The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSD-18-28 - Supplemental - 1580 Dorset Street (62)To: South Burlington DRB From: Karen Cubino RE: Final Plat Application SD-18-28 of JJJ South Burlington LLC Date: September 18, 2018 Development Review Board Members, During this past year I have advocated to extend Cider Mill Road to Sommerfield Ave in the Cider Mill I development off of Dorset St. Winesap Lane, the street I live on in Cider Mill I, will specifically be burdened with increased traffic as it becomes the “through” street for traffic between Cider Mill II’s 142 units and Dorset Street. A traffic study reported by the developer showed a 76% increase on Winesap Lane from 62 vehicles per hour to 109 vehicles per hour during peak travel times at full buildout. I retained Resource Systems Group (RSG) to review the provided traffic data and learned that as many as 60% of the 142 units in Cider Mill II may choose the Winesap Lane-Cider Mill Rd corridor to Dorset St, rather than Hinesburg Rd, because of the lack of good east/west connections in this area and employment data showing many jobs located closest to Dorset St. To the credit of the DRB, an independent traffic review was requested and obtained from BFJ on April 9, 2018 and titled, Cider Mill Phase II Application: Review of Cider Mill Drive Connection. I copied part of their letter below: Cider Mill Drive is designed to be more of a collector road compared to the other streets in the neighborhood. It is therefore logical that these “through” trips be as much as possible on Cider Mill Drive. Recommendation: BFJ concludes that the benefits of the connection outweigh the disadvantages and that it is the fairest decision vis-à-vis the neighbors. Additionally, South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, especially as it relates to the Southeast Quadrant, provide support and guidance for the Cider Mill Drive connection. The DRB also learned from the City Attorney that it can require developer JJJ of South Burlington to build the Cider Mill Drive connection as a condition for approval of Cider Mill II. While I realize the DRB may grant exceptions, allow modifications, issue waivers and permit variances as part of the development review process, I encourage you to look at the Cider Mill II development project holistically as to what makes sense regarding the Cider Mill Drive connection. It seems reasonable that rather than state how operations would be without the road, there should be a stronger justification for why the road is not being constructed per the Comprehensive Plan. Attachments with this cover letter: BFJ Independent Review 4-9-18 S. B. Comprehensive map S. B. Comprehensive Regulations S. B. Land Development Regulations Petitions- 55 Signatures Cubino DRB 12-28-17 Figure #1, 12-28-18 MEMORANDUM BUCKHURST FISH & JACQUEMART, INC. 115 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10003 T. 212.353.7474 F. 212.353.7494 Date: April 9, 2018 To: Marla Keene, PE, Development Review Planner Paul Conner, AICP, MCIP, Director of Planning & Zoning Ray Belair, Administrative Officer From: Georges Jacquemart Contact Information: T. 212.353.7477 F. 212.353.7494 E. G.Jacquemart@bfjplanning.com Subject: Cider Mill Phase II Application: Review of Cider Mill Drive Connection The purpose of this memorandum is to assess the advantages and disadvantages of extending Cider Mill Drive from its current terminus east of Winesap Lane to Sommerfield Avenue within the Cider Mill I development. This connection and the eventual extension towards Hinesburg Road is foreseen as part of the development plans for this area. It should be noted that the proposed plan for Cider Mill Phase II does envision a connection between the two phases (from Aurora Road to Sommerfield Ave). That connection is not in question. The issue addressed in this memo is whether Cider Mill Drive should be extended by 600 feet to connect to Sommerfield Avenue, which would provide a more direct connection with 6 right-angle turns instead of 8 turns between Hinesburg Road and Dorset Street. We have reviewed the traffic studies transmitted to us regarding the Cider Mill Phase II Development Application. They include the Cider Mill II Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA), the Cider Mill II Traffic Addendum and the Cider Mill II Traffic Technical Memo, all prepared in December 2017 and the 2015 HRO supplemental traffic analysis letter. Cider Mill Phase I has a total of 149 single-family homes and Phase II is projected to have 142 dwelling units. Traffic Shifts from One Cider Mill Phase to the Other It is useful to explain the traffic shifts that may occur as the result of the connection of the two phases of the Cider Mill (CM) development: Shifts of CM I Traffic to CM II: • CM I vehicle trips to and from Hinesburg Road between Cheesefactory Road and Kennedy Drive • CM I traffic to and from Route 116 south of Cheesefactory Road (Hinesburg and beyond) Shifts of CM II Traffic to CM I: • CM II vehicle trips to and from Dorset Street between Cheesefactory Road and Kennedy Drive • CM II traffic to and from I-189 and Dorset Street north Kennedy Drive Of the above shifts the one that has the greatest impact is the traffic generated by CM II with origins or destinations on I-189 or Dorset north of Kennedy Drive. The CM II TIA predicts that in the PM peak hour 52 vehicle trips generated by CM II would traverse CM I. That represents about 37% of the total traffic generation of CM II. A similar percentage of CM II traffic would drive through CM I in the AM peak hour, although the number of vehicles is lower (40 vehicle trips). The great majority of these trips are vehicles traveling to and from the north on Dorset Street. The TIA estimates that 41% of CM II MEMORANDUM BUCKHURST FISH JACQUEMART, INC. 115 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10003 T. 212.353.7474 F. 212.353.7494 Cider Mill Dr Connection April 9, 2018 Page 2 traffic to and from the north would prefer the use of Dorset Street rather than Hinesburg Road (Route 116). This estimate may be on the high side, given that operating speeds along Hinesburg Road tend to be higher than on Dorset Street. Travel time comparisons to and from the South Burlington City Hall via Google Maps show competitive times via Dorset Street and Hinesburg Road. Furthermore, some of the northbound vehicles have their destination in the center or northeast rather than the northwest. The attached figure shows the layout of the street system for both phases of CM. Without the Cider Mill Drive Extension traffic between the two phases will circulate via a section of Sommerfield Avenue, Braeburn Street, Winesap Lane and Cider Mill Drive. The CM II Traffic Addendum dated December 4, 2017 estimates that without the connection the traffic volume on Winesap Lane during the afternoon peak hour would be 108 vehicles, including 62 vehicles form the upstream CM I homes, plus 52 vehicles from CM II minus 6 vehicles from the upstream CM I homes that would decide to travel through CM II. The 108 vehicles in the PM peak hour on this residential street will not affect the quality of life on this street to any measurable way. Environmental capacity thresholds for residential streets where quality of life impacts could be measured are significantly higher (Source: Livable Streets, by Donald Appleyard). The volumes would have to be about 3 times higher to reach that threshold. With the Cider Mill Drive connection about 92 of these 108 vehicle trips would shift to Sommerfield Avenue north of Braeburn Street to then connect directly to Cider Mill Dr. About 16 “through” trips generated by the homes along the upper section of Braeburn Street would remain on Winesap Lane. The above analysis does not take into consideration the potential impact of the Cider Mill connection on outside cut-through traffic. Does this connection make the cut-through more attractive to the degree that more vehicles will use it? The typical delivery and service traffic will drive between the two CM phases independently of the connection. These vehicles include USPS, Fedex, UPS trucks, possibly garbage trucks, cable company and utility trucks and school buses. These trips are also included in the traffic generation estimates presented in the TIA. Residents living or working along Dorset Street (or any of its side streets such as Nowland Farm Road) between Cheesefactory and Kennedy Drive may use this cut through to reach a location along Hinesburg Road (or any of its side streets) between Cheesefactory and Kennedy Drive, and vice versa. These trips would be made independently of the connection and only by people who know that one can drive through the development. The number of these potential through trips is fairly limited. The concern may be that regional traffic circulating with the help of a GPS system may find this cut through as being more attractive with the connection between Sommerfield Avenue and Cider Mill Drive. It is not expected that the cut through will show as a preferred route in the GPS system during normal day-to-day traffic conditions since traffic conditions are still fairly good for through traffic along Route 116 and Dorset Street. If one of these streets were blocked due to a traffic crash some vehicles may be diverted through the Cider Mill development, but this would occur independently of the Cider Mill Dr. connection. The fact that the connection would be slightly more direct with the extension of Cider Mill Drive (6 right-angle turns instead of 8 right-angle turns with one fairly sharp turn, a travel time difference of less than 10 seconds) may affect the number of through trips to a small degree, but not to the degree where a measurable impact would occur. MEMORANDUM BUCKHURST FISH JACQUEMART, INC. 115 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10003 T. 212.353.7474 F. 212.353.7494 Cider Mill Dr Connection April 9, 2018 Page 3 Conclusions • Cut-through Traffic Regarding traffic between the two phases of CM we can conclude that without the Cider Mill Drive connection there may be about 108 “through” trips (i.e. trips not generated on that street) on Winesap Lane, affecting about 22 homes on Winesap Lane and Braeburn St, and with the connection we would have about 16 “through” trips on Winesap Lane and 92 “through” trips on the short segment of Sommerfield Avenue north of Braeburn Street, affecting about 9 homes. None of these traffic flows are high enough to have a measurable impact on the quality of life on those streets under either scenario. The external cut-through traffic will not be influenced to any measurable degree by the connection and is not expected to affect quality of life in the neighborhood. • Protections against Cut-Through Traffic There are traffic calming measures that the City could undertake to safeguard from excessive cut-through traffic (with and without the connection) or at least slow it down and thereby maintaining a high level of safety. These measures could include a pinch-point section with one lane for both directions of traffic for the segment of Aurora Road that crosses the wetlands area. Westbound traffic would have to stop at a STOP sign and could only proceed if there is no opposing traffic. Such pinchpoints can be effective in terms of drivers’ perceptions regarding through- traffic appeal, and as long as opposing drivers have good sight conditions this traffic calming feature is safe. In addition, the pinchpoint has beneficial impacts on wetlands protection. The current design for Aurora Road shows a narrowing to 18 feet for a length of about 100 feet over the wetlands area. We recommend that this section of Aurora Road be 12 feet wide. The cut-through traffic should be monitored. If that traffic exceeds 150 vehicles per hour, the shared-path crossing that currently exists on Cider Mill Drive west of Crispin Drive should be raised to turn this into a speed table. The raised crossing would control speeds along Cider Mill Drive. These measures can overcome the drivers’ perceptions that there may be an easy short-cut through this neighborhood. • Bicyclists and Pedestrians Bicyclists may be the users who could benefit the most from the connection of Cider Mill Drive to Sommerfield Avenue. The connection will make it easier for CM II residents as well as the persons living along Sommerfield Avenue to connect to the multi-use path along Dorset Street (about one third of a mile north of Cider Mill Drive). And vice-versa for the residents living in the northern portion of CM I close to Cider Mill Drive it will be easier to walk or bicycle to and from Hinesburg Road with the connection. MEMORANDUM BUCKHURST FISH JACQUEMART, INC. 115 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10003 T. 212.353.7474 F. 212.353.7494 Cider Mill Dr Connection April 9, 2018 Page 4 • Expectations of Residents The long-term plan has always been to connect Cider Mill Drive to Sommerfield Avenue. The current street configuration, in particular the easterly ending of Cider Mill Drive and the northerly ending of Sommerfield Avenue show this intent. The residents who bought homes in the easterly portion of CM I along Winesap Ln, Braeburn St or Sommerfield Ave should normally have realized that the street system was laid out for this connection, even if they have not seen plans that showed the future connection. Some residents may have bought a home on Winesap Lane with the understanding that in the long term Winesap Lane will not serve any through traffic, and the residents who bought a home on Sommerfield north of Braeburn Street should have been aware of the future connection. The connection should therefore not be a surprise or change of plans for the residents, whereas a decision not to connect would be a surprise and change of plans. • Functional Classification Cider Mill Drive is designed to be more of a collector road compared to the other streets in the neighborhood. It is therefore logical that these “through” trips be as much as possible on Cider Mill Drive. • Recommendation BFJ concludes that the benefits of the connection outweigh the disadvantages and that it is the fairest decision vis-à-vis the neighbors. The City should consider the feasibility of building a 12-foot wide pinch point over the wetlands on Aurora Road as part of the construction of Phase II. Page is too large to OCR. To: Development Review Board  RE: JJJ South Burlington LLC application to build 142 unit Cider Mill II Date: December 28, 2017 Dear Sir or Madam; The proposal to build 142 units in Cider Mill II and connect them to the existing Cider Mill I neighborhood located off of Dorset Street has raised concerns among several Cider Mill I residents, myself included. An updated trafﬁc study reported December 4, 2017 by Lamoureux & Dickinson to O’Leary Burke Civil Associates shows that trafﬁc will increase through Cider Mill I and, more speciﬁcally, on Winesap Lane in Cider Mill I. According to their trafﬁc data, Winesap Lane most likely is the preferred travel route for the current 41 residents (18 on Braeburn St and 23 on Sommerﬁeld Ave) as they travel to/ from Cider Mill Drive and Dorset St. The residents of the proposed 142 units in Cider Mill II would also travel on Winesap Lane when they opt to enter/exit through Cider Mill I instead of via Hinesburg Road. Based upon the following information and review of trafﬁc data by a retained civil engineering ﬁrm, it is requested that JJJ South Burlington be required to build the Cider Mill Road extension to Sommerﬁeld Ave prior to connecting their 142 unit Cider Mill II development to Cider Mill I. 1. The trafﬁc study data shows trafﬁc on Winesap Lane will go from the current 41 vehicles per hour (vph) to 62 vph when 21 additional homes are built on Sommerﬁeld Ave as part of the Cider Mill I build out. When the proposed 142 units in Cider Mill II are completed, estimated trafﬁc on Winesap will go to 115 vph (or the suggested & unsupported estimate of 109 vph). The increase from 62 vph to 115 vph is nearly a 85% increase in hourly ﬂow along Winesap. This will increase noise, nuisance and potential safety of children in the area. 2.The current proposed distribution of project trafﬁc in PM peak, Figure 4 of the provided trafﬁc study, suggests that 37% of the trips (52 of the total 142) would utilize the existing Cider Mill Drive on Dorset Street. However current census data (https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/) for the distribution of employment for residents in the study area suggest that the portion of trafﬁc destined to Dorset Street may be closer to 60%. It appears (Figure I attachment) that the majority of employment is in the Hill Institutions, Dorset Street itself, University of Vermont, Downtown Burlington and along Shelburne Road. With the given road network and lack of east/ west connections, residents of the proposed 142 units may be inclined to access Dorset Street and travel through our Cider Mill I neighborhood to get there. 3.The City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan which was approved by the Planning Commission November 3, 2015 shows Cider Mill Road on the map. Interestingly, it shows the Cider Mill Road extension has already been built. Of course we know that is not the case, but the Comprehensive Plan expects the extension to be built. Since the road is scheduled to be built, it would seem reasonable to build it now instead of adding the increased trafﬁc burden to Cider Mill I. 4.The Cider Mill Road extension was an expectation upon moving into the Cider Mill I community along with possible development in the proposed 142 unit area. As a taxpayer and resident, Cider Mill I residents expected a period of time with increased congestion and trafﬁc and, over a period of time, expected that trafﬁc would revert to a lower overall amount with the Cider Mill Road extension. What is the justiﬁcation for the expectation not being met now? 5.If the Development Review Board agrees that the road extension is not needed at this time, JJJ South Burlington could put in the road and then be paid back by the future development which occurs north of the solar ﬁeld. Or perhaps the road cost could be shared between JJJ South Burlington and the future developer north of the solar ﬁeld. Both developers will be sending trafﬁc into Cider Mill I with their proposals. 6.A petition will be provided to the Development Review Board at the January 2, 2018 board meeting. The petition was signed by over 55 residents that reside in Cider Mill I to request the extension of the current Cider Mill Drive to Sommerﬁeld Ave. Thank you for considering these comments. Karen Cubino  70 Winesap Lane, South Burlington, VT (315) 794-5763 karencubino@gmail.com Start Base Map Selection Results © Laj Save Work Area Profile Analysis enter your own subtitle Display Settings Characteristic Filter Total Year . 2015 Map Controls Color Key ■ Thermal Overlay Point Overlay Selection Outline n Identify_ Zoom to Selection ,AClear Overlays El Animate Overlays Report/Map Outputs Detailed Report Export Geography Print Chart/Map Legends ' 5-975 JobslSq.Mile ■ 976 - 3,886 JobsJSq.Mlle 3,887 - 8,738 JobslSq.Mile 8,739 - 15,531 JobslSq.Mile 15,532 - 24,265 JobslSq.Mile N Analysis Selection ► Analysis Settings Load M Feedback 4 Previous Extent 4� Hide Tabs J Hide Chart/Report .Chan a Settin s `""' � �— � mi-73.16348, 44.39592 �-I'foAPaTru.i • n I I With up to 154 housing units to be built in Cider Mill II and the planned connection of this development to Cider Mill I, it is anticipated that traffic will increase on roads in Cider Mill I. This will present a serious safety issue for our children in Cider Mill I who play on these roads; shooting baskets at the bottom of driveways, riding bikes, roller blading and playing organized games. No neighborhood parks are available for these activities. As a resident of Cider Mill I, 1 am signing this petition to request the extension of the current Cider Mill Drive to Sommerfield Ave to reduce the anticipated traffic on our roads and to provide a safer environment for our children to play. Date Signature 1 11- to, 1-7 — 2 4 5 t IOf f,-,+ 6 /1 8 —a RK ri,-(,v s 10 Address (O L( W'1&4ecS"Vp 1"`t Ivy t')1"-+a5orp L.� •� c 9v Zvi G��jj,"..9 ►�0 L'oin'es 0' P , i�v�l� p, 4'C-" jO-L � w � 1y10 al 1 es&-C L-ta 'R I L,-� t' --� e s, L;iA 190 VRAt 'IbL,zij ` i With up to 154 housing units to be built in Cider Mill II and the planned connection of this development to Cider Mill I, it is anticipated that traffic will increase on roads in Cider Mill I. This will present a serious safety issue for our children in Cider Mill I who play on these roads, shooting baskets at the bottom of driveways, riding bikes, roller blading and playing organized games. No neighborhood parks are available for these activities. As a resident of Cider Mill I, 1 am signing this petition to request the extension of the current Cider Mill Drive to Sommerfield Ave to reduce the anticipated traffic on our roads and to provide a safer environment for our children to play. Date Signature l-Cam:✓ru z With up to 154 housing units to be built in Cider Mill II and the planned connection of this development to Cider Mill I, it is anticipated that traffic will increase on roads in Cider Mill I. This will present a serious safety issue for our children in Cider Mill I who play on these roads; shooting baskets at the bottom of driveways, riding bikes, roller blading and playing organized games. No neighborhood parks are available for these activities. As a resident of Cider Mill I, 1 am signing this petition to request the extension of the current Cider Mill Drive to Sommerfield Ave to reduce the anticipated traffic on our roads and to provide a safer environment for our children to play. Date 1 2 3 4,>//6-/f7 5 J r 10 nj('� 11 ��I r71/f 12 13 )Z1 1-71 P 14 1� 17ji I 15 16 7'1 C 17 18 19 wl_ztlu Signature f Address cl C 6 cQ b 4!'r Y1 l I ;i_9 S_, q�C,3 ,c) � C)�dO3 :� 12 (c _ �F6i.� �? fir!"]'i � %� C , G,sz SL 1 �D C;v f) S3 r Cider Mill Road Planned Extension to Hinesburg Road Note: South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan (Map 10) has long proposed Cider Mill Roads extension to support better east to west connections. http://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/ document_center/planning/ SB_Comprehensive_Plan_Complete_ Adopted_2-1-2016.pdf Karen Cubino 9-18-18 Excerpts from the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan http://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/document_center/planning/ SB_Comprehensive_Plan_Complete_Adopted_2-1-2016.pdf •Extending Cider Mill Rd eastward towards Sommerﬁeld Rd and later to Hinesburg Rd aligns with goals in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ): (Pages 3-36 and 3-37) East-West and Neighborhood Connector Roads: One of the most difﬁcult issues for South Burlington has been the provision of east-west connector roads between Spear Street, Dorset Street, and Hinesburg Road, and provision of connections between adjacent subdivisions. Despite the fact that a network of east-west roads has been shown on the City’s Ofﬁcial Map and included in the Comprehensive Plan for over 40 years, at the present time, the only full connection between the north-south roads in the SEQ is Cheese Factory Road. Nowland Farm Road terminates at Dorset Heights; Swift Street terminates at the Village at Dorset Park; and Midland Avenue terminates within Dorset Farms. The lack of east-west roadways means, effectively, that the SEQ presently has over 1,000 housing units and regional trafﬁc moving through a farming community’s roadway network. The lack of east-west connections increases travel times and miles traveled between, for example, Butler Farms and Village at Dorset Park, or Dorset Farms and Shelburne Road. When east-west and neighborhood connector roads are lacking, school bus routes and emergency service responses also are lengthened, and there is less physical connectivity between neighborhoods, creating an isolating development, transportation, infrastructure and social network in the SEQ. •While wetlands are important, building a road in that area with a minimally invasive design is more environmentally sensitive that increasing vehicle miles on surrounding roads: (Page 3-37) Also, wetland regulations are often interpreted in a manner that considers connector roads an “unnecessary impact” or an easy way to reduce wetland impacts. This interpretation is often self-defeating from an environmental perspective, since it leads to greater vehicle miles traveled by new residents when neighborhoods do not connect to other neighborhoods and the street network. Karen Cubino 9-18-18 Excerpts from the South Burlington Land Development Regulations http://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/LDRS%20Effective%207-10-2017%20Complete1.pdf Streets such as Winesap Lane and Braeburn Rd were intended to be neighborhood streets in Cider Mill I, not through roads for 142 homes in Cider Mill II. Support for this is found in Land Development Regulations standards for South East Quadrant street layout under Article 9 and standards for roads, parking and circulation under Article 15.12. Article 9, Southeast Quadrant 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub-Districts, page 145: E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and trafﬁc management strategies sufﬁcient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufﬁcient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this ﬁnding the Development Review Board may rely on the ﬁndings of a trafﬁc study submitted by the applicant, and the ﬁndings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. Article 15 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation, page 268: D. Criteria for Public and Private Roadways. (2) Public roadway required. The DRB shall require a roadway to be built to City standards in Table 15-1, Figure 15-1, and the Transect Zone Street Typologies contained within Article 11 and dedicated to the City as a public roadway if one or more of the following situations applies: (a) The proposed roadway will or could provide a future extension to an adjoining property. 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation, page 269: D. Criteria for Public and Private Roadways. (4) Connections to adjacent parcels. (a) If the DRB ﬁnds that a roadway or recreation path extension or connection to an adjacent property may or could occur in the future, whether through City action or development of an adjacent parcel, the DRB shall require the applicant to construct the roadway to the property line or contribute the cost of completing the roadway connection. (b) In determining whether a connection to an adjacent property may or could occur, and the location and conﬁguration of such connection, the DRB may consider: (i) The existence of planned roadways or recreation paths in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Ofﬁcial Map, or these Regulations; (ii) The requirements of the Zoning District in which the adjacent property is located and whether these Regulations allow additional development or development density on the adjacent parcel; (iii) The context of the proposed development’s setting in relation to the adjacent property; Karen Cubino 9-18-18