why- yss'
2) L,OCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) S,qgjAuWg j,ANyRec, ✓.2/0 , �. /O(- -/07
3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) POUro
70 fury WiagosKi ,A✓a, Buiz LinJc rangy, Yr'
CommuNirit S. LL(!
4) APPLICANT'S LEGAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY (fee simple, option, etc.)
OPnoN ra /OelAaH.4se .
Ylo 3 - /339
5 CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) VAY,o SCNautrR AT,
�,�rRor�sr , 70 �,W�NaOsk� Arr, l3uRu�/GrU�� yr 0syoj
6) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: /8j(0 spewR sr. SD .I3a U.,A/o7Mn/ VT 05y03
7) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) / (0 q0 - 04-yo . T .
g) PROJECT DESCRIPTION
a) Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use)
02,410 acres 0f farm land no longer' /,7 use. WlUi'IOecWzc S-n4/� Qm--k louSif
b) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain)
v upindAWL AldOH or .343 H bleadInri iq non -its
c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain)
d) Proposed height of building (if applicable) Al
e) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain)
330 . -413 un lts of tes oPa baJ
fj Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay
g/9/2004
Permit Number SP-
Page 2 of 4
Districts are applicable)
9) LOT COVERAGE
a) Building: Existing 0. CA % Proposed .10 %
b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc)
Existing % Proposed %
c) Front yard (along each street) Existing % Proposed %
10) TYPE OF EXISTING OR PROPOSED ENCUMBRANCES ON PROPERTY (easements, covenants, leases, rights
ofway, etc_) ftsfin :5out ofP.,ope/ty, gel?e/a/
�G�SCrrl�n fo V�Rn�on/T' GAS SYSTEMS
11) PROPOSED EXTENSION, RELOCATION, OR MODIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL FACILITIES (sanitary
sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc.) WCW-S AV1rARy coctattrio4 SYSrCM LPKwAr J�u�Psr4-r�or�JS�
1Z Coi4Keriotf Sysrdrk on/ ALL94 RP WArew SUPPLY doNOeCTINn TO UDRSerfAAHS wirN
TWUAL' eONNCCTIONS It DOASCr
12) OWNERS OF RECORD OF ALL CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES & MAILING ADDRESSES (this may be
provided on a separate attached sheet)
13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION
DATE aoi3
14) 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 (I V x 17") of the plans must be submitted. A sketch subdivision application fee is $125.
8/9/2004
Permit Number SP-
Page 3 of 4
I hereby certif?ge.
a information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the
best of my kno
SIGIMME OF APPLICANT
SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER
Do not write below this line
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 6
I have reviewed this sketch plan application and find it to be:
lld Co to ❑ Incomplete
Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date
8/9/2004
1 I
,BUTTERS LIST - JUNE 23, 2004 (2 pgs.)
So. Burlington, V'1' 05403
Mary Pappas
1809 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Stuart & Helen Hall
1815 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
George & Shelly Vinal
1845 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
William Reed
1967 Spear Street
So. Buw-iiiigto►►, v 05403
Alan & Diane Sylvester
1985 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Patrick & Juanita Clifford
4047 Spear Street
Shelburne, VT 05482
Littleton Long
1702 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
William & Gail Lang
1675 Dorset Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Matthew & Beverly Broomhall
37 Floral Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Harold & Eleanor Bensen
1803 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Donald & Lynn Cummings
1811 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Harry & Patricia Davison
1827 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Mork S. we"card jitv'164
1344 tit. Windomerr--
n,ii"�j�
Harry Stone
29 Rangely Rd.
Chestnut Falls, YIA 92150
Kenneth & Cheryl Goodwin
306 South Beach Road
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Rodolphe & Denise Vallee
4043 Spear Street
Shelburne, VT 05482
Lucien & Jane Demers
P.O. Box 359
Essex Jct., VT 05452
Shane & Holly Deridder
192 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Brian & Carolyn Terhune
35 Floral Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Janet Farina
1807 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
William & Ayse Floyd
1813 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Patricia Calkins
1835 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Barbara Lande
1865 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
James McNamara
211 Killarney Dr.
Burlir_ ;ton, VT 05401
Harlan & John Sylvester
51 South Street
Burlington, VT 05401
Littleton & Carolyn Long
1720 Spear Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Richard & Dawn Derridinger
1575 Dorset Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Timothy & Jennifer Owens
197 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Stanley & Carolyn Pallutto
33 Floral Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Bouvier
F
al Streetlington, VT 05403
Mark & Deborah Fay
188 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403
\John & Ritika Paul
191 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Anthony & Nancy Bianchi
29 Floral Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Dorset Farms Commons Assoc. Kirk & Nancy Weed
c/o MBL Associates 190 Catkin Drive
25 Pinecrest Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403
Essex Jct., VT 05452
Bhagwat & Gita Mangla
195 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Philip & Darcy Carter
187 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403
James & Christina Robert
79 Bower Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Pasquale & Deborah Distefano Donald and Lisa Anqwin
75 Bower Street 73 Bower Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403
Dirk & Deborah Marek
193 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Dan Wetzel
183 Catkin Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Jared & Karen Larrow
77 Bower Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
SFNT BY: RETROVEST COMPANIES; 802 ®63 1339; AUG-9 114 3:52PM; PAGE 4/4
'ermit Number SP- _--_____ ) vage s of
hereby certify tha a information requested as part a: this application has been submitted and is accurate to the
lest of my know ge.
SIGN ►TARE OF APPLICANT
SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER
Do not write below this lire
).A 11? t}F 51.18NllSSION:
[ have .reviewed this sketch plan application and find it to be:
El coa;plete U 111GutllplttC
Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date
8/9/2004
t
61l� �TX±T� Nr�'� • y
IrT• T
ST
kt"
l T *" 9TTRrt
� fi��r
• ii• 1�i.�• *K1a t�
iw
� .T Ttl
F
Zi i��
♦'►r' l;N•
T
_� rT'0:.�=t: ittT rr Tr Fttt: r�M.
:r� �l'r T s sT TST • sTr'�
i t {
South Village
South Burlington,
Vermont
Home Types by Lot
Medium Single
27 units
Small Single
56 units
Cottage
20 units
Bun Home
10 units
Attached Singles
10 units
�7 Duplex Townhomes
40 units
"Triplex Townhomes
36 units
F1Condominiums
36 units
® Apartments
108 units
Total
343 units
The Kelrueesl Coff aMl�
t' o so 100 M 500 V4MI1,-
ugust 2004
PAUL FRANK COLLINS P.C.
s
August 17, 2004
Via Facsimile 802-846-4101
Mr. Ray Belair
Zoning Administrator
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Mark G. Hall (VT)
mhall@PFC/aw corn
Re: South Village Communities, LLC ("South Village") Sketch Plan Review
Response to Attorney Andersen's Request for Delay
Dear Ray:
I have received Attorney Anderson's "suggestion" that the sketch plan review be delayed until
September 7, 2004. South Village opposes the request and offers the following response to
Attorney Anderson's misrepresentations, set forth in his August 11, 2004 letter to you:
South Burlington Zoning Regulation ("SBZR"), § 15.05 is an administrative regulation
designed to provide the zoning staff with sufficient time to review a project prior to its
submission to the Development Review Board ("DRB"). The South Village sketch
plan was reviewed months ago and the scheduled hearing is merely to renew the prior
approval, so § 15.05 either does not apply or has been substantially satisfied by the
developer's previous submission. Moreover, § 15.05 does not grant any substantive
right to neighbors to derail a proceeding.
2. Attorney Anderson's claim that the notice of hearing is defective misstates the law.
There is presently no public or personal notice requirement for sketch plan review.
Instead, it is designed under the ordinance as a preliminary meeting with the DRB. To
the extent that the newly enacted 24 V.S.A. §4464(a) requires notice of preliminary
sketch plan review (which it does not), it conflicts with the procedures set forth in the
ordinance. Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4481, if an ordinance procedure and the new statute
conflict, the ordinance controls through September 1, 2005. See 24 V.S.A. §4481.
Accordingly, the provisions of Section 4464 simply do not apply to this proceeding as
they imply notice not required by the ordinance. Moreover, even if the notice of
4464(a) procedures did apply, there is no question that Mr. Anderson and his client
received actual notice. They are not permitted to assert a defect in a proceeding that
other, yet unknown, persons did not receive notice.
There is no reason to seek further wetlands review of the site. The sketch plans show
the locations and types of the wetlands, as approved by the State of Vermont. The
project also has been reviewed by three wetland biologists, which included the neutral
representative of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. Hiring a fourth
consultant is redundant.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW I www.PFC/aw.com
One Church Street P.O. Box 1307 Burlington, VT 05402-1307 phone 802.658.2311 fax 802.658.0042
63 Bridge Street Plattsburgh, NY 12901 phone 518.563.4595 fax 518.563.4581
A Member of TerraLex@ The Worldwide Network of Independent Law Firms
Mr. Ray Belair
August 17, 2004
Page 2 of 3
Respectfully, Mr. Anderson's request reflects an attitude of "stop or delay the project by any
means possible for the sake of a neighboring landowner. No substantive justification is offered
for further delay. Accordingly, the applicant's position is that sketch plan can and should move
forward at this evening's meeting.
Cordially yours,
PAUL FRANK + COLLINS P.C.
Mark G. Hall
cc: Jon Anderson, Esq.
381922 v1:3264-00014
ACC-tNOA # 3
MEMORANDUM
To: Development Review Board
From: Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer
RE: South Village Communities, LLC
Sketch Plan #SD-04-62
Date: August 10, 2004
On Tuesday, August 171h, the DRB will review the Sketch Plan application of
South Village Communities, LLC for the South Village project. A public hearing
on the Master Plan application for the same project has been warned for Tuesday,
September 7th.
The DRB last reviewed the sketch plan for this project on December 3, 2002. The
minutes of that meeting are enclosed.
Section 15.05(C) of the Land Development Regulations requires the DRB to
review a sketch plan again if the prior sketch plan review took place more than six
months prior to submittal of the subdivision or Master Plan application. Thus,
the DRB must review the sketch plan application for this project in advance of the
September 7th public hearing on the Master Plan.
As the current sketch plan application is substantially unchanged from the
application reviewed in December of 2002, staff recommends that the DRB allow
the sketch plan to proceed to the Master Plan public hearing on September nth.
On that date, the DRB will conduct a detailed review of the Master Plan
application.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
3 DECEMBER 2002
PAGE 3
Mr. Boucher asked about a possible right-of-way to the rear of the property if the
adjacent property is developed. Mr. Smith said he was willing to do that and would make
changes to accommodate it.
Mr. Cameron asked if would be reasonable to close curb cuts here. Mr. Bolton said if the
building were turned and there were diagonal parking, it would make it easier to use the
future access. Mr. Smith said the design is based on what they have today. Mr. Bolton
felt it would be hard to improve traffic flow if the building is located where it is. Mr.
Kupferman said a trade-off for him in the future would be 1 front access for the rear
access.
Mr. Boucher moved to approve application #CU-02-54 and Site Plan Application
#SP-02-54 of Jolley Associates subject to the stipulations in the draft motion of 3
December 2002. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed 6-1 with Mr. Bolton
opposing.
Mr. Cameron said he didn't understand the rationale for closing curb cuts. He felt this
was an ideal spot to close a curb cut, especially with the possibility of a future access in
back. Mr. Belair said they look at additional traffic, use, etc. Almost all gas stations
have 2 curb cuts. This one operates as a one curb cut for incoming and one for outgoing
traffic. It is an existing situation.
7. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-02-44 of Retrovest Associates, Inc.,
for a planned residential development consisting of 310 single and multi-
family units on 242 acres, and a 35 acre working farm, 1840 Spear Street:
Mr. Anderson, representing the Vallees, gave the Board information on their position.
The Board also received a memo from Bruce Hoar regarding Public Works issues.
Mr. Scheuer presented the plan. He noted the location is at Spear St. and Allen Road.
The goals of the project include environmental stewardship, and the plan is designed
based on what they found on the site. There will be an innovative stormwater plan,
integration of landscape architecture and land planning to create places where people
want to congregate. There will be a mix of housing types and prices. The project will
incorporate a density bonus consistent with what is being proposed by the city. The units
created as a result of the density bonus will be "affordable."
Mr. Scheuer then spoke of the partnership with Intervale Association to reintroduce
agriculture to this site as well as a network of trails.
Mr. Schulman, project engineer, the showed the details of street design and connections
between neighborhoods. He reviewed the optimal speeds for traffic in certain areas and
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
3 DECEMBER 2002
PAGE 4
for a mix of motorists and non -motorists. The are proposing both public and private
streets. Mr. Schulman noted there is an amendment to the Zoning Regs pending which
will allow this. Private streets will be designed for 20 mph traffic; public streets would
be designed for 25 mph. Mr. Hoar recommended 25 mph for both as the city cannot
enforce a 20 mph speed limit. Mr. Schulman said they are requesting a 20 mph design
but would not post the street for that speed.
Mr. Dinklage said that staff recommends the city hire a traffic consultant to analyze the
street layout. There is a question of liability if this is considered unsafe and the city has
allowed it. Mr. Kupferman asked whose liability it is (city, homeowners, etc.). He said
he appreciated the arrangement for roads designed for safe speeds. But he noted the
Board doesn't have control over what is being proposed here. Mr. Dinklage asked for a
proposal that everyone can live with. Mr. Belair suggested the traffic consultant be asked
to look at traffic and roadway engineering. Members agreed.
Mr. Bolton asked if the proposed private roads would remain private. Mr. Dinklage said
this would have to be very clear in the deeds. Mr. Bolton noted this has been a problem
before when residents demanded that the city maintain streets because people are paying
taxes. Mr. Scheuer said there will be paperwork to preclude this problem. It will be a
deed restriction. Mr. Bolton said road maintenance is expensive, and if people are paying
$34,000 in taxes they will petition the city to take over the roads.
Mr. Boucher moved to invoke technical review for both traffic and roadway engineering.
Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Schulman then showed the relationship of buildings to the street. There are 9
different street types proposed in the project, some with rear alleys. There are no streets
without buildings on them. There will be a 60 ft. r.o.w. at the principal entrance. All
other rights of way are 60 ft.
Mr. Hoar said r-o-w width is key so changes can be made if necessary. He said this was
the problem at Valley Ridge where there isn't sufficient right-of-way.
Mr. Cameron asked what the typical setback would be. Mr. Schulman said it depends on
the type of building and would range from 0 to 10 ft.
Mr. Dinklage asked about the size of a fire truck. Mr. Belair said this cannon
accommodate a ladder truck. A specific kind of fire truck may be needed. Mr. Marshall
said they have agreed to apply information from the Fire Chief to their preliminary plat
design. They will meet the Chief s needs.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
3 DECEMBER 2002
PAGE 5
Mr. Bolton said he liked the concept but didn't know anything like it near Burlington. He
felt it could establish a trend in development. He said he needed to get over the feeling:
"...it looks good on paper, but..."
Mr. Scheuer said they built a project in Stowe Village and would be willing to arrange a
visit for the Board. This would provide a visual image. Mr. Schulman said they have
done over 100 of these projects in the country and all are successful.
Mr. Dinklage and Mr. Belair reviewed staff notes:
Mr. Dinklage noted density will require an ordinance change which is now being
considered by the Planning Commission. The number of lots served by a private street
will also require ordinance changes.
Mr. Belair said the lots are quite small. He didn't have a problem with that but didn't
want a small lot with 95% coverage. He would like a coverage limit for each lot and one
for the whole project. He had no problem with the 0 setback as long as there is a 60 ft.
r.o.w. He felt they applicant had done an excellent job a showing parking.
There are still some issues regarding wetland buffers which are part of lots. Restricted
areas also need to be shown. Mr. Dinklage stressed the importance of the applicant
meeting with the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. Cameron asked what the project means in the context of affordable housing. Mr.
Scheuer said they haven't looked at the degrees of affordability. Every unit they build
under the bonus provision will be affordable. He stressed that they couldn't build any
affordable units without the bonus provision. They are also looking at issues regarding
perpetual affordability.
Mr. Anderson noted that the Vallees own the property immediately south of this proposed
development. He said they want a proposal that is consistent with what the city has felt
about the Southeast Quadrant for a long time. He felt that higher density housing may be
appropriate on the western side of the property and possibly on the eastern side. In the
middle, however, there is a large wetland and significant wildlife area which they feel
should remain in tact. They felt the project should be scaled down to a level that
characterizes South Burlington and there shouldn't be roadways going across the
wetlands. He felt there could still be a good project without these incursions.
Mr. Anderson said the work done by the applicant was done in August when the area is
much drier. He noted that the Vallees have hired a consultant and are working on a way
to have him get on the land.
Mr. Anderson also noted that the Agency of Natural Resources commented about the
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
3 DECEMBER 2002
V%Ttywli
intact wildlife area and also said densities are too high to be compatible with this. He
also provided information on roadway decisions which indicate you can't build a
roadway through a wetland except as a last resort and you must consider alternatives.
Mr. Anderson asked the Board to look at density issues. He said he calculated 265 units
or about 2000 people per sq. mile, and South Burlington is now about 350 per sq. mile.
Mr. Dinklage noted that the proposed number of units meets the present ordinance. Mr.
Anderson said that is the absolute maximum if you adhere to environmental amenities on
the site. He said the Board doesn't automatically grant that density. He added that the
current owner of the land has submitted testimony to Act 250 that they were astounded
by the density that would be allowed on this land and felt no more than 100 units should
be the maximum. This plan is for 3 times that.
Mr. Anderson said they also believe the overall design has to meet very firm criteria to
build in the restricted zone and he didn't think they had. Mr. Dinklage said that will be
addressed at preliminary plat.
Mr. Dinklage noted that a wetland study was done and the Board has a letter on that. Mr.
Anderson noted that access to the land for that study was through the Vallee's property
and they assumed the same courtesy would be given to them. He said they believe there
are inaccuracies in the study that was done. He also said they are being told they can't go
on the site except under some unprecedented conditions. Mr. Scheuer said they haven't
denied access, they just want appropriate sharing of information.
Mr. Valley said he will suggest that the Army Corps of Engineers be invited to participate
in the study of the property. He also said that the suggestion that the state agrees with the
boundaries is not true. He stressed that the wetland analysis should be done with a great
deal of care. The city's own wetland maps show a significant area that the wetlands
experts missed entirely. Mr. Dinklage asked the applicant to provide information to the
Natural Resources Committee. He also said that wildlife issues are reviewed at Act 250.
Ms. Hoover felt it would be appropriate to get input from the Planning Commission on
assessment of Comprehensive Plan policies.
Mr. Dinklage said if issues discussed are resolved, the project will go to preliminary plat.
APPLICATION CHANGES
Item
12/2002
6/25/2004
Notes
Developer Applicant
The Retrovest
South Village
South Village
Companies
Communities, LLC
Communities, LLC
organized 5/6/03
Wetland Delineation
Mistaken
Expanded
Being checked
substantially
Zoning Ordinance
As it existed in 2002
Major revisions
Open Space
Located to maximize
Located to maximize
aesthetic enjoyment
opportunities for
creating continuous
open spaces between
adjoining parcels
and/or stream buffer
areas
Located to preserve
and enhance open
character and natural
areas
Natural
Wildlife habitat and
Resources
corridors identified in
the South Burlington
Open Space Strategy
must be protected.
Allowed
265
> 300
number of
units claimed
by developer
Other Development
No School
School
Number of Accesses
1
2
New access is located
to Spear Street
immediately across
road from someone
who cannot attend this
meeting due to lack of
notice.
Item
12/2002
6/25/2004
Notes
Through Road
Extended Midland
Avenue
Moved north
May be back at
extended Midland
Avenue
Phase III (The Grove)
Proposed
Proposed
Supposedly deleted
Street Configuration
Changed throughout
S:\Client Matters\72835\Miscellaneous\APPLICATION CHANGES CHART.doc
Aug-IT-2004 16:22 From-PAUL, FRe1` COLLINS
6026604243 T-900 P.0021003 F-5TT
f
FAUL FRANK + COLLiNS R.G.
■tra
August 1'17, 1-004
€ is Facsimile 802-846-4101
Mr. Ray Belau.
Zoning Administrator
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
So. Burlington. VT 05403
Mark G. Hal WT)
n, hel aPFC'aw.com
Re: South Village Communities, LLC ("South Village") Sketch Plan Review
Response to Attorney Andersen's Request for Delay
Dear ley:
I have received Attorney A.tiderson's "suggestion" that the sketch plan review be, delayed until
September 7, 2004. South Village opposes the request and offers the following response to
Attorney Anderson's misrepreseniations, set forth in his August 11, 2004 letter to you:
South Burlington Zoning Regulation ("SBZR"), § 15.05 is an administrative regulation
designed to provide the zoning staff with sufficient time to review a project prior to its
submission to the Der,elopment Review Board ("DRB"). The South Village sketch
plan was reviewed months ago and the scheduled hearing is merely to renew the prior
approval, so § 15.05 either does not apply- or has been substantially satisfied by the
developer's previous submission, Moreover. § 15.05 does not grant any substantive
right to neighbors to derail a proceeding.
2. Attorney Anderson's claim that the notice of hearing is defective misstates the law.
There is presently no public or personal notice requirement for sketch plan review.
Instead, it is designed under the ordinance as a preliminary meeting with the DRB. To
the extent that the newly enacted 24 V.S.A. §4464(a) requires notice of preliminary
sketch plan review (which it does not), it conflicts with the procedures set forth in the
ordinance. Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4481, if an ordinance procedure and the new statute
conflict, the ordinance controls through September 1, 2005. See 24 i!S.A. §448J.
Accordingly, the provisions of Section 4464 simply do not apply to this proceeding as
they imply notice not required by the ordinance, Moreover, even if the notice of
4464(a) procedures did apply, there is no question that Mr. Anderson and his client
received actual notice. They are not permitted to assert a detect in a proceeding that
other, yet unknown, persons did not receive notice.
3. There is no reason to seep further wetlands review of the site. The sketch plans show
the locations and types of the wetlands, as approved by the State of Vermont. The
project also has been reviewed by three wetland biologists, which included the neutral
representative of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. Hiring a fourth
consultant is redundant.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW I vvAw PFC,aw.car
One Cl7urch Street P.O. Box 1307 6urluigton, VT 03402-1207 phone 802.658.231', tax 802.656.0042
63 5rioge &reet Plaltsturgh, NY 12901 PMCr,e 518.563.1.595 lax 5�8,553.4587
A M4mrer of TernaLexv Me wor mde Network of lade,otr,crent Law Flrrns
Aui-IT-2004 16:22
=r,�r-PAUL; FR"""' & COLLINS
"Mr. Ray Belair
August t is 2004
Page 2 of 3
BOUS04243 ) T-900 P.003/003 P-577
Respectfully, Mr. Anderson's request reflects an attitude of "stop or delay the proiect by any
means possible for the sake of a neighboring landowner. No substantive J ustification is offered
for further delay. Accordingly, the applicant's position is that sketch plan can and should move
forward at this evening's meeting.
Cordially yours,
.PAliL FRANK + COLLINS R.C.
Mark G. Hall
cc; Jon Anderson, Esq.
?Vi,11I-226d.GW14
BURAK ANDERSON
�L
MELLONI PLC
Counsellors at Law
Mr. Ray Belair
Zoning Administrator
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Michael L. Burak"
Gateway Square • 30 Dlain Street
Jon Anderson
Post Office Box 787
Thomas R. Melloni°
Burlington, Merntont 05402-0787
Michael B. Rosenberg'
Phone: 802 862-05(H)
Shane NK McCormack"$°
Fax 802 862-8176
e-mail: attorney(<wtlawl.com
ww"tvtlawl.com
*Alsoadmitted in New lurk
.Not vet admitted in Vermont
• Also admitted in the District of Columbia
tAlso admitted in Massachusetts
August 11, 2004
Re: South Village Communities, LLC ("South Village") Sketch Plan Review
Dear Ray:
This letter suggests the postponement of the sketch plan review hearing for the South Village
project now scheduled for August 17, 2004 for the following reasons:
South Burlington Zoning Regulations ("SBZR"), § 15.05 provides that sketch plan
review can proceed only if an applicant "submit[s] to the Administrative Officer at
least ten days prior to a regularly scheduled meeting of the Development Review
Board a sketch plan" application. South Village failed to submit the required
materials and pay the required fee until August 9, 2004. Indeed, the property owner
has yet to sign the sketch plan application. Accordingly, a sketch plan hearing cannot
be held until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Development Review Board
("DRB"), which is September 7, 2004. Rescheduling should be relatively easy since
you previously reserved time for the DRB to review the project on that date anyway.
2. The applicant failed to give notice of a sketch plan review as required for new
applications filed in South Burlington after the effective date of the permit reform
act. Section 104 creates a new 24 V.S.A. § 4464(a)(2) as follows:
(2) Public notice for hearings on all other types of development
review, including site plan review, shall be given not less than seven days
prior to the date of the public hearing, and shall include at a minimum all the
following:
Bu,,I MDEMON & MELLONIPLC
Mr. Ray Belair
Zoning Administrator
City of South Burlington
August 11, 2004
Page 2
(A) Posting of the date, place, and purpose of the hearing
in three or more public places within the municipality in conformance with
the time and location requirements of 1 V.S.A. § 312(c)(2).
(B) Written notification to the applicant and to the owners
of all properties adjoining the property subject to development, without
regard to right-of-way. The notification shall include a description of the
proposed proiect and shall be accompanied by information that clearly
informs the recipient where additional information maybe obtained, and that
participation in the local proceeding is a prerequisite to the right to take any
subsequent appeal.
Such broad notice is required because neighbors lose appeal rights by not
participating in the proceeding for which such notice must be given. Defects in such
notice may be remedied "where reasonable efforts are made to provide adequate
posting and notice." The failure to give any notice whatsoever in this case, however,
likely "invalidate[s] the action of the appropriate municipal panel." 24 V.S.A. §
4464(a)(5). Without the required notice, the DRB also risks engaging in improper ex
parte contact with the developer without the neighbors who are absent due to lack of
the required notice.
Postponing sketch plan review may also allow wetlands delineation issues to be
resolved. Wetlands must be delineated for sketch plan review. SBZR, § 15.05A(9).
As you know, South Village, ostensiblyby mistake, substantially under -identified the
location of wetlands. In the prominent ridgeline section of its proposed development
(which South Village proposes to call "The Ridge"), for example, South Village now
admits that it failed to identify approximately 30% of the wetlands it now concedes
are there. Our confidence in the delineation by South Village is further diminished
by the fact that my client can observe from his property an apparent under -
delineation of wetlands in the area where the improved Munroe Brook crosses onto
my client's property.
South Village's wetlands delineation "mistake" was discovered by our consultant
whom we are trying to get on the property to thoroughly review the new wetlands
delineation by South Village. (Such revision has not been checked by any third party
although South Village claimed otherwise before the Natural Resources Committee.)
Even if South Village stops blocking access by our consultant, her work cannot be
completed and disclosed as required by South Village in time for discussion next
Tuesday. Unless the DRB wishes to conduct sketch plan review willy-nilly without
knowing whether basic information for its review concerning wetlands is accurate,
Bu,,,.' ANDERSON MELLONI
Mr. Ray Belair
Zoning Administrator
City of South Burlington
August 11, 2004
Page 3
sketch plan review cannot be completed next Tuesday. Thus, the DRB will have to
postpone sketch plan review anyway until the September 7, 2004 meeting to
determine whether South Village's revised wetlands delineation is accurate. Indeed,
the Natural Resources Committee is charged with such a review, and we would
anticipate their opinions to be before the Board at sketch plan. Further, given South
Village's shifting positions on this issue, we may urge the DRB to invoke third party
technical review, pursuant to SBZR, § 12.02(D)(3). Altematively, by postponing
sketch plan review, our consultant can complete her work (if South Village permits
her to do so) by September 7, allowing the DRB to know whether or not it has
accurate information concerning wetlands for sketch plan review. In other words, the
DRB can get to the same place on the wetlands delineation issue much more
efficiently by postponing sketch plan review.
For these reasons, we suggest postponing sketch plan review for South Village.
Very truly yours,
0
J n Anderson
JTA\alb
cc: Mark Hall, Esq.
SAClient Matters\72835\Letters\jta belair3.doc