HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05_MP-21-01_1840 Spear St_South Village#MP‐21‐01
Staff Comments
1
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MP‐21‐01_1840 Spear St_South Village_SC_2021‐01‐
05.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: December 31, 2020
Plans received: December 4, 2020
1840 Spear Street
Master Plan Application #MP‐21‐01
Meeting date: January 2, 2018
Owner/Applicant
South Village Communities, LLC
PO Box 2286
South Burlington, VT 05407
Engineer
CEA
10 Mansfield View Lane
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
SEQ Zoning District‐ Neighborhood Residential, , SEQ Zoning District‐ Natural Resource
Protection
223.14 acres
Location Map
#MP‐21‐01
Staff Comments
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Master plan application #MP‐21‐01 of South Village Communities, LLC to amend a previously approved
master plan for a multi‐phase 334 unit planned unit development. The amendment consists of increasing
the maximum allowable coverage from 13.9% to 20%, removing the educational facility, adding mixed
use, removing the requirement to construct additional dedicated southbound turn lanes on Spear Street,
and reducing the total unit count to 321, 1840 Spear Street.
PERMIT HISTORY
The project originally obtained master plan approval #MP‐04‐01, with a major amendment resulting in
full findings approved in #MP‐05‐01. Phase 1 was constructed largely in compliance with #MP‐05‐01. The
applicant later obtained minor master plan amendments with #MP‐09‐01 and #MP‐14‐01. #MP‐14‐01
was approved prior to final plat approval for Phase 2, however, Phase 2 represented significant
modifications to the approved master plan, though the Board determined at the time that the changes
did not trigger the specific thresholds for requiring an amendment.
CONTEXT
The Board reviewed related sketch plan applications #SD‐20‐29, SD‐20‐30, SD‐20‐31 and SD‐20‐32 on
September 1, 2020, at which time it was noted that mater plan amendment was needed.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, hereafter
referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and offer the following
comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red.
At the related sketch plan hearings, Staff noted that master plan amendment is needed for the
applications on Lots 11 and 48N to proceed. The applicant has submitted preliminary and final plat
applications for those lots concurrently with this application. Staff considers the Board cannot approve
those applications prior to approving this master plan amendment.
Master plan amendment is required when any of five criteria are triggered. These include an increase in
total dwelling units, an increase in site coverage, a change in collector roadways, land development in areas
identified as open space, or an increase in PM peak vehicle trips generated by the project. As noted in the
project description, there are five elements of the master plan proposed for amendment.
1) Increasing the maximum allowable coverage from 13.9% to 20%
MP‐05‐02 approved maximum total allowable coverage of 13.9%, but required updates to the plans
as conditions of approval. The record plans indicate a total coverage of 15.3%. SP‐20‐021 pertaining
to 96 Aiken Street illuminated that the applicant is near to exceeding the overall approved coverage
on the record drawings for MP‐05‐02 of 15.3%. 15.02A(4) prohibits the allowable building and lot
coverages in Appendix C from being exceeded on a zoning district by zoning district basis. The
applicant has requested maximum coverage of 20% to allow for future additions.
2) Removing the educational facility
#MP‐21‐01
Staff Comments
3
Lot 11 and Lot 11C were approved for a 100‐student school. MS‐19‐03 acknowledged that the
school would not be constructed and that instead housing would be constructed on the east side of
the school site. However, the master plan approvals reflect a school and therefore the project
description must be modified.
3) Adding mixed use
Similar to removing the educational facility above, the project description does not include the
neighborhood commercial use proposed in sketch plan SD‐20‐30 for Lot 11A. This use was added to
the LDRs as an allowed use in August 2018. At that time, the applicant brought a proposal to add
this use to the Planning Commission and was supported by attending community members.
4) Removing the requirement to construct additional dedicated southbound turn lanes on Spear
Street
MP‐05‐02 required a number of off‐site roadway improvements, as follows.
‐ Install a signal at the intersection of Spear Street and Allen Road – complete
‐ Construct a southbound left‐turn lane on Spear Street at the “Main Entrance”, the
intersection of Spear Street and Allen Road – complete
‐ Construct a southbound left turn lane on Spear Street at the “North Entrance,” Preserve
Road – not complete
‐ Construct a southbound left turn lane on Spear Street at the “South Entrance,” South
Jefferson Road – not complete
The applicant has submitted a traffic study, dated December 1, 2020 and prepared by RSG, in
support of their request. It notes the applicant has thus far developed 223 residential units.
South Entrance
The applicant requested DRB approval to remove the requirement to construct a southbound left
turn lane on Spear Street at the south entrance in application #SD‐19‐29. The Board did not grant
that request, but instead required the applicant to update their traffic study upon the issuance of the
zoning permit for the 30th unit in Phase III or 240th zoning permit overall. If the updated traffic study,
using the currently presented methodology and approved by the Director of Public Works, concludes a
left turn lane is warranted at that time, the applicant must construct the left turn lane prior to the
issuance of the 40th zoning permit or 250th zoning permit overall. The Board noted the reason for this
finding as the presence of several unknowns in the distribution of homes under full build conditions.
1. Staff considers that the present request to remove the southbound left turn lane at the South Entrance
represents the same request as SD‐19‐29, and therefore is prohibited because there is no change in
circumstance, change in technology, or change in regulation affecting that decision. Staff therefore
recommends the Board consider this request unripe and therefore deny it.
North Entrance
Staff considers that the applicant has not previously requested removal of the condition to install a
southbound left turn lane on Spear Street at the North Entrance, and therefore the Board may
consider it.
The applicant’s traffic study concludes that compared to the originally permitted condition, the
currently proposed full built will generate four (4) fewer PM peak hour trips. It is not immediately
clear whether the provided study takes into account Midland Ave being connected to Dorset Farms
#MP‐21‐01
Staff Comments
4
to the east. The study concludes full build will result in 22 vehicle trips per PM peak hour at the
north entrance, while a turn lane is warranted when there are 39 trips. The study also notes that
VTrans recommends installation of a turn lane when there are five or more crashes during a five
year period; only three occurred in this location. Finally, the applicant concludes that addition of a
southbound left turn lane would not be consistent with the “roadway context” because there are a
number of other intersections in the vicinity along Spear Street that do not include turn lanes.
The provided traffic study represents an update from the study provided in 2019 as it attempts to
quantify trips from the proposed not yet constructed uses, but still uses 2016 turning movement
data as it’s baseline.
2. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to provide testimony from their traffic consultant
regarding the impact of Midland Avenue. Staff further recommends the Board determine whether to
invoke technical review of the provided traffic study. Staff notes that the Director of Public Works
was supportive of removing the requirement to add turn lanes at both the north and south entrances
when requested in SD‐19‐29.
5) Reducing the total unit count to 321
While master plan amendment is only required for increasing the number of approved units, Staff
considers because of the master plan finding that 65 affordable units would be constructed, and the
applicants’ subsequent reduction in affordable units to 26, an amendment is needed.
A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Staff considers no waivers of zoning district or dimensional requirements are requested other than the
overall lot coverage for the development as a whole from 13.9 to 20%. This is discussed under Master
Plan Review Criterion (b) below.
Staff recommends the Board require that easements depicted on the “Existing Master Plan –
Easements” site plan should say “proposed” easement for any easements that have not been conveyed
or accepted.
B) APPROVAL AND AMENDMENT OF MASTER PLAN
Section 15.07(D)(3) of the South Burlington Land Development regulations states
Any application for amendment of the master plan, preliminary site plan or preliminary plat that
deviates from the master plan in any one or more of the following respects, shall be considered a new
application for the property and shall require sketch plan review as well as approval of an amended
master plan:
(a) An increase in the total FAR or number of residential dwelling units for the property subject to
the master plan;
The applicant is proposing to reduce the number of units from 334 to 321, including 26 affordable units.
Staff recommends the Board incorporate this modified number of units into their findings on this
application.
(b) An increase in the total site coverage of the property subject to the master plan;
3. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a calculation of building and lot
coverage for each of the involved zoning districts and a calculation of the total building and lot
#MP‐21‐01
Staff Comments
5
coverage which will occur if the concurrent applications are approved. Staff considers such
computation should include the roadways, because that is how the coverages were originally
computed and have been computed for all other projects involving construction of new roadways.
Staff notes there has been some inconsistency in provided coverage calculations in the past and
recommends the Board allow ample time to review the provided coverages.
(c) A change in the location, layout, capacity or number of collector roadways on the property
subject to the master plan;
#MP‐05‐02 approved A, D and E Streets as collector roadways. While these streets are not labeled on the
record drawings, Staff considers that they were intended to represent Allen Road East, North and South
Jefferson Road, and Midland Avenue. The location of these roadways was heavily modified by final plat
approval #SD‐14‐33 for Phase 2, including the division of North Jefferson Road into North Jefferson Road
and Preserve Road. Staff therefore considers the Board should adopt the current configuration of Allen
Road East, North and South Jefferson Road, Preserve Road, and Midland Avenue as collector roadways
and further require the applicant to provide a plan showing alignment geometry (tangent and curve
dimensions) as a condition of approval.
(d) Land development proposed in any area previously identified as permanent open space in the
approved master plan application; and/or
At sketch, the Board asked the applicant to demonstrate there was no “land development proposed in an
area previously identified as permanent open space in the approved master plan application.” Staff
considers this a challenging proposition because MP‐05‐02 (and it’s subsequent amendment in MP‐14‐01)
approved a very different configuration for Phase 2 than was ultimately approved at final plat and
subsequently constructed. However, it should be noted that MP‐14‐01 approved a total of 160.4 acres of
open space, while 157.4 is now proposed, therefore Staff considers that it is clear that development is now
proposed in areas previously identified as open space and therefore master plan amendment is needed.
4. Staff recommends the Board identify sheet S1.0 as representative of approved open spaces. Staff
further recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a plan showing the metes and bounds of
these lots. Staff considers this information is readily available to the applicant but has not been
consolidated into one sheet.
(e) A change that will result in an increase in the number of PM peak hour vehicle trip ends
projected for the total buildout of the property subject to the master plan.
The number of dwelling units is proposed to decrease by 12 units to 321 units, and remove the approved 100‐
student school, while adding a neighborhood commercial use and a community pavilion. This results in a
decrease from 305 PM peak hour trip ends on adjacent roadways to 301 trips. Staff recommends the Board
establish 301 (revised number) as the approved number of trips.
The restrictions on neighborhood commercial use specifically limit uses to restaurant, retail sale of groceries,
personal instruction, child care, and artist production studio. The applicant has assumed a mixture of retail,
restaurant and fitness studio uses. Staff notes if the applicant’s assumed mixture of uses shifts to a higher
generating mix, the applicant would need to amend their master plan prior to the new mixture being allowed,
but Staff considers the provided mix to be appropriate at this time.
C) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, Master plans shall
comply with the standards for Planned Unit Development (PUD).
#MP‐21‐01
Staff Comments
6
PUD standards are enumerated and discussed for the Phase 1 in SD‐06‐21 and subsequent amendments, for
Phase 2 in SD‐14‐33 and subsequent amendments, for Phase 3 in SD‐17‐18, and in the concurrent application
for Lots 11 and 48N, #SD‐21‐02 and #SD‐21‐03, respectively.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the
issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
November 13, 2020 Ms. Marla Keene, Development Review Coordinator City of South Burlington Planning & Zoning
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, Vermont 05401
Re: South Village Master Plan Amendment Application
Dear Ms. Keene:
In accordance with Staff’s request to correct the record for the South Village
project, please find attached a Master Plan Application seeking amendment to
the following three items.
1. Request that the condition requiring the construction of the dedicated
southbound turn lanes;
2. Modify description due to no education and addition of mixed use; and
3. Updating the language that speaks to Lot Coverage.
Each item is further describes as outlined below.
1. Southbound dedicated Turn Lanes at north and south entrances. The
original traffic study for South Village was completed during the time period when
Route 7 was being reconstructed and widened. During this period a large amount
of normal Route 7 traffic utilized Spear Street as an alternate north-south route.
Due to the high traffic levels recorded at that time and subsequently used in the
traffic study, the study indicated that dedicated left hand turn lanes should be
installed at all three entrances into South Village. The main (center) entrance has
been constructed with the dedicated turn lanes and traffic signal. Subsequent
traffic studies documenting the current traffic levels have found that the
dedicated turn lanes are not warranted. The City Department of Public Works
conquers and as a means of reducing impervious surfaces, we are requesting that
the requirement for the construction of the north and south entrance dedicated
left hand turn lanes be stricken.
2. Modify description of the project. Although the Land Development
Regulations do not identify a change in the description of the land uses within the
PUD as a trigger requiring an amendment to an existing Master Plan approval.
We are requesting that the reference to education be removed in favor of
including mixed use commercial/residential and active use recreation.
3. Lot Coverage Update - When the South Village Project was originally
permitted in 2006, the standard for the Planned Unit Development was not to
exceed 30% lot coverage for the entire 223.14 acre parcel. The best guess of lot
coverage at that time, when only conceptual plans were available for Phases II
and III, yielded a calculated coverage of 13.9%.
The language included in the first page of the Master Plan Decision it states that:
b. Building and impervious coverage: A total building coverage of 5 5%
and a total impervious coverage of 13.9% 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 (emphasis
added).
Through each of the local and State permitting phases of the project the total lot
coverage has been permitted at 14.97%. With the latest design plans for the
proposed projects on Lots 48N (Phase II) and in phase I Lots 11 (original school
lot) and Lot 11A (single family home at the intersection of Spear Street and Allen
Road East) into a mixed use project, we now understand that the total impervious
area for the project will be 15.77%. This is far less than the 30% maximum that is
allowed in the Southeast Quadrant zoning district.
Staff has requested that we amend the Master Plan Permit to reflect the larger lot
coverage value to be clear. We request that the following language be utilized.
b. Building and impervious coverage: Within the individual development phases,
as described and approved in this decision, the building and lot coverage
limitations set forth in the Southeast Quadrant zoning district provided that the
overall limitations of fifteen percent (15%) for buildings and thirty percent (30%)
for the entire PUD are met
We are looking for relief from a situation where the lot coverage of 15.77% is
proposed to be increased (perhaps for a walkway or patio) and an amendment to
the Master Plan is not required.
We look forward to completing this step and having our permits in order. Thank
you for your time and consideration. Please don’t hesitate to call or write with
any questions.
Sincerely,
Dave Marshall
Robin Jeffers
MIDLAN
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
STA
FFORD
S
TREETSTAFFORDST
R
E
E
TAIKEN STREET
DEWEY LANE
W. FISHER LANE
ALLEN ROAD EAST
E. FISHER LANE
SOUTH JEFFERSON ROADFLANDERS LANEFLANDERS LANE
CHIPMAN STREET
FROST STREETCHIPMAN STREETMADISON LANE MADISON LANE
SOUTH
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
R
O
A
D
SOUTH JEFFERSON ROADSLADE STREET
CHURCHILL
SPEAR STREETSPEAR STREETALLEN ROAD MUNROE BROOKBA
R
T
L
E
T
T
B
ROO
K
TR
IBUTAR
Y
SOUTH ENTRANCE
VTE SUMMARY
940 AADT
59 AM PEAK
67 PM PEAK
NORTH ENTRANCE
VTE SUMMARY
1088 AADT
73 AM PEAK
85 PM PEAK
PHASE 2
FIELDS EDGE
MAXIMUM OF 118
UNITS
±19.7 ACRES
11.2
11.1 STREETCHURCHILL NORTH JEFFERSON ROADPRESERV
E
R
O
A
D
NORTH JEFFERSONROAD50
10
24
115
80N-91N
48
17N
31
59N 61N
56N
SOUT
H
B
U
R
L
I
N
G
T
O
N
SHELB
U
R
N
E
66N
23N
67N
3
11B
1
7
54N
6
12
8
52N
9
34
13
28
15
30
3332
29
35 36 41 42
48
47
20
51
52 53
54
56
57
61
58
59
60
62
5B
5E
5F
2
SHEL
B
U
R
N
E
31A26A
49
2A
55
10A
10B
14
5A
4A
5
63
48
11A
1N
14A1918
7A
5C
5D
21 22 16 17
23 25 26 27 27A
37 38
39 40
43 44
45 46
48
48
49
107
114
116117
118
120119
113
112
111
110
109
108
49
126
127
128
129
125124123122121104105106
103102
101
49A
68N-79N
19N
18N
16N
15N
14N
13N
58N 63N60N62N
57N 64N
65N
21N
20N
22N25N24N
55N
53N
50N
44N
49aN
51N
46N
45N
39N
40N
43N
42N
41N
47N 48aN
30N
38N
31N
34N
33N
32N
36N37N
35N
12N
10N
11N
3N
2N
5N
26N
29N27N28N
4B
6N
4N
7N
9N
8N
PHASE 3
THE RIDGE
MAXIMUM OF 60 UNITS±13.1 ACRES EAST ENTRANCE
VTE SUMMARY
214 AADT
17 AM PEAK
17 PM PEAK
NO
DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED
AGRICULTURAL OPEN
SPACE
NOT DEPENDENT ON PHASING
±13.0 ACRES
AGRICULTURALOPEN SPACENOT DEPENDENT ONPHASING±3.3 ACRES
AGRICULTURAL
OPEN SPACE
NOT DEPENDENT ONPHASING±5.6 ACRES
OPEN SPACE
WITH RESTORATION AND WALKWAYIMPROVEMENTS±116.6 ACRES
OPEN SPACE
WITH RESTORATION ANDWALKWAY IMPROVEMENTS±18.9 ACRES
MAIN ENTRANCE
VTE SUMMARY2038 AADT
179 AM PEAK
158 PM PEAK
PHASE 1
VILLAGE CENTER
MAXIMUM OF 162 UNITS
±30.3 ACRES
SOUT
H
B
U
R
L
I
N
G
T
O
N
92N
93N
94N
95N
DOUGLAS LANEFARMS EDGE LN.DORSETFARMS
1
n/fDORSET FARMS HOMEOWNERSASSOCIATION, INC.
2
3
4 5
DORSET FARMS - ABUTTER LISTDESIGNATIONSTREET ADDRESS OWNER
1 192 CATKIN DR.M. O'BRIEN & J. BORROWS
2 197 CATKIN DR.S. BLISS337 FLORAL DR.M. ISUFI & S. ZAGRAXHA435 FLORAL DR.B. & C TERHUNE
5 33 FLORAL DR.D. CARLAND631 FLORAL DR.M.& M. BOUVIER
6
n/fDORSET FARMS HOMEOWNERSASSOCIATION, INC.
n/fWILLOWBROOK HOME LLC
n/fN. HYMAN & K. LANE
n/fJANE DEMERSREVOCABLE TRUST
n/fA. & D. & E. LONG & K. PFEIFFER
n/f
C. & A. LONG
n/f
D. & C. CONE
n/fK. & K. LAHUE
n/fJ. FARINA
n/fM. CONSTANTINOS
n/fD. CUMMINGS
n/fFLOYD FUSUN TRUST
n/fB. MITAL & M. CALDWELL
n/f1827 SPEAR STREET LLC
n/f1835 SPEAR STREET LLC
n/f
G. & S. VINAL
n/fA. LAFONTAINE &S. LUCA DEL CARMINE
n/fBARBARA LANDETRUST
n/fWALKER REEDFAMILY REVOCABLETRUST
n/fA. & D. SYLVESTER
n/fG. & M. EDELBAUM
n/f
S. & J. CHENEY
n/fC. & C. BARTLETT III
n/fMARY ELLEN FULEYREV. TRUST
n/fR. & D. VALLEE
n/fJ. AVERILL
n/fJ. & J. BRUMSTED
n/fD. SYLVESTER (PVT)
(PVT)
(PVT)(PVT)
(PVT)
(PVT)(PVT)(PVT)(PVT)(PVT)FARM WAY (PVT)SOUTH
B
U
R
L
I
N
G
T
O
N
R
E
C
.
P
A
T
H
SOUT
H
B
U
RL
ING
T
O
N
REC
.
PA
T
H
SOUTH BU
RLINGTON REC. PATH
SOUTH BU
R
L
I
N
G
T
O
N
REC. PA
T
H
SOUTH
REC. PATH
BURLINGT
O
N
SOUTH B
U
R
L
I
N
G
T
O
N
R
E
C
P
A
T
H
48
48N48X
FUTURE CITY SOCCER FIELDTO BE CEDED TO CITY OFSOUTH BURLINGTON
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
COMMON ELEMENT /OPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACEKINGSB
U
R
Y
L
A
N
E
KIN
G
S
B
U
R
Y
S
P
U
R
PLAN
PLAT
MASTER
1" = 200'
01243
S1.0
AUGUST, 2004
DSM
DSMMAB
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT
ALLEN ROAD
SPEAR STREET AND
LAND USE PLANNER/ARCHITECT
LOONEY RICKS KISS
NASHVILLE, TN
SHELBURNE, VT
CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEER
TRAFFIC ENGINEER
TND ENGINEERING
OSSIPEE, NH
MIDDLEBURY, VT
LAND-WORKS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
ECIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC C AP.O. BOX 485 SHELBURNE, VT 05482802-985-2323 FAX: 802-985-2271 web: www.cea-vt.com
COMMUNITIES, LLC.
SOUTH VILLAGE
ROAD NAME ROAD WIDTH
PUBLIC ROADSS. JEFFERSON ROAD 26'FROST STREET 26'CHIPMAN STREET 26'AIKEN STREET 26'SLADE STREET 26'DEWEY LANE 26'ALLEN ROAD EAST 26'N. JEFFERSON ROAD 26'PRESERVE ROAD 26'CHURCHILL STREET 26'MIDLAND AVENUE 26'STAFFORD STREET 26'PRIVATE ROADS
MADISION LANE 20'FLANDERS LANE 20'W. FISHER LANE 20'E. FISHER LANE 20'FARM WAY 12'DOUGLAS LANE 18'FARMS EDGE LANE 20'KINGSBURY LANE 20'KINGSBURY SPUR 20'
BIKE
P
A
T
H
MIDLAN
D
A
V
E
N
U
EBIKE
P
A
T
H
STA
FFORD
S
TREETSTAFFORDST
R
E
E
T
DORSET
FARMSAIKEN STREET
DEWEY LANE
W. FISHER LANE
ALLEN ROAD EAST
E. FISHER LANE
SOUTH JEFFERSON ROADFLANDERS LANEFLANDERS LANE
CHIPMAN STREET
FROST STREETCHIPMAN STREETMADISON LANE MADISON LANE
SOUTH
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
R
O
A
D
SOUTH JEFFERSON ROADSLADE STREET
CHURCHILL
SPEAR STREETSPEAR STREETALLEN ROAD MUNROE BROOKBA
R
T
L
E
T
T
B
ROO
K
TR
IBUTAR
Y STREETCHURCHILL
NORTH JEFFERSON ROADPRESER
V
E
R
O
A
D
NORTH JEFFERSONROAD31' SEWER ANDWATER EASEMENT
27'x15' UTILITYEQUIPMENTEASEMENT
DRAINAGEEASEMENT
20' WIDE ACCESSEASEMENT SERVINGMASTER HOMEOWNERSASSOCIATION
10' WIDE UTILITYEASEMENT
17'x15' UTILITYEQUIPMENTEASEMENT
16'x15' UTILITYEQUIPMENTEASEMENT
16'x15' UTILITYEQUIPMENTEASEMENT
STORMWATEREASEMENT
50' WETLANDBUFFER (TYP.)
STORMWATERPOND EASEMENT
STORMWATERPOND EASEMENT
10' WIDE UTILITYEASEMENT
22'x15' UTILITY
EQUIPMENT
EASEMENT
10' WIDE UTILITYEASEMENT
16'x15' UTILITYEQUIPMENTEASEMENT
15'x15' UTILITYEQUIPMENTEASEMENT
50' WETLANDBUFFER (TYP.)
22'x15' UTILITYEQUIPMENTEASEMENT
55'x35' STORMWATERMANAGEMENT EASEMENT
70'x22' STORMWATERMANAGEMENT EASEMENT
STORMWATEREASEMENT
20' RECREATION
PATH EASEMENT
150'VELCO EASEMENTSTORMWATEREASEMENT
DRAINAGEEASEMENT
20' RECREATIONPATH EASEMENTTO CITY
STORMWATEREASEMENT
DRAINAGEEASEMENT
DRAINAGEEASEMENT DRAINAGEEASEMENT
10' GMP EASEMENT
STORMWATERMANAGEMENTEASEMENT TO CITY
GMP EASEMENT
SEWER EASEMENT
10' GMP EASEMENT
20' WIDE DRAINAGEEASEMENT TO CITY
20' REC. PATHEASEMENT TO CITY
STORMWATERMANAGEMENTEASEMENT TO CITY
10' GMPEASEMENT
12" RECREATIONPATH EASEMENT TOCITY
SIDEWALKEASEMENT
NATU
R
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
P
R
O
T
E
CTI
O
N
NEIGH
B
O
R
H
O
O
D
R
E
SI
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
10' WIDE PEDESTRIANEASEMENT
GMPEASEMENT
STORMWATEREASEMENT TO CITY
WASTEWATEREASEMENT SERVICELOTS 38,40,41
STORMWATER AREAACCESS EASEMENT
10' GMPEASEMENT
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIALNATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION10' GMPEASEMENT
NATURAL RESO
URCE PROTECTION
10' GAS EASEMENT
NATURAL RESOURCE P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
NEIGHBORHOOD RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
LNEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIALNATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION10' WIDE UTILITYEASEMENT
NEIGHBORHOOD RESI
DENTIAL
388
388
387387
386
386
385
385384384
384
384
383383
383
383
382382
382
382
381
381
381
381381
380380
380
380380
380
380380
379
379
379
379
379
379 378378
378
378
378378 377
377
377377
377377
376
376
376
376376
376
375
375
375
375
375
375
374
374
374374
374
374
373
373
373
373
373
373
372
372
372372372
372
371
371
371
371371 371
370
370
370370
370
370
369
369
369369
369
369
368
368
368
368
368
368
367
367
367
367
367367
366
366
366
366
366366
366
366
365
365
365
365
365
365
365365
364
364364
364364
364
364364 363
363
363
363363363
363363
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
361
361361
361 361
361
361
360 360
360360
359
359
359359358358
358 358
357357
357
357
356 356356356355355
355
355
354
354 354
353353
DSMMAB
1" = 200'
01243.16
C1.2
07/20/2020
LOCATION MAP
1" = 2000'
EXISTING
MASTER PLAN-
EASEMENTS
ACCIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.E10 MANSFIELD VIEW LANE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403P: 802-864-2323 FAX: 802-864-2271 web: www.cea-vt.com
S.D. IRELAND
COMPANIES
193 INDUSTRIAL AVENUE
WILIISTON, VERMONT 05495
Dorse
t StreetSpear StreetAllen Road
Vermont NationalCountry Club
Nowland
Farm Road
U.V.M.
DorsetFarms
SOUTH
B
U
R
L
I
N
G
T
O
N
SHELB
U
R
N
E
SITE
SPEAR STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT
SOUTH VILLAGE
COMMUNITIES,
LLC
MASTER PLAN
DSM
P:\AutoCADD Projects\2001\01243.16 - Master\1-CADD Files-\dwg\01243.16 Master Site Plan.dwg, 11/13/2020 2:25:15 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3
MEMO
RSG 180 Battery Street, Suite 350, Burlington, Vermont 05401 www.rsginc.com
TO: Robin Jeffers, Development Director, SD Ireland Development LLC
FROM: Corey Mack, PE
DATE: December 1, 2020
SUBJECT: South Village Revised Land Use Trip Generation Estimate
RSG has reviewed the updated land use development program at the South Village
community on Spear Street in South Burlington. This memo documents the proposed
change in land use, estimates the trip generation of the full build out compared to the
originally permitted trips, and revisits the traffic volume warrants for southbound left turn
lanes from Spear Street into the South Village at Preserve Road and South Jefferson
Road.
Summary:
• The originally permitted land use development program estimated 315 AM peak
hour trips and 305 PM peak hour trips.
• The proposed development program removes the originally permitted school,
daycare, and 13 residential units, and adds retail food, fitness, and restaurant
land uses to serve the neighborhood.
• The proposed land use development program is estimated to generate 250
external primary trips in the AM peak hour, and 301 external primary trips in the
PM peak hour.
• Compared to the originally permitted condition, the resulting net change in trip
generation is estimated to reduce by -65 trips in the AM peak hour, and -4 trip in
the PM peak hour.
• Based on the VTrans guideline for installing left turn lanes, a southbound left turn
lane on Spear Street is not appropriate at Preserve Lane or South Jefferson
Road using volume warrants, the crash threshold, or roadway context
considerations.
1.0 BACKGROUND
The South Village community is located along Spear Street opposite Allen Road in
South Burlington, illustrated in Figure 1.
2
FIGURE 1: LOCATION OF SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITY IN SOUTH BURLINGTON
The original South Village development was permitted under Act 250 land use permit
4C11601 dated August 3, 2006. In this permit, the development included:
• 334 residential units,
• A 100-student school,
• A daycare building, and
• A community farm.
The total peak hour trip generation estimated in Finding of Fact number 55 of the permit
documents is 315 AM peak hour trips, and 305 PM peak hour trips.
The community has thus far developed 223 residential units. A change in the
development program proposes to eliminate the school and daycare, reduce the total
number of residential units by 13 for a total of 321 units, add a 3,000 SF retail food store,
add a 3,000 SF restaurant / café, and add a 3,000 SF personal trainer / fitness studio.
2.0 ESTIMATED TRIP GENERATION
The proposed land uses of the South Village community are further described and
categorized into land use codes (LUCs) defined by the Institute of Transportation of
Engineers (ITE).
• The 321 residential units are categorized into single-family and multifamily units:
o LUC 210 - Single-Family Detached Housing are typically free-standing
buildings on individual lots. Single family housing may consist of up to
three units in one building. The proposed development program includes
217 single-family units, 143 of which are currently constructed.
1 https://anrweb.vt.gov/ANR/vtANR/Act250SearchResults.aspx?Num=4C1160
3
o LUC 220 – Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) includes apartments,
townhouses, and condominiums located within the same building with at
least four units and one or two levels. The proposed development
program includes 104 multifamily units, 80 of which are currently
constructed.
• LUC 492 – Health / Fitness Club is recommended to estimate the trip
generation of the proposed 3,000 SF personal trainer / fitness studio. The
intended tenant is expected to lead group classes, such as a spin studio or yoga
instruction, as well as individual personal training. The size of the proposed
establishment is less than the ITE sampled data points, but the estimated trip
generation appears to be reasonable.
• LUC 850 – Grocery Store is recommended to estimate the trip generation of the
proposed 3,000 SF retail food store and 576 SF farm stand The intended tenant
of the retail food store is expected to sell basic food items, similar to a general
store. The size of the proposed establishment is less than the ITE sampled data
points. The average ITE rate was used due to the small square footage of the
store, and the resulting estimated trip generation appears to be reasonable.
The existing farm stand operates as a seasonal self-serve local produce stand.
The farm stand reportedly generates few trips, and mostly serves the residents of
the South Village. The average ITE rate was used due to the small square
footage of the store, and the resulting estimated trip generation appears to be
comparable to the actual existing farm stand trip generation.
• LUC 930 – Fast Casual Restaurant is recommended to estimate the trip
generation of the proposed 3,000 SF café / restaurant. Fast casual is defined by
ordering off a menu board at a walk-up counter, paying for food before the food is
prepared, self-seating themselves and higher quality made to order food items.
This description is generally consistent with the expected tenant.
The resulting AM and PM base trip generation is presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1: ESTIMATED AM AND PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION FOR THE PROPOSED
LAND USE PROGRAM AT SOUTH VILLAGE
Description ITE LUC Variable Unit Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 217 units 159 41 118 214 131 83
Multi-Family Low Rise 220 104 units 50 11 39 61 38 23
Café / Restaurant 930 3 KSF 42 26 16 42 26 16
Retail Food / General Store 850 3 KSF 11 7 4 28 14 14
Farm Stand 850 0.6 KSF 2 1 1 6 3 3
Physical Trainer / Fitness Studio 492 3 KSF 24 12 12 24 14 10
288 98 190 375 226 149
Base Trips
AM Peak PM Peak
4
Internal Capture
The proposed development consists of several different types of uses, allowing trips
originating from one land use to be destined for another land use within the
development. For example, a resident may walk or drive to the onsite retail food store or
restaurant / café. These trips are considered to be captured internally and are not
counted towards the number of trips generated by the development on the adjacent
transportation network.
RSG utilized the methodology described in NCHRP Report 684 to estimate internal
capture, with the fitness studio classified as an “entertainment” land use. The resulting
internal and external trip classification is documented in Table 2 and Table 3 for the AM
and PM peak hours, respectively.
Internal capture is expected to be particularly high between residential and non-
residential land uses. The non-residential land uses are intended to provide demanded
services to the residential community.
Pass-by Trips
External site generated traffic can be further differentiated between primary and pass-by
trips. While primary trips represent people who leave their home, place of work, or other
origin expressly to visit the site and who would not otherwise have gotten into their
vehicle to make a trip, pass-by trips represent vehicles that currently pass by the site on
the local road network and who, when the proposed development is present, turn into
the site on their way to another destination. Pass-by trips are converted from through
movements to turning movements into and out from the site at the development access
point, but do not add new trips to intersections beyond the site access. The percentage
of trips that are considered pass-by is based on estimates from the ITE Trip Generation
Handbook, and only apply to vehicle-based external trips.
Two land uses have documented pass-by rates: LUC 850 – Grocery Store, and LUC 932
– High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant, applied to the restaurant / café. The resulting
primary and pass-by external trip classification is documented in Table 2 and Table 3 for
the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
TABLE 2: AM PEAK HOUR TRIP CLASSIFICATION
Land Use Activity Class Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Rate Enter Exit Enter Exit
Retail 8 5 2 2 6 3 36%2 1 4 2
Restaurant 26 16 6 2 20 14 43%9 6 11 8
Fitness Studio 12 12 0 0 12 12 12 12
Residential 52 157 2 6 50 151 50 151
98 190 10 10 88 180 11 7 77 173
Total AM Peak Hour External Primary Trips 250
Base Trips Internal Trips External Trips Passby Trips Primary Trips
AM Peak Hour
5
TABLE 3: PM PEAK HOUR TRIP CLASSIFICATION
The total external primary trip generation in the AM and PM peak hours is summarized in
Table 4 in comparison to the originally permitted condition.
TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION
AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
October 2020 Proposed Land Use
Development Program 250 301
Original Act 250 Permit, dated 8/3/06 315 305
Net Change -65 -4
3.0 TRIP DISTRIBUTION
RSG developed a trip generation volume model based on the June 29, 2016 turning
movement count conducted by VTrans at the Spear Street and Allen Road intersection.
RSG applied the following adjustments to the turning movement count:
1. Automatic traffic recorder (ATR) stations D425 along Allen Road is proximate to
the turning movement count. This station recorded an AADT of 4,673 vehicles in
2016, corresponding to a design hour volume of 567 vehicles per hour (vph)
along Allen Road. The observed peak hour volume along Allen Road was 831
vph. RSG concluded that the count represents peak conditions, and no DHV
adjustment was applied.
2. Following standard practices outlined in the VTrans Redbook, an annual growth
adjustment of 0.988 was applied to represent 2019 conditions, followed by a
1.010 factor to represent 2020 (non-COVID) conditions. The total annual
adjustment factor is 0.998.
3. The total amount of development in the South Village was unknown at the time of
the count. All observed entering and exiting traffic from East Allen Road was
removed from the count, and the estimated peak hour trips were added in to
represent the build condition.
Land Use Activity Class Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Rate Enter Exit Enter Exit
Retail 17 17 10 10 7 7 36%3 3 4 4
Restaurant 26 16 10 11 16 5 43%7 2 9 3
Fitness Studio 14 10 2 3 12 7 12 7
Residential 169 106 8 6 161 100 161 100
226 149 30 30 196 119 9 5 187 114
Final PM Peak Hour External Primary Trips
Primary Trips
PM Peak Hour
Base Trips Internal Trips External Trips Passby Trips
301
6
The trip generation was distributed proportionally to the entering and exiting volumes
observed at the Spear Street / Allen Road intersection, and further assigned into the
various South Village access roads (Preserve Lane; East Allen Road; and South
Jefferson Road) based on the assumed convenience of each entrance or exit. A similar
process was followed to distribute the pass-by trips, assuming all pass-by trips would
enter and exit from the main East Allen Road access point, closest to the commercial
land uses. The resulting 2020 full build condition peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated
in Figure 2.
FIGURE 2: SCHEMATIC ILLUSTRATION REPRESENTING ESTIMATED 2020 FULL BUILD
OUT TRAFFIC TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES INTO AND OUT OF SOUTH VILLAGE
4.0 LEFT TURN LANE VOLUME WARRANTS
RSG evaluated the volume warrants for implementing a left turn lane at Preserve Lane
and South Jefferson Road. VTrans employs Kikuchi and Chakroborty's "Modified
Harmelink/AASHTO Model" to evaluate the appropriateness of a left turn lane based on
Spear St Spear St
360 7 633 22
Schmatic map Schmatic map
Not to scale 29 Not to scale 15
C20 i20
7 9
645 13 651 17
Spear St Spear St
164 189 15 173 430 39
171 33 330 18
18 C30 51 68 i30 23
65 23 195 29
164 454 18 117 320 19
Spear St Spear St
273 5 640 14
29 15
C40 i40
7 9
607 13 440 17
Spear St Spear St
Values
rounded to
nearest whole
number
Values
rounded to
nearest whole
number
South Jefferson RdSouth Jefferson RdSouth Village CommunityWeekday AM Peak Hour 2020 Build Weekday PM Peak Hour 2020 Build
Preserve LnSouth Village CommunityAllen RdEast Allen RdAllen RdPreserve LnEast Allen Rd
7
traffic volumes. As shown in Figure 2, the highest left turn volumes, advancing volumes,
and opposing volumes occur during the PM peak hour at Preserve Lane.
A southbound left turn lane is not warranted by volume. If all other traffic volumes remain
the same, the number of southbound left turns at Preserve Lane would need to exceed
39 vehicles per hour, or an increase of 17 vehicles per hour. This relates to a 77%
increase in the estimated left turn demand at this location.
The volume warrant requires a minimum of 15 left turns in the analysis hour. The
estimated volumes at South Jefferson Road do not exceed 15 left turns in either peak
hour. Accordingly, a southbound left turn lane does not meet the volume warrant at
South Jefferson Road.
The VTrans guideline for evaluating the appropriateness of a left turn lane also
recommends considering crash history and roadway context in the recommendation for
turn lanes.
• Crash History: Three crashes near Spear Street and Preserve Lane were
reported in the online crash database from January 1, 2015 to December 31,
2019; no crashes were recorded at South Jefferson Road. Two of the three
crashes near Preserve Lane were rear end crashes and the third was classified
as “other”. The direction of travel and other critical information relating to the
cause of the crashes was not immediately available and it is unclear if any of the
crashes were related to southbound left turning traffic.
The VTrans guideline recommends consideration of a left turn lane when the
number of crashes related to turning traffic exceeds five over a five-year period.
Even if all three crashes were related to left turns into Preserve Lane, this
location does not exceed this threshold.
• Roadway Context: Spear Street is a local road with a speed limit of 35 mph.
While turn lanes are present in several locations along the corridor, there are
many intersections and drives along the road with no turn lane. Stopped and
turning traffic is expected along the corridor.
Given the southbound left turn lane at the signalized East Allen Road
intersection, a second (or third) left turn lane into the South Village would result in
a significant expanse of roadway adjacent to the South Village. This roadway
would conflict with the traditional neighborhood and agrihood community design
originally envisioned for the South Village.
Based on the VTrans guideline for installing left turn lanes, a southbound left turn lane
on Spear Street is not appropriate at Preserve Lane or South Jefferson Road using
volume warrants, the crash threshold, or roadway context considerations.
Attachment: Turn Lane Warrant Worksheet
PROJECT: South Village BY: CDM / RSG
LOCATION: Spear Street and Preserve Lane DATE:
South Burlington, VT SCENARIO: 2020 PM
Source:
YEAR: 2020
TIME: PM Peak Hour
SPEED: 35 mph
Exclusive right-turn lane in the Va direction (Y/N)? N
Exclusive left-turn lane in the Vo direction (Y/N)? N
ENTERING TRAFFIC VOLUMES (vph, 85% of DHV):
Vadv. Vopp.
Left-Turn = 19 0
Thru = 538 553
Right-Turn = 0 14
Va = 557 vph
Vo = 568 vph
L = 3.4%
R = 2.6%
Left Turn Lane
Va = exp(6.9017-0.001151*Vo+(exp(0.383-0.118*L)-0.01816*SP)) (Eq. 3.3)
Warranting Va = 735 vph
Va = 557 < 735
THEREFORE, SB LEFT-TURN LANE NOT WARRANTED
Opposing Right Turn Lane
Va = 33 x squareroot ( (80-S) / (R x (1-R)) )
Warranting Va = 1388.14 vph
Va = 568 < 1,388
THEREFORE, NB RIGHT-TURN LANE NOT WARRANTED
18-Oct-20
Kikuchi and Chakroborty's "Modified Harmelink/AASHTO Model"
from Method for Prioritizing Intersection Improvements, Washington State
Transportation Center Research Report, January 1997
TURN LANE WARRANT ANALYSIS