Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-20-40 - Supplemental - 0500 Old Farm Road (4) O’Brien Home Farm Phase II Preliminary Plat Submission Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Summary of Requested Approval, Authority Under the Zoning Regulations 1. Master Plan or PUD Only Required 2. Required Review for Project Component a. Residential 1 Area (R1) b. Commercial 1 Limited Retail Area (C1-LR Area) c. Industrial Commercial (IC) Area III. Project Summary and Overview 1. Project Description a. Open Space b. Residential c. C1-LR d. IC e. Extensive Path and Trail Network f. Rec Path Extension g. Large Park h. Scenic Vista i. Resident Pool, Club House, Workout Facility j. Community Garden k. Open Space Recreation Field l. Open Space and Picnic Area IV. Compliance with Article 15 1. Section 15.10 Lot Layout 2. Section 15.11 Relation to Scenic View Protection Overlay District 3. Section 15.12(A) Standards for Roadway, Parking and Circulation a. Meadow Loop b. Legacy Farm Avenue c. O’Brien Farm Road Extension West d. O’Brien Farm Road Extension East e. Legacy Farm Extension f. Private Drive g. Old Farm Relocation h. IC Road 1 i. IC Road 1 Connection to Legacy Farm 4. Section 15.12(B) Traffic Overlay District 5. Section 15.12(C) Topography 6. Section 15.12(D) Public and Private Roadways 7. Section 15.12(E) Roadway Construction Standards 8. Section 15.12(F) Entrances a. Relocation of Old Farm Road b. Kimball Ave. and IC Road 1 c. Kimball Avenue Turn Lanes and Widening 9. Section 15.12(G) Emergency Access 10. Section 15.12(H) Standards for Internal Circulation and Parking 11. Section 15.12(I) Street Jogs 12. Section 15.12(J) Street End Alternatives a. O’Brien Farm Road East b. Legacy Farm Road Extension 13. Section 15.12(K) Street Names 14. Section 15.12(L) Street Signs 15. Section 15.12(M) Sidewalks and Recreation Paths a. 15.12(M)(1) b. 15.12(M)(2) c. 15.12(M)(3) d. 15.12(M)(4) e. 15.12(M)(5) 16. Section 15.13(A) Utility Easements 17. Section 15.13(B) Public Water Service 18. Section 15.13(C) Private Water Service 19. Section 15.13(D) Public Wastewater Service 20. Section 15.13 (E) Utility Lines 21. Section 15.13(F) Stormwater Management 22. Section 15.13 Required Public Facilities and Improvements 23. Section 15.15 Performance Bonds, Escrow Accounts and Letters of Credit 24. Section 15.16 Acceptance of Streets 25. Section 15.17 Certificate of Title. 26. Section 15.18(A)(1) Sufficient Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal 27. Section 15.18(A)(2) Sufficient Grading and Erosion Control 28. Section 15.18(A)(4) Wetlands, Streams and Wildlife Habitat 29. Section 15.18(A)(5) Compatibility with Planned Development Patterns 30. Section 15.18(A)(6) Open Space Connectivity 31. Section 15.18(A)(7) Fire Safety 32. Section 15.18(A)(8) Common Infrastructure 33. Section 15.18(A)(9) Road Geometry 34. Section 15.18(A)(10) Comprehensive Plan 35. Section 15.18(A)(11) Stormwater V. Compliance with Article 14: Site Plan Review 1. Section 14.06(A) Relationship of Proposed Development to the City Comprehensive Plan 2. Section 14.06(B) Parking a. Meadow Loop b. Legacy Farm Avenue c. O’Brien Farm Road Extension West d. O’Brien Farm Road Extension East e. Legacy Farm Extension f. Private Drive g. Old Farm Relocation h. IC Road 1 3. Section 14.06(C) Relationship of structures and site to Adjoining Area i. Common Materials and Architectural Characteristics. j. Proposed Structures Relate Harmoniously to Themselves 4. Section 14.07 Specific Review Standards: k. Access to abutting properties. l. Utility Services m. Disposal of Waste n. Landscape Screening o. Modification of Standards p. Low Impact Development q. Roadway Standards. VI. Section 13 Supplemental Regulations 1. Section 13.03 Airport Cones 2. Section 13.04 Swimming Pools 3. Section 13.06 Landscaping a. 13.06(C) Screening and Buffering b. 13.06(E) Site Restoration c. 13.06(F) Landscaping Plans d. 13.06(G) Landscape Budget Requirement e. 13.06(I) Landscape Maintenance 4. Section 13.07 Exterior Lighting 5. Section 13.11 Numbering Systems 6. Section 13.14 Bicycle Parking and Storage 7. Section 13.16 Earth Products 8. Section 13.17 Fences 9. Section 13.19 Signs 10. Section 13.25 Retaining Walls VII. Section 12 Surface Water Protection Standards 1. Section 12.01(C) Stream Buffers 2. Section 12.01(E) Development 150 Feet From Potash Brook 3. Section 12.02 Wetlands 4. Section 12.03 Stormwater Management VIII. Section 16 Construction and Erosion Control Standards IX. Section 18: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance 1. Section 18.02(B) Applicability 2. Section 18/02(C)(1) Inclusionary Units Required 3. Section 18/01(C)(2) Requirements of Inclusionary Units a. On site b. Integrated with similar architecture c. Integrated in project layout d. Integrated with same exterior materials e. Inclusionary Interior Finishes f. Inclusionary Building Types g. Inclusionary Common Area Design h. Mean Number of Bedrooms and Inclusionary Bedroom Counts 4. Section 18.01(C)(2)(c) Concurrent Construction 5. Section 18.01(D) Affordability Requirements 6. Section 18.01(E) Developer Options 7. Section 18.01(F) Offset Units and Coverage Bonus X. Dimensional Standards, Lot Lines and Setbacks 1. Minimum Lot Size 2. IC Lot Setbacks 3. C1-LR Lot Setbacks 4. R1 Lot Setbacks a. Lot 16 b. Lot 20 c. Lot 30 d. Lot 31 e. Lot 32 f. Lot 33 g. Lot 34 h. Lot 35 i. Lot 36 j. Lot 37 5. Project Lot Coverage 6. Building Height and Stories IC 7. Building Height and Stories R1 8. Building Height and Stories C1-LR XI. Waivers Requested Summary List XII. Project Details Outside Specific Regulation Requirements 1. Project Phasing 2. Neighborhood Design Restrictions XIII. Conclusion Exhibit Table of Contents Exhibit Name Exhibit Description Exhibit 001 City of South Burlington Application for Preliminary Plat Review Exhibit 002 Overall Site Plan Exhibit 003 Zoning District Overlay Map Exhibit 004 Lot Number and Type Table Exhibit 005 Aerial Rendering Exhibit 006 Old Farm Road Gateway Analysis Traffic Study Exhibit 007 Archeological Assessment 2010 IC Lands Exhibit 008 Archeological Assessment 2019 C1/R1 Lands Exhibit 009 Proposed Park Equipment Renderings Exhibit 010 Architectural Plans for Resident Club Exhibit 011 Project Plat Plans Exhibit 012 Project Roadway Profiles Exhibit 013 Project Traffic Impact Study and Appendices Exhibit 014 Traffic Impact Analysis Road Plans Exhibit 015 Project Engineer Drawings Exhibit 016 Landscape Concept L100-L103 60 Scale Exhibit 017 Landscape Concept L200-202 Exhibit 018 Draft Preliminary Wastewater Allocation Request Exhibit 019 Stormwater Calculations Exhibit 020 Draft Water Allocation Request Exhibit 021 Environmental Review Gilman and Briggs 06 11 20 Exhibit 022 Unit Type and Availability Matrix Exhibit 023 SF1, SF2, SF3, SF4, SF5, SF6, SF7 Elevations and Floor Plans Exhibit 024 TH1-1, TH2-1, TH2-2, TH2-3 Elevation and Floor Plans Exhibit 025 Trillium, Lupine, Daisy, Daylily, Bluebell Elevations and Floor Plans Exhibit 026 Photo of Existing Barn Structure Exhibit 027 Sheet C-19 Rock Extraction Plan Exhibit 028 Tree Protection Plan Exhibit 029 Lot Coverage Analysis Exhibit 030 Project Phasing Plan Exhibit 031 Abutters Exhibit 032 Existing Conditions Plans Exhibit 033 Annotated List of Submission Requirements to Determine Location of Required Elements Exhibit 034 City of South Burlington Master Plan Application Form VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL August 18, 2020 South Burlington Development Review Board C/O Ms. Marla Keene, Development Review Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: O’Brien Farm Planned Unit Development of Remaining Lands Dear Board Members: O’Brien Eastview, LLC (“Applicant”) is filing for Preliminary Plat for a proposed development of approximately 100 acres of land with existing single family residences located at 100, 150 and 205 Old Farm Road, with an overall base density of 409 dwelling units, to become a Planned Unit Development consisting of 25.14 acres of preserved open space with active and passive resident recreational amenities located on six (6) newly created lots, 129 single-family, duplex and multi-family for-sale homes – including inclusionary housing units - located on nine (9) newly created residential lots, ten (10) development lots located in the C1-LR zoning district with a base density of 280 dwelling units and frontage on newly proposed and existing public roads, and nine (9) development lots located in the IC zoning district with frontage on newly proposed and existing public roads and with a development potential limited by lot coverage as no residential development uses are currently allowed. This Preliminary Plat also includes but is not limited to the request for findings of fact and conditions of approval to allow for expedited review of projects within the PUD, the issuance of waivers for height (in the C1-LR) and setbacks (throughout), as well as the protection and preservation of open space via common interest ownership, herein the “Project.” Attached to this application is a table of contents detailing the specific sections below for ease of reference. Also attached is an exhibit table of contents detailing exhibits and supportive information provided, much of which is required by Appendix E of the zoning regulations. These exhibits are provided as individual files, electronically, labeled according to the exhibit number, also with a brief description. A fee calculated on the density currently proposed for construction and the number of lots has been provided. We appreciate the time of the Board and Staff to review this application including this narrative and the accompanying exhibits, which provide valuable insight into the planning and vision for the O’Brien Farm property. Given the acreage of the project and the three somewhat different components aligning with underlying zoning districts, the Applicant has provided a review that mirrors the review criteria under the Zoning Regulations. On lots where site plan is proposed, the Applicant has also provided for those review criteria. Each review criteria to be discussed by the board is enumerated and addressed, 2 including sub-criteria. Regulations that would not apply for one reason or the other are not addressed. Items that are not part of the review process in the Regulations are also not addressed, save those listed at Section XII. The Applicant is hopeful that the focus of this Application can help to expedite the overall review, albeit by requiring more up-front attention. I. Executive Summary The following is a detailed application on behalf of O’Brien Eastview, LLC for the development of the remaining lands of the O’Brien Farm property located at Old Farm Road in South Burlington. As allowed by the regulations, the proposal outlined seeks to permit and build a new residential neighborhood of 129 homes including the required component of inclusionary affordable units, a network of paths and open space, and significant road and infrastructure capable of sustaining future commercial and industrial development on a series of 19 unprogrammed development lots created adjacent to new roads and open spaces proposed. This proposal largely is broken into three main categories (which each have distinct areas in the project lands) for discussion and review. The R1 (also referred to as the R1 Lands, or the R1 PRD), the IC (IC Lands, or IC Area) and the C1-LR (C1-LR Lands and C1-LR Area). These categories mirror the underlying zoning districts of the Project for which they are named. The development plan mirrors the uses and development allowed in those areas as recommended by staff. Each area has a different proposal forthcoming. The R1 portion of the Project has a full proposal, for full development. The remaining portions are creating the framework for future growth on the Project lands, with full respect given to the now and future regulatory process and available uses. The Applicant is proposing a full construction project within the R1 lands consisting of 129 single family, duplex and triplex homes. This development mirrors the Hillside neighborhood. It includes park equipment, recreation fields, and a neighborhood community facility. The Hillside neighborhood has thus far been successful in attracting a broad spectrum of resident demographics including income, stages of life, and family size, including a host of long time South Burlingtonians as well as new community members. Our home designs provide a variety of price points and living styles which appeals to a range of homebuyers. Modern, attractive, safe and energy efficient housing in the core area of the City and the region. A model of efficient and compact mixed-use land development. A neighborhood that has promoted solar, including prepping rooftops and prewiring as part of our base home model and actively partnering with solar contractors during construction to make for easy and effective system commissioning. O’Brien Brothers are again seeking to promote those objectives in this next phase and we are excited to continue to increase the quality of efficient and resource conscious housing stock in the City. At this point in time beyond the residential neighborhood, the Applicant proposes only subdivision, road networks and open space. The Project proposed is extensive and it involves a large amount of yet to be developed land, but many projects of this size, including Hillside have been previously before this board. It is also important to note that this parcel has long been planned for development not only by O’Brien Brothers but has repeatedly been memorialized as a growth area for this City due to its strategic location in the City’s core and surrounded by existing municipal, state and federal infrastructure as well as existing development patterns. This application creates 126 dwelling units in aggregate. It creates no commercial space, no industrial space, and no additional residential space beyond the homes proposed. The density and capacity of the land involved remains unchanged and any potential density of this project is the current 3 potential density, available under the zoning regulations now in effect. We are not requesting any changes to that. What this Application does create is certainty. It creates certainty for the Applicant that the key findings needed for future success are secured, and certainty for the City that the core elements of the development they value including the opportunity for extensive public parks, are secured. The other option is to permit only those uses we now know. That would be easier, it would avoid any concerns about what might be, but it would involve only small pieces of the land, it would lack vision, and it would not secure any meaningful community open space. Just small pockets for small uses to preserve land and protect against future uncertainty. This option is undesirable for a number of reasons. This is why we are here in this process reviewing the site holistically for the collective benefits to the development, the City and the residents and others who will occupy and use this space as it is built out over time. With the subdivision and roads proposed, the land will become saleable, manageable and able to be marketed and eventually developed by individual community stakeholders and business owners. The large questions of infrastructure needs will be resolved. City roads that are now poorly designed or anachronistic will be improved, rec paths connected, and formalized open spaces created. With the specific standard variance requested, the overly restrictive and development prohibitive height limitations of the zoning ordinance will be lifted, creating certainty that the investment in parks, open space, roads and traffic infrastructure confirmed here to be the responsibility of the Applicant will be successful. With the approved subdivision the framework for growth and development on these lands will be established: a framework that is mutually beneficial. We seek the Board’s review of the criteria that apply and the board and the City’s investment in the form of the waivers needed to make this plan a reality for the Applicant and for the City. To create the springboard for future growth on this land. At the core, this is a proposal to create a new neighborhood, new parks, and a series of lots available for South Burlington’s future commercial and residential development and supporting amenities and infrastructure. We believe compliance with the requirements is thoroughly demonstrated below, and that the City will see significant benefit from this proposal over the next 10-15 years. We believe this is the path we should take together, but to do that, we must review what is in front of us, and trust the decisions made here, the future process and regulations to hold both parties to account. We appreciate greatly the diligence and dedication of all involved, and we look forward to an in- depth discussion and review of the Project proposed. II. Summary of Requested Approval, Authority Under the Zoning Regulations As the board has seen in the ongoing work of our Phase I development, having both Master Plan and PUD permits increases the complexity of permit work and reviews. We are needing to amend two permits to make one minor change to a lot line. We need to review two separate sets of finding to determine compliance with past decisions, and reviews of our Project have missed one set of findings or the other in provided feedback. The added complication comes with very little benefit, as the findings of fact outlined state: “at a master plan level the board finds,” and at the preliminary plat level the board reviews the identical criteria with more details and can find differently, which means that the same discussions are being had multiple times using valuable resources including board and staff time. 4 Applicant is unable to determine or differentiate between the master plan review process and the preliminary plat review process except that it seems at the master plan level, less information than the Applicant has provided here, is acceptable in securing broader findings. Applicant has provided detailed information for detailed findings and is not concerned with broader review under a master plan. For this reason, the Project is seeking review and approval as a Planned Unit Development only. No master plan application is requested, and we do not believe that one is required. A brief outline of reasoning related to this topic follows: 1. Master Plan or PUD Only Required The Zoning Regulations adopted on May 12, 2003, amendments adopted July 6, 2020 (the “Regulations”), define a planned unit development as follows: Planned unit development (PUD). One or more parcels of land to be developed as a single entity, the plan for which may propose any authorized combination of density or intensity transfers or increases, as well as the mixing of land uses. This plan, as authorized, may deviate from bylaw requirements that are otherwise applicable to the area in which it is located with respect to the area, density or dimensional requirements or allowable number of structures and uses per lot as established in any one or more districts created under the provisions of these regulations. The specific requirements of a PUD and the area, density and dimensional provisions that may be modified are defined in each district in which PUDs are allowed. Planned Unit Development is required by the City of South Burlington for all projects that are greater than 10 acres. The reason is defined in the purpose statement of Section 15: It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and re-development in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. It is the further purpose of this Article to coordinate site plan, conditional use and subdivision review into a unified process. The Development Review Board shall administer these regulations for the purpose of assuring orderly growth and coordinated development in the City of South Burlington and to assure the comfort, convenience, safety, health and welfare of its citizens. This unity of process, explicitly referenced above, is what our request to not also process a master plan seeks. As the board knows, the PUD process also allows great flexibility in the review and approval of projects, to encourage innovation and efficient use of land. Explicitly stating at Section 15.02(A)(3): In conjunction with PUD review, the modification of these Land Development Regulations is permitted subject to the conditions and standards in this Article and other applicable provisions of these Regulations. The Applicant wishes to pursue the subdivision of its land into the lots shown, the creation of the proposed road network and street improvements, the dedication of open space, and the construction of 128 new single family and townhome structures at the locations indicated on the Project plans. The Master Plan would only secure the road network and open space portions as well as an overall allocation of density. It would not provide for any constructible units or subdivision to saleable 5 lots. It would not provide any measurable benefit. A preliminary plat would then be necessary anyway for securing the Project. The Preliminary Plat can include the same base items as the Master Plan, plus the additional items needed in one unified process, which is the purpose of Section 15, as defined in the Regulations, and quoted above. Applicant also seeks certain process and review waivers as part of this PUD review. While these are often connected to Master Plan review, Section 15.02(B) very clearly acknowledges the Board’s authority to issue process waivers within PUD review (emphasis added): Applications for which PUD review is required. For certain uses and in certain districts, applications for development review must be made as a PUD pursuant to this Article. Such uses and districts are noted below, in Table C-1, Table of Uses, and in individual district articles in these Regulations. For all land development activities meeting these standards, PUD review shall be required unless an application is being made pursuant to specific provisions in a PUD permit issued by the DRB that apply to the land involved and specify another review procedure. The Master Plan requirements of this Article may apply in addition to the standard PUD requirements, as set forth in Section 15.07 below. As you can see, the Regulations explicitly state that the Board may specify “another review procedure,” within a PUD permit. Therefore, it would seem that modification of review procedures are within the PUD process as well. Given this, there appears to be nothing that can be secured in Master Plan, which cannot be secured in a PUD review. Lastly, the Regulations do require Master Plan in certain instances. See Section 15.07(B). B. Master Plan Optional or Required. As part of the PUD and/or subdivision review process, any applicant for land development involving ten (10) or more contiguous acres may submit an application for Master Plan except within the Transect Zones. Master plan review also shall be required as a step in the PUD or subdivision review process in the following cases: (1) Development of more than ten (10) dwelling units in the Southeast Quadrant (2) Development of more than ten (10) units in a five (5) year period in the R1-Lakeshore District. These requirements do not apply to the Project. For all of these reasons and with the full support of the Regulations, the Applicant is not sure why having two applications is necessary and is pursuing only Preliminary Plat findings. Process waivers and regulatory waivers will be combined in that request. We hope that this reduces the complexity and workload for the Board and staff in processing, reviewing and writing the decision, as well as permitting future projects within the PUD. If it is the case that staff or the Board determine Master Plan review is required we have provided the completed application as well as the requisite fee with this application. The relevant information needed is also referenced in this application, because as discussed, the review criteria appear identical. A signed Master Plan application is attached at Exhibit 034 if needed or required. 2. Required Review for Project Components: 6 In reviewing this application for Preliminary Plat, Applicant believes it is best to clarify what level of review applies to what portions of the Project. Effectively there are three distinct areas of land being permitted here: a. Residential 1 Area (R1): This area is outlined very clearly at Exhibit 003. This portion of the Project seeks full permits for the construction and completion of 128 homes, open space, roads, paths and amenities. In conjunction with this review Applicant has provided site plans, architecture, landscape concepts, amenity concepts and descriptions. This area will be reviewed under Article 12, Article 13, Article 14, and Article 15, Article 16 and Article 18. Full site plan review is required in addition to PUD/subdivision review. Site plans for these areas are provided with building footprints, driveways, walkways, etc. Full details are available for Board and Staff review, and Applicant knows exactly what is being proposed to be built, which is described in this application. Please note that while the PUD is proposed with 129 dwelling units total, that is because the existing home at 100 Old Farm Road will remain. Only 128 new homes will be built in addition to that home, for a total of 129 homes within the PUD. b. Commercial 1 Limited Retail (C1-LR Area): This portion of the Project consists of the land located in the C1-LR zoning district. In this district only a road, sidewalk network and lots are proposed. Lots are proposed in conformance with dimensional requirements for the zoning district. This portion of the Project will be reviewed under Article 12, Article 13, Article 15 and Article 16. Importantly, no site plans are proposed and therefore site plan review is not required. The Regulations define Site Plan at Section 14.02: As used in this Article, the term site plan shall mean a rendering, drawing, or sketch prepared to specifications contained in this article. The site plan shall show the arrangement, layout, and design of the proposed use of a single parcel or assembled parcels of land. The arrangement, layout, and design of the use of the parcels in the C1-LR portion of the Project is not provided and it is not required to be provided. It is therefore not an element of Board review. The Applicant was caught off-guard by the focus on what development of these lots could look like at the Sketch Plan level review. Applicant’s original Sketch Plan application contained no projection as to commercial square footage, number of buildings, etc., and projections that were essentially maximum density calculations were only provided at staff request. Applicant wants to reiterate that the Application does not include any construction in this area and that is why no square footages are provided and no site plans proposed. We simply do not know what will be proposed over the next 15 years as these lots are built and the Regulations do not require this information to proceed with subdivision as requested. The inclusion of this information makes more of the Project than it is. The ability to build what is allowed under the regulations exists now, just as much as it will exist when subdivided. This application is not creating density or available uses. With that said, Applicant is keenly aware of what conditions must be in place to successfully foster any development in this area, and the type of development required to facilitate the 7 investment by Applicant in roads, intersections, parks and open space shown in the Project plans. These major items and requests by the Applicant are: I. All lots will be developed in conformance with City zoning regulations in effect at the time of development, thereby providing the City with a guarantee of future development being compliant. II. A height waiver or framework and criteria for issuance of a future waiver, allowing buildings of four-stories over a podium parking garage is requested to apply to all future development on Lots 17, 21-29. III. A setback waiver of 5’ from the ROW with new project roads is requested on Lot 17, 21-29 as applicable. IV. A setback waiver to 30’ from Kennedy and Kimball Avenue is requested. V. The overall residential density of the C1-LR portion will be calculated as the total PUD density, less the density realized in the R1 portion. Allowing any excess density from the R1 portion to be built in the C1-LR. The residential density allowed will be solidified in findings of the PUD. While a specific plan is not provided, these findings are integral to any plan being successful as the infrastructure being designed is meant to accommodate a level of development that could not be sustained without these waivers. In essence, the knowable portions of the project, road, open space, intersection improvements, recreational elements, are sufficient to know that these waivers are needed and in agreeing to perform and to build those elements, Applicant requests these waivers. c. Industrial Commercial (IC) Area: This portion of the Project is located in the IC zoning district. In this district only a road, sidewalk and lots are proposed. Lots are proposed in conformance with dimensional standards. This portion of the Project will be reviewed under Article 12, Article 13, Article 15 and Article 16. No site plans are proposed and therefore site plan review is not required. For these lots no height waiver is currently being requested, but a five-foot setback to new City streets is being requested. It is simply accepted best practice to front buildings on the street, and we hope the board can acknowledge this in granting a waiver so that future development can be positioned attractively at the street. Some additional rear and side yard setbacks are also requested in order to ensure that internal lot lines (between lots created here) do not pose an issue to shared development features such as parking, common driveways, or common structures shared between two different lots/uses. The first step to any development is creating roads and lots that can be developed. The Project land is too large an undeveloped area to be of use to any one user, and a piecemeal development that marketed to single users and planned the land around a use, would be a detriment to the property’s potential for the city. The property must be subdivided so that small portions with known regulations, access, open space and infrastructure can be marketed and developed in an orderly manner. This Project creates that subdivision. It builds roads, sidewalks, parks and open space, and it creates 19 lots that are reasonably sized and available for development. This development could be any number of compliant uses under the Regulations, but it is guaranteed to be a compliant use no matter what it is. This is the system and structure in place for development, used countless times as the City has grown. 8 III. Project Summary and Overview: With this framework in mind, the below provides a detailed project overview of the items we know, and which are proposed for review by the Board. 1. Project Description: The Project involves over 100 acres of land with three existing single-family homes and an existing barn, milking parlor and silo structure. The site spans four different zoning districts in the “core area,” of South Burlington and within the Metro district of the Chittenden County Regional Plan. Both areas where growth is sought in furtherance of City and State goals. The Applicant has included a zoning district map in this application which overlays the zoning districts on the planned development proposal. This map is attached as Exhibit 003 and provides the total acreage of project lands within each zoning district, after accounting for adjustments to zoning district lines up to 50’, as allowed within the PUD process. Line adjustments are shown at Exhibit 003 and the areas provided account for those. The Applicant presents this exhibit to solidify and make clear for all future applications, exactly where the zoning boundaries are located, as adjusted, and how much land within each zoning district is in the Project for purposes of lot coverage calculations. The Project proposes four new City Streets outlined on the Project plans and 35 development and open space lots with frontage on existing and proposed roads. A table provided at Exhibit 004 outlines all lots proposed, the lot areas and the zoning type or proposed use of each lot. As you will see at Exhibit 004, the Project consists of four primary use categories. Land not accounted for below (you will note it does not total to the same as the total involved land), is within a planned City right of way. a. Open Space (25.14 Acres, 27.72%): These are open space areas which may be programmed (such as a dog park) unprogrammed (such as a mowed field for recreation) or environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands. b. Residential (22.21 Acres, 24.49%): These are lots where residential for-sale housing is being proposed. Housing to consist of single-family homes, duplexes and triplexes. c. C1-LR (17.59 Acres, 19.39%): These lots are proposed in conformance with dimensional standards for the zoning district and can accommodate any of the permitted or conditional uses outlined at Appendix C of the zoning regulations. No uses are currently proposed on these lots. Though setback and height waiver requests are made. d. IC (25.76 Acres, 28.40%): These lots are proposed in conformance with dimensional standards for the IC Zoning District and can accommodate any of the permitted or conditional uses outlined at Appendix C of the zoning regulations. No uses are currently proposed on these lots. No height waivers or setback waivers are requested in this location. The Project provides specific plans and elevations for all single family, duplex and triplex structures proposed. As with the ongoing Hillside development, a number of available floor plans and elevations are provided. Buyers will have the choice of elevation, model, and floor plan, with lot restrictions based on topography or neighborhood area. A table at Exhibit 022 provides the elevations available on each lot. Elevations and floor plans for all single family, duplex and triplex products are provided at Exhibit 023, 024, and 025. 9 The Project proposes extensive exterior amenities for Project residents. These amenities include: e. Extensive Path and Trail Network: Trails do include staircases in some locations in order to accommodate for grade change. Stair locations are shown on the Project plans. Paths are shown on the Project Plans. Paths are proposed to be solid surface, not woodchip or gravel to facilitate ease of walking, running, biking, etc. Paths are provided connecting key infrastructure, designed to move people efficiently to destinations. f. Rec Path Extension: The Project includes the extension of the Hillside Recreation path all the way to Old Farm Road (in its relocated orientation) and connecting to Kennedy Drive. The Project proposes to extend the rec path from Kennedy Drive all the way to the Potash Brook as part of the approved C1-LR/IC lot layout and waiver requests. As the details of this path are worked out in final civil drawings, it is the Applicant’s intent to allow for the path to be constructed out of concrete in areas adjacent to planned larger mixed-use locations. As outlined in a proposal before the Board for Hillside, there is a certain feeling to a paved rec path that is not necessarily the vision for the core development area and lots proposed here. While Applicant is happy to provide a wide pedestrian surface, Applicant will seek to use concrete, and also to potentially include tree-wells that may reduce width slightly. Those details can be worked through at final plat. Along Kimball Avenue, Applicant will propose a standard paved rec path. g. Large Park: The Project includes a 12.26-acre park space which includes an extensive outdoor fitness loop, work out stations, a large 1.25-acre fenced dog park, and a large playground structure inclusive of play equipment for a wide range of ages. Equipment is depicted at visual renderings attached at Exhibit 009. This park will be an amazing community amenity with multiple swings, slides and play structures planned. A true destination for families in the development and a meaningful investment facilitated by the overall plan for this Project. h. Scenic Vista/Event Tent Location: The Project includes a dedicated scenic vista located on the most prominent and flattest portion of the property, immediately adjacent to the existing barn. This large flat field is the perfect location for special events, weddings, family reunions and graduation celebrations for residents. It will be available for rent if residents have special events, it could also be considered for community wide event rentals, and year- round will be programmed with benches, paths, and other elements to allow residents to enjoy the scenic views. This vista is located on Lot 32. i. Resident Pool, Club House, Workout Facility: All owners of single family, duplex and triplex homes within the neighborhood will have a membership to the Club House included in their association dues. This will allow full access to the pool and club facility. Architectural plans for this facility are attached at Exhibit 010. Current conceptual proposals include a splash pad or zero entry children’s pool as well as a larger lap-style pool. The proposed club features large windows to capture scenic views of the Green Mountains. This building is located on Lot 32. This space will also be available for reservation and special events to neighborhood owners. 10 j. Community Garden: A large community garden is provided on Lot 32. This garden features easy access from Old Farm Road and parking on site in a pervious and environmentally friendly parking area. Residents from all over the site will be able to conveniently walk or drive to the garden and connect with their environment and the agricultural heritage of the property. Conceptual plans to relocate the barn silo as a landmark at this garden are still in development. This garden will be a community center that is managed by the association for the benefit of all owners. k. Open Space Recreation Field: Lot 18 of the Project consists of 1.17 acres of unprogrammed open space. The perfect area to throw a football, set up a seasonal ice-skating rink, or put up a soccer net. Other available uses could be tennis or pickleball courts should remaining coverage be available at the conclusion of development. This site is left unprogrammed such that it can adapt to resident requests over time. l. Open Space and Picnic Area: Lot 19 contains 1.5 acres of open space located adjacent to the higher density C1-LR and R12 development areas. This open space will be the perfect place for residents of those larger buildings to relax and read a book, or get some fresh air and play catch or frisbee. Convenient and adjacent to their homes. In total, these amenities represent nearly 28% of the land developed by this project. The Applicant has proposed an extensive and well-planned series of open spaces. Integrated into the development and interconnected via easements, paths, and sidewalks. The Project proposes to connect to existing sewer, water, gas, electric and telephone/fiberoptic infrastructure located at the property. All utilities will be underground, including the relocation of existing overhead power where feasible. The Project proposes a standard subdivision of land for the IC and C1-LR areas of the site. The Applicant believes that the lots and layout provided are compliant with the requirements of the regulations for subdivision. The applicant has provided an aerial image laying out the roads and structures proposed. Attached as Exhibit 005. With regard to traffic, the Project has prepared an impact analysis which is attached at Exhibit 014. This impact analysis provides for potential traffic impacts for uses that could exist throughout the lots now proposed. We believe we have overstated the trip demand potential, and proven that safe vehicular access is readily available with improvements that the Applicant will make. The intention of this permit is to solidify a range of improvements and the requisite trip counts associated with those improvements, to provide security for trip end allocation to the lots included herein. The Applicant is requesting a height waiver and setback waivers be issued for the C1-LR lots in this PUD. This waiver is necessary to ensure that future project approvals can be secured to warrant the investment in roads, parks and open space for the community. This subdivision is identical to other areas of the City where lots are created without all development details being provided. Technology Park, Tilley Drive, Meadowlands Business Park, are all examples of similar developments subdivided before specific users were known. All were issued permits for roads and lots. Previous discussions have focused greatly on layouts for these areas. While we appreciate wanting to get it right, the reality is this Project is likely to develop over a period of 10-20 11 years. We do not know what uses or regulations will come to pass in that time and we cannot begin to predict what might be built. Our focus is to create a framework where opportunity exists for good development in keeping with the Regulations such that the zoning regulations in effect are the guide and certainty for future development. The waivers requested represent those items which simply must be allowed in any future to warrant the investment being proposed by Applicant now. This investment includes the re- orientation of Old Farm Road, which is not required absent the development of the C1-LR, and will not be proposed outside the context of the subdivision provided. Large parks and opens space also would need to be re-evaluated in order to leave maximum flexibility for future developments, including the dog park. In general, the ability to master plan the site with the features shown is handicapped and potentially impossible without the security of the waivers being requested, or absent a waiver, a predictable and defined framework. In light of the discussion above, and in keeping with the goal of certainty, the Applicant would request of the board findings of fact and decisions that make clear what items are decided in these permits, and what items remain to be discussed. The commitments of this Project are significant, and require certainty for future reviews. The most important areas for certainty, are the areas where this application provides a complete proposal: (i) traffic impacts and trip ends; (ii) Development lots and development areas; (iii) Open Space size, layout and sufficiency for all future uses; and (iv) lot setbacks and height allowance. The Applicant believes that through careful decision making and analysis of the information provided, unambiguous and definitive findings can be outlined that provide clarity and certainty for future applications. Our request is that for each major project component, there be an unambiguous decision that clearly provides for what is decided, and what may still need review. For those items that the board feels it cannot decide, we would like the benefit of that understanding in the permit conditions, such that Applicant can better understand the review process for future plans. We hope to work with the board productively to review and discuss conditions collaboratively and to achieve more certainty than the broad and often vague findings of the Hillside Master Plan which have provided little clarity or direction even on key issued the Applicant thought were decided, such as sufficiency of open space, rec path connections and roadway layout. IV. Compliance with Article 15. As stated at Section I, this project is required to be reviewed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) by the Regulations. The standards for PUD approval in the regulations apply to both subdivision of land, and Planned Unit Developments. The intent was the unification of the process to simplify applications. For this reason, some PUD criteria may not entirely apply to review of subdivision only. Some will. The Regulations require us to make that determination in a reasonable fashion. As outlined at Section 15.04: “While some of these regulations may apply only to the strict subdivision of land and others only to a strict planned unit development project without land subdivision, the intent of these regulations is to unify the process to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, any questions as to 12 the required elements of a PUD or subdivision application or the standards applicable to a specific case, shall be interpreted based on the context of Article 15 of these regulations, and the appropriateness and relevance of a given standard or provision of Article 15 to a PUD or subdivision application.” As mentioned above, this project has two main components. The first is a development of 132 new single family, duplex and triplex for sale homes, located on nine (9) newly created lots. The second is the subdivision of land to create lots where no development proposal is currently made. Both parts of this project are required to be reviewed under Article 15, as a PUD. 1. Section 15.10: Lot Layout: A. Lots shall be laid out in such a way that they can be developed in full compliance with these land development regulations, and giving consideration to topography, soils, and drainage conditions. The applicant believes that all lots shown on the plat plans attached as Exhibit 011 are compliant with this requirement. All lots are laid out with street frontage on public roads, access to utilities, and a logical layout that will allow for and accommodate structures built under the existing zoning rules. Stormwater capacity has been analyzed and reserved, and infrastructure has been accounted for. Wetlands and environmentally sensitive areas have been accounted for. There are no visible indications as to why the lots proposed would not be developable in compliance with the land development regulations. B. Except within the City Center FBC District, the following standards shall apply: Corner lots shall have extra width to conform to setbacks on each street. No subdivision showing any reserved strips shall be approved. A width to length ratio of one to five (1:5) shall be used as a guideline by the Development Review Board in evaluating lot proportions. Developments consisting predominantly of square or roughly square lots or lot with an excessive length to width ratio (i.e. spaghetti lots) shall not be approved. The Project does not propose any spaghetti lots. The development also does not propose any square lots. Lots are proposed in largely rectangular fashion with some exceptions for open space, and for Lot 29, which is located adjacent to Kimball Avenue. However, no lot appears to be in confrontation with this provision, as the width to length ratios seem in line, and each lot can be programmed with compliant uses under these regulations. There are no strips reserved or shown on the plans. C. Within the City Center FBC District, the following standards shall apply: All subdivisions shall contain allowable lot dimensions, block dimensions and street typologies in the applicable / relevant Transect Zone Building Envelope Standards. The Project is not located in the City Center FBC District and therefore this is not applicable. 2. Section 15.11: Relation to Scenic View Protection Overlay District: The Development Review Board may approve a proposed subdivision, though development of one or more lots in the proposed subdivision with construction of a structure would exceed the 13 limitations of the Scenic View Protection Overlay District in these regulations ("view restrictions") in accordance with the provisions in Article 10. The Project is not in the Scenic View Protection Overlay District. This Criterion does not apply. 3. Section 15.12(A) Standards for Roadway, Parking and Circulation: Street Layout. The arrangement of streets in the subdivision shall provide for the continuation of arterial, collector and local streets of adjoining subdivisions and for proper projection of arterial, collector and local streets through adjoining properties that are not yet subdivided, in order to make possible necessary fire protection, movement of traffic and construction or extension, presently or when later required, of needed utilities and public services such as recreation paths, sewers, water and drainage facilities. Where, in the opinion of the Development Review Board, topographic or other conditions make such continuance undesirable or impracticable, the above conditions may be modified. In no case shall gates of any kind be permitted across public or private roads, or driveways serving more than one dwelling unit. The Project proposes a number of new streets. Each new street is discussed in detail below. Please note that while some names are provided here, these are not the final names proposed, but merely placeholders to enable a more efficient discussion. a. Meadow Loop: The Meadow Loop is a Local Street, as defined in the Regulations. That is to say: “A street used primarily for direct access to property and not for through traffic flow.” This street is designed to allow access to homes located on both sides of the road, and nothing more. The street design includes a sidewalk on the east side of the road and curbing on both sides of the road. The sidewalk is located five feet from the curb, in compliance with green belt standards of the Regulations. Direct connections for proposed unit garages exist along the entirety of this street. The continuation of this street is not logical, as the street is not a dead end and connects to an existing collector street in two locations. The Applicant believes this street clearly meets the requirements of this section. b. Legacy Farm Avenue: Legacy Farm Avenue is a is a Local Street, as defined in the Regulations. That is to say: “A street used primarily for direct access to property and not for through traffic flow.” This street is designed to allow access to homes located on both sides of the road. The street design includes a sidewalk on the west side of the road and curbing on both sides of the road. The sidewalk is located five feet from the curb, in compliance with green belt standards of the Regulations. The continuation of this street is not logical in any location, the street is not a dead end, and both ends connect to an existing collector street. The Applicant believes that this street clearly meets the requirements of this section. c. O’Brien Farm Road Extension West: This road is a collector street, which carries traffic from Kimball Avenue through to Hinesburg Road, Eldredge Street and Kennedy Drive. The road is proposed to connect the existing O’Brien Farm Road to Old Farm Road, in direct furtherance of the goals of Section 15.12(A). The road is proposed with a recreation path on the east side and a sidewalk on the west side. Both sides of the road are curbed. d. O’Brien Farm Road Extension East: O’Brien Farm Road Extension East is the extension of the Phase I Master Plan road network into the Phase II plan after the intersection with Old Farm 14 Road. This road again is a “local,” street as defined by the Regulations. The road has a sidewalk on both sides. There is curb on both sides, and parallel parking planned on the north side. O’Brien Farm Road Extension ends in a planned cul-de-sac, at Lot 28, Lot 30, and Lot 47. While this road does dead-end, it nevertheless meets the plain requirements of the language of this Section and therefore no waiver is required. The road does not dead end at an “adjoining subdivision,” or an adjoining property not yet subdivided. The road ends at a planned destination, entirely within this subdivision, and where no logical continuation exists or could exist to an adjacent property or subdivision. The road leads to a destination and then ends at the destination where a parking area is provided for visitors to the destination. The road serves as an access to only nine homes in the current configuration. The intent of Section 15.12(A) is very clearly not to prohibit a subdivision from having a cul- de-sac, but to prohibit a subdivision from having a cul-de-sac abutting a neighboring undeveloped parcel where that cul-de-sac might be extended, or abutting an adjacent public road where that cul-de-sac might be extended. Cul-de-sacs are a necessary part of community planning, especially in areas where grade, environmental constraints such as wetlands, and other site characteristics prohibit continuation. Applicant is aware of the City’s request to connect this road with Legacy Farm Avenue. Applicant has reviewed that connection and found it to be challenging to construct given significant grade changes, as well as archeological sites that are scattered around the planned cul-de-sac. The archeological assessment completed for this site is attached as Exhibit 007. Applicant also questions what benefit such an extension would have. The users of the park facility have access, a convenient and safe turn-around, and ample parking. The nine residents on the street have garages and driveways. Visitors to Legacy Farm Road would simply turn onto Legacy Farm Road, a few hundred feet past O’Brien Farm Extension and have no need to go on this road. Visitors to the park will simply visit the park and then turn around and go home. All residents of the PUD will have numerous walking paths leading them to the Park and are unlikely to drive anyway. Indeed, driving should and is being discouraged in this neighborhood design. We want residents walking to the Park, not driving. The most direct path to all amenities is in most cases, a walking path. The addition of a road connection at this location deposits significant impervious surface into a site where only 25% coverage is allowed under the Regulations. It would result in a decrease in planned density for the project, which is already unable to achieve its zoned density in the R1 lands due to coverage limitations and the added requirements of Inclusionary Zoning. It would be a steep and potentially dangerous roadway in winter. This road connection would eliminate significant planned green space from the park area, specifically taking space where a large playground is now proposed, and there does not seem to be a logical place to move this playground, as stormwater treatment and archeological sites hem it in. The roadway would also be aesthetically challenged, with banks on the sides to compensate for grade changes, and the roadway would ultimately serve no discernable benefit as connections to both areas are readily available. Furthermore, this connection could arguably be in violation of Section 15.12(C) of the 15 regulations in that it would not: “be logically related to the topography so as to produce usable lots and reasonable grades.”1 The Applicant has participated in numerous planning processes in the City of South Burlington, it has listened to environmentalists, concerned citizens and City Council members and the message of preserving open space, conserving natural areas, protecting the environment and limiting impervious surface is an almost universal theme. The Applicant has worked very hard to present a plan that respects these principles, while also achieving the density of the land and the uses and development desired in the comprehensive plan. The addition of roads that serve no measurable purpose except to make vehicular travel take a few moments less time, is contrary to the consistent message Applicant has heard from the Community. Applicant is proposing a plan that acknowledges our society’s use and need of motor vehicles, but our intent is not to accentuate or over- compensate for that need. Bike paths, walking trails, recreation paths, and non-circuitous pedestrian connections are what make the foundation of this neighborhood. Not roads. As outlined above, the Applicant believes that O’Brien Farm Road meets the plain requirements of Section 15.12(A) and that no waiver is required for this provision. As further outlined, the Applicant believes that a potential connection of this road is unnecessary, unsightly and overall, of negative impact to the development plan. Applicant also believes that the road itself may violate best planning practices, specifically enumerated in the Regulations at Section 15.12(C). e. Legacy Farm Extension: This road is provided to serve as access to only seven homes. It is again a local street (as the Regulations require it to be a public street), but in reality, is more of a driveway. Due to the very low number of units and the fact the street is a dead end, no sidewalk is proposed, and curb is proposed on only one side. A compliant hammerhead turnaround is provided. Sufficient room is provided for a future sidewalk, should a connection to the south be made, at the easement provided. As stated, this road does provide an easement connection to an adjoining undeveloped parcel, and therefore meets the requirements of this Section. f. Private Drive: A private drive is proposed to serve lots 35-1-3. This road is not subject to the provision of Section 15.12A g. Old Farm Road Relocation: The Applicant is proposing the relocation of Old Farm Road to improve the intersection of Old Farm and Kimball Avenue. The planned extension will shift the road east, and create a four-way intersection with the office park across Kimball Avenue. The intersection has shifted since our Sketch Plan to create this four-way intersection in response to feedback from the Board and the community regarding the previous location. The rec path on O’Brien Farm Road will continue down the west side of this road connecting to Kimball Avenue. A sidewalk is located on the eastern portion of the road This road is not a dead end and therefore does not need to be extended in any manner under the provisions 1 Section15.12(C) of the regulations requires that streets be “logically related to the topography,” this is to ensure “useable lots, reasonable grades and safe intersections of appropriate relation to the proposed use.” It seems unlikely that a steep road with large banks along the side that would be unsightly and poorly related to the development surrounding them could meet this criterion. 16 of 15.12(A). Other noteworthy project improvements include a planned right turn lane at the south end of Old Farm Road where Hinesburg Road intersects it. Details on this turn lane are provided in the project traffic study. The final improvement on Old Farm Road is the proposed construction of a one-way “gateway” on Old Farm Road. The details of this proposal are outlined in a letter attached as Exhibit 006. This gateway proposes a landscaped dual stop sign entrance of sorts located where the existing development on Old Farm Road meets the project. This will be a one-way lane, with a stop sign on each side. Cars will need to stop and let the other car pass before going through. The intention is to cause delay for those who would speed down the road as a shortcut, while providing traffic calming and safety for residents, existing and new. We are excited about this proposal, which we feel will offer significant benefit to the current situation. h. IC Road 1: IC Road 1 is a collector roadway. It is proposed to be constructed between the Tilley Drive subdivision border and Kimball Avenue. An easement to the Tilley lands is provided on the end of the roadway. This roadway generally aligns with a road connection shown on the City of South Burlington Official Map. The roadway proposes a sidewalk on both sides and curb on both sides. This roadway connects to an undeveloped parcel outside of this subdivision, in strict compliance with Section 15.12(A). i. IC Road 1 Connection to Legacy Farm: It was raised as a concern in the Sketch Plan hearing for this project and in conversations with Staff that the IC Road should connect to Legacy Farm Road. There are a number of reasons why this connection is not proposed: Grade Change: The change in grade across this site is generally prohibitive of east/west connections. That is why none exist in the project plans. This particular connection is showing 44 feet of grade change over only 475 feet of distance. When accounting for the need to keep a 3% grade maximum for 100 feet near an intersection, this leaves an approximate 11% grade for the road connection. This is too steep. It is outside the permissible city limit, and well outside the design standards/best practice for civil engineering. Even if the pitch was acceptable, the resulting cuts would leave adjacent lots sitting well above the road elevation, steep driveways and difficult access would result. This configuration could well be considered non-compliant with Section 15.12(C) which states: “Streets shall be logically related to topography so as to produce usable lots, reasonable grades and safe intersections.” This street would not be logically related to grade, it would produce strange and difficult to use lots perched above the road or with large sloping front yards, and it would produce unreasonable grades. It would be contrary to the specific goals of the Regulations. Incompatible Use: Even if the grade change could be overcome the resulting connection would not serve any benefit to the neighborhood being designed. The result would simply be that a large portion of the 1200 trips per day projected by the IC subdivision would use this road and cut through the new neighborhood and the existing Old Farm Road neighborhood to get to Hinesburg Road, instead of staying on Kennedy Drive. This would result in a busy and dangerous street on Legacy Farm Road which is not conducive to the peaceful enjoyment of residents. It would have large trucks and other delivery vehicles potentially driving past the resident pool and open spaces, driving between single family residential homes where kids want to play in the driveway or in the street, and would in 17 general devalue the entirety of the Project by connecting an industrial commercial office park directly to a low density residential use. The incongruity of these uses is such that the Zoning Regulations actually prescribe a dense buffer to separate them. Section 13.06(C) of the regulations specifically states: “The Development Review Board will require landscaping, fencing, land shaping and or screening along property boundaries (lot lines) whenever it determines that …a commercial, industrial and multi-family use abuts a residential district.” Here we have exactly that. Yet the suggestion is that we should propose not a hedge, but an unreasonably steep vehicular connection, that would open up and interconnect two completely incompatible and non- complimentary uses. Applicant would like nothing more than for the IC lands in this project to be rezoned to allow for mixed use development and to continue the neighborhood into this area. The City has shown no willingness to have this discussion or make this change to the regulations. With the current zoning, the City itself has erected the barrier and disconnect it now will not accept. There is no benefit to interconnecting an area of single- family residences, with a large industrial park that may very well include: Construction Equipment Sales; Manufacturing; Motor Freight Terminals; Warehouse and Distribution; or any other completely incompatible and generally aesthetically unpleasing uses. It is correct to conclude that the lack of a vehicular connection in this location provides a disconnect between development areas in the Project. That is intentional and it is a direct reflection of the zoning line that places two completely incompatible uses adjacent to each other within one parcel, owned by the Applicant. Green Space Wildlife Corridor Bifurcation: This roadway connection would also bifurcate and significantly devalue the open space and recreational amenities proposed. It would create a crossing point on an otherwise safe and car free path network. It would cause one more worry for families out with small kids and create an unnecessary vehicular interaction for those trying to enjoy the amenities proposed by the Project. Furthermore, it would bifurcate what is currently proposed as a green corridor, available to birds, amphibians, and other small animals to safely transect the project site, accessing the wetland complex and preserved forest on the north of the parcel and lands further north across Kimball Avenue. In recent months, the Applicant has heard many presentations by the City, its consultants and community members about the value of green transects across project sites to allow for the movement of animals in a safe environment. While this concept is in no way conclusive and each particular site and instance must be evaluated, in this instance the Applicant is able to keep a continuous green corridor that cuts across the entire project, connecting open fields with the Project wetlands. We feel this is a nice feature and provides for safe animal movement, be it birds, amphibians, rabbits, or racoons. It is directly in line with the intent and discussion currently underway regarding the re-working of the Regulations, and the Applicant would encourage the board to consider the benefits of this green connection for wildlife, in discussions about transecting the connection with a roadway that is antagonistic to wildlife. Increase of Impervious: As discussed with regard to O’Brien Farm Road East, the additional impervious surface comes with significant environmental impacts. It would pave over space that otherwise can remain wild. It would bifurcate a green corridor that will no doubt be 18 used by wildlife. It will create more concrete and asphalt than is necessary increasing potential for run-off to an impaired watershed and it will encourage vehicular travel and not pedestrian activity. Those who work in the IC and live in the Project can either drive to work and spend an extra one or two minutes in the car, or can walk to work with a direct, easy and beautiful path connection. The Project is seeking the latter. As we continue to evolve as a society, we hope that the vehicle can become less of the focus. Here we are creating a neighborhood where walking is direct, easy and facilitated. Driving may be more indirect, but that is a benefit to our environment, and we are pleased to be part of the solution. 4. Section 15.12(B) Traffic Overlay District: The Project is not in the traffic overlay district. 5. Section 15.12(C) Topography: Topography. Streets shall be logically related to the topography so as to produce usable lots, reasonable grades, and safe intersections in appropriate relation to the proposed use of the land to be served by such streets. Adequate provisions shall be made in the project’s stormwater management system to prevent flooding in the streets and erosion or other adverse impacts on adjacent properties. The road network for this project has been extensively reviewed and discussed over a period of years. The Project site has extensive grade challenges and topography. Roads are generally designed along contours, even in their grade change and consistent. Lots are oriented to the road, are useable and logical with reasonable driveways. Road grades are all within accepted standards, are safe and reasonable. Details regarding all of the roads and road grades can be found at the Project plan sheets. Roadway profiles specifically are attached at Exhibit 012. Applicant will work with the City Engineer to ensure that all roadways are within design guidelines or are otherwise deemed acceptable. 6. Section 15.12(D) Public and Private Roadways: In reviewing PUD, subdivision and master plan applications, the DRB shall have the authority to require the construction of roadways to City standards and the dedication of roadways to the City. The DRB also shall have the authority, subject to the limitations in (3) below, to waive this requirement and to allow private streets, and/or public streets not built to full City standards as set forth in Table 15-1 and Figure 15-1. All roadways proposed are public in line with the requirements of this Section, save the single private driveway that serves Lots 35 1-3. This private driveway is specifically allowed at Section 15.12(C)(3)(c): “The proposed roadway serves five (5) or fewer single family or duplex dwellings. The single proposed private driveway serves only three dwellings, and is nothing more than a driveway which the public has no interest or benefit to maintaining. Section 15.12(D)(4) Connections to Adjacent Parcels: 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 19 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. As discussed above, the Project proposes only two roads that have the opportunity to connect to adjacent parcels. IC Road 1 and Legacy Farm Road Extension. In both cases the road is built to the property line and a ROW is provided for the City to eventually connect to the adjacent property if needed. Dead end roads in the project do not extend to adjacent property lines, and do not relate to any adjacent property lines. With regard to recreation paths and the provisions of this section, it should be noted that Applicant’s plan includes construction of a recreation path from Kennedy Drive all the way to the border of the Project with Technology Park. The recreation path is therefore extended by the Project in compliance with the requirements of this section. 7. Section 15.12(E): Standards for Construction of Roadways: The Project proposes to construct all new roads, in compliance with the requirements of this Section. There may be some small deviations from table 15-1 required. Applicant will work with the Public Works director before Final Plat, to confirm any deviations and to provide a specific waiver request if necessary. 8. Section 15.12(F): Entrances: The nearest signalized intersection or those intersections specified by the DRB shall have an overall level of service “D” or better, at the peak street hour, including the anticipated impact of the fully developed proposed PUD or subdivision. In addition, the level of service of each through movement on the major roadway shall have a level of service “D” or better at full buildout. The Project has completed an extensive traffic study which is attached to this application as Exhibit 013. This study looks at the full range of impacts for the Project’s projected trip generation when fully built out, including development on lots which is not currently known or proposed. The top line conclusion of the traffic impact analysis states: “The TIA concludes that with the above improvements and impact fees, the existing street network in the immediate vicinity will have sufficient capacity and safety to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the Project.” The Project TIA is largely in complete compliance with the requirements to maintain LOS D or better of this Section. However, the Kimball Ave/Kennedy Drive intersection does go to LOS E in the full build out scenario. LOS E is also predicted at the intersection of Old Farm Road and Hinesburg Road; however, LOS E currently exists at this intersection and so the Project is not reducing capacity there. Applicant has had extensive conversations with Staff and with planning agencies and representatives for this region, regarding the long-term planning for vehicular infrastructure in the Project area. The City itself recently completed one such study, which looked at this exact area and the exact intersections discussed here. In the Study completed by the City, it was assumed that the IC Road 1, proposed in our Project was connected to Tilley Drive and therefore Hinesburg Road. That assumption seems to greatly reduce the demand at the 20 Kimball and Kennedy intersection. Our assumption is that by including this Tilley Drive connector in our TIA (we had previously not assumed any improvements outside of our full control), we can bring the LOS at Kennedy and Kimball to a LOS D or better. Applicant also believes that by including the Tilley Drive connection we could reduce the needed improvements on Kimball Avenue significantly, and enable a full build out of the Project without widening at Kimball Avenue This will be incorporated into an additional review along with any other questions or concerns raised by the Board during the review process. In making this adjustment, it should be noted that the TIA does recognize that all of the development on the R1 land, the C1-LR land and 50% of the proposed development on the IC land can be completed before triggering this LOS issue. It is not an unreasonable assumption that in 10 years when the second half of the IC development is proceeding, this connection to Tilley might exist. Applicant must rely, to some extent on good planning and management by the City in this arena. Because the Project is so large and the timeframe for construction is so extended, the Applicant does not believe it is practical or necessary to issue findings related to the full build out of the lots proposed here. Applicant is not looking to obligate itself to making improvements in Kimball Avenue or other existing and capacity challenged public roads for the benefit of all landowners on that road, and expects that the City will organize and coordinate some sort of traffic impact fees to make those needed improvements in the coming years. However, Applicant does wish to secure its development rights, such that neighboring users will not create capacity issues prohibitive of the Project being developed. Applicant is proposing here to secure approval for the Residential and 50% Commercial Build-out, as modeled in the TIA. Applicant acknowledges that in the future, adjustments or additional infrastructure investment may be needed to secure the second half of the commercial trips, and is willing to review and secure that capacity at a later time, or will look to model that increase in the context of Tilley Drive being connected, and can tie our capacity to that construction. In the 50% IC scenario, Applicant would propose the following existing road network improvements: a. Relocation of Old Farm Road and Kimball Intersection: As shown on the project plans, to create better site distances and easier access. This new intersection would be signalized and will create a four-way intersection with the office park across the street. b. Kimball Ave and IC Road 1: This fully signalized intersection will be constructed by Applicant as warranted during the build-out of the development lots located on IC Road 1. c. Kimball Avenue Turn Lanes and Widening: At new project intersections, Applicant will invest in turn lanes and road widening as shown on the TIA plans, located at Exhibit 014. As outlined in the TIA, no other improvements to the existing road network are required to facilitate the R1, C1-LR and 50% of the IC developable land. Approvals for more trips, while feasible given assumptions outlined above, will not be sought at this time. At the point the PUD reaches its trip limit, additional improvements will be analyzed to increase capacity. All relevant LOS will be at LOS D or above in the development scenario requested here. 21 Section 15.12(F)(4) discusses location and design requirements for Project access. Each of which is discussed as follows: Maximize the use of secondary streets for access and circulation The project utilizes Old Farm Road, O’Brien Farm Road, Eldredge Street, Kimball Avenue, Kennedy Drive, Meadow Loop Road and Legacy Farm Road for project access and circulation. We believe this street network is extensive and safe, and adequately utilizes secondary streets for circulation. Align access points with existing intersections and/or curb cuts The Project proposes to align the new Old Farm Road intersection with the existing Kimball Avenue office park curb cut. This is the only location where a new intersection is proposed, that could align with another curb cut, and Applicant has proposed this alignment. Consolidate existing curb cuts within the PUD property The Project site only has one existing curb cut on Kimball Avenue. This criterion does not apply. Provide for safe access to abutting properties As discussed above the Project proposes direct and safe access to lands south of the Project located in the vicinity of the Tilley Drive office park, via easements to extend IC Road 1 and Legacy Farm Extension. The project does not propose roads connecting to adjacent properties in any other locations. Make provisions for safe access, with provisions for appropriate sight distances and accommodations for high-accident locations Sight distances and high-accident locations have been reviewed in the TIA provided at Exhibit 013. The Project incorporates this analysis and proposes a safe and appropriate street network. Provide deceleration, acceleration and/or turn stacking lanes as appropriate to meet the standards in (1) above. The Project is designed with this criterion in mind and we believe sufficient stacking and deceleration/acceleration space is provided. We will look forward to the review of the Board and the Director of Public works and make accommodation as needed. Provide adequate curb radii to accommodate the anticipated speeds and types of vehicles We believe that this requirement is met. We will look forward to discussing the particulars with the Board and the Director of Public Works and will provide full details for this at Final Plat. 9. Section 15.12(G) Emergency Access: 22 Paved access and sufficiently safe access for emergency vehicles is provided per the requirements of this section. We will look forward to the review of the Fire Chief and to working with the Board to ensure any requested changes are accommodated. 10. Section 15.12(H) Standards for Internal Circulation and Parking: This item will be discussed under site plan review, if applicable. 11. Section 15.12(I) Street Jogs: Street Jogs. Street jogs with center line offsets of less than two hundred (200) feet shall not be allowed, unless specifically approved by the DRB for purposes of traffic calming, upon concurrence of the Fire Chief and City Engineer. The Project roadways will be reviewed in detail by the director of public works. It is not anticipated that we will have any issues complying with this section. 12. Section 15.12(J) Street End Alternatives: The Project proposes two dead end roads. O’Brien Farm East, and Legacy Farm Avenue Extension. Both roadways are discussed in detail above at Section 3(d-e). The reasons for these dead-end streets are discussed there. Section 15.12(J) proposes two different available alternatives for the turnarounds at the end of each street. A hammerhead and a cul-de-sac. The regulations explicitly state that both are allowed, but that the City prefers the Hammerhead style. The Project has reviewed both available options and currently proposes one hammerhead style turnaround and one cul-de- sac. a. O’Brien Farm Road East: As shown on the zoning plan attached at Exhibit 003, the cul-de-sac at the end of O’Brien Farm Road east is located entirely within the residential R1 district. Therefore, it is allowed, per the explicit language of Section 15.12(J). This road currently serves as access to nine single family homes and the neighborhood park, which is located at the end of the road, along with a dedicated parking area. The Applicant believes that a cul- de-sac is much more visually and architecturally appealing in this location than a hammerhead. It poses an opportunity for a nice landscaping feature (in the center) and to create a real focal point for the neighborhood at the entrance to a 12-acre open space. Applicant believes a hammerhead in this location would be unsightly and would not allow for an opportunity to increase landscaping and contribute to a sense of place. Applicant has proposed a cul-de-sac with a 48’ radius in conformance with the standard of this section, but is requesting review and a waiver if necessary, to ensure the central island can be planted and not paved. b. Legacy Farm Road Extension: This small street serves eight single family homes. A compliant hammerhead turnaround is proposed at the end of this street, as that style turn-around is easily extended to the adjacent property in the future. An easement is provided to the property line for potential future connection. 23 13. Section 15.12(K) Street Names: Street names currently proposed are placeholders only. The Applicant will work to get names approved by the Planning Commission in accordance with the requirements of this Section for Final Plat. 14. Section 15.12(L) Street Signs: Applicant is happy to work with the City for the installation of street signs. At Final Plat, applicant will provide detailed roadway plans showing sign locations and types throughout the planned road network. 15. Section 15.12(M): Sidewalks and Recreation Paths: The Project proposes an extensive network of sidewalks and recreation paths. Each road section and the sidewalks or paths proposed are detailed at Section 3 above. In general, with regard to each requirement: a. 15.12(M)(1): No Arterial Streets are proposed. Collector streets in the commercial area include sidewalk and/or recreation paths on both sides as required. Collector Streets in the residential area contain sidewalk on one side as required. Local streets contain sidewalk on one side as required. b. 15.12(M)(2): Sidewalk to curb distance is 5’ as required. c. 15.12(M)(3): Sidewalks are laid out in a logical manner given the road configuration. If the Board has suggestions related to shifts that will increase sun exposure, we are happy to consider these ideas and potentially make adjustments. d. 15.12(M)(4): The project is not in a transect zone. e. 15.12(M)(5): This Section states that “Permanent pedestrian easements 20’ in width, may be required through blocks six hundred feet or more in length, or as a continuation of cul- de-sacs … in order to facilitate pedestrian circulation within the subdivision or PUD.” Further to the goal of this criterion, which is to facilitate pedestrian circulation within the PUD, the Applicant has provided an extensive network of paths and mid-block easements. These path and trail connections are shown on the project plans, attached at Exhibit 015. These trails and paths are also shown on the conceptual landscape sheets attached at Exhibit 016 and Exhibit 017. The applicant believes that path and trail connections provided are in keeping with the intent of this provision and facilitate easy access to destinations within the PUD. Applicant has been thoughtful in presenting these paths so as to minimize duplicative or unnecessary path connections, as these connections have a significant marketability impact and are a privacy concern to prospective homeowners. Homes where privacy cannot be achieved due to public path easements are significantly less desirable to potential customers. In general, easements are offered at approximately 600’ intervals with an exception along Legacy Farm Avenue. Two path connections exist on Legacy Farm Avenue, one at the 700 station and one at the 1700 station (approximately). Roughly 1000 feet lies between these crossing points. 24 In considering if an additional crossing is needed to travel from Legacy Farm Road to the walking path below, Applicant was cognizant of the fact that a crossing does exist for every home (twenty total) within this 1000-foot stretch of Legacy Farm Road at 600 feet or less from their front door. The two homes in the middle of this stretch would walk 500’ in either direction to their destination or would simply walk out there back yard and down to the park path network. The home at footprint lot 31-24, which is the closest to the middle on the west side of Legacy Farm Road is located at station 1300. Meaning it is only 400’ north or 600 feet south to a path connection. Furthermore, any destination they are headed to (the Park or the IC land) is in that direction anyway. A resident at Lot 35-5 or 31-24 would see no discernable benefit from an additional crossing point. Those coming from further away also would see no discernable benefit. There is no reason to walk to the land behind footprint lot 35-5 or 35-6. All that lies behind there is a mid-point in a trail connecting two destinations that are served by more direct means. For this reason, an additional connection is not added at this location. No waiver is needed for this, as this is not a requirement of the regulations unless the board so chooses. 16. Section 15.13(A) Utility Easements: Easements of sufficient size are provided for all utilities. Applicant will work with the Director of Public works and applicable utility providers to ensure this. 17. Section 15.13(B) Public Water Service: The applicant will construct public water service per all applicable rules and guidelines so as to ensure adequate pressure. Construction will conform with applicable water department specifications. 18. Section 15.13(C) Private Water Service: None are proposed. 19. Section 15.13(D) Public Wastewater Service: The applicant will connect to public wastewater infrastructure. Applicant will procure all necessary State and City approvals for construction. Sewer main types and sizes are shown in the project plans. Applicant has provided a draft preliminary allocation for wastewater for the 132 units proposed at Exhibit 018. 20. Section 15.13(E) Utility Lines: All new utility lines will be underground as required. 21. Section 15.13(F) Stormwater Management: The Project proposes the construction of stormwater practices sufficient to treat and comply with the requirements of the City and the State of Vermont. Stormwater design calculations are provided as required by Appendix E of the Regulations at Exhibit 019. Stormwater treatment practices are outlined on the Project plans. Applicant assumes that there will be some questions and design concerns and is looking forward to working cooperatively and proactively with the City to refine the proposal and ensure the requirements of this section and section 12 of the regulations are met. 22. Section 15.14 Required Public Facilities and Improvements: This section deals largely with issues related to construction that can be addressed at a later stage of review. 25 23. Section 15.15 Performance Bonds, Escrow Accounts and Letters of Credit: This section can be addressed at a later stage of review. Waiver requests related to these requirements are raised here for preliminary review and discussion with the Board. 24. Section 15.16 Acceptance of Streets: This section can be addressed at a later stage of review. 25. Section 15.17 Certificate of Title: This criterion applies specifically to final plat. A certificate of title can be provided at a later stage of review. 26. Section 15.18(A)1 Sufficient Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal: The Project will make use of City water and sewer. A draft preliminary allocation request for sewer is attached at Exhibit 018. A draft water allocation request is attached at Exhibit 20. 27. Section 15.18(A)2 Sufficient Grading and Erosion Control: The Project will procure all required state permits for erosion control. We will prepare requisite erosion control plans for submission with the Final Plat application, per the requirements of the submission table in the Regulations. No issues are presumed with full compliance to all City Erosion Control standards. 28. Section 15.18(A)4 Wetlands, Streams and Wildlife Habitat 2: The Project presented has been analyzed by third party environmental consultant Gilman and Briggs, a respected environmental consulting firm based in Barre, Vermont. The site was reviewed for rare and threatened plants, animals, sensitive animal habitat, unique natural features, and wetlands. Wetlands delineated are avoided in this plan with no impacts proposed to the wetland or the wetland buffer including a small portion of Potash Brook and an associated wetland which runs across a corner of the property. No rare plants or threatened plants or species were found during the project site review. The specific conclusions of the extensive review conducted by Gilman and Briggs are summarized in their letter attached as Exhibit 021. The key conclusion of that letter is stated here: This field evaluation found no evidence of any rare or irreplaceable wildlife communities or species on the Project site, nor was there evidence of significant environmental resources other than wetlands and stream buffers which have been flagged and will be avoided. Prudent development on this property will not have undue adverse impacts on any significant habitats and will not involve removal of any high priority forest block mapped by the Agency of Natural Resources or those included in the recent Arrowwood Environmental mapping commissioned by the City of South Burlington. 2 Please note that the regulations contain a typo, item 15.18(3) does not exist. It is not omitted in our review, but rather is not included in the regulations. We have addressed the criteria in order, and we have matched the numbering in the Regulations. 26 While the review of Gilman and Briggs identified no evidence of any rare or irreplaceable wildlife or species, or any species that might need protection, and while the Applicant concurs with this assessment and sees no regulatory concerns with the development proposed, the Applicant is sensitive to the feelings of those in the community who wish to preserve wildlife connections. For this reason, the Applicant has provided two “greenway” corridors that cut across the Project land, and which have no road connections bisecting them. These are located between the R1 and IC portions of the project, connecting to the wetland complex on the north with open fields to the south, and at the eastern border of the Project along the brook again running roughly north to south. Applicant believes that these natural corridors will encourage a healthy and diverse wildlife population to the extent feasible in this developed area. The types of species observed will continue to flourish, including birds, rabbits, squirrels and other observed resident species noted in the letter at Exhibit 021. 29. Section 15.18(A)5 Compatibility with Planned Development Patters: 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. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of lot lines, streets and street types, and natural resources identified in Article XII of these Regulations. The Project proposes development that has three major areas, R1, C1-LR and IC. Each area reflects the underlying zoning district for the land on which the development is proposed. Each area also reflects the style, size and scale of developments immediately adjacent. The Project is in line with not only the uses, density and coverage allowed in the zoning districts, but is also in line with the future land use map in the City’s comprehensive plan. A district by district analysis is provided, discussing the specific proposals before the Board. C1-LR Zoning District: The purpose of the C1-LR Zoning District as defined in the Regulations is as follows: A Commercial 1 with Limited Retail C1-LR District is hereby formed in order to encourage the location of general retail at specific intersections in the city, to serve nearby residential areas. These commercial areas are intended to serve the convenience shopping needs of local residents and employees. Their location and design are intended to make them accessible both by motorized vehicle and by foot, thereby somewhat reducing traffic volume in the immediate vicinity. In these areas, businesses offering goods and services will be limited in allowed floor area and use. Such regulations generally follow existing Commercial 1 District regulations. As noted above the C1-LR generally follows the Commercial 1 regulation. Those regulations also state: A Commercial 1 District is hereby formed in order to encourage the location of general retail and office uses in a manner that serves as or enhances a compact central business area. Other uses that would benefit from nearby access to a central business area, including clustered residential development and small industrial employers, may be permitted if they 27 do not interfere with accessibility and continuity of the commercial district. Large-lot retail uses, warehouses, major industrial employers, and incompatible industrial uses shall not be permitted. Planned Unit Developments are encouraged in order to coordinate traffic movements, promote mixed-use developments, provide shared parking opportunities, and to provide a potential location for high - traffic generating commercial uses. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses. The Project proposes on the land zoned as C1-LR a mixed-use development that will eventually contain many of the elements outlined above as the intent of these districts. It is a mixed-use development with shared parking, it will provide for convenience and shopping needs of residents, it is accessible to vehicles and by foot interconnected with paths and trails. The Project proposes commercial and larger multi-family structures in the immediate vicinity of existing large office and commercial mixed-use properties located on the opposite side of Kimball Avenue. The Project also includes the extension of infrastructure and connectivity from the existing Hillside at O’Brien Farm Master Plan, which will develop large scale apartment buildings immediately adjacent to the proposed uses here (the “clustered residential development” envisioned). For all of these reasons we believe that the Project is in line with the intent of the Zoning Regulations and the intent of the district. It is also a logical continuation of the adjacent development pattern within the zoning district, as very similar structures are proposed on the south, and built on the north of the Project area. In terms of the planned development pattern outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, the best portrayal of the planned development pattern can be found at Map 11 of the Comprehensive Plan, the Future Land Use map. The C1-LR portion of the Project Lands where the Project proposes subdivision to create lots that can accommodate future higher intensity mixed use and residential development is colored red. Red is labeled: “Medium to Higher Intensity Mixed Use Development.” Given this, it seems the Project is proposing exactly what is outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. In terms of visual compatibility, this may be one criterion that is not applicable to subdivision only. No construction is proposed and so no changes to the land will be created, other than a road network. The road network is very minor in terms of scale and is certainly in keeping with the existing pattern of roads such as Kimball Avenue, Kennedy Drive, and Old Farm Road. The new roadway provided in the IC area no bigger than all of these roads and therefore would be very much visually compatible. IC Zoning District: The purpose of the IC Zoning District as defined in the Regulations is as follows: “The Mixed Industrial-Commercial District is formed to encourage general industrial and commercial activity in areas of the City served by major arterial roadways and with ready access to Burlington International Airport. The Mixed Industrial- Commercial district encourages development of a wide range of commercial, industrial and office uses that will generate employment and trade in keeping with the City’s economic development policies. These uses are encouraged in locations that are compatible with industrial activity and its associated land use impacts. Major commercial uses, such as supermarkets and shopping 28 centers shall not be permitted. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses.” While no specific proposals are put forward for the IC lands the plan does create a framework for development of nine IC lots. These lots would be available to be developed with any compliant uses allowed in the IC district, and with nothing else. The project will create these saleable lots and a workable road network that will facilitate development of the underlying land in line with the rules and uses allowed in this district. The Project proposes to take the first step in creating a framework where land is available, and a plan is in place that can facilitate compliant development of the IC zoned lands in the Project. In terms of the Comprehensive Plan, the IC zoned lands in the Project are colored purple on Map 11. These nine development lots, intended for medium to high-intensity non- residential use, are labeled: “Medium to High Intensity Non-Residential Use,” in the comprehensive plan. The Project therefore proposes development that is in exact furtherance of the Comprehensive Plan goals. In terms of visual compatibility, because no development is proposed other than construction of the road, this criterion may not apply. That said, the road proposed is very much in keeping with the size and scale of adjacent roadways. Further, the road proposed facilitates a connection that is referenced in the City map. R1 PRD Zoning District: The regulations do not provide a purpose for the R1-PRD zoning district and while this is a subset of the R1 district, given the density increase provided by the regulations to four units per acre, it would seem the most comparable zoning district to the R1-PRD would be the R4. The purpose of the R4 district is as follows: A Residential 4 District is hereby formed in order to encourage residential use at moderate densities that are compatible with existing neighborhoods and undeveloped land adjacent to those neighborhoods. Any use not expressly permitted is prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses. The Project proposes moderate density residential development in line with what would be expected at the density provided in the R1 PRD district, though in terms of realizing the density allowed, the Project is 55 units below the maximum density in the R1 lands under the regulations. In terms of the existing development pattern, we believe that the R1 portions of the Project are in alignment. As designed, the Project carries forward a very similar density to the Hillside neighborhood, which is the immediate western neighbor. While the Hillside lands are zoned R-12, through the implementation and approval of the previous Master Plan and the consolidation of the density units on the northern commercial and multifamily sites, the resulting density for the single family and duplex neighborhood is more akin to R4 density. The proposed homes in this phase are of similar size and scale to the Hillside neighborhood as shown on the architectural plans, Exhibit 023, 024, 025. Density decreases somewhat on the western side of the road due to topography. A large open space is provided at the 29 existing Barn. We believe the traditional single-family neighborhood planned is fully aligned with the Zoning Regulations (which expressly permit a density above what we are realizing), as well as the existing development pattern which is slightly denser than what the Project will realize. In terms of the Comprehensive Plan, the Project proposes medium intensity residential housing transitioning to mixed use at the northern end in the R1 lands. These lands are colored orange at Map 11 of the Comprehensive Plan. The orange color is labeled: “Medium Intensity Residential to Mixed Use.” Given this, the Project proposes development explicitly in line with the stated development goals of the Comprehensive Plan. For this Project component we do have a visual understanding of what is proposed and we can address the requirement of visual compatibility. The homes proposed are all shown at Exhibit 023, 024 and 025. As the Board will see the homes are very much in keeping with the architecture of the Hillside neighborhood, which is the most prominent existing neighbor. These traditional home designs are very much in line with what is expected in a residential district, and we believe will be visually compatible with other adjacent planned uses such as the multi-family and mixed-use area, in a similar way to how the Hillside neighborhood is able to blend successfully into the multi-family area of that Master Plan. The style of architecture proposed is of high-quality and has thus far on the Hillside project – which has similar designs - been well received. Applicant also has the benefit of topography in that the homes will be situated higher than adjacent larger uses proposed. Applicant believes that the neighborhood as planned is visually compatible with the surrounding existing and planned uses. 30. Section 15.18(A)6 Open Space Connectivity: 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. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of natural resources identified in Article XII of these Regulations and proposed open spaces to be dedicated to the City of South Burlington. The Project proposes a number of open spaces Lot 04, Lot 18, Lot 19, Lot 47 and Lot 48. In total, the project proposes 25.14 acres of open space, or approximately 28% of the total Project lands. The open space areas are spread out throughout the Project in order to place open space areas within a short distance of all the homes proposed. Each area proposed is interconnected within the Project via a trail network the Applicant has provided. Larger open space areas do abut other existing or potential open spaces. Lot 04 abuts a significant wetland and open space complex on the far side of Kimball Avenue. Lot 18 abuts the existing residential neighborhood on Old Farm Road and large open spaces associated with those lots. Lot 18 is also interconnected with the existing open space and public park in Hillside, via a walking path. Lot 19 proposes a new large open space centrally located between the residential and commercial areas, and interconnected with Hillside via planned open space connections. Lot 47 and Lot 48 are both greenway open spaces that travel from the adjacent parcels (outside the project) all the way to the existing road. Specifically 30 providing for a large open space connection that runs uninterrupted across the project. The open space on Lot 48 specifically provides for contiguous open space in the stream buffer area. The Project includes numerous open spaces, connects them all and connects many to adjacent lands for future expansion. The Project clearly meets this criterion. 31. Section 15.18(A)7 Fire Safety: The roads are designed to include a minimum 20’ flat continuous surface for ease of access for fire safety. The applicant is happy to work with the Fire Department and will make necessary adjustments as required. This criterion is met. 32. Section 15.18(A)8 Common Infrastructure: The Project connects to infrastructure in the Hillside Development and extends it. It connects to existing Old Farm Road infrastructure. The Project provides for a connection to Tilley Drive should that parcel be built-out, with a road that is designated on the City’s official map. All utilities will also be continued/designed to be extended at these points. The Project extends the rec path from the Hillside development, it extends sidewalk and path connections from the Hillside development. The Project connects and completes infrastructure at Kennedy Drive. Creates pedestrian infrastructure on Old Farm Road, will add crosswalks at signalized intersections. This Project knits together and connects the currently vacant 100 acres of land with all of the adjacent developed and undeveloped components creating a walkable neighborhood with shared common infrastructure and landscape. This criterion is met. 33. Section 15.18(A)9 Road Geometry: We look forward to the review of the Public Works department, but we believe the roads as drawn can and will comply with applicable standards. 34. Section 15.18(A)10 Comprehensive Plan: The Project is in line completely with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to the alignment with the future land use map detailed at Section 29 above, please find additional details as follows: Objective 39: The majority of all new development will occur within the Shelburne Road, Williston Road, and Kennedy Drive Corridors and other areas within the Transit service area. The Project is located in the transit overlay district adjacent to Kennedy Drive in the development core of South Burlington. The Project is focusing new development in this area as directed by Objective 39. Objective 40: Prioritize development that occurs within the community into the higher intensity areas defined within this Plan. The Project lands are shown on the Future Land Use Map, Map 11 of the Comprehensive Plan. The northern portion of the property, where the Project proposes higher intensity mixed-use and residential development is colored red, labeled “Medium to Higher Intensity Mixed-Use”. The east and west portions of the plan where medium intensity residential housing is proposed are colored orange, labeled “Medium Intensity Residential to Mixed- Use. The portion of the Project where non-residential lots are proposed for future development is colored purple on the plan, labeled “Medium to Higher Intensity Principally Non-Residential”. 31 As you can see, our development plan mirrors exactly the intensity, type and location of development outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. These areas that are outlined have medium to high intensity. As such, prioritization of development in this area would further Objective 40 and be in line with Map 11 of the Comprehensive Plan. The Project is located in the Northwest Quadrant of the City. Objective 49: Allow for infill development, including parks and civic spaces that serves and supports the character of existing small neighborhoods with a focus on replacement of small single-family affordable homes that have been bought and demolished under the Burlington International Airport’s Property Acquisition Plan in association with its adopted Noise Compatibility Program. While the Project is large, it is in fact infill development. This project is bounded by intense development and municipal infrastructure on all sides and is an island in the City’s developed core. The Project provides an extensive range of for-sale homes including a number of which that will be sold as affordable. There is no question that the Project provides a real opportunity for the City to recover a number of homes lost to the airport program. This is in direct furtherance of Objective 49 for the Northwest Quadrant. Under the Future Land Uses section in the Northwest Quadrant portion of the Comprehensive Plan it states: “Remaining undeveloped areas provide an opportunity for multiple uses, including housing at a density and design that is transit supportive.” The Project is proposing new housing that both integrates with the adjacent uses, aligns with the planned intensity shown on the future land use map, and which is of a density that is transit supportive. The Applicant is willing to construct bus stops within the site that are well located and beneficial should the bus line wish to extend service within the neighborhood, as would be desired by the Applicant and presumably the City. Key Planning Issues discussed in the Comprehensive Plan include: Affordability: The plan discusses the challenges faced with affordability. The Project proposes construction of affordable housing units in the Northwest Quadrant. It creates lots suitable for large scale development of such affordable housing in connection with the recently passed inclusionary ordinance. In the immediate plan, the Project proposes to construct 9 affordable 3-bedroom ownership units. This directly furthers the goals of the comprehensive plan for affordability. Applicant would note that the Comprehensive Plan does not strictly limit its affordability metric to 80% of AMI. Indeed, the plan targets homes in the 100-120% AMI range as well. This market has also been underserved and was able to be brought into the Hillside project. Applicant is offering a range of products and pricing to a broad swath of the market. The success of this strategy is apparent in the diversity of the existing Hillside neighborhood, where teachers, retirees, nurses, doctors, veterans, families, young professionals and attorneys all share a neighborhood, parks, and community. We do not want this fact to be missed by the Board. Our neighborhood is affordable to a broad swath of South Burlington and fosters community beyond the 80% AMI requisite homes. It is also important to note that the Project offers step-up style homes that offer additional housing supply enabling homeowners to sell their existing older housing stock in order to 32 purchase a new home. The result is that by adding new housing, the Project also creates access to lower priced homes that come available. This is not a theory but a proven fact in housing cost studies throughout the country. Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure: The plan discusses the challenge of extending pedestrian infrastructure and bicycle infrastructure. The Project proposes extensive new infrastructure for bikes and pedestrians. The Applicant is committed to creating an interconnected and bike and pedestrian friendly neighborhood. We are proposing a rec path connection from Kennedy Drive all the way to the project border on Kimball Avenue as requested by the Bike and Pedestrian committee. We are proposing thousands of feet of new sidewalk, paths and trails. The entire neighborhood is interconnected with pedestrian infrastructure, both east to west and south to north. The roads, sidewalks and paths outlined in this application will undoubtedly create an interconnected pedestrian environment. In addition to this, the full build out of the Project will also contribute significantly to recreation and bike and pedestrian impact fees to further enhance this infrastructure throughout the City. 35. Section 15.18(A)11 Stormwater: The Project stormwater system is designed and the calculations are provided for review. At this stage, the Applicant is happy to have the feedback of the City and the Board on any improvements that can be made, but the design intent is compliance with this criterion V. Compliance with Article 14: Site Plan Review As outlined above, the only portion of the Project that must comply with Site Plan review standards is the portion proposed for full development. This is the R1 area. The entire area is outlined in red at Exhibit 003. The specifics of this project as pertain to the site plan review criteria are discussed below. 1. Section 14.06(A) Relationship of Proposed Development to the City Comprehensive Plan: See Section III(34) above. 2. Section 14.06(B) Parking: The project proposes a number of different roads, home configurations and parking configurations. For the purpose of discussing this requirement. We will discuss parking as it relates to each road in the project. a. Meadow Loop: This road has frontage on Lot 16, Lot 18, Lot 19 and Lot 20. The Meadow Loop Road contains a mix of open space, single family homes, duplex homes and triplex homes. The homes located on Lot 16 are all single-family homes. Given this, parking is allowed in the front of the homes per Section 14.06(B(2)(b)(ii). The parking located in the driveway of the homes on Lot 16 is therefore permissible under the regulations. The homes located on Lot 20 front on Old Farm Road. These duplex and triplex homes are located on a through lot. Given this, parking is required to be located on the side with the least traffic, per 14.06(B)(2)(d). Parking is located on the Meadow Loop side, per the requirements of this section. 33 b. Legacy Farm Avenue: This road contains a mix of duplex single-family homes, with parking located in the front, between the street and the buildings. Because all homes are single and two family, this parking configuration is permissible under this Section. c. O’Brien Farm Road Extension West: No structures or parking are proposed in this location as part of this project. d. O’Brien Farm Road Extension East: This road contains a mix of C1-LR lots and nine proposed single-family homes. At this time, only nine single family homes will have parking adjacent to this road. Parking is provided in the front of the homes as allowed under this Section. This road terminates at a planned recreation space. The Board will note a small parking lot planned here in the front portion of the park. This is allowed per Section 14.06(B(2)(b)(v), as the principle use of the lot is public recreation. e. Legacy Farm Extension: This road contains only proposed single family homes, with parking located between the home and the roadway as allowed under this subsection. f. Private Drive: This is a private drive and therefore the rules of this subsection do not apply. g. Old Farm Road Relocation: Several single-family homes are proposed along Old Farm Road, with parking located in the front of the homes. This is allowed per Section 14.06(B(2)(b)(ii). The Board will note that a small parking facility is also planned at the barn. This facility is authorized per Section 14.06(B(2)(b)(iv) and 14.06(B(2)(b)(v). The principle purpose of this lot is recreation, there is a pool and large community event space, and a public garden on the lot. Also, the lot contains an existing structure to be re-used, and parking at the rear of the structure is not practicable. It would detract from the view and experience of the planned park and event space. h. IC Road 1: No structures are proposed and therefore parking has not been analyzed. 3. Section 14.06(C) Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. a. Common Materials and Architectural Characteristics: The specific requirement of this section of the Regulations is as follows: The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. Applicant has provided a number of exhibits to this application to address the materials and architectural characteristics proposed. The residential neighborhood planned is very similar to the Hillside neighborhood previously approved by the Board in terms of architectural character and variety. There are a number of floor plans and elevations available. Buyers will select from available plans and elevations, and will customize their plans and elevations with colors, textures, or architectural elements of their choosing. 34 To clarify Applicant’s proposal, a chart is provided at Exhibit 22 that provides a unit type key. Each unit type has a distinct code or name. Th-1, Th-2, SF-1, Daylily, Bluebell, etc. These codes and names correspond to the architecture exhibits provided at Exhibit 23, which provides new single-family elevations not previously used at Hillside, as well as Exhibit 24, which provides new townhome elevations not previously used at Hillside. Exhibit 25, provides single family architecture used at Hillside, which will also be offered in the Project. The key at Exhibit 22 also provides an indication of in which areas of the Project, on which footprint lots, each proposed plan can fit/will be offered. The Applicant has designed all plans for the neighborhood to be complimentary, largely in farmhouse and craftsman style architecture. The materials, rhythm, color, texture, form and detailing for all of the homes are very similar, however the details vary providing differentiation between plans. We use roof lines, porches, garage configuration, accents such as metal roofing, board and batten, shake siding, differently across the various plan types to achieve subtle differences that will vary streetscape. This specific criterion is more concerned with addressing the transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. Within the proposed site plan, there are limited areas where this transition exists as this large site plan is a coordinated neighborhood of similar architectural style. Each transition is discussed below: Southern Border: To the south, there are existing single-family homes where architecture is similar and style of use complimentary. On the southern border of the Project, the Applicant has placed a large open space (preserving an existing treed border) on the western side of Old Farm Road. This creates a very easy transition to the existing neighborhood and provides a nice amenity. On the southern border east of Old Farm Road, the Applicant has again left existing trees in place to create separation, though this separation is not necessarily needed, as architecture is complimentary, we believe it ads privacy and since it is existing is beneficial to leave in place. Landscape plantings will also be used in this location as needed to supplement and ensure adequate screening. Eastern Border: On the eastern project border, where a non-complimentary industrial use would eventually be proposed, the Applicant has provided for a wide and continuous treed buffer. This buffer is a proposed open space with recreation trails included. It also includes a park, playground, and dog park. This large green space is specifically located to reduce the transitional incongruity between the IC and the R1 uses. In addition to numerous plantings, this area also drops off significantly in grade, such that the smaller homes will actually sit above the larger IC buildings. This is important as it significantly reduces the impact of the transition on the homes. The Applicant will look to use landscaping in this buffer as feasible to create separation, but would note that due to the grade change screening from view is likely not going to be effective. The site plans and uses for the IC area are not a secret, and will be communicated to those moving into the R1 lands so that they are well aware of what is allowed and planned. Northern Border: The northern border of the proposed site plan transitions from the R1 area to the C1-LR area. As no architecture exists in the C1-LR area, it is difficult to evaluate the transition specifically. However, the transition is necessary and is facilitated by the 35 underlying zoning regulations. Applicant had requested the ability to mix uses within the PUD across district lines, that might have allowed for more blending of styles at the borders. However, the coverage limitations and building size restrictions in the R1 district prevent that sort of transition from being viable. Given this, other elements must be used to help ease the transition and ensure that it is attractive, as prescribed by this criterion. In many ways the transition on the northern border is no different than the transition in Hillside currently at the northern border. You are moving from a high density residential single family and duplex neighborhood to a more mixed-use style development of larger buildings. We believe that the homes designed while smaller, are architecturally interesting and modern. Their proximity to one another (close together) does give the homes a more urban feel. We will focus transition points on landscaping, streetscaping and place making. Using outdoor areas, larger sidewalks, and good architecture to blend the uses as we are proposing at Hillside. Open Space Lot 19 solidifies a nice transition for the northern border on the western side of Old Farm Road. This park will allow for landscaping and pedestrian infrastructure that can be very appealing. On the eastern side of Old farm Road, there is a commercial lot that splits zoning districts. Given the limitations of the zoning in this transition, we imagine this building will be smaller and more transitional in nature. The remaining border fronts on O’Brien Farm Road East. This uses the street itself as a transition point, which we feel will be very effective in changing the character of the development, especially as the ground slopes away toward Kimball, so the taller building will appear one story shorter from the transition line. Landscape, hardscape, street trees and lights, plazas, and urban design will allow this to be a lively area where all sorts of living opportunities come together. We are confident that this transition will be as successful as in Hillside, and that this criterion is satisfied. Western Border: The western border of the site plan proposed abuts in large part the Hillside neighborhood. The transition is from single family homes to complimentary and architecturally similar single-family homes. We have provided compliant setbacks in the rear of the homes proposed, larger back yards, and will provide significant landscaping along the border. We believe this transition is logical, attractive, and inherently complimentary as it proposes very similar homes, of similar scale and style. b. Proposed Structures are Related Harmoniously to Themselves: The specific requirement of this section is as follows: Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The Project proposes to construct 128new residential dwelling units, and a residential club and pool facility, as well as a number of roadways, sidewalks and walking paths. The specific proposal for construction on each lot is not known at this time. Buyers will have the ability to choose from several pre-designed plans. Each of the predesigned plans has locations within the project where they may be built. These locations are determined based on lot size (depth), or type of use (single family or townhome). The neighborhood has been planned using both these types of uses in a coordinated fashion to yield the best possible 36 result, and to increase the street presence and vibrancy of the community for its residents and for the City more broadly. To convey an understanding of what structures are planned for what location, the Applicant has provided to you a chart at Exhibit 022 which identifies plan names and available project locations. These plan names correspond to the architectural exhibits provided. In terms of customization, the Applicant intends to allow single family purchasers to choose exterior colors and finishes. This will include items currently available at Hillside, front door color, siding color, roofing color, window frame color, garage door style and color, front porch decking color, variety of plantings of different type and color. This has fostered an organic feel to the community at Hillside which we hope to replicate here. For the purpose of this neighborhood, Applicant will be selecting 2-4 color tones that will be used for all of the townhome product. The Board will notice that the townhome structures are oriented toward the most prominent part of the development, the crest of Old Farm Road, the barn and the Farmhouse. These structures are set up with parking not facing those locations. This was intentional, to foster the feel of a large community green, surrounded by farmhouse style homes, where only pedestrian infrastructure is evident as residents enjoy the planned open space and mountain view. Because of the nature of the hilltop and open space, the Applicant wants to ensure that the architecture is subtle and that it blends in with the surroundings. The idea would be for the color palette to be subtle, to embrace the open space at the top of the hill, but not to dominate it. The focus is meant to be on the environment and the views. Applicant feels that bright colors for these buildings would detract from that experience, and therefore is proposing to limit the color palette in this location, to create the harmonious experience this criterion is seeking. The structures themselves are all planned as one and two-story homes. They will align with the road network proposed and will be structured as a residential neighborhood. While the terrain varies, the road network proposes to even the areas where homes are built. This will create consistency in road frontage elevation. The structures proposed will not be appreciably different than all existing structures they will abut. The architecture provided demonstrates a level of quality and thoughtfulness we hope is apparent. Homebuyer selections will provide contained variation, that will foster community but will not create incongruity. We believe this criterion is met. 4. Section 14.07 Specific Review Standards: Below please find Applicants response to the specific site plan review criteria in the Regulations. a. Access to Abutting Properties: The items included in this criterion are addressed in detail above. See responses at Section 3, subsections, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, herein above for responses. This criterion is met. b. Utility Services: See Section III (16-24) above for responses. This criterion is met. c. Disposal of Waste: All structures proposed will be single family, duplex or tri-plex structures. All structures will have a garage. All structures will we required to keep their wastes in 37 containers in their garage by association covenants that will be provided at final plat. This criterion is met. d. Landscaping and Screening Requirements: See Section V below. e. Modification of Standards: Because this project is a PUD, standard deviations are permitted with board approval. Please see waivers requested as part of this application for more information on this item. f. Low Impact Development: A complex and detailed stormwater management system is designed for this project. As mentioned at Section III(35) above, the Applicant has provided stormwater designs and calculations for review by the City engineer. We will be looking forward to discussing any questions or changes that would further the goals of this requirement, but we believe that low impact design and strategies to minimize site disturbance and to infiltrate precipitation into underlying soils are in place within this plan. g. Roadway Standards: See responses to all Section 15.12 criteria at Section III(3-15) herein above. VI. Section 13 Supplemental Regulations: Section 13 of the land development regulations contains a number of supplemental regulations that may or may not apply to any given project. All of these regulations have been reviewed. Below please find addressed the regulations that apply to the Project. 1. Section 13.03 Airport Cones: The project is located in the airport approach cone as shown on the overlay district map. For the Hillside development Applicant was required to procure permits from the FAA for construction. Permits were procured without issue. This project proposes a very similar scale of use and construction. All necessary FAA permits will be procured, adjustments will be made as required. The Applicant will comply with the requirements of this section. 2. Section 13.04 Swimming Pool: The Project proposes to construct a club facility and swimming pool that will be part of membership in the homeowner’s association. Each home will be provided a membership through payment of their annual dues. The Applicant also intends to make a membership to the pool facility available to the Hillside Homeowners Association members, as an optional increase to their dues if that is determined to be feasible. The Applicant believes that there is significant interest and demand on behalf of the existing Hillside owners, and that this amenity will increase the marketability of the homes in the Project substantially. The concept for the pool facility is discussed below. As the board is likely aware, there are only four structures located within the Project lands currently. One is a single-family residence at 205 Old Farm Road, which will be removed as part of the Project. There is also a single-family home located at 150 Old Farm Road, which will be removed as part of the Project. There is a single-family home at 100 Old Farm Road which will remain but be incorporated into the Project. Lastly, there is a barn structure located at the top of Old Farm Road, which will be re-energized and incorporated into the Project. 38 The current plan for the resident club will see the one-story structure attached to the south side of the barn removed. A new single-story structure will replace it. The single-story structure is envisioned as having a flat roof for a large portion, and then a gable-end roof over the great room, such that you can see through the building to the mountain views in the rear. Details for the building layout are shown at Exhibit 10. The Applicant is very excited for the design of this structure, which pulls a modern aesthetic into the barn site. This facility will feature a large kitchen and event space with a fireplace, changing facilities for the pool, a gym facility, covered walkways and porches, open gathering areas, an all ages pool and children’s activity pool and landscape elements, including a pergola over a portion of the open sundeck. Further details for the pool area can be seen at the landscape concept plan, Exhibit 16 and 17. The pool will include a fence or suitable landscape alternative around the perimeter as required by this section. The pool is set back a minimum of 10 feet from the lot line, as also required by this section. Applicant is unsure at this time if any pool house structure will be required. Currently Applicant is hoping to locate pool equipment within the club building, though that may change prior to final plat. 3. Section 13.06 Landscaping Screening and Street Trees: a. 13.06(C) Screening and Buffering: The specific text of this regulation states: The Development Review Board will require landscaping, fencing, land shaping and/or screening along property boundaries (lot lines) whenever it determines that a) two adjacent sites are dissimilar and should be screened or buffered from each other, or b) a property’s appearance should be improved, which property is covered excessively with pavement or structures or is otherwise insufficiently landscaped, or c) a commercial, industrial, and multi-family use abuts a residential district or institutional use. The Applicant recognizes and will be providing significant landscape buffer between the R1 and IC lands. As currently planned the large buffer/wildlife connection corridor provides this required screen. Landscape Plan L100, provided at Exhibit 016 very clearly shows the landscape screening planned. New trees as well as existing trees to remain are shown on this plan. A tree protection plan provides more detail on the trees to remain and to be removed and is attached as Exhibit 028. As the board will see, significant plantings are proposed in this area. Applicant has no intention of allowing clear lines of site to the IC parcel from the residential neighborhood and will provide significant landscape buffer in this location. The Applicant does not believe that any other areas of the plan meet the criteria outlined herein for requiring this sort of intensive screening. It is Applicants intent to knit together the rest of the uses in the PUD with landscape design, not to separate them. We hope the board will concur, and will not require any additional screening within the plan itself. 39 b. 13.06(E) Site Restoration: Grading and seeding shall be completed as required for all disturbed areas. Applicant will submit full plans and specifications compliant with Section 16 of the regulations at Final Plat. These plans are not required at preliminary plat. c. Section 13.06(F): Landscaping Plans will be provided from a landscape architect as required by this sub-section. Currently only conceptual color plans are provided as full plans are not required at the preliminary plat level. d. Section 13.06(G) Landscape Budget Requirement: The Applicant will calculate the budget for construction and the budget for landscape and provide details at Final Plat. Minimum landscape budget requirements will be met or exceeded. e. Section 13.06(I) Landscape Maintenance: Applicant seeks clarification from the Board on this requirement and would request that it not be a condition of the approval for this neighborhood. Applicant is aware of the three-year period where trees must be monitored by Applicant and replaced in order for the release of landscape bonds to be completed. However, the text of this regulation seems to imply that homeowners will be perpetually and forever liable to replace any landscape element that dies on their property. This is not a requirement that should be imposed on residential single family and duplex homeowners. It is a burdensome cost and invasive idea, to think that the City will inspect their property and require them to spend thousands of dollars to replace trees, potentially 50 years after the property is built. This provision would also apply to all the affordable units created, potentially burdening families in affordable units with thousands of dollars in landscape costs due to a tree disease, or exceptionally hot weather, and no fault of their own. The Applicant would request clarification on the plain implications here, and requests a waiver of this provision such that after the three-year warranty period provided by Applicant, replacement of dead or dying trees is not required by homeowners. 4. Section 13.07 Exterior Lighting: All exterior lighting will be downcast as required by this Section. 5. Section 13.11 Numbering Systems: Applicant will provide E911 plans at Final Plat. All homes will have visible numbers from the street installed at construction. Street signs and road signs will be outlined in detailed traffic and roadway plans at final plat, along with intersection signalization details. 6. Section 13.14 Bicycle Parking and Storage: The requirements of Table 10 apply to building with more than three units. Applicant is proposing no buildings with more than three units. Therefore, no bicycle parking is required at any of the proposed single family, duplex, or triplex structures. Applicant is proposing an approximately 2,500 square foot club building with a pool and interior amenity space. Applicant is unclear what use this is, or what number of spaces would be required. Applicant will install bike parking at this location regardless of the requirement and will locate bike racks on the project plans. If there is a requirement, Applicant requests clarification to be sure plans are compliant. 40 7. Section 13.16 Earth Products: Ledge removal incidental to construction will be required for this Project, but does not appear to be a review criterion of the Regulations under this provision. That removal will occur via blasting or hammering as required. At Final Plat, Applicant can present estimates for ledge on site, as well as blasting plans and durations to provide some context for the ledge that must be removed to facilitate the site plan before the board including the construction staging area. Currently these details are not known, as having some certainty on layout of roads and homes is necessary prior to drilling to test for ledge. As part of this initial application Applicant is proposing to establish a construction staging area on Lot 38 and Lot 39. This lot currently contains a knoll that the Applicant has recently walked, and believes to be fairly shallow ledge. This knoll will be removed at the start of the Project in order to facilitate construction of the Project staging area. During the Hillside Project, significant ledge deposits existed in the road and home footprint foundations. For that reason, ledge was removed to facilitate construction. The result of that removal was a significant resource to Hillside. By processing approximately 50,000 cubic yards of stone on site into construction grade products, we were able to reduce significantly the truck traffic on local streets required for construction, to the tune of over 7,140 truck trips, this was a reduction of 39,285 miles of truck travel, reducing carbon emission for the project by 177,000 pounds (89 tons of carbon removed from the project’s footprint). This is a significant benefit to the City, the environment and the neighbors to the Project. It is noteworthy that at the State Level, specifically in Act 250 review, Criterion 9D and 9E concern themselves with ensuring that Projects do not waste or interfere with extraction of earth resources. In keeping with this concept, Applicant believes that it would be a disservice to the environment to install housing adjacent to these resources, prohibiting their removal, without evaluating the use/removal of the resource within the project to construct that housing. We estimate there to be approximately 95,000 cubic yards of cut proposed to grade Lot 38 and Lot 39 as shown on the Project Plans. This will facilitate a much more level and aesthetically pleasing commercial project, and will create a buildable site shielded from view from Old Farm Road. The in-place yardage is likely to expand by at least 30% and likely closer to 40% after being blasted, leaving around 130,000 cubic yards of stone available for project use. For perspective, this would represent approximately 9,285 truckloads, for which a trip to and from the quarry would be required. A total truck trip reduction of 18,571 trips or 102,135 miles of trucking to the nearest rock quarry (and sometimes trucks go further for price purposes), reducing carbon emissions by a minimum of 231 tons. The proposed location of this staging area is well isolated from any residential area, it sits beside a major arterial road and can have temporary access to Kimball Avenue for loading equipment into the site and for contractor parking, but will largely be isolated from the road network surrounding the existing and planned homes. The nearest residential uses are hundreds of yards away, and consist largely of homes within this Project. Those neighbors on Old Farm Road would experience some disturbance do to blasting of the stone, but this disturbance is likely to occur in any event as much of the road work and home foundations planned will require blasting. The additional blasting would happen simultaneously, and would have the benefit of reducing truck trips for all in the longer term. Since we must use 41 blasting to remove ledge and facilitate any project, Applicant feels that an additional removal in the area of Lot 38 and Lot 39, with the added benefit of reducing carbon emissions and truck traffic, is well warranted. Applicant would propose to the Board to address any concerns they have at Final Plat, provided the board shows support for the concept at preliminary plat. Applicant would propose to complete noise modeling regarding this removal to provide context for the level of impact presumed. Applicant will also provide information on blast plans and a third-party review of such plans as needed by independent engineers at the final plat. Given the distance to nearby residential areas, no significant vibratory impacts would be expected. It is anticipated that crushing operations will have an even smaller impact than at Hillside, as significant grade change will occur, and crusher placement can be such that it is within the blast area, hemmed in by the sheer wall and stockpiled material. At the time crushing occurred at Hillside, it is worth noting it was barely audible within the project site, and was less noisy than ambient traffic in the area and on Kennedy Drive. We will look forward to discussing this concept and the extraction of this resource on Lot 38 and Lot 39 with the board, and will look forward to providing any needed information during the preliminary plat hearing. In closing, Applicant will also volunteer to include a letter of credit sufficient for site restoration to be held by the City and to ensure that after removal of stone and closing of the staging area for construction, the site is restored to a meadow condition. Applicant will provide a plan demonstrating what such final condition would look like if required. 8. Section 13.17 Fences: Fences are conceptually shown on the landscape plan. No fence of greater than four feet is proposed. 9. Section 13.19 Signs: No signs are proposed at this time. Applicant may elect to propose a sign at Final Plat, but has no sign planned at this time. 10. Section 13.25 Retaining Walls: Retaining walls are required in some areas of the Project, as shown on the Project Plans. Full details will be provided at Final Plat. All retaining walls will be engineered and installed per engineer specifications. VII. Section 12 Surface Water Protection Standards: As outlined below, the Project is designed in conformance with applicable standards of Section 12 of the Regulations. As with Section 13 above, only those items that are relevant are addressed below. 1. Section 12.01(C) Stream Buffers: No development or clearing is proposed in any stream buffers. The Project complies fully with this Section. 2. Section 12.01(E): The Project does include land within 150 feet of the Potash Brook. Currently no development is proposed in this area, other than potentially the development of a recreation path for the benefit of the City and the development of a walking trail. If the City 42 would like to invoke technical review, please provide details and we will work with you at the final plat level. We are confident in our design and environmental protection measures. 3. Section 12.02 Wetland Protection Standards: In compliance with this section all wetlands on the Project site have been professionally delineated by Gilman and Briggs. Those delineations are reflected in the Project plans. No impact or encroachment in any wetland or wetland buffer is proposed by the Project. The criteria of this section are met. 4. Section 12.03 Stormwater Management: The stormwater management practice has been designed in accordance with all applicable State and City rules by a qualified engineer. Plans and included stormwater calculations (Exhibit 019) illustrate the methodology used. We will look forward to a robust review and cooperative engagement with City engineers to make sure the Project is compliant with these criteria. VIII. Section 16 Construction and Erosion Control Standards: Applicant intends to comply fully with these standards and will develop compliant plans as required for Final Plat. The volume of work required for developing these plans, prior to preliminary plat approval, was not possible. We look forward to working with the board and the City on these plans in the future. IX. Section 18: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance As the Board knows, the City has recently implemented an inclusionary housing policy in the Regulations. The requirements of the policy are fairly straightforward, with regard to the proposed Project, and will result in the creation of nine (9) three-bedroom homes for sale at a price determined in compliance with the methodology outlined in this ordinance. A brief summary of the applicable regulations follows. As is the case above, for those regulations that are not applicable, or where compliance will be handled at a later stage, no discussion is provided. 1. Section 18.02(B) Applicability: The Project is located in lands designated for application of Section 18 on the map located at Section 18.02(B). The requirements of this section apply to the Project. 2. 18.02(C)(1) Inclusionary Units: Per Section 18.02(C)(1): “At least ten percent (10%) of the total dwelling units offered for sale …. Shall be Inclusionary Ownership Units.” Per this section, where the application of the formula results in a fraction, that fraction shall be rounded to the nearest whole number. In this project we are proposing 132 new dwellings. Therefore 13.2 Inclusionary Ownership units are required, and that number is rounded down to be 13 Inclusionary Ownership Units being required. 3. Section 18.01(C)(2) Requirements for Inclusionary Units: a. Constructed on site: All units proposed will be constructed in the neighborhood proposed. This criterion is met. 43 b. Integrated into the project layout and similar in architectural and outward appearance. The Project proposes inclusionary unit type TH-1. This unit is included in the Meadow Loop Triplex and is the middle unit. The architecture of the unit, as evidenced in the architectural exhibit provided at Exhibit 024 is indistinguishable from the market rate units on either side. This criterion is met. c. Inclusionary units shall be physically integrated into and complement the overall layout. The inclusionary units proposed are in the center of the development, located in the same buildings as the market rate units. The units are fully integrated into the site plan, the neighborhood, and the buildings they are located in. d. Inclusionary units shall be constructed with the same exterior materials. Identical exterior architecture is proposed for the TH-1 and the neighboring units. They are indistinguishable from the exterior. We believe this criterion is met. e. Inclusionary units may differ from market rate units with regard to both interior amenities and habitable area. The minimum habitable area for three-bedroom or four-bedroom units will be 1200 square feet. The project has not determined the precise interior finishes for the inclusionary or market rate units at this time. In keeping with this provision, those may differ and therefore do not need to be discussed or analyzed in this application. All three-bedroom or four-bedroom units proposed are larger than 1200 square feet and therefore the size requirements of this provision are met. f. Inclusionary Unit Building Types. This provision allows for inclusionary units to be constructed in buildings containing up to four inclusionary dwellings. We are proposing one inclusionary dwelling in each triplex proposed. The requirements of this section are met. g. Common Area Indications of Inclusionary: None are allowed and none are proposed. The inclusionary and market rate units are indistinguishable from the exterior of the building. This criterion is met. h. Mean number of Bedrooms: The Applicant is offering 2 bedroom, 3-bedroom, 4- bedroom, 5- bedroom and 6-bedroom floor plans. Potentially, buyers could opt for more bedrooms if they chose to do so. However, buyer does not typically see homes of more than four bedrooms built, and the most common floor plans contain two or three bedrooms. For this reason, Applicant is estimating that by building 3- bedroom or four-bedroom inclusionary units, we can guarantee that the inclusionary dwellings will have no fewer bedrooms than the average number in the market rate units. 4. Section 18.01(C)(2)(c) Concurrent Construction: The specific requirement states that inclusionary units shall be “constructed and made available for occupancy concurrently with market rate units.” The inclusionary units proposed are integral to a market rate building. Therefore, the building of the market rate units will necessitate the construction of the inclusionary units. These buildings are also located in the phase of construction Applicant anticipates will be constructed first. Given this, the inclusionary units will be some of the 44 first constructed, and must (by nature of their physical connection to market rate homes) be constructed concurrently. 5. Section 18.01(D) Affordability Requirements: As outlined in this section certain affordability requirements exist, as well as certain income requirements. These requirements will be addressed and worked through with the City as sales of the homes commence. Applicant will work proactively with the City or other agencies to ensure these requirements are met, in accordance with this Section. 6. Section 18.01(E) Developer Options: This section is where details are provided on the available reduction of inclusionary requirements through construction of 3-bedroom and 4- bedroom homes. Currently, Applicant has provided a floor plan that in the base format is 3- bedrooms, but which can also hold a fourth bedroom located in the basement level (with egress access added through large windows and window wells). These finished basement options are very popular in the market rate homes as well, and offer bright and beautiful finished space. With that said, the Applicant intends to construct a mix of 3-bedroom and 4-bedroom units. This Section states: A developer who constructs inclusionary units having three bedrooms shall receive credit for three inclusionary units for every two three-bedroom inclusionary units constructed. These credit inclusionary units earned under these provisions are ineligible for offset or bonus units. A developer who constructs inclusionary units having four bedrooms shall receive credit for four inclusionary units for every two four-bedroom inclusionary units constructed. These credit inclusionary units earned under these provisions are ineligible for offset or bonus units. While this language is a little bit challenging, it essentially states that each three-bedroom home counts as 1.5 inclusionary homes, and each 4-bedroom home counts as 2. Essentially, what this means is that the Applicant could satisfy its 13-unit requirement by building 6, four-bedroom homes, and one three-bedroom home. Similarly, if Applicant two four-bedroom homes, and six three-bedroom homes, Applicant will have credit for 13 affordable units. You will notice that Applicant has included 8 footprint lots in the plan for the neighborhood that are eligible for the TH-1 footprint. Applicant intends at a minimum to build two, four- bedroom homes, and for the remainder to be three-bedroom homes. This would mean that in the eight available footprints, Applicant will satisfy the 13-unit requirement. Applicant is eligible for these reductions because Applicant is not able to build the offset units provided by the Regulations due to coverage limitations. As noted earlier, Applicant is well short of the base density allowed in the R1. The Regulations did not provide enough relief from coverage to make this possible. This is unfortunate, as Applicant did make the City aware of this issue prior to passing the ordinance. 45 7. Section 18.01(F) Offset for Fulfillment: As mentioned above, the Applicant is not building any offset units because the base density of the development cannot be fully built under the coverage restrictions in the R1. That said, the Applicant is making use of this provision to enable the development of more housing, and therefore, more affordable housing within the Project. Specifically, Section 18.01(F)(c), which states: Where a zoning district establishes a maximum building coverage of less than twenty percent (20%) and/or a maximum overall lot coverage of less than thirty percent (30%), the applicable maximum coverage in that district shall be increased to accommodate the offset units. For Inclusionary Ownership Units, this increase shall be twenty percent (20%) and for Inclusionary Rental Units, this increase shall be fifteen percent (15%). As you will note in the coverage table attached as Exhibit 029, the allowed coverage for the R1 lands has been increased. This increase is in line with this provision. The base coverage limit in the R1-PRD is 15% for buildings and 25% for all. This coverage limit has been increased by 20% as allowed by this section, to become 18% for buildings and 30% for all. As noted, with this increase the Project is in compliance with lot coverage limitations. X. Dimensional Standards, Lot Lines and Setbacks As outlined above, the Project proposes development in three different zoning districts. Each district has its own set of dimensional standards. As outlined at Exhibit 004, we have evaluated the dimensional standards on a lot by lot basis. Coverage has been reviewed collectively on a zoning district wide basis, as shown at Exhibit 029 and as allowed within the PUD. Please note that in evaluating coverage, the coverage limit was expanded in the R1 land as allowed under the newly adopted inclusionary ordinance. The details of this are outlined in Section IX(7) herein above. With the exception of setback waivers in the R1 district the Project complies fully with dimensional standards as currently planned. To clarify, as proposed the Project requires only setback waivers to be in full compliance with dimensional standards. Other waivers are requested in the context of the PUD and future development potential, for the benefit of the Project and in recognition of the need for security in permitting future phases. 1. Minimum Lot Size, All Districts: All lots proposed in the Project meet the minimum lot size requirements of the regulations in all districts. 2. IC Lot Setbacks: A front setback waiver to 5’ is being requested. Otherwise these lots are in conformance with the Regulations. 3. C1-LR Lot Setback: 46 The Applicant is requesting that as relates to internal project roads, the front yard or side yard or rear yard setback will be reduced to be 5’. The setbacks to Kennedy and Kimball Avenue would be reduced to be 30’. Applicant believes strongly that the best design for the commercial lots shown will be to have buildings fronting on the newly planned streets. Given our past hearings with the board and meetings with staff, we feel this is the overwhelming preference in the broader community as well. To this end, we do not believe the setback waivers will be controversial. We simply want to secure the underlying condition that we know is necessary for good development on these lots, so as to be confident in our investment to create them. We look forward to discussing this issue with the board. 4. R1 Lot Setback Waiver Requests: In reviewing the setbacks proposed the Applicant would first provide some general guidance for consideration. • In very few areas are the setbacks proposed abutting property lines that are outside of the Project boundaries or Applicant’s control. In fact, the only setbacks that border adjacent lands under separate ownership are side setbacks for Lot 34 and 36, and rear setbacks for Lot 16 (partially only) and Lot 35. In only four instances in the entire list of waivers requested, is the Applicant proposing an impact to an owner other than Applicant or a related party. In the case of Lot 16, at the time of this Application, only two abutting homes are sold or under contract. Meaning that the vast majority of the land abutting the proposed property (approximately 90% of the border) is still under the control of the O’Brien Group. • Not all setbacks are abutting other homes. In some cases, setbacks approach lots lines for right of ways or open space fields where other owners are not impacted. • Applicant has done their best to differentiate front, rear and side, but some lots, like Lot 20 appear to have two fronts? In the chart at Exhibit 004, we have provided road names where it is unclear if the setback is to a front or rear so that the Board is aware which dimension we are reviewing. In general, the goal of the setback waivers requested in the R1 district is to encourage homes to be closer to the street. The dimensions of the neighborhood are very similar to the dimensions of the Hillside neighborhood currently under construction. While homes are close together, the community formed is outstanding and we hope to continue to encourage this kind of development. Specifically, the setbacks being requested are listed on a lot by lot basis at Exhibit 004. I have discussed the lots in context below for your review in discussing these waivers. a. Lot 16: This lot proposes construction of single-family homes ranging in size from 1700-2800 square feet. The homes are two stories at the street. We have placed these homes such that all rear yard setbacks are currently greater than 15 feet for lots 16-1 to 16-13. It should be noted that where these homes are placed, the existing Hillside homes also own a significant back yard space. Dimensionally, the homes planned on Lot 16 are much further apart than the homes on Ledge Way and Laurentide Lane, or Ledge Way and Split Rock Court. Both of these areas are built, and have been very successful. In fact, the proximity has benefited the neighborhood feel and the community. Applicant is of course happy to 47 plant significant screening along the property line in this location to provide privacy to both yards, and intends to do so. As you continue down Lot 16 to footprint lots 16-14 and 16-15, you find where the minimum setback requested is located. For these two lots a 5’ setback is being requested. This is necessary to fit these homes with the new road orientation developed per the request of the board at Sketch Plan. Also, a stormwater easement is located between lots 16-15 and 16-16. This easement forces the deeper configuration shown. The Board should note that in this area, no homes exist in Hillside. The 5’ setback will be to a property line where a field then leads an additional large open space eventually reaching Two Brothers Drive. No adjacent homes will be materially impacted by this waiver. Lots 16-16-17 are also looking for a 5’ minimum rear yard setback. In this location the two lots abut a large open space and so the Applicant believes the setback is feasible. It should also be noted that these are minimums. For the purpose of calculating the setback we have used the largest home footprints. These can be 10 feet or more deeper than the smaller homes also available. The buyer will be able to choose smaller footprints and increased setbacks if that is desirable. The side yard setback requested of 6’ is located in the area where Open Space Lot 18 abuts home 16-1. Applicant feels this waiver should pose no concern as it has no impact on any adjacent property owners. b. Lot 20: The Applicant has worked hard to achieve a design for Lot 20 that works with the configuration proposed. The goal has consistently been to achieve a desirable street presence and to frame in the views and barn with architecture and community. To do this, Applicant felt it made sense to have access to the homes fronting on Old Farm Road at the rear. Rear loaded access is very challenging when homes are fronting on a public street, and loading from a second public street. The reality is that the homes have no private space at all outdoors. To accommodate that, interior courtyards are being proposed, but these have a tendency to lengthen the buildings. The current configuration of the plan has a front yard setback minimum on lot 20 of about 1’. It appears to be the case that a setback waiver of this nature would not be allowed. Applicant can adjust the homes back from the right of way, but would prefer not to. The proximity to Old Farm Road in the current layout is most desirable. The goal is to bring the development closer to the street and not to push it further out, creating a sort of runway on Old Farm Road where homes seem distant and vehicles are more encouraged to speed. The Old Farm Road ROW is 66’ currently, despite the road itself being 20’ wide. Roads proposed in this application are 20 feet wide with a 50’ right of way. Even with the development proposed, no widening of Old Farm Road is foreseen. Furthermore, the Applicant is proposing to move the road anyway at the north end, which will result in a complicated process at the City Council to grant the change shifting the ROW. Since that process is being pursued regardless of this setback issue, the Applicant would like the Board to consider recommending the reduction of the 66’ ROW. It could be reduced to be 56’ or even 50’. This would enable the homes on Lot 20 to keep their proximity to the road, and would also enable the homes on Lot 31 to potentially move closer to the road. It would be a 48 great benefit to the feel of the development, and a traffic calming measure for Old Farm Road. We would request the opinion of the Board on this suggestion. Should it not be possible, the Applicant will adjust the setback to be 5’. The side yard setbacks requested here are the distance from the end units to the ROW for 20-26. The Applicant does not believe this poses any issue and hopes it is acceptable. The rear yard setbacks are the distance from the Home to Meadow Loop. It should be noted that the garage is set back 20’ from the edge of the sidewalk. So, while the building is projecting toward the ROW, there is still room to park a car between the sidewalk and the home. This is intentional, to allow for nicer architecture and a street presence on Meadow Loop as well. c. Lot 30: Lot 30 has homes fronting on both Legacy Farm Road and O’Brien Farm Road East. The minimum setback to the ROW proposed for this lot is 11’. Similar to Lot 20, we have allowed room between the sidewalk and the garage for parking a car. The side yard setback is proposed to be five feet. The side yards both abut lots within this project, Lot 24 and Lot 47. Lot 24 is a C1-LR lot where no building is currently proposed. The Applicant has no concern with addressing future development on Lot 24 to accommodate for this reduced setback. Lot 47 is a large park, and the applicant feels an increased setback to a large open green space is not needed. d. Lot 31: This lot contains homes that front on Old Farm Road and Legacy Farm Road. Rear yard setbacks are well over the minimum of 30’. Side yard setbacks are slightly reduced from 25’ required to 10’. A waiver is also requested to allow front yard setbacks of 11’. These setbacks could likely be increased if the Old Farm Road right of way can be shrunk, but we wanted to orient the homes closer to Old Farm Road, as discussed regarding Lot 20 above. e. Lot 32: Lot 32 has a pre-existing side yard setback that is below what is required. Applicant does not plan any new structures within this setback. A Pool patio is planned, but patios are not structures counted. The Applicant does not believe any waiver is required for this pre- existing setback. f. Lot 33: Lot 33: Rear yard setbacks requested are relative to the Lot 32 lot line, which is the open space and common amenity building. The applicant could shift this lot line and reduce the open space lot to make these setbacks compliant. However, we feel it is better to have the open space lot bigger, as that has common benefits, not singular benefits to unit owners. Front yard setback waivers are also sought to pull homes closer to the street, while allowing cars to park in the driveway without blocking sidewalks. Side yard waivers are requested in keeping with our development pattern, which is to place homes closer together and conserve large tracts of open space. The side yard setback of 25’ prescribed in this district would have an extremely negative impact on available open space in this plan, and we hope this is easily recognizable. g. Lot 34: A rear yard setback waiver to reduce the required setback to 11’ is requested. This minimum setback exists between the homes planned on Lot 34, and the lot line to Lot 35. 49 Lot 35 is within the Project, homes planned there are part of the Project and we feel relate well to the homes on Lot 34. A front yard setback of 8’ is requested, again to pull development toward the street, in keeping with the current trends in the City, and in keeping with the direction of current best practices for land planning. Side yard setback reductions are requested in keeping with the development plan and pattern. h. Lot 35: Side yard waivers are requested. Again, the side yard waivers of this district are not conducive to consolidating open space, but are more in line with sprawling development on larger lots. This waiver is sought in keeping with the compact development proposals before the Board. A rear yard waiver with an abutting property outside the Project is also requested. Applicant intends to preserve an existing significant buffer of trees in this location to minimize the impact to the neighboring property. i. Lot 36: Front yard setbacks are proposed to bring homes closer to the street, in line with the development pattern proposed in the neighborhood. Minimal rear and side yard setbacks are required. These setbacks are all relative to the Project, save the one side setback at Lot 36-5. A reduction of 7’ is requested, leaving 23’ for the side yard setback. j. Lot 37: Front yard setbacks are proposed to bring homes closer to the street in line with the development pattern proposed in the neighborhood. No rear yard setback waivers are required. Side yard setback waivers are required. These setbacks are all relative to the Project lands. No external boundaries are impacted. 5. Project Lot Coverage All Areas: A table is provided at Exhibit 029. Lot coverage has been evaluated in this table based on all of the Project lands, on a zoning district by zoning district basis. As you can see at Exhibit 003, we have identified the areas of the project that are within each different zoning district. Those areas each have allowed coverage maximum. Each maximum is analyzed in the table at Exhibit 029. As you will see, in each district the project complies and the total impervious area, as defined in the Regulations, is below the maximums allowed. The Applicant does want to point out that in calculating the coverage for the R1 lands, where a site plan proposal is before the board, Applicant made use of all of the biggest unit floor plans available on each lot. There is a chance that if buyers choose smaller plans, the coverage will not get as close to the maximum. In fact we feel it is likely that we will not see all the largest plans chosen, but we nevertheless must plan for that, as it is possible. Given this, it should be noted that Applicant has limited additional coverage available in the R1 area. This is why we have not achieved the density allowed in the R1 lands, and it is why we have not proposed to take full advantage of the affordable offset units available to the Project. Applicant will seek to secure the density that is not buildable in the R1 lands, within findings of the PUD, to be available in the C1-LR. Applicant will address density in a different section, but mentions this here simply to say that additional impervious surfaces are not feasible in the R1 area of the Project. In the C1-LR and IC lands, coverage is not anywhere near the allowed maximums as no construction other than roads and pedestrian infrastructure is proposed. The Applicant would request 50 that in its findings, the Board secure that the coverage for all the IC lots and all the C1-LR lots, will be reviewed in totality, not on a lot by lot basis, and that the coverage allowed will be as stated in the table at Exhibit 029. Applicant does want to control risk related to changes that might diminish the currently buildable area on these lots. 6. Building Height and Stories IC: No structures or waivers are proposed at this time. No story limit appears in the regulations. The Applicant is ok with the height limitation in this district given the type of use and development allowed. 7. Building Height and Stories R1: The building height in the R1 is unnecessarily restrictive, much like the height in the C1-LR. It is unfortunate that the board is not able to waive the height limitations. If there is a method for doing this, Applicant would very much be interested in moving the limit up a couple of feet. That said, Applicant has designed all architecture to comply with the 28-foot limit. In some instances, this will mean reducing second floor ceiling heights, which greatly impacts marketability, it also means reducing roof pitch, which can have negative architectural impacts, and is unfortunate for the citizens and future residents of the City, that such an artificially low limit would restrict their purchase quality. Regardless, all homes constructed will measure 28’ or less to the mid-point of the roof relative to the preconstruction grades. No waiver is sought and the Project will comply. All homes are planned to be one story or two story facing the street. All homes will be less than four stories total, as required. 8. Building Height and Stories C1-LR: No structures are currently proposed on the lots in the C1-LR Project lands. However, the Applicant is specifically requesting of the Board that on Lot 17, Lot 21-29, a finding be issued which allows for future buildings to be constructed at a height of four stories over podium, with a maximum height of no more than 60 feet from the finish floor elevation of the lowest level to the roofline of a flat roof or mid-way point of a pitched roof. This finding is being requested in order to facilitate the plan before the Board. A plan which incorporates 28% of available project land as parks and open space. A plan which invests in significant road, bike, and pedestrian infrastructure including many long-term city goals such as a dog park, and which completes construction of a key connection from Kimball Avenue to the border of our property with Tilley Drive. With this finding the Applicant may also be able to accelerate investment in important items for the City, such as the dog park, or the rec path connection. Security will enable investment. Absent this finding construction of those spaces will need to be tied to viable development in the C1-LR areas, as the certainty needed will not exist. We hope the Board recognizes that making the commitments outlined here is not something that can be sustained with only the residential development now presented. The C1-LR lots play a critical role in this project. With the current height limit that could potentially limit building to only two stories, the development potential of those lots simply cannot withstand the infrastructure, parks, playground, rec-paths, work-out loops, scenic vistas, and other amenities now proposed. We hope that there is a path forward where enough certainty can be created to facilitate these investments earlier in the project, for the benefit of Project residents and others in the City. 51 XI. Waivers Requested Summary List: 1. Applicant requests a height waiver to allow for buildings of four stories, not to exceed 60’ in total height from the lowest slab elevation to the top of a flat roof on Lot 17, Lot 21-29. 2. Applicant requests minimum setbacks as follows for Lot 16: Front 6’; Side 6’, Back 5’. 3. Applicant requests minimum setback as follows for Lot 20: Front 1’; Rear 9’ Side 17, 4. Applicant requests minimum setback as follows for Lot 30: Front 11; Rear 21’ Side 5’. 5. Applicant requests minimum setback as follows for Lot 31: Front 11; Side 10’. 6. Applicant requests minimum setback as follows for Lot 33: Front 12; Rear 13’; Side 7’. 7. Applicant requests minimum setback as follows for Lot 34: Front 8’; Rear 11’ Side 8’. 8. Applicant requests minimum setback as follows for Lot 35: Side 14’. 9. Applicant requests minimum setback as follows for Lot 36: Front 15’; Rear 29’; Side 23’. 10. Applicant requests minimum setback as follows for Lot 37: Front 10’, Side 11’. 11. Applicant requests minimum setback as follows for Lot 17 and Lot 21-29: Front 5’, Rear 30’, Side 5. 12. Applicant requests the provisions of Section 3.06(B) are waived with regard to minimum setbacks to Kennedy Drive and Kimball Avenue, and that setbacks be 30’ minimum as outlined above. 13. Applicant requests a waiver of Section 3.06I for future projects within the PUD. Applicant is happy to address screening concerns in this PUD approval. A landscape plan will be put in place to mitigate those concerns. Additional requirements under this section to be waived. 14. Applicant requests a waiver of Section 3.07(B)(3)(a). As part of a PUD, the Applicant is explicitly indicating that homes planned will be adjacent to taller buildings. No lots in the R12 district or C1-LR district lands included in the Project abut any owner other than Applicant or entities controlled by Applicant. Given this, there is no concern that would merit enforcement of this provision. Taller buildings on Lot 17, 21-29 is the plan. Approval of the PUD will necessitate waiver of this provision. 15. Applicant requests a finding that all landscape requirements associated with any building within the Master Plan, may be used on any lot within the master plan, subject to Board approval. 16. Applicant requests a waiver of the requirements of 13.06(I) as pertains to the R1 lands. This requirement is a long-term burden on owners of single-family homes and must be modified 52 to ensure that beyond the 3-year warranty secured by requisite letters of credit, owners have no liability for replacement of dead or dying plants on their property. To warrant for eternity to replace any plant that dies on your property is simply unjustifiable in this form of development. Applicant does not see an issue with the requirement in the larger format settings of the IC or C1-LR where building owners can plan and manage around such requirements. Applicant sees no issue with prohibiting the removal of approved landscaping, but requiring replacement of something that dies naturally over time seems unnecessary and punishing to those who may not be able to afford such. 17. Applicant requests a finding that within the PUD all single family, duplex and triplex homes may convert their porches or decks to covered porches or decks with only the issuance of a zoning permit and without DRB review. 18. Applicant requests a finding that within the PUD applications for Sketch Plan review are voluntary on behalf of the Applicant. 19. Applicant requests a finding that within the PUD Applicant may file final plat only for proposed amendments to the PUD. 20. Applicant requests a finding that within the PUD, development of any single structure on a single lot need only apply for Site Plan review. 21. Applicant requests a finding that parking may be permitted with only site plan and conditional use review in the context of site plan review for a building on any approved lot in the PUD. 22. Applicant is requesting waivers related to City Bonding Requirements to address significant issues during the Hillside Development. a. Applicant requests that value of street trees be included in public improvement infrastructure bonding calculations. A finding of the Board would state that street tree costs though allocated to the landscape budget, shall be public improvements considered part of the roadway bonding. Currently, O’Brien Brothers is needing to provide two separate credit facilities. One that is for the infrastructure value, road, sidewalk, pavement, etc., and a second entirely different letter of credit or bond, for the value of the street trees on that road. The differentiation is that the street tree bond needs to last three years. In no case does Applicant foresee a roadway completed and turned over to the City prior to trees being in place for three years. In no case does the Applicant foresee the 10% retainage on millions in roadway cost to be insufficient to replace a few $700 trees. The Applicant has been unable to procure timely release of bonding, the City Staff is overwhelmed (as are we) by the volume of separate credit facilities submitted, and the requirement of having two separate facilities for this seems completely unnecessary and overcomplicated. As recently as this year, a $631,000.00 letter of credit reduction was requested on 5/19, and was not procured until mid-August. Applicant hopes the board can find accordingly. It just makes sense and makes things easier all around, and is within the Boards authority to modify regulations, within a PUD. 53 b. Infrastructure Budget Contingency: The O’Brien Group has been required at Hillside to include a 15% contingency on top of the estimated cost of improvements for bonding. I am sure the Board can recognize that for a $10,000,000 project, having $1,500,000 of contingency credit and liquidity available can be problematic. Applicant does not believe this contingency offers any benefit to the City. If Applicant starts construction, the 15% will be constructed very quickly, and the City will still hold bonding for 100% of the cost. The contingency can be assumed, very easily, to be the work Applicant completes prior to the first bond release requested. A more suitable alternative would be to say that Applicant cannot request release beyond 25% of the bond value, until the road is 100% complete. In this manner, the City is retaining the 15% contingency until the road is constructed. For example, if Applicant filed a bond for 100% and then completed 30% of the work, the City would release only 5% of the value. This would continue until 100% of the work was completed at which point 90% of the bond could be released. This gets the City identical security, but relieves the financing burden on Applicant needing to finance 115% of cost. This financing cost can increase home prices and slow down construction by restricting credit unnecessarily. Applicant would request a finding stating that the Board finds Applicant must bond for 100% of the Public improvement costs without contingency, and waives the requirements of Section 15.15(C). The release of bonding shall be as always at the discretion of the City Engineer. In this way, the City Engineer can keep the 15% until the end as outlined above if he so chooses or release more if the work is good and sufficient in their determination, and Applicant can keep the additional liquidity to finance actual construction. c. Landscape Bonding: The landscape bonding at Hillside is incredibly challenging. The City has required an expenditure of many hundreds of thousands of dollars. In this project too, Applicant expects very large sums to be required under Section 13. The Regulations then say we must bond for that for three years from the date of completion. The difficulty here is that the first plants in the Project may go in in 2022, the last, in 2032. To remedy this at Hillside, O’Brien Brothers developed multiple landscape bond phases, over 20, actually. The logistics of tracking which phase we are in, when it was filed, keeping dozens of letters of credit open, watching they don’t expire, tracking them with the City, is detrimental to City Staff and the Applicant. This excessive amount of work is unnecessary. The Applicant would seek a finding from the Board that could easily relieve this, which is to say that Applicant may release landscape bonds three years following the issuance of a zoning permit for the phase, or home in which the landscaping is located. Essentially allowing a phased reduction of bond value over the course of the project, three years after the date the plantings were installed. In this scenario, Applicant would propose only 4-5 total landscaping phases, and would be able to simplify the paperwork required. 23. Applicant is requesting a waiver of the typical duration provided between issuance of final plat and the first zoning permit. Applicant would request a period of two years between the required issuance of the first zoning permit and the issuance of final plat. Applicant would 54 request that the finding be written such that the project start may be delayed further upon written request due to delays in the issuance of project permits. Applicant plans to procure full City permits and then enter the Act 250 process. This process may take years to complete. Applicant wants to ensure that sufficient time is provided to plan and procure permits to start the project after Final Plat is issued. 24. Applicant has requested a waiver to the cul-de-sac requirements of Section 15 if necessary, to enable the center island of the planned cul-de-sac on O’Brien Farm Road East to be planted and not paved. 25. Applicant requests that the Board find that the landscape transition between the R1 and IC lands is sufficient and effectual as planned in this PUD, which creates these distinct areas of relatively incongruous use. Specifically, that the Board will waive the requirements of 14.06(C)(A) related to the use of common elements and materials between buildings, as pertains to development of the IC land abutting the R1. This criterion is simply not possible to satisfy with such incongruous uses. Applicant recommends that landscaping and buffering be confirmed in this PUD, and that future applications be relieved from this review element, to provide certainty that those uses may be developed. Otherwise any owner of a home bought in the R1, could appeal Applicant’s future permits under this condition, claiming that the building type was not congruous, materials were too different, etc. XII. Project Details Outside of Specific Regulation Compliance: 1. Project Phasing Applicant has provided a phasing plan for the Project which is attached at Exhibit 030. This plan breaks the project into 17 distinct named phases. The phases are not provided in any sequence, but they do show how the Applicant would intend to break up the work required for the Project. Applicant has intentionally designed the phasing plan to allow for small portions of the Project to be completed. The Board will note that each open space area is provided its own phase number. It would be the Applicants goal to provide triggers for the completion of each open space. For instance, the Lot 18 open space must be established prior to completion of 50% of the Meadow Loop phase. Lot 19 Open Space would be more challenging, it would need to be tied to the Relocated Old Farm Road Phase, as part of that space is in the existing Old Farm Road. Applicant hopes the board can see here how the phases can proceed logically to construct the neighborhood. Applicant is able to make a proposal on phasing and phase triggers at final plat, with guidance from the Board at preliminary plat hearings. In terms of the planned phasing, it is Applicant’s intent to start with the Meadow Loop Phase. This will provide a mix of townhome and single-family product, and also includes the proposed inclusionary units. In this manner, the inclusionary units will be some of the first built in the development, and the Board can feel confident that they are happening concurrently, as required. Applicant would then proceed with Village Green Phase, and the Legacy Farm, Mountainview and North Slope Phase, working its way back south to complete the Legacy Farm loop road. As mentioned above, construction of the Open Space phases can be timed with unit count triggers in the residential phases. Keeping in mind that we would want to complete construction on surrounding areas prior to opening the parks for safety reasons. 55 Applicant notes that the relocation of Old Farm Road is not required for traffic safety reasons during the construction of the 128-single family, duplex and tri-plex homes proposed, as outlined in the traffic study attached at Exhibit 013. Applicant would therefore not propose to complete the Relocated Old Farm Road Phase, or the O’Brien Farm Road Extension Phase, until development on the north end of the Project warranted such. Applicant is happy to discuss the proposed phasing and open space construction with the Board and will look forward to your feedback. It is unclear however under which criteria this is reviewed. We will look forward to better understanding this at our hearing. 2. Neighborhood Design Restrictions: As with Hillside, the Applicant has presented a number of available architectural offerings and will be presenting buyers with color choices for siding, shingles, doors, windows and other exterior accents. In the Hillside development the Applicant proposed a design memorandum that regulated identical elevations on roadways. While laudable in intent, it has proven to be incredibly difficult to track, and proven to be unnecessary. The offerings in terms of floor plans, finishes, lot location, etc., have proven effective at achieving a varied and organic feeling neighborhood. Applicant is happy to propose a design memorandum again for this community with similar terms to be discussed, however, Applicant would request that compliance with the memorandum be regulated differently than by examination at zoning permit issuance. Applicant is happy to voluntarily comply, or to potentially incorporate the design memorandum into the HOA documents as lot design restrictions (provided a legal review made that possible or confirmed it is possible). However, Applicant is not looking to create an onerous permit milestone to achieve a goal that is very much in our own interest and which we will enforce on a voluntary basis. We consistently monitor and restrict unit types and design to achieve variation and improve project aesthetics. We are offering dozens of different elevations for the 128 homes. While we appreciate the City may want to enforce this, with the complexity and size of the project it seems that allowing Applicant to police this themselves would be most expeditious. 3. Earth Work Estimations: Appendix E of the regulations lists as an application requirement: “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.” Applicant is not able to make a firm statement on this item at this time. The details of the substance before the board will greatly influence the facts that underly this question. For instance, if we are able to process ledge on site, it will greatly reduce the need to import any material, and potentially eliminate the need for any import/export related to site construction. It should be stated that Applicant believes this site, for the construction outlined can be planned to be neutral, and that with proper care, even processed stone materials required can be produced on site. In this scenario, the applicant can state that no materials will be removed or imported. However, as our discussions evolve, we will need to revisit this assumption. XIII. Conclusion Applicant is pleased to bring forward the Project outlined above and to work with City Staff and the Board to refine the Project and move it forward. We believe this proposal creates a framework that can enable the growth and development of the Project lands over the next ten to fifteen years, and we hope that the Board agrees. While there is much information here, the Applicant has focused this 56 narrative on the specific review criteria that apply. We hope that the Board will focus their review on such as well. It is very easy to imagine different outcomes for the Project site, and it is very difficult to commit to a framework and move forward. Applicant has spent the past 10 years analyzing different opportunities and paths forward for this land. This proposal is the culmination of that work. We don’t know everything about what will be built, and we won’t until the last site plan proposal is filed. Our focus with this permit is the framework, the guardrails for the Project and the basic inclusions for its residents and future owners/businesses. These inclusions and guardrails require commitment. By the Applicant, but also by the City. Proceeding with the investment and construction of this Project is a major commitment. The permit findings requested are the security for that work. We look forward to discussing this further. Thank you. Sincerely, Andrew Gill, Director of Development Enclosures 50' Wetland Se t b a c k Wetlan d A T y p e I I I 50' We t land Se tback Wetla n d B T y p e I I I 50' WetlandSetbackWetland C Type III Storm Water Detention HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-1 OVERALL SITE PLAN Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 PHASE II 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com EX. POND #1 EX. POND #2 EX. POND #3 WET POND A GRAVEL WETLAND #1 GRAVEL WETLAND #2 GRAVEL WETLAND #3 GRAVEL WETLAND #4 GRAVEL WETLAND #5 GRAVEL WETLAND #6 GRAVEL WETLAND #7 GRAVEL WETLAND #8 Lot 1 8.9 ac Lot 2 5.0 ac Lot 3 2.0 ac Lot 4 1.1 ac Lot 5 8.8 ac Lot 6 3.0 ac Lot 7 2.4 ac Lot 5 8.8 ac Lot 8 4.6 ac Lot 9 1.9 ac Lot 10 0.9 ac Lot 11 1.2 ac Lot 13 2.78 ac Lot 15 2.38 ac Lot 12 1.6 ac Lot 14 1.1 ac Lot 17 1.78 ac Lot 16 2.61 ac Lot 20 2.06 ac Lot 21 1.90 ac Lot 22 2.21 ac Lot 23 0.78 ac Lot 24 1.37 ac Lot 25 2.20 ac Lot 26 1.87 ac Lot 27 1.49 ac Lot 28 2.46 ac Lot 32 3.60 ac Lot 30 2.39 ac Lot 31 4.80 ac Lot 34 1.76 ac Lot 47 Open Space 12.23 ac Lot 29 0.73 ac Lot 38 4.41 ac Lot 39 4.52 ac Lot 44 2.02 ac Lot 45 2.17 ac Lot 46 1.90 ac Lot 48 Open Space 4.20 ac Business Park North Lot 4 2.4 ac Archaeology Zone Archaeology Zone Lot 33 1.13 ac Lot 37 3.54 ac Lot 18 Open Space 1.17 ac Lot 19 Open Space 1.51 ac 16-1 16-2 16-3 16-4 16-716-616-5 16-8 16-9 16-10 16-11 16-12 16-13 16-14 16-15 16-16 16-17 20-131-1 31-2 31-3 32-4 32-5 32-6 32-7 32-8 32-9 32-10 31-11 31-12 31-13 31-14 31-15 31-1631-1731-18 31-19 31-2031-21 31-22 31-23 31-24 30-1 30-5 30-7 30-9 30-13 30-14 30-15 30-16 30-17 30-18 30-19 33-1 33-3 33-6 33-7 37-137-2 37-3 37-4 37-537-637-737-837-9 37-1037-1136-1 36-236-336-4 36-5 33-2 33-4 33-5 33-8 33-933-1030-2 30-3 30-4 30-6 30-8 30-10 30-1130-1220-220-320-420-520-620-720-820-920-1020-1120-1220-1320-1420-1520-1620-1720-1820-1920-2020-2120-2220-2320-2420-2520-2630-20 30-21 Lot 35 1.54 ac Lot 36 1.64 ac 34-1 34-2 34-3 34-4 34-5 34-6 34-7 34-834-934-10 34-11 35-135-2 35-3 GRAVEL WETLAND #9 Lot 40 2.90 acLot 41 2.68 ac Lot 42 2.79 ac Lot 43 2.99 ac Lot 49 0.75 ac 16-18 pcg 338.5 50' Wetland Se t b a c k Wetlan d A T y p e I I I 50' We t land Se tback Wetla n d B T y p e I I I 50' WetlandSetbackWetland C Type III New 8" P V C S e w e r s=0.0066 New 8 " P V C S e w e r s=0. 0 0 6 6 Ne w S M h Ri m 3 4 2 . 4 Inv . i n 3 2 8 . 4 6 Inv . o u t 3 2 8 . 3 6 Ne w 6 " P V C S D R 3 5 san i t a r y s e w e r s e r v i c e to b u i l d i n g . C o n n e c t to P h a s e 1 s t u b . Co o r d i a n t e w i t h mec h a n i c a l p l a n s . Ne w 6 " P V C S D R 3 5 san i t a r y s e w e r s e r v i c e to b u i l d i n g . C o n n e c t to P h a s e 1 s t u b . Co o r d i a n t e w i t h me c h a n i c a l p l a n s . Co n v e r t 8 " P V C S D R 35 s a n i t a r y s e w e r inst a l l e d i n P h a s e 1 t o buil d i n g s e r v i c e . Co o r d i n a t e w i t h me c h a n i c a l p l a n s . Ne w 6 " P V C S D R 3 5 san i t a r y s e w e r s e r v i c e to b u i l d i n g . C o n n e c t to P h a s e 1 s t u b . Co o r d i n a t e w i t h me c h a n i c a l p l a n s . Ne w 6 " P V C S D R 3 5 san i t a r y s e w e r s e r v i c e to b u i l d i n g . C o n n e c t to P h a s e 1 s t u b . Co o r d i n a t e w i t h me c h a n i c a l p l a n s . Ne w 8 " x 8 " x 8" t e e , t h r u s t blo c k . Ne w6" D . I . wa t e r ser v i c e Ne w 6 " D . I . wa t e r s e r v i c e Ne w 8 " x 8 " x 8 " tee, t h r u s t b l o c k .Ne w 8 "PVC S D R 3 5 s= 0 . 0 2 4 Ne w 6 " P V C S D R 3 5 sani t a r y s e w e r s e r v i c e to b u i l d i n g . C o n n e c t to P h a s e 1 s t u b . Co o r d i n a t e w i t h me c h a n i c a l p l a n s . Ne w S M H Ri m 3 7 4 . 2 0 Inv . i n 3 6 8 . 5 3 Inv. o u t 3 6 8 . 4 3 Storm Water Detention HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-1A OVERALL SITE PLAN Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 PHASE II 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com EX. POND #1 EX. POND #2 EX. POND #3 WET POND A GRAVEL WETLAND #1 GRAVEL WETLAND #2 GRAVEL WETLAND #3 GRAVEL WETLAND #4 GRAVEL WETLAND #5 GRAVEL WETLAND #6 GRAVEL WETLAND #7 GRAVEL WETLAND #8 Lot 1 8.9 ac Lot 2 5.0 ac Lot 3 2.0 ac Lot 4 1.1 ac Lot 5 8.8 ac Lot 6 3.0 ac Lot 7 2.4 ac Lot 5 8.8 ac Lot 8 4.6 ac Lot 9 1.9 ac Lot 10 0.9 ac Lot 11 1.2 ac Lot 13 2.78 ac Lot 15 2.38 ac Lot 12 1.6 ac Lot 14 1.1 ac Lot 17 1.78 ac Lot 16 2.61 ac Lot 20 2.06 ac Lot 21 1.90 ac Lot 22 2.21 ac Lot 23 0.78 ac Lot 24 1.37 ac Lot 25 2.20 ac Lot 26 1.87 ac Lot 27 1.49 ac Lot 28 2.46 ac Lot 32 3.60 ac Lot 30 2.39 ac Lot 31 4.80 ac Lot 34 1.76 ac Lot 47 Open Space 12.23 ac Lot 29 0.73 ac Lot 38 4.41 ac Lot 39 4.52 ac Lot 40 2.90 acLot 41 2.68 ac Lot 42 2.79 ac Lot 43 2.99 ac Lot 44 2.02 ac Lot 45 2.17 ac Lot 46 1.90 ac Lot 48 Open Space 4.20 ac Business Park North Lot 4 2.4 ac Archaeology Zone Archaeology Zone Lot 33 1.13 ac Lot 37 3.54 ac Lot 18 Open Space 1.17 ac Lot 19 Open Space 1.51 ac 16-1 16-2 16-3 16-4 16-716-616-5 16-8 16-9 16-10 16-11 16-12 16-13 16-14 16-15 16-16 16-17 20-131-1 31-2 31-3 32-4 32-5 32-6 32-7 32-8 32-9 32-10 31-11 31-12 31-13 31-14 31-15 31-1631-1731-18 31-19 31-2031-21 31-22 31-23 31-24 30-1 30-5 30-7 30-9 30-13 30-14 30-15 30-16 30-17 30-18 30-19 33-1 33-3 33-6 33-7 37-137-2 37-3 37-4 37-537-637-737-837-9 37-1037-1136-1 36-236-336-4 36-5 33-2 33-4 33-5 33-8 33-933-1030-2 30-3 30-4 30-6 30-8 30-10 30-1130-1220-220-320-420-520-620-720-820-920-1020-1120-1220-1320-1420-1520-1620-1720-1820-1920-2020-2120-2220-2320-2420-2520-2630-20 30-21 Lot 36 1.64 ac 34-1 34-2 34-3 34-4 34-5 34-6 34-7 34-834-934-10 34-11 Lot 35 1.54 ac 35-135-2 35-3 Lot 49 0.75 ac 16-18 pcg 338.5 O'Brien Home Farm Subdivision Phase II Lot Index and Sizes Row # Lot Number Lot Size  Lot Size Square Feet Neighborhood/Area Name  Lot Description/Type of Zoning  Minimum Front Setback  Minimum Rear Setback  Minimum Side Setback1 Lot 04  2.4 104544 Open Space  Open Space  N.A.  N.A.  N.A. 2 Lot 16  2.61 113691.6 Meadow Loop West  Residential  6' 5' 6'3 Lot 17  1.86 81021.6 Multi‐Family/Mixed  C1‐LR  30' (Kennedy) 30' 10'4 Lot 18 1.17 50965.2 Open Space  Open Space  N.A.  N.A.  N.A. 5 Lot 19  1.51 65775.6 Open Space  Open Space  N.A.  N.A.  N.A. 6 Lot 20  2.06 89733.6 Meadow Loop East  Residential  1' (Old Farm Road) 9' (Meadow Loop) 17'7 Lot 21  1.9 82764 Multi‐Family/Mixed  C1‐LR 30' (Kennedy & Kimball)30' 10'8 Lot 22 2.89 125888.4 Multi‐Family/Mixed  C1‐LR 5' (Old Farm and O'Brien Farm)10' 10'9 Lot 23 0.81 35283.6 Multi‐Family/Mixed  C1‐LR  30' (Kimball) 5' (Old Farm) 10' 10'10 Lot 24 1.37 59677.2 Multi‐Family/Mixed  C1‐LR  5' (O'Brien Farm) 5' (Old Farm) 30' 10'11 Lot 25  2.2 95832 Multi‐Family/Mixed  C1‐LR  5' (O'Brien Farm) 5' (Old Farm)  10' 10'12 Lot 26  1.87 81457.2 Multi‐Family/Mixed  C1‐LR  5' (Old Farm) 30' (Kimball)  10' 10' 13 Lot 27  1.49 64904.4 Multi‐Family/Mixed  C1‐LR  30' (Kimball)  10' 10' 14 Lot 28  2.47 107593.2 Multi‐Family/Mixed  C1‐LR  5' O'Brien Farm  10' 10'15 Lot 29 0.73 31798.8 Multi‐Family/Mixed  C1‐LR  30' Kimball 10' 5' 16 Lot 30  2.38 103672.8 North Slope  Residential  11' 21' 5'17 Lot 31 4.8 209088 Village Green Residential  11' NA all fronts 10'18 Lot 32  3.6 156816 Open Space  Residential Club and Open Space  124' (Old Farm) 240' (Legacy) 15'19 Lot 33 1.13 49222.8 Parkview North  Residential  12' 13' 7'20 Lot 34 1.76 76665.6 Parkview South  Residential  8' 11' 8'21 Lot 35 1.54 67082.4 Private Way  Residential  65' 35' 14'22 Lot 36 1.64 71438.4 Mountainview South Residential  15' 29' 23'23 Lot 37 3.54 154202.4 Mountainview North  Residential  10' 43' 11'24 Lot 38 4.41 192099.6 IC  IC  30' Kimball 30' 10'25 Lot 39  4.52 196891.2 IC  IC  5' (IC Road) 30' 10'26 Lot 40  2.9 126324 IC  IC  5' (Lot 43) 30' 10'27 Lot 41 2.68 116740.8 IC  IC  5' (Lot 41) 30' 10'28 Lot 42 2.79 121532.4 IC  IC  5' (IC Road) 30' 10'29 Lot 43 2.99 130244.4 IC  IC  5' (IC Road) 30' 10'30 Lot 44  2.02 87991.2 IC  IC  5' (IC Road) 30' 10'31 Lot 45  2.17 94525.2 IC  IC  5' (IC Road) 30' 10'32 Lot 46  1.9 82764 IC  IC  5' (IC Road) 30' 10'33 Lot 47 12.26 534045.6 Open Space  Open Space  N.A.  N.A.  N.A. 34 Lot 48  4.2 182952 Open Space  Open Space  N.A.  N.A.  N.A. 35 Lot 49  0.75 32670 Existing Residential Home  Existing Residential Home  66' (Old Farm 32' 51'Total  91.32 100.00%IC 26.38 28.89%C1‐LR  17.59 19.26%Residential22.21 24.32%Open Space25.14 27.53%Total  91.32 100.00% ARCHAEOLOGICAL PHASE I AND II INVESTIGATIONS OF NATIVE AMERICAN SITES VT-CH-1076, VT-CH-1077, AND VT-CH-1078 WITHIN THE O’BRIEN HOME FARM PROPERTY, KIMBALL AVENUE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. Consulting Archaeology Program University of Vermont 111 Delahanty Hall 180 Colchester Avenue Burlington VT 05405 Report No. 597 March, 2010 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PHASE I AND II INVESTIGATIONS OF NATIVE AMERICAN SITES VT-CH-1076, VT-CH-1077, AND VT-CH-1078 WITHIN THE O’BRIEN HOME FARM PROPERTY, KIMBALL AVENUE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT. Submitted to: Josie Palmer Leavitt O’Brien Brothers Agency 1855 Williston Road, PO Box 2184 South Burlington, VT 05407-2184 Submitted by: Andrew M. Fletcher & John G. Crock, Ph. D. Consulting Archaeology Program University of Vermont 111 Delehanty Hall 180 Colchester Avenue Burlington VT 05405 Report No. 597 March, 2010 i ABSTRACT The information presented in this report pertains to archaeological research and fieldwork operations conducted by the University of Vermont Consulting Archaeology Program (UVM CAP) at Native American sites VT-CH-1076, VT-CH-1077, and VT-CH-1078. All three sites were initially discovered during an archaeological Phase I site identification survey conducted for the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project. The project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE) is contained within an estimated 40 acre parcel located on Kimball Avenue in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont. At present, specific construction elements have not been designed for the parcel, however future plans will likely involve industrial and/or commercial development. In preparation for such development, and in accordance with Vermont’s Act 250 land use permit application process, the O’Brien Brothers Agency requested an archaeological review of the project’s APE prior to further planning. ii MANAGEMENT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The archaeological studies conducted for the proposed O’Brien Home Farm development project included an initial Archaeological Resources Assessment (ARA), a Phase I site identification survey, and a limited Phase II evaluation. As part of the ARA, UVM CAP Director Dr. John G. Crock inspected the property to determine its sensitivity for pre-Contact era Native American sites. During the inspection, Crock identified five major areas of archaeological interest. Broadly, the areas were delineated based on their proximity to Potash Brook and on the known archaeological record of the surrounding area. Based on the results of the ARA, an archaeological Phase I site identification survey was recommended to determine whether any pre-Contact era Native American sites would be impacted by the proposed development. During the Phase I site identification survey, the archaeologically sensitive areas were examined through a combination of systematic surface collections and subsurface test pit sampling. As a result, three pre-Contact era Native American sites were identified and designated VT-CH-1076, VT-CH-1077, and VT-CH-1078 in the Vermont Archaeological Inventory (VAI). Because the areas containing site VT-CH-1078, and another immediately south of site VT-CH- 1077, were deemed integral to the potential design plans, a limited Phase II site evaluation was proposed for these locations in an effort to clear them for industrial and/or commercial development. The Phase II fieldwork involved a series of 50 x 50 cm (20 x 20 in) test pit excavations amid a potentially significant portion of site VT-CH-1078, and more extensive grid interval test pit sampling immediately off the southern boundary of site VT-CH-1077. Based on the results of the limited Phase II investigation, it was determined that the evaluated areas do not possess significant “data potential”, and are not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). As such, no additional archaeological fieldwork was recommended in these locations prior to construction. Finally, based on the intense artifact densities recovered at sites VT-CH-1076, and VT-CH-1077, a protective archaeological buffer was recommended for their protection and preservation, as they represent potentially significant, and NRHP eligible, sites. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... i MANAGEMENT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ iii LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF FIGURES (cont.) .......................................................................................................... v INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................................................. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................... 7 CULTURAL CONTEXT ........................................................................................................... 10 Vermont Prehistory ................................................................................................................... 10 Project Area Prehistory ............................................................................................................ 12 Potential Prehistoric Site Types in the General Project Area .................................................. 16 METHODS AND RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 18 Phase I Site Identification Survey ............................................................................................. 18 Area 1, VT-CH-1076 ............................................................................................................ 18 Area 2, VT-CH-1077 ............................................................................................................ 28 Area 3 .................................................................................................................................... 32 Areas 4 and 5, VT-CH-1078 ................................................................................................. 32 Phase II Evaluation of Site VT-CH-1078 .................................................................................. 36 Phase II Evaluation of Site VT-CH-1077 .................................................................................. 36 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................... 40 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 43 APPENDIX 1: Test Pit Profiles ................................................................................................ 47 APPENDIX 2: Project Personnel ............................................................................................. 52 APPENDIX 3: Glossary ............................................................................................................ 53 APPENDIX 4: Public Information Summary ......................................................................... 54 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map showing the location of the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project on Kimball Avenue, in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Map showing the location of the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project and nearby known archaeological sites in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). ........................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Map showing the location of archeologically sensitive Areas 1-5 within the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). ............................................................................................................ 4 Figure 4. Map showing the results of the archaeological Phase I site identification survey within the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). .............................................................................................. 5 Figure 5. Map showing the location of Native American site VT-CH-1040 in relation to archaeological sites VT-CH-1076 and VT-CH-1077 within the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 6. Map showing the location of notable archaeological sites within a 2 kilometer radius of the project parcel and within the Potash and Muddy Brook watersheds, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). .......................................................................... 15 Figure 7. View West, UVM CAP archaeologists conducting a systematic surface inspection within Area 4 of the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont. .................................................................................... 19 Figure 8. View North, UVM CAP archaeologists mapping and collecting artifacts within Area 2 of the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont. ....................................................................................................... 19 Figure 9. Map showing the location of high density artifact concentrations representing sites VT-CH-1076 and VT-CH-1077 within the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). ............................... 20 Figure 10. Map showing the locations of surface collected artifacts representing Native American site VT-CH-1078 within the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). ............................... 21 Figure 11. From left to right; one temporally diagnostic Levanna type projectile point and two projectile point preforms (PN #’s 204-1, 276-1, and 724-1), surface collected from Native American site VT-CH-1076. ......................................................................................................... 22 Figure 12. Five unique modified flake tools surface collected from Native American site VT- CH-1076. PN # 216-1 top left and 223-1 top right. PN #s 460-1, 410-1, and 292-1 bottom left to right. .............................................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 13. Three modified cobble fragments, working edges facing up; surface collected from the hillside component of Native American site VT-CH-1076. PN # 716-1 top, 717-1 bottom left, 721-1 bottm right. .................................................................................................................. 25 v LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.) Figure 14. Three unifacially flaked scraping implements surface collected from Native American site VT-CH-1076. Left to right; PN # 217-1, 230-1, and 470-1. ................................ 27 Figure 15. Map showing the broad terrace formation shared by pre-Contact era Native American sites VT-CH-130, 255, 429,430, and 1077, located along Potash Brook in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). .......................................................................... 29 Figure 16. From left to right; two temporally diagnostic Levanna type projectile points (PN #’s 343-1 and 124-1), one Normanskill type projectile point (PN # 316-1), and one projectile point tip (PN # 138-1), surface collected from Native American site VT-CH-1077. ............................ 30 Figure 17. Assortment of quartzite tools surface collected from Native American site VT-CH- 1077. Bottom left to right; one bifacially flaked tool fragment (PN # 377-1), one utilized flake (PN # 360-1), and one modified fragment (PN # 337-1); working edges facing left. Top left to right; one unifacially-flaked scraping implement (PN # 125-1), and one modified debitage fragment (PN # 367-1); working edges facing up. ....................................................................... 31 Figure 18. Assortment of tools surface collected from Native American site VT-CH-1078. Top left to right; one utilized flake (PN # 102-1), and one biface fragment (PN # 117-1); working edges facing up. Bottom left to right; one modified chert fragment (PN # 121-1), one modified quartzite fragment (PN # 103-1); and one quartz biface (PN # 119-1); working edges facing up. ....................................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 19. PN # 118-1; modified chert fragment surface collected from site VT-CH-1078, within the O’Brien Home Farm property in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont. .............. 34 Figure 20. Map showing the location of archaeological Phase II testing within the southwestern locus of Native American site VT-CH-1078 in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). ......................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 21. Map showing the location of archaeological Phase II grid interval testing along the southern margins of Native American site VT-CH-1077 in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). .......................................................................................................... 38 Figure 22. Map showing the location of archaeological Phase II grid interval testing along the southern margins of Native American site VT-CH-1077, and the resulting area cleared for disturbance marked in green (source: vcgi.org). ........................................................................... 42 1 INTRODUCTION On the dates of November 10th and 11th, 2009, the University of Vermont Consulting Archaeology Program (UVM CAP) completed a series of archaeological studies for the proposed O’Brien Home Farm development project. The proposed project encompasses approximately 40 acres, and is located between Kimball Avenue and Old Farm Road in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (Figure 1). Though specific project plans were not yet designed for the parcel at the time of the investigation, future plans were expected to include a combination of industrial and commercial development. In preparation for such development, and to comply with Vermont’s ACT 250 permit application process, an archaeological review of the project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE) was requested by the O’Brien Brothers Agency. The studies conducted for the proposed development included an initial Archaeological Resources Assessment (ARA), a Phase I site identification survey, and a limited Phase II evaluation. The initial ARA level review was performed on June 17, 2009, by UVM CAP Director Dr. John G. Crock. Using an environmental predictive model developed by the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation (VDHP), project area sensitivity was determined largely on the basis of its proximity to Potash Brook and on the known archaeological record of the surrounding area (Figure 2). Ultimately, five major portions of the project parcel were deemed archaeologically sensitive. As such, a Phase I site identification survey was recommended to determine whether any pre-Contact era Native American sites would be impacted by the development (Figure 3). Between the dates of August 4th and 6th, 2009, UVM CAP archaeologists carried out the Phase I survey through a combination of systematic surface inspections and subsurface test pit sampling. As a result of the investigation, three pre-Contact era Native American sites were identified and designated VT-CH-1076, VT-CH-1077, and VT-CH- 1078 in the Vermont Archaeological Inventory (VAI). The sites were identified on the basis of multiple lithic scatters collected from several areas within the project parcel (Figure 4). Following a review of the known artifact distributions, it was determined that the densest portion of site VT-CH-1077 and the entirety of site VT-CH-1076 should be preserved and protected. Conversely, it was decided that the areas containing site VT-CH- 1078, and an area immediately south of site VT-CH-1077 represented the best options to be cleared for industrial and/or commercial development through a limited Phase II site evaluation. What follows is a compilation of research and investigative data produced as a result of the archaeological surveys conducted within the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property. The studies undertaken for this project were conducted pursuant to Vermont’s Act 250 permit application process and followed the Guidelines for Conducting Archaeological Studies in Vermont (Peebles 2002). This report contains information on the environmental and cultural context of the project area, detailed descriptions of the Phase I investigation, a summary of sampling methods and results, conclusions, recommendations, and appropriate appendices. 2 Figure 1. Map showing the location of the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project on Kimball Avenue, in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). 3 Figure 2. Map showing the location of the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project and nearby known archaeological sites in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). 4 Figure 3. Map showing the location of archeologically sensitive Areas 1-5 within the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). 5 Figure 4. Map showing the results of the archaeological Phase I site identification survey within the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). 6 RESEARCH DESIGN The archaeological studies conducted for the proposed O’Brien Home Farm development project adhered to a specific research design. The overall imperative of this design was to contribute to the identification, evaluation, protection, and preservation of Vermont’s archaeological resources. To achieve these ends, systematic field methodologies were employed by the UVM CAP according to guidelines established by the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation (VDHP). Below is a summary of these guidelines. The primary objectives of the Archaeological Resources Assessment are: 1) to provide sufficient information to gauge the general archaeological sensitivity of a project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE); and 2) to determine whether further archaeological studies will be necessary as the project proceeds. The parameters for establishing project area sensitivity are based on the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation’s “Environmental Predictive Model for Locating Archaeological Sites.” Depending on the results of the sensitivity assessment, subsequent recommendations for an Archaeological Phase I site identification survey may then be issued. Phase I site identification surveys often employ systematic surface inspections of plowed areas, and/or utilize 50 x 50 cm (20 x 20 in) test pit excavations for subsurface sampling. The goals of the Phase I site identification survey are to: 1) determine the existence and location of any prehistoric and/or historic period sites within the project’s APE; and 2) present preliminary information that can form the basis and framework for a more intensive archaeological evaluation should a site be identified. In the event of site identification, various measures will be recommended to avoid and/or protect the site. If a potentially significant site cannot be avoided and/or preserved, a Phase II evaluation will then be recommended. The goals of the Phase II site evaluation are to: 1) obtain more detailed information on the integrity, condition, boundaries, size, stratigraphy, structure, function and context(s) of the site; 2) sufficiently evaluate its significance and/or lack of significance; 3) specifically determine, based on the above information, whether or not the site meets the criteria for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); and 4) if necessary, provide an adequate plan for mitigating through avoidance, data recovery, or other means, any anticipated adverse impacts to the archaeological site (Peebles 2002). 7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT In an effort to understand how and where Vermont’s prehistoric populations lived, archaeologists try to explore any dynamic that would have had an impact on, or influential role in the lives and behaviors of Native American people. The reconstruction of prehistoric settlement patterns can depend heavily on information drawn from environmental factors such as topographic variability, the distribution of lakes, ponds, rivers and streams, plant and animal diversity, and local geology. In examining these factors, definable patterns of human occupation and the interplay between cultural and environmental contexts may begin to emerge. In this case, the general project area lies within the physiographic subdivision of Vermont known as the Champlain Lowland zone. It is a region of low rolling hills, north- south trending ridges, delta plains, and flat lakeshore terraces (Howland 1974:10). The Champlain Lowland marks the western extent of northern Vermont, stretching approximately 160 km (100 mi) from the Canadian border in the north to the Poultney River in the south (Jacobs 1950). Approximately 32 km (20 mi) at its maximum width, the Lowland is bounded by Lake Champlain to the west and by the Green Mountains to the east. This area was once covered by an arm of the Champlain Sea during the early Holocene period (ca. 12,000 cal yr B.P.) and therefore reflects the topography of this ancient lacustrine environment. Topographic relief throughout the lake plain is controlled by the underlying bedrock, and can often be quite complex. In areas where bedrock materials outcrop, prehistoric inhabitants may have gathered in search of essential raw material for tool manufacture. For the most part, local prehistoric populations used quartzite, chert and less frequently quartz, for the fabrication of stone tools. The underlying bedrock within the project area is mapped as part of the Bascom formation. This formation consists of interbedded dolomite, limestone or marble, calcareous sandstone, quartzite, and limestone breccia (Doll 1961). Though bedrock exposures of quality chert, quartzite, or quartz are not likely to outcrop in the immediate area, loose samples of this material may be found scattered throughout the open fields and stream drainages in the form of glacially-deposited cobbles. Based on local prehistoric settlement patterns, however, it seems that Native American people were drawn to the project area more for wetland resource exploitation than raw material procurement (see Figure 2). Locally, Potash Brook is a prominent hydrological feature and home to many known archaeological sites. Its watershed encompasses an area of approximately 5,300 acres or 7.5 square miles (Pease 1997). The main stem of the brook originates in the southeast quadrant of South Burlington, and runs a length of 11.47 km (7.13 mi) before emptying into Lake Champlain through Shelburne Bay (Nelson and Nealon 2003). Lake Champlain is fed by an abundance of hydrological features such as wetlands, ponds, rivers and streams throughout the Lowland zone. Some of the prominent watersheds within this zone include the Winooski River, Lamoille River, Missisquoi River, Otter Creek, and Muddy Brook among others. Muddy Brook, a secondary tributary to the Winooski River, is located approximately 1.2 km (.75 mi) east of the project parcel. Flowing between Shelburne Pond and the Winooski River, Muddy Brook provided a 8 valuable travel and communication corridor throughout prehistoric and historic times. The close proximity of Potash and Muddy Brooks to each other undoubtedly served as an important resource exploitation link within the general region (Mandel and Crock, 2006). In terms of native forest vegetation, the Champlain Lowland is typically classified as a Transitional-Hardwood-White-Pine-Hemlock forest zone. As the name suggests, a variety of species occupied this area (Petersen and Power 1983). These include eastern white pine, red maple, sugar maple, American beech, red and white oak, birch, eastern hemlock, northern white cedar, and eastern red cedar. The diverse vegetation of this zone provided for a variety of wildlife habitats and plants that late prehistoric populations could have exploited. Large mammals such as white tailed deer, moose and black bear, as well as smaller mammals would have been common. Plants, both edible and suitable for producing textiles, shelters, weapons and other daily tools would have been available at least on a seasonal basis. Understanding seasonal exploitation of these resources by Native Americans in relation to their settlement patterns is a primary focus of prehistoric archaeology in Vermont. Climatic changes influenced the biota, and ultimately the human population in Vermont during the Holocene epoch. Following de-glaciation, a spruce-fir parkland and tundra environment persisted to about 9500 cal yr B.P. During the post-glacial optimum, ca. 7500 – 4000 cal yr B.P., mixed conifer and hardwood forests evolved. The changing climate of the Holocene epoch directly affected the floral regimes and their dependent animal communities. This in turn affected the way in which human populations adapted to their environment since their arrival in the region ca. 13,000 – 11,500 cal yr B.P. With the dawn of the historic era, forest cover changed dramatically as modern land usage in the Champlain Lowland zone varied from logging to hay and corn cultivation, and livestock grazing (USDA 1989:26). Though much of the Lowlands, particularly around the project area, have been cleared for agricultural, residential, and commercial use over the past 200 years, a wide range flora and fauna persist today that were likely abundant during late prehistoric times. The incipient plant life of the Champlain Valley is supported by fairly dynamic soil types which formed over the past 13,000 years from complex glacio-lacustrine events. The project parcel itself seems to straddle the edge of an old glacial lake plain, which covers extensive areas south of the Winooski River within the towns of South Burlington and Williston. Ancient lacustrine sediments deposited here approximately 12,500 years ago consist predominately of fine textured clays and silts. In other areas of the project parcel, however, marine sediments related to a former Champlain Sea delta complex also are present. These deposits are generally sandy in composition (Mandel and Crock, 2006). Within the study area, the official soil compositions include Adams Windsor loamy sands, Farmington Stockbridge rocky loams, Vergennes clay, and Covington silty clay. Sites VT-CH-1076 and 1077 are dominated by Adams Windsor loamy sands as they are located closer to the southern limits of the sandy Champlain Sea delta complex. Farmington Stockbridge rocky loam marks the 12-20% slope along the western extent of site VT-CH- 1076, where interestingly, a greater percentage of cobble sized artifacts were recovered. To the south, site VT-CH-1078 is broadly characterized by Vergennes clay and Covington 9 silty clay; roughly corresponding to the northern extent of the finer glacial lake plain sediments. In summary, it is evident that the project parcel is located in an area that has experienced dynamic environmental shifts over the millennia, yet despite this ever changing backdrop, it has endured as an ideal location for both prehistoric and modern habitation. Data drawn from the many known archaeological sites throughout the Potash Brook portion of the Champlain Lowland indicates that the area was settled repeatedly over thousands of years, for a variety of residential and camp-based activities. As will be discussed in the sections to follow, closer examination of the many site types within this region will undoubtedly lend itself to a better understanding of local human adaptation and settlement patterns. 10 CULTURAL CONTEXT VERMONT PREHISTORY The importance of pre-Contact era Native American archaeological sites in Vermont is emphasized by the absence of written records. Aside from oral tradition, scientific investigation of prehistoric sites represents the only record of Native American life in Vermont prior to European contact (Toney and Crock, 2006). Data compiled through past and ongoing investigations has enabled the development of a general framework of Vermont’s prehistoric heritage. In terms of the O’Brien Home Farm project area, Native American sites VT-CH- 1076, 1077, and, to a lesser extent, 1078, were identified on the basis of abundant cultural content. Temporally diagnostic projectile points dateable to the Late Woodland Period, ca. 1,000 – 400 cal. yrs. B.P., and projectile point types possessing characteristics attributable to the Late Archaic Period, ca. 6,000 – 3,000 cal yr B.P., were identified at sites VT-CH- 1076 and VT-CH-1077. In order to better conceptualize these different time periods, it is important to take a look at the full range of prehistoric Native American occupation within Vermont, ca. 13,000 – 400 cal yr B.P. The Vermont historic preservation plan contains an overview of Native American prehistory for the state and is quoted and paraphrased here to provide a basis for understanding pre-Contact period occupation within the study area (VDHP 1991:10-13). Vermont’s earliest settlers, called Paleoindians, began to move into Vermont around 13,000 – 11,500 cal yr B.P., at the end of the last ice age. With the retreat of the glaciers, the barren tundra gradually gave way to a park-tundra of spruce, fir, and birch that sustained mastodons, woolly mammoths, and large herds of caribou. The increased availability of plant and animal resources would have been critical to the expansion of Paleoindian populations. Furthermore, the Atlantic Ocean began to inundate the St. Lawrence River valley and Champlain Lowland, forming the Champlain Sea, which supported a wide variety of marine animals that Paleoindians may have hunted in addition to land-based fauna. Their hunting tool kit featured the fluted point, a type of spear point unique to the earlier part of this period in prehistory. During the Late Paleoindian Period (11,500-10,000 cal yr B.P.), a technological shift to non-fluted points occurred. Though theories abound as to whether the shift was based on utility versus style, the transition remains a significant temporal indicator in the archaeological record. About 30 Paleoindian sites have been found in Vermont, including sites in the towns of Burlington, Colchester, Highgate, Ludlow, Milton, and Williston (e.g., Doherty et al. 2000). Living as semi-nomadic groups of hunters and gatherers, it is believed that Paleoindians often traveled great distances while in pursuit of game, or to procure raw material for tool production. Extensive trade networks also may have existed, as is suggested by sites in Vermont containing lithic raw material from origins as far away as Maine, central New York, Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts coast. By the beginning of the Early Archaic period (10,000 – 8,000 cal yr B.P.), hardwood trees began to appear in the Champlain Valley, increasing its ecological diversity while the uplands remained dominated by conifers. Developing lakes, ponds, and wetland environments provided improved habitat for birds, animals, and a wide variety of useful plants. As closed forest cover developed over the region, Native American populations 11 began to gradually increase by employing a more localized subsistence strategy and utilizing a wide array of local natural resources. Most of the sites discovered from this 2,000 year period have been identified on the basis of small, bifurcated base or side- notched spear points, also known as Swanton corner-notched points, which were used for hunting. The John’s Bridge site, an Early Archaic campsite containing bifurcate base spear points, located in Swanton, Vermont, has been dated to ca. 8,100 cal yr B.P. (Thomas and Robinson 1983). Historic building site VT-RU-264, located on a small terrace above the Otter Creek floodplain in Wallingford, Vermont, also contained an undisturbed Early Archaic component, based on the recovery of a Swanton corner-notched point. This site represents the southernmost extent of this type of spear point in Vermont so far identified (Doherty et al. 1995). The locations of these two sites suggest that the diverse resources associated with river floodplains were attractive to inhabitants of this time period. Little is known about the subsequent Middle Archaic period (8,000 – 6,000 cal yr B.P.). Diagnostic artifacts for this time period are relatively unknown or have not been recognizable (Haviland and Power 1994). Isolated finds of diagnostic Middle Archaic tools associated with cultures to the west and south of Vermont further confuse their temporal affiliation, as does the poor context of most of these finds. Undoubtedly, people continued to live in Vermont during this time period (e.g., Petersen et al. 1985:57-59; Thomas 1992). At the beginning of the Late Archaic period (6,000 – 3,000 cal yr B.P.), the warm regional climate fostered human population growth. Not only could groups exploit the increased food resources in the rich valleys and bottom lands, but the upland regions as well. Particularly, the lakes and ponds witnessed a proliferation of animal and plant communities. Residential and other activity sites from this period have been found in all parts of Vermont, from lakeshores to mountain tops (e.g. Thomas 2000). Evidence suggests that people returned to many sites repeatedly in the course of their seasonal rounds. The extensive array of woodworking tools found in sites dating to the Late Archaic period suggests that the dugout canoe was an important method of transportation. Like the earlier Paleoindian period, there is some evidence of wide-ranging exchange networks, though most of the stone used for tools was derived from local sources. Some examples of long distance exchange items found at Late Archaic sites in Vermont include a walrus tooth from Arctic Canada, copper tools and beads from the upper Great Lakes, and shells from the Gulf of Mexico (e.g., Haviland and Power 1994). The Early Woodland period (ca. 3,000 – 2000 cal yr B.P.), saw several major changes. For the first time pottery is represented in the archaeological record, and we believe the bow and arrow also came into use at this time. The Early Woodland period in Vermont is represented at several burial sites (e.g., Haviland and Power 1994, Heckenberger et al. 1990; Loring 1985). Ritual mortuary practices and artifacts found at these cemetery sites suggest a close cultural affiliation with Adena cultures in the Midwest (Mandel and Crock 2007). Though few Early Woodland sites have been identified and thoroughly studied in Vermont, the Auclair and Ewing sites, located in the Winooski River watershed, contain cultural deposits of this time period (Mandel and Crock 2007; e.g., Petersen et al. 1985:61, Table 5; Thomas and Doherty 1981: Table 1, 1985: Table C). 12 Long-term population growth in the region apparently began at the beginning of the Middle Woodland period (2,000 – 1,000 cal yr B.P.). At that time people shifted between increasing numbers of environmental habitats (e.g., from mountains to valleys) to exploit the full range of available resources, reflecting a more diversified subsistence strategy. The Winooski site, located in the lower Winooski River valley, is one of the best known sites from this period and contains a stratified sequence of Middle Woodland occupations that date to ca. 2,000 – 1,000 cal yr B.P. (Petersen 1980). By the beginning of the Late Woodland period, ca. 1,000 – 400 cal yr B.P., extensive settlements could be found in all of Vermont’s major river valleys. It was during this time that the seasonal cycle of hunting, fishing, and gathering of wild plant foods was supplemented by the planting and harvesting of crops. Corn-bean-squash cultivation quickly became an important component of the diversified subsistence strategy. To date, Vermont’s earliest known farm site is located in Springfield on the Connecticut River. By approximately 900 cal yr B.P., corn, beans, and squash were being cultivated and stored in pits beneath small houses located along the Connecticut River floodplain (Heckenberger et al. 1992). Corn horticulture on the Winooski Intervale was actively being practiced approximately 550 years ago, if not before (Bumstead 1980). The arrival of Samuel de Champlain on Lake Champlain in 1609 marked the beginning of the end for a way of life that had persisted for nearly 11,000 years. Although earlier fluctuations in climate, forest, and food resources had required slow but continual change in indigenous subsistence strategies, the intimate interaction of Native Americans and their environment had allowed them to adapt successfully. The rapid expansion of European presence and influence in the area however, resulted in an unsuccessful adaptation to this newly inserted, foreign, sociopolitical and economic system. Native people suddenly found that they had to compete with Europeans for the same croplands and wild resources. In addition, the European arrival exacerbated pre-existing intertribal conflicts, and introduced diseases for which they had no immunity. This resulted in the decimation of entire indigenous communities. Although war and dispersal dominated the Native American world from A.D. 1600-1800, Vermont’s Native culture including the western Abenaki, adapted and persist to this day. PROJECT AREA PREHISTORY As part of the overall investigation for the proposed O’Brien Home Farm development project, state records and archaeological reports were referenced to identify any known prehistoric Native American sites existing within or near the limits of the project parcel. A review of the VAI database indicated that at least 60 archaeological sites are known to exist within the surrounding Potash and Muddy Brook watersheds. The majority of these sites are located on lake or delta plain features along the edges of the two brooks, their tributaries, or at stream confluences (Mandel and Crock 2006). Among the closest is Native American site VT-CH-1040, which occupies the edges of the same sandy delta formation and tributary to Potash Brook as that of VT-CH-1076 and VT-CH-1077 (Figure 5). Based on their spatial characteristics and artifact inventories, all three sites are likely extensions of the same settlement series. As a result of multiple archaeological studies at site VT-CH-1040, four spatially discrete cultural 13 Figure 5. Map showing the location of Native American site VT-CH-1040 in relation to archaeological sites VT-CH-1076 and VT-CH-1077 within the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). 14 activity areas were recorded within the project’s boundaries. These areas were defined within two site loci designated Locus A and Locus B. Evidence recovered during systematic Phase II evaluation and Phase III data recovery efforts indicated that at least three non-contemporaneous episodes of occupation are represented at the site. Based on the recovery of several temporally diagnostic projectile point types, the time periods include the Late Archaic period, ca. 6,000 – 3,000 cal yr B.P., the Early Woodland period, ca. 3,000 – 2,000 cal yr B.P., and the Late Woodland period, ca. 1,000 – 400 cal yr B.P. Current analysis of the extensive artifact inventory suggests that various camp-based activities were conducted at the site including stone tool manufacture and refurbishment, material processing, heating and/or cooking activities, and possibly personal or ritual adornment. Similar to sites VT-CH-1076 and 1077, an overwhelming majority of the artifacts recovered were derived from locally available Cheshire quartzite. This kind of continuity through thousands of years of settlement represents an interesting topic of research which deserves greater exploration. Another noteworthy site in the near vicinity is pre-Contact era Native American site VT-CH-878. This site was identified as part of an earlier O’Brien Home Farm development survey on Kennedy Drive, located approximately 460 m (.29 mi) northwest of the Kimball Avenue project location (Figure 6). Similar to VT-CH-1040, site VT-CH- 878 occupies a sandy relict delta overlooking deeply incised portions of the Potash Brook watershed. Archaeological Phase I and II investigations at the site resulted in the identification of two areas of cultural activity containing artifacts attributable to the Early and Middle Woodland periods, ca. 3,000 – 1,000 cal yr B.P. Its temporal affiliation was partly based on the recovery of Vinette I type pottery dateable to the Early Woodland period, ca. 3,000 – 2,000 cal yr B.P. In addition, the recovery of Levanna type projectile points, combined with radio carbon dates obtained from a cultural feature, indicated the presence of a Middle Woodland period component dating to ca. 1,300 – 1,000 cal yr B.P. (Mandel and Crock, 2006). A review of the Mandel and Crock (2006) O’Brien Home Farm Site report indicates that: Of the identified prehistoric sites within the Muddy and Potash Brook watersheds, more than half can be attributed to a known period of occupation. The sites with temporal affiliation represent occupations ranging from the Early Archaic to Late Woodland periods, ca. 10,000 – 400 cal yr B.P. Among them, site VT-CH-3, which is located on Muddy Brook just north of Shelburne Pond, is reported to contain artifacts dating to every phase of the Archaic and Woodland period range. Other known sites in the general area tend to represent more narrow occupations, including three of the four sites identified from the Adams Industrial Park survey. These sites contained projectile point types dating to the Late Archaic period alone (Thomas and Kochan 1987). Finally, site VT-CH-76, which is located near Potash Brook in the northwest corner of the Technology Park subdivision, contained a Levanna type projectile point dating to Late Woodland period, ca. 1,000 – 400 cal yr B.P. Based on the information from these and other site locations within the general area, similar occupations ranging from the Late Archaic to the Late Woodland period were anticipated within the O’Brien Home Farm development property. 15 Figure 6. Map showing the location of notable archaeological sites within a 2 kilometer radius of the project parcel and within the Potash and Muddy Brook watersheds, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). 16 In the Muddy and Potash Brook watersheds, data related to site size can vary dramatically depending on how the sites and site clusters are interpreted in relationship to one another. Documented sites in this area may range in size from approximately 72 m2 (775 ft2) to 6,000 m2 (64,500 ft2) or more. Some of the larger sites include VT-CH-265, 266, 267, and 9268, which were identified during the Adams Industrial Park survey (Thomas and Kochan 1987). These sites are located on the east side of Muddy Brook, approximately 1.79 km (1.11 mi) southeast of the O’Brien Home Farm project area (see Figure 6). Although these sites were large in breadth, and were identified on the basis of widely distributed stone artifacts, subsequent research showed that the general site areas were comprised of many smaller artifact clusters, some as small as 30 m2 (323 ft2). Ultimately, artifact clusters or loci such as these may be interpreted as individual occupations or episodes of activity, but they may also be part of larger site establishments and repeated occupations within the broader area. As such, it is important to consider similar spatial patterning when assessing the results of archaeological investigations like the O’Brien Home Farm property development project, and/or planning future surveys. POTENTIAL PREHISTORIC SITE TYPES IN THE GENERAL PROJECT AREA A framework of various site types that could potentially be identified within the O’Brien Home Farm property was developed prior to the initiation of the archaeological Phase I survey. Based on several site types listed in the prehistoric context of Vermont’s Historic Preservation Plan (VDHP 1991), it was anticipated that base camps, small residential camps, and/or small extractive camps may be present within the immediate study area. Small residential camps and small extractive camps may contain relatively low to moderate densities of artifacts that are concentrated in spatially limited activity areas. These site types are often related to a single episode of occupation. Site size can range between 100 m2 (1,076 ft2) and 500 m2 (5,380 ft2), and are frequently as small as 50 m2 (538 ft2) (e.g. Thomas 1986). The majority of artifacts are likely to occur around shelters and hearths where most camp related activities typically took place. Small residential camps and small extractive camps are common from around Shelburne Pond (Petersen et al. 1985). Base camps, on the other hand, may contain multiple activity areas, evidence of extensive tool manufacture, and a wide variety of tool types. Site size may range up to 4000 m2 (43,040 ft2) or more in areas of high resource potential. Based on past surveys in Burlington and Colchester, such sites are most likely to be located along former and current channels of the Winooski River (Thomas 2000). Found throughout the state, these sites types were probably established by small groups pursuing food and material resources from a variety of environmental settings. This kind of subsistence strategy would have been subject to the availability of resources as determined by local, seasonal, and environmental conditions over the course of many years, or even centuries. As a result, the age, seasonality, and artifact content of small residential, extractive, and base camps can often be quite disparate from site to site. Since major topics of research identified in the prehistoric context of Vermont’s historic preservation plan include the development of cultural chronologies for the state; sites that contain aspects of past technological, settlement, and subsistence systems across space and time may be significant. 17 Because artifact and feature content tends to vary according to the activities undertaken within a given site; artifact assemblages, cultural features, and their spatial patterns are integral elements in determining the purpose of a site and how it functioned within a larger cultural system. Based on known site typologies and judging by the natural setting of the project parcel, it was expected that sites within the project’s APE might contain one or more small hearths and possibly scatters of fire-affected rock. In general, most hearths are probably smaller than 1 m2 (11 ft2). Hearths may contain carbonized bone and plant materials related to food preparation, and wood charcoal that can be used to date the period of occupation. Quartzite, chert, and quartz flakes produced during stone tool manufacture are likely to be the most common artifacts in these areas. Most flakes may be clustered in areas of 1-3 m2 (11-32 ft2). The tools themselves are far less common, but where present, provide important clues for understanding the types of activities that were undertaken. Data from known sites throughout Vermont suggest that artifact density within portions of many prehistoric sites is likely to be low. During a Phase I survey, a single lithic flake recovered in good context is considered sufficient evidence to identify a prehistoric Native American site. Due to the low density and small size of sites, it is not surprising that tools, and features such as hearths, are not often identified during the Phase I level of testing. Bedrock quarries, quarry workshops, burial sites, and find spots also are associated with the cultural activities of Vermont’s earliest inhabitants (VDHP 1991). Lithic quarrying workshops are unlikely to be present in the near vicinity, as suitable raw material outcrops are not known from the immediate area. Burial sites may be present in the area, but are not likely to be encountered through Phase I level sampling methods. 18 METHODS AND RESULTS Prior to the commencement of archaeological fieldwork within the O’Brien Home Farm property, an Archaeological Resources Assessment (ARA) was performed by UVM CAP Director Dr. John G. Crock. During the ARA, specific project locations were assessed using the VDHP’s environmental predictive model for locating archaeological sites. In general, the project received a high sensitivity score based on its proximity to Potash Brook and on the known archaeological record of the surrounding area. Ultimately, Crock designated five major locations (Areas 1-5) within the project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE) as sensitive for pre-Contact era Native American sites. As a result, an archaeological Phase I site identification survey was recommended to determine whether any potentially significant sites would be impacted by the proposed development. PHASE I SITE IDENTIFICATION SURVEY For the purposes of the Phase I site identification survey, sensitive Areas 1-5 were plowed to allow for systematic surface inspections by UVM CAP archaeologists. Following sufficient rainfall, the freshly rinsed fields were carefully examined for evidence of pre-Contact era Native American cultural deposits (Figure 7). During the investigation, all identified lithic material related to prehistoric Native American occupation was flagged, collected, and its specific location recorded. Mapping of surface artifacts was accomplished using a Trimble Geo XT GPS unit and Topcon GTS-230 Total Station with handheld data recorder (Figure 8). As a result of the archaeological Phase I surface collection, high-density artifact concentrations were identified on either side of a tributary to Potash Brook which divides Areas 1 and 2. The artifact concentrations were designated sites VT-CH-1076 and VT- CH-1077 in the Vermont Archaeological Inventory (VAI) (Figure 9). Furthermore, a diffuse scatter of artifacts, some questionable, were recovered from the large plowed fields designated Areas 4 and 5. This portion of the project was collectively designated site VT- CH-1078 in the VAI (Figure 10). Area 1, VT-CH-1076 Area 1 encompasses approximately 1.44 acres within the far northern extent of the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project. It is located on the north side of an active tributary to Potash Brook, and is part of a larger terrace formation containing known archaeological site VT-CH-1040. Native American site VT-CH-1076 was identified on the basis of artifacts scattered across large portions of Area 1, with the heaviest concentrations occurring along the edge of the Potash Brook tributary (see Figure 9). Based on a complete laboratory analysis, the artifacts recovered at site VT-CH- 1076 include 273 lithic debitage specimens, 19 flaked-tools, 6 fire-affected rock fragments, and 14 unmodified and/or questionable-status lithic samples. In terms of the lithic material types present, the debitage and flaked-tool assemblage consists predominantly of quartzite (95.55%), followed by undifferentiated chert (2.74%), quartz (.68%), other (.68%), and local rhyolite (.34%). 19 Figure 7. View West, UVM CAP archaeologists conducting a systematic surface inspection within Area 4 of the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont. Figure 8. View North, UVM CAP archaeologists mapping and collecting artifacts within Area 2 of the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont. 20 Figure 9. Map showing the location of high density artifact concentrations representing sites VT-CH-1076 and VT-CH-1077 within the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). 21 Figure 10. Map showing the locations of surface collected artifacts representing Native American site VT-CH-1078 within the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). 22 The tools identified within the assemblage include one broken projectile point, two projectile point preforms, four bifacially-flaked tool fragments, five modified flakes, three “expediently” modified cobble fragments, three unifacial scraping implements, and one utilized fragment. A quick look at the triangular shape of the broken projectile point (PN # 204-1) indicates that it is a Levanna type arrowhead, dateable to the Late Woodland Period ca. 1,000 – 400 cal. yrs. B.P. In contrast, the two projectile point preforms (PN #’s 276-1 and 724-1) clearly do not belong to the Levanna typology. While their unfinished quality may prohibit specific temporal affiliation, it can be argued that the stem feature on PN # 276-1 most closely resembles that of the Susquehanna or Adena typologies. Such projectile point types can be attributed to the Late Archaic Period, ca. 6,000 – 3,000 cal. yrs. B.P., and Early Woodland Period, ca. 3,000 – 2,000 cal. yrs. B.P., respectively. Figure 11. From left to right; one temporally diagnostic Levanna type projectile point and two projectile point preforms (PN #’s 204-1, 276-1, and 724-1), surface collected from Native American site VT-CH-1076. 23 In terms of the four bifacially-flaked tool fragments (PN #’s 239-1, 275-1, 468-1, and 487-1), laboratory analysis was somewhat limited. In general they appear to represent indeterminate portions, or edge fragments, of various tool types ranging from cutting implements to possible projectile points. In a similar regard, the five modified flake tools appear to represent a diverse range of styles and functions (Figure 12). Unlike the biface fragments however, these allowed for somewhat better analysis. PN # 216-1 is a thin reduction flake with limited modification to its distal edge. It appears to be a simple processing tool for relatively soft materials. PN # 223-1 is a more robust flake with unifacial modification along its thickest edge. This implement would have been suitable for working harder materials. PN # 292- 1 appears to be an early stage reduction flake, and despite the presence of a deep and probably modern flake scar, it is characterized by subtle modification and/or usewear along its sharpest edge. Based on the nature of the tool’s shape, size, and design, it seems most appropriately described as a handheld cutting implement. PN # 410-1 is best described as a broken modified flake tool which was apparently repurposed after it broke. Its shortened working edge could have been ideal for finer scraping or peeling details. Finally, PN # 460-1 is rather unique in its shape. It is a relatively thick flake which ultimately thins and narrows approaching its modified “bit” end. Viewed from the dorsal surface, the modifications create an indented unifacial edge on the right side of the tool. At first glance the tool looks like it could have been a reworked drill, yet upon closer examination its form is suggestive of a left-handed scraping or shaving implement best used for processing moderately hard materials. Up to this point, the overall discussion of site VT-CH-1076 and its tool assemblage has not been paired with an internal spatial analysis. This is partly because the entire artifact inventory was recovered from an historic plow-disturbed context. However, one spatial correlation that calls for some attention was the recovery of three notably different modified cobble fragments from the 12-20% slope immediately west of the core activity area. On a superficial level, the three modified fragments appear “roughly” manufactured as compared to the more intricately worked and finer material artifacts recovered from the core activity area (Figure 13). Based on the material alone, the modified fragments appear to be locally acquired stones. These could have easily been collected from the Farmington- Stockbridge rocky soil which characterizes the slope where they were identified. The tools were fashioned from small quartz and ortho-quartzite cobbles, which were split, and their exposed facets unifacially modified. The quartz tool (PN # 716-1) has a thick polyhedral shape with original outer cortex present on one side. One of its interior edges exhibits light modification and/or possible usewear. Similarly, the two ortho-quartzite tools (PN #’s 717- 1 and 721-1) possess some original outer cortex, and were minimally prepared so as to have at least one steep faceted edge. Their functioning edges show usewear to the extent that they were eventually rounded smooth. Broadly based on their physical attributes, as well as their hillside location, all three of the modified fragments bear similarities to that of known Early Archaic tool assemblages, ca. 10,000 – 8,000 cal yr B.P. 24 Figure 12. Five unique modified flake tools surface collected from Native American site VT-CH- 1076. PN # 216-1 top left and 223-1 top right. PN #s 460-1, 410-1, and 292-1 bottom left to right. 25 Figure 13. Three modified cobble fragments, working edges facing up; surface collected from the hillside component of Native American site VT-CH-1076. PN # 716-1 top, 717-1 bottom left, 721- 1 bottm right. 26 When compared with known Early Archaic sites such as VT-CH-230, VT-CH-486, and VT-CH-490, excavated in the context of the Chittenden County Circumferential Highway (CCCH), some noteworthy analogies can be drawn to the hillside component of site VT-CH-1076. As an excerpt from Mandel’s 2005 Calkins Site report explains; The processing tool assemblages of the CCCH sites are comprised of an array of scraping, cutting, and shaving implements, all of which are derived from local lithic sources…Durable raw materials such as quartz and quartzite appear to have been the preferred raw material choice, most likely for their hardness and fracturing qualities. Comparison of each site’s scraping implements bears out that all of the tools contain steep angled working edges, ranging from 70-90 degrees. The tools appear to have been minimally to moderately prepared, with the removal of only several or more flakes to define the tool; giving many a half-prismatic shape. The shapes of the tools range from ovoid, triangular to rectangular. Finally, the topographic similarities of these, and other Early Archaic Period sites, deserves mention. As stated in the Calkins Site report, VT-CH-230 occupies part of a prominent hillside east of Indian Brook, while one of the two loci identified at site VT-CH- 490 crosses the crest of a bedrock knoll. In addition, archaeological investigations at the Juniper Ridge site, VT-CH-974, identified an Early Archaic Swanton Corner-notched projectile point and possible subterranean “pit house” situated slope-side within the Allen Brook watershed in Milton, Vermont. In the 2005 Juniper Ridge Site report, Mandel observes; Similarities between VT-CH-974 and an Early Archaic habitation site studied in Connecticut can be seen. For example, both sites are situated on sandy hillsides that have southern exposure, and overlook wetlands or small streams. The results of the Connecticut studies indicate that subterranean “pit houses” were dug into the hillside and were most likely covered with a structure. [At VT-CH-974], the recovery of several lithic tools that could have been used for processing/construction of a structure suggest that some type of heavy duty processing was undertaken. In summary, though no temporally diagnostic artifacts or features attributable to the Early Archaic period have been recovered at site VT-CH-1076 as of yet, the strong correlations to its hillside component and processing style artifacts remain a compelling topic for future study. Also recovered from site VT-CH-1076 were three steep faceted uniface “scrapers” (PN #’s 217-1, 230-1, and 470-1). Though this tool type is often found among Early Archaic Period sites, it is not exclusive to them. The three scraping implements featured below differ from the aforementioned modified fragments in that they exhibit more intensive preparation, resulting in more uniformly shaped tools (Figure 14). PN #’s 217-1 and 470-1 are both roughly ovoid in shape, with flat ventral surfaces and moderate to heavy preparation around 90% of the tool’s edge. PN # 230-1 exhibits a flat ventral surface and unifacial preparation, yet it appears to be fragmented from a larger tool. In general, all three “scrapers” are moderately robust, and were likely used to process hard materials like wood or bone. 27 Figure 14. Three unifacially flaked scraping implements surface collected from Native American site VT-CH-1076. Left to right; PN # 217-1, 230-1, and 470-1. Finally, one utilized fragment, PN # 438-1, was identified during analysis of the VT-CH-1076 artifact assemblage. The fragment was likely removed from a larger cobble based on the presence of some original cobble cortex. It exhibits several flake scars related to previous reduction attempts, but there is one very sharp edge that is lightly serrated, suggesting that the object was briefly employed for cutting purposes. On a most basic level, the presence of such a variety of tools and tool types at site VT-CH-1076 suggests that food and/or material processing activities occurred throughout the site’s occupation. Furthermore, it stands to reason that heating and/or cooking activities also occurred. This is supported by the recovery of six fire-affected rock fragments in the area. Partially intact fire hearth features are most likely present at the site, but none were identified due to the fact that subsurface test pit excavations were not employed during the Phase I survey of this area. 28 Area 2, VT-CH-1077 Area 2 occupies a sandy terrace formation located southeast of Area 1. It is bounded by an active Potash Brook tributary to the north, and a prominent hill which defines much of the project’s interior to the south and west. The foot of this hill marks the southwestern extent of a larger terrace formation containing archaeological sites VT-CH- 130, 255, 429, 430 and the recently identified VT-CH-1077 (Figure 15). Native American site VT-CH-1077 was recorded during the Phase I survey of Area 2 on the basis of a large concentration of artifacts scattered across its plowed surface. The density of artifacts was greatest along the northern edge of the landform, nearest the Potash Brook tributary, and generally decreased to the south (see Figure 9). Based on laboratory analysis, the artifacts recovered at site VT-CH-1077 include 213 lithic debitage specimens, 9 flaked-tools, 4 fire-affected rock fragments, and 2 unmodified and/or questionable-status lithic samples. In terms of the lithic material types present, the debitage and flaked-tool assemblage consists predominantly of quartzite (98.2%), followed by undifferentiated chert (1.8%). The tools identified within the assemblage include three temporally diagnostic projectile points, one broken projectile point tip, one bifacially flaked tool, one utilized flake, two modified fragments, and one unifacial scraping implement (Figures 16 and 17). Looking at the temporally diagnostic projectile points, two out of the three are Levanna types, dateable to the Late Woodland Period ca. 1,000 – 400 cal. yrs. B.P. One Levanna (PN # 124-1) is derived from a fine-grained waxy chert which, based on its fossilized inclusions and flat cortical surface, is believed to come from a suspected bedrock outcrop somewhere in Addison or Rutland County, Vermont. The second (PN # 343-1) is made from quartzite, it is relatively small in size, and has two broken tangs. Finally, the third projectile point (PN # 316-1), classified as part of the Normanskill typology with a blend of Orient Fishtail-like basal attributes, is dateable to the Late Archaic Period, ca. 6,000 – 3,000 cal. yrs. B.P. In terms of the broken projectile point tip, its lack of an intact base and midsection precludes any effort to determine its type (PN # 138-1). On the basis of its fairly symmetrical excurvate edges, however, the tip does not appear to belong to the triangular Levanna typology. PN # 377-1 is a bifacially-flaked tool fragment with an excurvate working edge. There is no evidence of usewear on the tool which may suggest that it broke during manufacture. Judging by the tool’s sharp serrated edge and relatively thick cross-section, it likely articulates with a broken cutting or processing implement rather than a projectile point. PN # 360-1 is a moderately sized reduction flake with one sharp edge exhibiting classic evidence of usewear along its length. Though this utilized flake tool was likely handheld for its cutting or shaving purposes, its smaller opposing edge could have easily been hafted to a wood shaft for greater leverage. 29 Figure 15. Map showing the broad terrace formation shared by pre-Contact era Native American sites VT-CH-130, 255, 429,430, and 1077, located along Potash Brook in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). 30 Figure 16. From left to right; two temporally diagnostic Levanna type projectile points (PN #’s 343-1 and 124-1), one Normanskill type projectile point (PN # 316-1), and one projectile point tip (PN # 138-1), surface collected from Native American site VT-CH-1077. 31 Figure 17. Assortment of quartzite tools surface collected from Native American site VT-CH- 1077. Bottom left to right; one bifacially flaked tool fragment (PN # 377-1), one utilized flake (PN # 360-1), and one modified fragment (PN # 337-1); working edges facing left. Top left to right; one unifacially-flaked scraping implement (PN # 125-1), and one modified debitage fragment (PN # 367-1); working edges facing up. 32 PN # 337-1 is a somewhat equivocal modified fragment tool. It exhibits a single flake scar on its ventral surface, and possibly two additional modification attempts along one edge. Minimally this artifact represents a limited attempt at fashioning a scraper-like tool. Similarly, PN # 367-1 is another debitage fragment exhibiting limited modification. One corner of the artifact has been subtly formed into a working edge, however the awkward shape of the fragment seems as though it would inhibit functionality. Finally, PN # 125-1 is a unifacially-flaked scraping implement with a distinct hinge fracture opposite its working edge. Though there is little evidence to determine when or how the fracture occurred, it remains a fortuitously shaped break. Ultimately, the fracture allows the tool to be held comfortably between the thumb and index finger of the right hand, with the working edge ideally positioned for light to moderate scraping activities. Similar to site VT-CH-1076, the artifact assemblage from VT-CH-1077 is indicative of lithic tool production, refurbishment, material processing activities, and probably heating and/or cooking activities as well. Ultimately, despite their separation by a small tributary, and separate site designations, it remains highly likely that both site areas share components of the same occupation(s). This is further supported by the presence of Levanna type projectile points identified from both locations. Area 3 At Area 3, the Phase I surface collection resulted in the recovery of two probable fire-affected rock fragments along the western extent of the plowed field (see Figure 10). Both fragments were recovered near the margins of a shallow bedrock exposure. Ultimately, no definitive pre-Contact era Native American artifacts were identified in the near vicinity and the cultural status of the fire-affected rock fragments remains uncertain. As such, an official site number was not assigned to this location. Areas 4 and 5, VT-CH-1078 As a result of the Phase I surface collection within sensitive Areas 4 and 5, site VT- CH-1078 was identified on the basis of multiple low-density artifact scatters spanning both areas. In total, twenty-two lithic specimens were recovered from five roughly defined activity areas (see Figure 10). Based on laboratory analysis, the artifacts recovered at site VT-CH-1078 include 7 lithic debitage flakes, 1 debitage fragment, 6 lithic flaked tools, and 8 unmodified and/or questionable-status lithic samples. In terms of the material types present, the debitage and flaked-tool assemblage consists predominantly of chert (57.14%), followed by quartzite (21.43%) and quartz (21.43%). The tools identified from site VT-CH-1078 include one utilized flake, two bifacially-flaked tools, and three modified fragments (Figures 18 and 19). The utilized flake tool (PN # 102-1) is a medium sized chert flake exhibiting subtle micro-flake usewear on its two sharpest edges. Based on the style and extent of its usewear, the flake was likely employed briefly to cut soft material. 33 Figure 18. Assortment of tools surface collected from Native American site VT-CH-1078. Top left to right; one utilized flake (PN # 102-1), and one biface fragment (PN # 117-1); working edges facing up. Bottom left to right; one modified chert fragment (PN # 121-1), one modified quartzite fragment (PN # 103-1); and one quartz biface (PN # 119-1); working edges facing up. 34 Figure 19. PN # 118-1; modified chert fragment surface collected from site VT-CH-1078, within the O’Brien Home Farm property in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont. 35 PN # 117-1 is a chert biface fragment with rough outer cortex on one facet and moderate weathering across its worked surfaces. The degree to which it has been worked suggests that it may have been used and even retouched, then likely discarded. In contrast, PN # 119-1 is a quartz biface with minimal preparation or work on any of its edges. Ultimately, the bifacially-flaked tools appear to represent processing implements, yet, based on their vague morphology it is difficult to assign a specific style or function to either one. PN #103-1 is a modified quartzite cobble with apparent outer cortex on one facet. Its working edge appears to have been expediently modified and unifacially prepared. Based on its robust shape, the tool seems best suited for moderate to heavy chopping or scraping activities. PN # 118-1 is a relatively large modified chert fragment. The dorsal surface of the tool is almost entirely intact outer cortex, whereas the ventral surface has been worked substantially. The fragment is triangular in shape and two of its edges show definite modification. The “hypotenuse” edge contains a distinctly worked notch that was likely used for scraping or shaving activities, and the sharp opposing edge was probably prepared for cutting activities. Finally, the third modified fragment (PN # 121-1) resembles a modern block plane tool. It appears to be derived from bedrock based on its three flat, slate-like surfaces, though the material is clearly chert. Its humped dorsal surface is mostly smooth, intact cortex. One edge exhibits shallow unifacial modification and seems ideal for scraping, shaving, and/or planing activities. In general, the artifacts recovered from site VT-CH-1078 differ greatly from those represented at sites VT-CH-1076 and 1077. Most notably, site VT-CH-1078 demonstrates a significant reduction in debitage density and use of quartzite material. Furthermore, the ratio of tools to lithic debitage is significantly greater at site VT-CH-1078, possibly indicating a greater emphasis on actual tool usage rather than manufacture and/or refurbishment. Upon completing the Phase I surface investigations, UVM CAP archaeologists turned to test pit sampling within select portions of Areas 4 and 5 in an effort to uncover more specific information regarding the content and context(s) of site VT-CH-1078. To start, 15, 50 x 50 cm (20 x 20 in) test pits were excavated along the wooded terrace formation east of Area 5 (see Figure 10). The test pits were spaced at 5 m (16 ft) intervals along four linear transects designated Transects 1-4. Despite their location on an archaeologically sensitive landform overlooking the confluence of Potash Brook and one of its seasonal drainages, no additional artifacts were recovered from the subsurface sampling of this location. Finally, Transect 5 was established along a prominent hilltop in the northwest corner of Area 4. A total of three test pits were excavated at 10 m (33 ft) intervals across its length. The purpose of sampling this location was to better understand the local soil structure and to better contextualize several questionable artifacts recovered in the immediate vicinity. Ultimately, no additional artifacts were recovered. Following a review of the archaeological Phase I results it was decided that Areas 5, 4, 3, and the southern half of Area 2 represented the best options to be cleared for industrial and/or commercial development. To clear these areas, a limited Phase II evaluation was recommended in an effort to maximize developable space and minimize 36 impact to potentially significant cultural resources. Specifically, the Phase II evaluation would attempt to provide 1) a better assessment of potentially significant artifact deposits in the southwest portion of site VT-CH-1078, and 2) to appropriately determine and buffer the southern limits of site VT-CH-1077. Based on this plan, the densest portion of site VT- CH-1077 and the entirety of site VT-CH-1076 would be preserved and protected. PHASE II EVALUATION OF SITE VT-CH-1078 For the purposes of the Phase II evaluation at site VT-CH-1078, a total of 10, 50 x 50 cm (20 x 20 in) test pits were excavated within and around a small artifact cluster in the southwest portion of Area 4. The test pits were spaced at 5 m (16 ft) intervals across one linear transect, designated Transect 6, and one cluster designated Cluster 1 (Figure 20). As a result of the Phase II evaluation in this area, three additional pre-Contact era Native American artifacts were recovered. One chert debitage flake and one fire-affected rock fragment were surface-collected immediately east of Transect 6, Test Pit 4, and a single quartzite debitage flake was recovered from 20-30 cm (8-12 in) below the ground surface within the upper plow-disturbed stratum of Cluster 1, Test Pit 2 (see Figure 20). Although several other lithic specimens were recovered from within this test pit, they were later determined to be non-cultural. Based on the limited subsurface content in this area, no further testing was required. PHASE II EVALUATION OF SITE VT-CH-1077 To review, Native American site VT-CH-1077 was identified during the Phase I survey on the basis of a large concentration of artifacts collected from within sensitive Area 2. The density of artifacts was greatest along the northern edge of the landform overlooking a tributary to Potash Brook. The artifact densities generally decreased to the south. Based on discussions with project engineers, a majority of the site would naturally be preserved within and adjacent to the established wetland buffer. The southern extent of the site however, remains in an area intended for development. As such, limited Phase II testing was recommended to better establish a southern boundary for the site, and to clear, if possible, approximately one half of the plowed field for development. To initiate the Phase II evaluation of site VT-CH-1077, a horizontal metric grid was established over the project parcel at a declination of N 345° E, within which all surface artifacts and test pit locations were assigned a metric grid coordinate. In an effort to adequately sample the landform, a total of 21, 50 x 50 cm (20 x 20 in) test pits were established at 5 m (16 ft) intervals along three linear parallel transects. Each transect was spaced 10 m apart, covering the southern half of Area 2 (Figure 21). As a result of the Phase II evaluation in this area, three of the twenty-one test pits, or 14%, yielded additional cultural content (see Figure 21). The artifacts included one probable fire-affected rock fragment, and six lithic debitage flakes. The six debitage flakes were recovered from two test pits located along the northernmost line of testing. One test pit yielded a single quartzite debitage flake from 0-10 cm (0-4 in) below the ground surface. 37 Figure 20. Map showing the location of archaeological Phase II testing within the southwestern locus of Native American site VT-CH-1078 in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). 38 Figure 21. Map showing the location of archaeological Phase II grid interval testing along the southern margins of Native American site VT-CH-1077 in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). 39 The other, located 5 m (16 ft) to the east, yielded five flakes from two separate levels of excavation. These included one quartzite and two chert debitage flakes from 0- 10 cm (0-4 in) below the ground surface, and two quartzite flakes recovered from 10-20 cm (4-8 in) below the ground surface. Finally, the fire-affected rock fragment was recovered from 0-10 cm below the ground surface in a test pit located approximately 14 m (46 ft) further to the southeast (see Figure 21). Ultimately, all of the Phase II artifacts were recovered from within the upper plow-disturbed horizon. During the Phase I and II studies, all test pits were excavated in 10 cm vertical levels with respect to natural stratigraphic soil horizons. In general, the excavations terminated at depths ranging from 30-50 cm (12-20 in) below the ground surface, or at least 10 cm into intact B or BC substrata. During the Phase I survey, all excavated soil was sieved through 6.4 mm (1/4 in) mesh hardware cloth, whereas the Phase II evaluation utilized 3.2 mm (1/8 in) mesh to achieve a finer sampling standard. All recovered cultural deposits were collected in re-sealable acid-free plastic bags labeled according to their provenience number and project location. Stratigraphic soil profiles were recorded for every test pit according to both texture and Munsell chart colors. All measurements and project area excavations were recorded using a Topcon GTS-230 total station with handheld data recorder, or with metric tapes, Brunton compass, and a Trimble Geo XT GPS unit. In the laboratory, all recovered materials were cleaned, cataloged, and entered into a computer database, using the UVM CAP standard descriptive categories and format. All field notes, photographs, records, artifacts and lab data have been filed and are being temporarily stored at the University of Vermont Consulting Archaeology Program until they can ultimately be transferred to the Vermont Archaeology Heritage Center. 40 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Phase I and II investigations of five archaeologically sensitive areas within the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project resulted in the identification of three pre-Contact era Native American sites. The sites are designated VT-CH-1076, 1077, and 1078 in the Vermont Archaeological Inventory. Following from several discussions presented throughout this report it becomes evident that these sites are not isolated events. Rather, they fit into a long series of Native American habitation within the Potash Brook watershed. As reflected by the artifact analysis of sites VT-CH-1076 and VT-CH-1077, not only do they represent multiple periods of occupation themselves, they are likely components of a larger prehistoric settlement pattern. For reference, known sites within the immediate area range from the Early Archaic period, ca. 10,000 – 8,000 cal yr B.P., through the Late Woodland Period, ca. 1,000 – 400 cal. yrs. B.P. In terms of Native American site VT-CH-1076, a total of 271 lithic debitage flakes, 2 debitage fragments, 19 flaked-tools, and 6 fire-affected rock fragments were recovered as a result of the Phase I investigation. Minimally, this site can be attributed to the Late Woodland Period, ca. 1,000 – 400 cal. yrs. B.P., as determined by the presence of a temporally diagnostic Levanna type projectile point. Still other tool types within the assemblage, though not definitively diagnostic, seem to suggest the presence of older components. The style of processing implements recovered from the hillside portion of site VT-CH-1076 hint at Early Archaic Period occupation (though not definitively), whereas the stemmed projectile preform recovered from the lower terrace can be compared to Susquehanna or Adena types known from the Late Archaic or Early Woodland Periods. At Native American site VT-CH-1077, a total of 216 lithic debitage flakes, 2 debitage fragments, 9 flaked-tools, and 5 fire-affected rock fragments were recovered as a result of the Phase I and II investigations. Temporally diagnostic projectile points identified within the assemblage include two Levanna types dateable to the Late Woodland Period, ca. 1,000 – 400 cal. yrs. B.P., and one Normanskill type dateable to the Late Archaic Period, ca. 6,000 – 3,000 cal. yrs. B.P. Broadly based on their artifact content and spatial proximity, it appears likely that Native American sites VT-CH-1076 and VT-CH-1077 overlapped on several fronts, both in terms of space and time. One notable continuity between both sites is the nearly exclusive use and abundance of regionally available quartzite raw material; markedly different from that of site VT- CH-1078. Furthermore, the presence of Late Woodland Period Levanna type projectile points at both sites suggests possible contemporaneous occupation. Finally, within both sites, the tools were recovered among larger concentrations of debitage, typical of lithic reduction and tool production activity areas. Other evident activities include heating and/or cooking as suggested by the presence of fire-affected rock, and non-lithic material manipulation based on the presence of various processing implements. When viewed collectively, the elements of each site most closely correlate to that of base-camp style establishment(s), and reflect repeated occupation over the course of several thousand years. At site VT-CH-1078, the artifact assemblage was far less concentrated and it was composed mostly of chert material. In total, 9 lithic debitage flakes, 1 debitage fragment, 1 fire- affected rock fragment, and 6 flaked tools were recovered as a result of the Phase I and II investigations. Based on the low debitage to tool ratio at site VT-CH-1078, it appears that hunting and resource extraction activities were more prevalent versus flint knapping and camp-based 41 activities like those found at sites VT-CH-1076 and 1077. In the end, no temporally diagnostic artifacts or features were identified at site VT-CH-1078, and therefore, the site can only be attributed to the general prehistoric range ca. 13,000 – 400 cal yr B.P. Following a review of the three identified sites, it was determined that the densest portion of site VT-CH-1077 and the entirety of site VT-CH-1076 should be preserved and protected based on their potential significance and National Register eligibility. Conversely, it was decided that the areas containing site VT-CH-1078, and an area immediately south of site VT-CH-1077, represented the best options for the proposed industrial and/or commercial development. The archaeological Phase II evaluations carried out within these locations ultimately allowed for this determination. Specifically, due to the poor context and limited number of artifacts identified at site VT-CH-1078, the site was determined to be not significant and therefore ineligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). At pre-Contact Native American site VT-CH-1077, the archaeological Phase II evaluation resulted in the recovery of minimal additional cultural content across the southern extent of the site area. Based on these results, a boundary for the site was determined, and a protective buffer was established roughly along the southern limits of the densest portion of the known site. In order to ensure the preservation of potentially significant cultural deposits, the area considered clear for development was mapped and displayed in green on Figure 22. Any proposed developments extending into the northern portion of Area 2 would require clearance through an archaeological Phase III site mitigation. In the event of Phase III mitigation, a proposal would be submitted outlining the extent and scope of the work to be conducted. In summary, as a result of the Archaeological Phase I and II investigations within the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project, sensitive Areas 5, 4, 3, and the southern half of Area 2, were ultimately cleared for construction. All levels of investigation were conducted as part of Vermont’s ACT 250 permit application process, and followed the guidelines established by the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation. 42 Figure 22. Map showing the location of archaeological Phase II grid interval testing along the southern margins of Native American site VT-CH-1077, and the resulting area cleared for disturbance marked in green (source: vcgi.org). 43 REFERENCES Bumstead, Pamela M. 1980 VT-CH-94: Vermont’s Earliest Known Agricultural Experiment Station. Man in the Northeast 19:73-82. Doherty, Prudence, Kathleen Kenny, Geoffrey Mandel and James Petersen 2000 Phase 1-2 Archaeological Investigations for the Jackson Gore Development, Okemo Mountain Resort, Ludlow, Windsor County, Vermont. Consulting Archaeology Program, University of Vermont, Report No. 276. Doherty, Prudence, Robert A. Sloma and Peter A. Thomas 1995 Phase I Archaeological Site Identification Survey for Wallingford BRS 0137(13), Sample Areas 1 and 2 and Determination of National Register of Eligibility for VT-RU-264, Wallingford, Vermont. Consulting Archaeology Program, University of Vermont, Report No. 142. Doll, Charles G., Ed. 1961 Centennial Geologic Map of Vermont. Vermont Geological Survey, Montpelier Haviland, William A., and Marjorie Power 1994 The Original Vermonters: Native Inhabitants, Past and Present. University Press of New England, Hanover. Heckenberger, Michael J., James B. Petersen, Ellen R. Cowie, Arthur E. Speiss, Louise Basa, Robert E. Stuckenrath 1990 Early Woodland Period Ceremonialism in the Far Northeast: A View From the Boucher Cemetery. Archaeology of Eastern North America 20:125-149. Heckenberger, Michael J., James B. Petersen, and Nancy Asch Sidell 1992 Early Evidence of Maize Agriculture in the Connecticut River Valley of Vermont. Archaeology of Eastern North America 20:125-149. Howland, William, G. 1974 In Vermont Land Capacity. Vermont State Planning Office, Montpelier, Vermont. Jacobs, Eldridge 1950 The Physical Features of Vermont. Vermont State Development Commission, Montpelier, Vermont. 44 Loring, Stephen 1985 Boundary Maintenance, Mortuary Ceremonialism and Resource Control in the Early Woodland: Three Cemetery Sites in Vermont. Archaeology in Eastern North America 13:93-127. Mandel, Geoffrey A. and John G. Crock 2005 Archaeological Phase I Site Identification Survey of the Proposed Juniper Ridge Development Project, Milton, Chittenden County, Vermont. Consulting Archaeology Program, University of Vermont, (Draft) Report No. 420 2005 Archaeological Phase I Survey, Phase II Evaluation, and Phase II/III Evaluation for the Calkins Property Project, South Burlington and Shelburne, Chittenden County, Vermont. Consulting Archaeology Program, University of Vermont, (Draft) Report No. 444 2006 Archaeological Phase I Site Identification Survey and Phase II Site Evaluation at the O’Brien Home Farm Site, VT-CH-878, for the Proposed O’Brien Home Farm Development Project, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont. Consulting Archaeology Program, University of Vermont, Report No. 331 2007 Archaeological Phase I Site Identification Survey for the Proposed Burlington North Plant Inverted Siphon Project, Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont. Consulting Archaeology Program, University of Vermont, (Draft) Report No. 479 Nelson, Jeffrey A. and Mary M. Nealon 2003 Potash Brook Watershed Restoration Plan. Pioneer Environmental Associates, LLC. Middlebury, Vermont. Pease, J. 1997 Potash Brook Stormwater Management Evaluation. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. Agency of Natural Resources. Waterbury, Vermont. Peebles, G. 2002 Guidelines for Conducting Archaeology in Vermont. Division for Historic Preservation, Montpelier, Vermont. Petersen, James B. 1980 Middle Woodland Ceramics of the Winooski Site, A.D. 1-1000. Vermont Archaeological Society New Series Monograph 1. Petersen, James B., and Marjory W. Power 1983 The Winooski Site and the Middle Woodland Period in the Northeast. Submitted to the Interagency Archaeological Services Program, National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA. Copy on file at UVM CAP, Burlington, VT. 45 Petersen, James B., Jack A. Wolford, Nathan D. Hamilton, Laurie L. Labar and Michael Heckenberger 1985 Archaeological Investigations in the Shelburne Pond Locality, Chittenden County, Vermont. Annals of Carnegie Museum 54(3):23-75. Thomas, Peter A. 1986 Discerning Some Spatial Characteristics of Small, Short-term, Single Occupation Sites: Implications for New England Archaeology. Man in the Northeast 31:99-121. 1992 The Early and Middle Archaic Periods as Represented in Vermont. In Early Holocene Occupation in Northern New England, edited by Brian S. Robinson, James B. Petersen and Ann K. Robinson, pp. 187-203. Occasional Publications in Maine Archaeology 9. Maine Historic Preservation Commission and Maine Archaeological Society, Augusta. 2000 Contributions to Understanding Vermont Prehistory: The Chittenden County Circumferential Highway Archaeological Studies. Consulting Archaeology Program, Report No. 204. Thomas, Peter A., and Brian S. Robinson 1983 The John’s Bridge Site: VT-FR-69, An Early Archaic Period Site in Northwestern Vermont. Vermont Archaeological Society, Burlington. Thomas, Peter A. and Geraldine P. Kochan 1987 Archaeological Reconnaisance Survey Adams Park South Brownell Road, Williston Road. Department of Anthropology, University of Vermont, Report No. 87. Thomas, Peter A., and Prudence Doherty 1981 Archaeological Resource Management Study of the Lower Winooski River Watershed. University of Vermont Department of Anthropology, Report No. 37. Submitted to the USDA, Soil Conservation Service. Thomas, Peter A., R. Scott Dillon, and Prudence Doherty 1985 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Chittenden County Circumferential Highway, Volume III: Site Description and Technical Information. Consulting Archaeology Program, University of Vermont, Report No. 52. Toney, Joshua R., and John Crock 2006 Archaeological Phase I Site Identification Survey, Phase II Site Evaluation, and Phase III Data Recovery within the Arbor Gardens Development Project, Colchester, Chittenden County, Vermont. Consulting Archaeology Program, University of Vermont, Report No. 396 46 USDA, Soil Conservation Service 1989 Soil Survey of Chittenden County, Vermont. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Vermont Division for Historic Preservation 1991 Criteria for Listing on the State Register of Historic Places. Division for Historic Preservation, Montpelier, Vermont. Copy on file at the Consulting Archaeology Program, University of Vermont. 1991 Vermont Historic Preservation Plan: Vermont’s Prehistoric Cultural Heritage. Agency of Development and Community Affairs VDHP, Montpelier, Vermont. 47 APPENDIX 1: TEST PIT PROFILES Key Ap Plow zone, disturbed layer Fill Soil transplanted or deposited from another location. Bs Oxidized soil, minerals leached from the Ap B Horizon which has been physically and chemically weathered. C Subsoil horizon; parent material from which soil developed. fsl Fine sandy loam sil Silt loam cl Clay lo Loam s Sand si Silt dk Dark lt Light v Very f Fine m Medium c Coarse brn Brown brnsh Brownish gry Gray grysh Grayish ol Olive yllw Yellow ylwsh Yellowish 48 49 50 51 52 APPENDIX 2: PROJECT PERSONNEL Principal Investigator: John G. Crock, Ph.D. Research Supervisor: Andrew M. Fletcher Field Crew Members: Andrew M. Fletcher Geoffrey A. Mandel Jeremy W. Ripin Robert C. Ingraham David Van Deusen Grace E. Cameron Eric J. Schuetz Kevin C. Lambert Kathleen M. Kenny Laboratory Staff: Andrew M. Fletcher Geoffrey A. Mandel Kevin C. Lambert Field Photography: Andrew M. Fletcher Cartography: Andrew M. Fletcher John G. Crock, Ph.D. Editor: John G. Crock, Ph.D. Report Production: Andrew M. Fletcher John G. Crock, Ph.D. 53 APPENDIX 3: GLOSSARY Activity Area – A section of an archaeological site in which a particular activity, such as tool making or food preparation, occurred. Defined by the presence of specific artifacts produced by the activity, and distribution in a particular spatial arrangement as a result of the activity. Alluvium – Soil or sediments deposited by a river or other running water, typically made up of a variety of materials, including silt, clay, sand, and gravel. Archaeology – The study of past peoples through recovery and analysis of artifacts left behind, and interpretation of the spatial setting in which their artifacts are found. Artifact – An object shaped or modified by human activity. Contact – In reference to the era of initial widespread European interaction with Native Americans, typically identified ca. 1492-1600 A.D. Curate – The act of taking care of, being responsible for, or storing an object or artifact. Debitage - Refers to the totality of waste material produced during lithic reduction and the production of chipped stone tools. See also flake. Diagnostic – Refers to an attribute or combination of attributes associated with an artifact which allows it to be classified or identified with a specific time period. Flake – Piece of waste material produced during manufacture of stone tools. See also Debitage. Lithic – Pertaining to or made of stone. Occupation – Refers to the act of settlement, also the time period of human activity in a given area. Pre-contact – In reference to the era preceding initial widespread European interaction with Native Americans, typically identified ca. 9000 B.C. – 1492 A.D. Provenience – Source or origin. Typically refers to location in a given archaeological context. Stratified (Stratigraphy) – In reference to the layering or deposition of soils. Subsistence Strategy – The means by which people/cultures generate or obtain resources critical to sustenance and survival. 54 APPENDIX 4: PUBLIC INFORMATION SUMMARY On the dates of November 10th and 11th, 2009, the UVM CAP completed a series of archaeological studies for the proposed O’Brien Home Farm development project on Kimball Avenue in South Burlington, Chittenden County Vermont. The studies included an initial Archaeological Resources Assessment (ARA), a Phase I site identification survey, and a limited Phase II evaluation. During the initial Archaeological Resources Assessment it was determined that much of the project area was likely to contain prehistoric cultural deposits. This determination was based on the project’s location within the Potash Brook watershed, and on its proximity to several known archaeological sites. Following this assessment, an archaeological Phase I survey was carried out, resulting in the identification of three previously unknown pre-Contact era Native American sites. The sites are designated VT-CH-1076, VT-CH-1077, and VT-CH-1078 in the Vermont Archaeological Inventory (VAI). Native American sites VT-CH-1076 and VT-CH-1077 were identified on the basis of two high-density artifact concentrations located on either side of a Potash Brook tributary in the northern portion of the project parcel. A thorough analysis of their respective assemblages revealed a diverse inventory of stone tools and tool types. In addition to processing tools such as scrapers, choppers, and cutting implements, both sites possessed multiple projectile points as well. The presence of temporally diagnostic projectile points, including three Levanna types, one Normanskill type, and one possible Susquehanna or Adena preform, indicates that these sites were occupied at various times minimally ranging from the Late Archaic Period, ca. 6,000 – 3,000 cal. yrs. B.P. through the Late Woodland Period, ca. 1,000 – 400 cal. yrs. B.P. Ultimately, based on their artifact densities, and various temporal affiliations, both sites were deemed potentially significant and potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. As such, their respective locations were protected and preserved via the establishment of an archaeological buffer. Native American site VT-CH-1078 was identified on the basis of a diffuse collection of artifacts across the broad southern portion of the project parcel. Though multiple tool types were recovered, no temporally diagnostic artifacts or features were identified at the site. As such, site VT-CH-1078 can only be attributed to the general prehistoric range ca. 13,000 – 400 cal yr B.P. Ultimately, due to poor context and limited artifacts at site VT-CH-1078, the site was determined to be not significant and therefore ineligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). August 6, 2019 Andrew Gill O’Brien Brothers Agency 1855 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: End of Field Letter for Archaeological Phase II Site Evaluation for Pre-Contact Era Native American Sites VT-CH-1076 and VT-CH-1199 for the O’Brien Brothers Agency Home Farm Project, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont Dear Andrew: From June 20th-28th, 2019, the University of Vermont Consulting Archaeology Program (UVM CAP) conducted archaeological Phase II site evaluations at pre-Contact era Native American sites VT-CH-1076 and VT-CH-1199 for the proposed O’Brien Brothers Agency Home Farm project located in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont. These Phase II studies followed previous Phase I site identification studies conducted by the UVM CAP in 2009 and 2016, which resulted in the identification of pre-Contact era Native American sites VT-CH- 1076 and VT-CH-1199, respectively. Site VT-CH-1076 was identified based on the recovery of numerous lithic artifacts from the surface of the plowed field within on the west side of Kimball Avenue to the north of a tributary of Potash Brook (Figure 1). Site VT-CH-1199 was identified during a Phase I study that included both surface survey and subsurface test pit sampling within agricultural fields located to the west of VT-CH-1076 between Old Farm Road and Kimball Avenue (see Figure 1). Because deposits at site VT-CH-1199 were spread over a large area, the concentrations of Native American archaeological deposits were divided into five spatially discrete areas, designated as Loci 1-5 (see Figure 1). Field Methods Site VT-CH-1199 was first identified in 2016 and, during the recently completed 2019 Phase II study, no visible evidence of the subsurface test pits could be relocated. As a result, the locations of the Phase I Survey test pits and surface finds were reconstructed using Global Positioning System (GPS) data collected in 2016. From these data, an arbitrary horizontal grid was established across the site to correlate the testing within separate loci. A baseline was first established by designating Phase I, Transect 12, Test Pit 4 as grid coordinate N100 E100, SW, and the Transect 12 azimuth as the angle for the E100 baseline. Once established, the horizontal metric grid was extended across the larger site area to include Locus 3, Locus 4 and Locus 5. The metric grid was not extended to Locus 1 as the 2016 subsurface testing in this portion of the site was oriented along a different azimuth and would not conform to the Phase II grid. Instead, the 2 original azimuth orientation of the Phase I transects within Locus 1 was used to align the Phase II test pits (Figure 2). Once the grid had been established, 50 x 50 cm (20 x 20 in) test pits were aligned within each locus at 5 m (16 ft) metric grid intervals. The extent of subsurface testing was determined by positive Phase I and Phase II test pits and the location of surface finds. All soils were excavated in systematic 10 cm (4 in) vertical levels with respected to the local soil stratigraphy and screened through 0.32 cm (1/8 in) mesh screens. A representative wall of each test pit was schematically profiled according to the soil strata’s color and texture. When artifacts were identified, they were collected in appropriately labelled plastic bags and entered into a field catalog. The locations of select test pits were recorded with a handheld GPS to further anchor the grid geospatially. Given that the agricultural field was to be hayed, several labelled plastic pin flags at Locus 2 and 3 were sunk to ground level in order to preserve them. At Locus 1, 4 and 5, where no positive test pits were identified, all pin flags were removed. At site VT-CH-1076, a unique horizontal metric grid was established (separate from that of VT-CH-1199). Two linear rows of test pits, spaced 10 m (33 ft) apart were emplaced at the northern edge of the known site area in order to better assess site boundary in this portion of the project area. The test pits along each metric grid line were offset by 5 m (16 ft) to provide optimal coverage. The excavation methodology followed that employed at site VT-CH-1199. Site VT-CH-1199 Phase II Results Locus 1 Locus 1 of site VT-CH-1199 was identified by the recovery of a quartzite tool recovered from the plowzone stratum of Phase I Transect 14, Test Pit 6 (see Figure 2). The Phase II testing included the excavation of four test pits spaced at 5 m (16 ft) intervals in cardinal directions around Transect 14, Test Pit 6. No additional artifacts were recovered. The soil stratigraphy included a 20-30 cm (8-12 in) thick uppermost historic era plowzone characterized as very dark brown silt loam. Beneath the plowzone, dark yellowish brown fine sandy loam subsoil was encountered to depths of 50 cm (20 in). Locus 2 Locus 2 of site VT-CH-1199 was identified by the recovery of one lithic debitage specimen each from Phase I Transect 11, Test Pit 7, Transect 12, Test Pit 4 and a test pit located 5 m (16 ft) to the south of Transect 12, Test Pit 4 (designated N95 E100)(Figure 3). Two of the debitage specimens were derived from Hathaway chert and the other from quartzite. All of the debitage was recovered from a plowzone context. In addition, one quartzite debitage specimen was recovered from the plowed surface approximately 18 m (59 ft) to the east of Transect 12, Test Pit 4 (see Figure 3). 3 To initiate the Phase II study of Locus 2, Transect 11, Test Pit 7 and Transect 12, Test Pit 4 were re-located via the use of the 2016 GPS data. A total of 25 50 x 50 cm (20 x 20 in) test pits were excavated at Locus 2 during the Phase II study (see Figure 3). Five of the test pits were excavated in the vicinity of Transect 12, Test Pit 4 and none produced additional artifacts. Two test pits, emplaced in the vicinity of the surface-collected artifact located to the east also did not produce artifacts. A total of 18 test pits were excavated in the vicinity of Transect 11, Test Pit 7 (see Figure 3). Of these, six produced pre-Contact era lithic artifacts (see Figure 3). The total Phase II artifact inventory for the positive test pits included 8 specimens of quartzite debitage. Of this total, three were recovered from Test Pit N125 E95, and the remainder as singular artifacts from the other five test pits. In Test Pit N125 E95, two of the quartzite debitage specimens were recovered from a plowzone context and the third debitage specimen from the intact subsoil. As lithic debitage is not temporally diagnostic, the age(s) of Locus 2 are not known at present. The local soils include one or two plowzone strata that terminate at depths from 25-44 cm (9.8-17.3 in) below the ground surface. The plowzone is characterized as very dark brown to dark grayish brown silt loam. Beneath the plowzone, the intact subsoil was characterized as dark yellowish brown to light olive brown fine sandy loam with light gravel content. Based on the horizontal distribution of the Phase I and II subsurface collected artifacts, Locus 2 encompasses a combined area of approximately 500 sq. m (5,382 sq. ft). This size approximation excludes the isolated quartzite debitage recovered during the Phase I surface inspection. Locus 3 Locus 3 was identified during the 2016 Phase I surface inspection by the recovery of five lithic artifacts from the plowed ground surface (Figure 4). These artifacts include two temporally diagnostic projectile points dateable to the Late Archaic period, ca. 6,000-3,000 calendar years before present, two lithic debitage specimens and a fragment of fire-cracked rock. To assess the locus, a total of 27 test pits were excavated and of these, seven, or 26%, produced pre-Contact era Native American lithic artifacts. The Phase II artifact inventory includes a non-typeable quartzite projectile point fragment, a chert drill/projectile point, a ground incised “sinew” stone, a possible quartzite tool, nine quartzite and one chert debitage specimens, and one fragment of fire-cracked rock. Two of the quartzite debitage specimens were recovered from the intact subsoil of Test Pit N130 E150, and the remaining artifacts were recovered from a plowzone context. The local soils include one plowzone strata that terminates at depths from 20-35 cm (8- 13.7 in) below the ground surface. The plowzone is characterized as very dark brown to dark 4 grayish brown silt loam. Beneath the plowzone, the intact subsoil was characterized as dark yellowish brown to light olive brown fine sandy loam with light gravel content. Based on the horizontal distribution of the test pits producing artifacts and surface collected material, Locus 3 encompasses approximately 400 sq. m (4,305 sq. ft). The locus occupies a portion of a generally south-north level terrace that overlooks a tributary of Potash Brook to the east. Between the tributary and level terrace, the landform slopes moderately east and down to the tributary. To the west of the level terrace, the landform begins to rise incrementally up to Locus 2. The northern portion of the terrace is defined by a shallow swale that leads down and east to the tributary. Locus 4 Locus 4 of site VT-CH-1199 was identified by the recovery of a quartzite lithic tool fragment and two chert debitage specimens during the 2016 Phase I surface inspection (Figure 5). This locus is located on a level terrace just north of Locus 3, on the north side of a small swale. The tool represents a small fragment of a modified flake processing tool. All three of the Phase I artifacts were found within a level terrace that overlooks the Potash tributary to the east. A total of nine 50 x 50 cm (20 x 20 in) Phase II test pits were excavated at Locus 4 (see Figure 5) to test the landform in the vicinity of the surface finds. No artifacts were recovered from these test pits. The soils identified at Locus 4 include one or two historic era plowzones that extended to depths from 24-30 cm (9.4-12 in) below the ground surface and were characterized as grayish brown to brown silt loam. Beneath the plowzone(s), intact subsoil comprised of dark yellowish brown silt loam was present to depths of 40-55 cm (16-21.6 in). Locus 5 Locus 5 of site VT-CH-1199 was identified by the recovery of five lithic artifacts during the 2016 Phase I surface inspection. These artifacts include two quartzite lithic tools and three quartzite debitage specimens. The tools represent an early stage biface and a large modified flake. Four of the artifacts were loosely clustered along a treeline margin along a terrace edge, and the fifth was isolated in the central portion of the field to the south (Figure 6). Three test pits, designated N245 E120, E125 and E130, were excavated in the vicinity of the isolated quartzite debitage specimen (see Figure 6). No additional artifacts were recovered from these test pits. The soils encountered in these test pits were comprised of sandy loam and were highly saturated. A total of 11 50 x 50 cm (20 x 20 in) test pits were excavated among the loosely clustered Phase I surface-collected artifacts (see Figure 6). No additional artifacts were recovered from these test pits. The soils in this portion of the locus included an uppermost historic era plowzone and intact subsoil beneath and were comprised of fine sandy loam. 5 Site VT-CH-1076 Phase II Results Site VT-CH-1076 was identified in 2009 during a surface inspection of a small agricultural field parcel located along the northern side of a Potash Brook tributary and southwest of Kimball Avenue (Figure 7). A dense concentration of lithic artifacts were recovered along the margins of the terrace overlooking the tributary. This dense concentration of artifacts extended south from Kimball Avenue for approximately 80 m (262.4 ft). From the eastern margins of the field and terrace edge above the tributary, the artifact concentration extended northwest for approximately 40 m (131 ft) into the field and to the limits of the Phase I plowing. As presently known, the densest concentration of lithic artifacts and portion of the site with the highest data potential lies along the eastern margin of the plowed field adjacent to the wetland/stream. Given that site VT-CH-1076 is likely significant based on the density of artifacts recovered during the Phase I Survey, the Phase II study was intended to sample the area at the edge of the Phase I surface inspection to better define the site boundary to the north. To do this, a horizontal metric grid was established (separate from that employed at neighboring VT-CH- 1199) and a total of 12 50 x 50 cm (20 x 20 in) test pits were excavated. The test pits were located southwest to northeast along the toe of slope of and across a gently rising landform (see Figure 7). No artifacts were recovered from these test pits. The soils encountered in these test pits include one or two uppermost historic plowzones that generally extended to a depth of 30 cm (12 in). The plowzone(s) is characterized as dark brown silt loam. Beneath the plowzone, intact subsoil, characterized as olive brown silt loam, was excavated to depths of 45-60 cm (18-24 in). Conclusions and Recommendations The Phase II evaluation of site VT-CH-1199 included the excavation of a total of 79 test pits within the five designated site loci. Based on the cumulative Phase I and II results, the UVM CAP determines that Loci 1, 2, 4 and 5 do not contain significant Native American cultural deposits in these portions of broadly defined site VT-CH-1199. These assessments are based on the cumulative results of the Phase I surface survey and subsurface testing, the results of the Phase II testing, and the density and integrity of site deposits. We recommend therefore that proposed project construction will not have an adverse effect on significant archaeological resources in these four areas and that no further study is necessary prior to project construction. Within Locus 3 of site VT-CH-1199, the cumulative Phase I and II studies resulted in the recovery of significant site deposits including temporally diagnostic projectile points and three- four other stone tools, including a drill/projectile point and a “sinew” stone. The high proportion of lithic tools within the inventory from Locus 3 stands out and highlights the site area’s potential to contain multiple classes of data that can be assigned to specific time periods and site 6 functions. In addition, a limited quantity of lithic debitage also was recovered. Two of the debitage specimens were recovered from an intact subsoil, indicating that some of the archaeological resources in Locus 3 may have escaped plow disturbance. In summary, the UVM CAP recommends that Locus 3 of site VT-CH-1199 is significant and is eligible for inclusion on the State and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). As such, any proposed project-related ground disturbance within the limits of Locus 3 would likely have an adverse effect on the significant site and, therefore, every effort should be made to avoid it and preserve it. If preservation and avoidance is not possible, then the UVM CAP recommends Phase III Data Recovery in Locus 3 prior to construction. Likewise, site VT-CH-1076 contains substantial site deposits as well and should also be considered significant. As with site VT-CH-1199, site VT-CH-1076 cannot be avoided and preserved in the context of the proposed project, then archaeological Phase III Data Recovery is recommended. The recommendations for both site VT-CH-1199 and site VT-CH-1076 are provisional, pending review by the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation (VDHP). Please feel free to contact us if you have questions regarding this study. Sincerely, Geoffrey A. Mandel Research Supervisor John G. Crock, Ph.D. UVM CAP Director 7 Figure 1. Aerial photo showing the location of sites VT-CH-1199 and VT-CH-1076 within the O’Brien Home Farm project area in South Burlington, Vermont. Note that the rough site boundaries depicted are based on the distribution of artifacts collected from the surface during the Phase I study in 2016 and positive test pits excavated as part of the Phase I, and the recently completed Phase II study in 2019. 8 Figure 2. Map showing the location of archaeological Phase I and Phase II 0.5 m x 0.5 m test pits and Phase I surface collected artifacts at Locus 1 of site VT-CH-1199 within the O’Brien Home Farm project area in South Burlington, Vermont. VT-CH-1199 Locus 1 9 Figure 3. Map showing the location of archaeological Phase I and Phase II 0.5 m x 0.5 m test pits and Phase I surface collected artifacts at Locus 3 of site VT-CH-1199 within the O’Brien Home Farm project area in South Burlington, Vermont. Note “LDEB” = lithic debitage. VT-CH-1199 Locus 2 10 Figure 4. Map showing the location of archaeological Phase II 0.5 m x 0.5 m test pits and Phase I surface collected artifacts at Locus 3 of site VT-CH-1199 within the O’Brien Home Farm project area in South Burlington, Vermont. Note “LTFL”= lithic flaked tool; “LTGR”= lithic groundstone tool; and “LDEB” = lithic debitage. VT-CH-1199 Locus 3 11 Figure 5. Map showing the location of archaeological Phase II 0.5 m x 0.5 m test pits and Phase I surface collected artifacts at Locus 4 of site VT-CH-1199 within the O’Brien Home Farm project area in South Burlington, Vermont. VT-CH-1199 Locus 4 12 Figure 6. Map showing the location of archaeological Phase II 0.5 m x 0.5 m test pits and Phase I surface collected artifacts at Locus 5 of site VT-CH-1199 within the O’Brien Home Farm project area in South Burlington, Vermont. VT-CH-1199 Locus 5 13 Figure 7. Map showing the location of archaeological Phase II 0.5 m x 0.5 m test pits and Phase I surface collected artifacts at site VT-CH-1076 within the O’Brien Home Farm project area, South Burlington, Vermont. June 12, 2020 | MS200116 Hillside at O'Brien Farm Phase 2 South Burlington, Vermont BSB Design, Inc. 4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208 West Des Moines, IA 50266 June 12, 2020 | MS200116 Hillside at O'Brien Farm Phase 2 South Burlington, Vermont Clubhouse Front Elevation BSB Design, Inc. 4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208 West Des Moines, IA 50266 June 12, 2020 | MS200116 Hillside at O'Brien Farm Phase 2 South Burlington, Vermont Clubhouse Right Elevation BSB Design, Inc. 4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208 West Des Moines, IA 50266 June 12, 2020 | MS200116 Hillside at O'Brien Farm Phase 2 South Burlington, Vermont Clubhouse Pool Side Elevation BSB Design, Inc. 4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208 West Des Moines, IA 50266 June 12, 2020 | MS200116 Hillside at O'Brien Farm Phase 2 South Burlington, Vermont Clubhouse Left Elevation BSB Design, Inc. 4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208 West Des Moines, IA 50266 June 12, 2020 | MS200116ClubhouseHillside at O'Brien Farm Phase 2South Burlington, Vermontwood sidingstanding seam metalexisting barnstanding seam metal roofcedar framecedar trelliscedar shadeBSB Design, Inc.4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208West Des Moines, IA 50266 June 12, 2020 | MS200116ClubhouseHillside at O'Brien Farm Phase 2South Burlington, VermontBSB Design, Inc.4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208West Des Moines, IA 50266 June 12, 2020 | MS200116ClubhouseHillside at O'Brien Farm Phase 2South Burlington, VermontBSB Design, Inc.4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208West Des Moines, IA 50266 June 12, 2020 | MS200116ClubhouseHillside at O'Brien Farm Phase 2South Burlington, VermontBSB Design, Inc.4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208West Des Moines, IA 50266 June 12, 2020 | MS200116ClubhouseHillside at O'Brien Farm Phase 2South Burlington, Vermontcedar covered patioBSB Design, Inc.4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208West Des Moines, IA 50266 June 12, 2020 | MS200116ClubhouseHillside at O'Brien Farm Phase 2South Burlington, VermontClub RoomBSB Design, Inc.4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208West Des Moines, IA 50266 June 12, 2020 | MS200116ClubhouseHillside at O'Brien Farm Phase 2South Burlington, VermontClub RoomBSB Design, Inc.4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208West Des Moines, IA 50266 N40°08'56"E86.54'S05°51'36"W361.91'N40°15'45"E141.38'S5 0 ° 3 6 ' 3 8 " E 17 6 . 6 2 'S23°56 '33 "E67.77 'S3 1 ° 1 4 ' 4 7 "E 8 9 . 1 2 ' S 4 5 ° 0 1 ' 0 5 " E 12 4 . 7 4 'S39°56'04"W253.14'S 4 4 ° 2 0 ' 1 8 " E 1 0 5 . 1 7 'N28°22'01"W45.67'N05°51'00"Wchord 39.56'L=44.15'R=27.50'N40°08'56"E344.88'S08°41'18"E291.92'N39°32'39"Echord 35.04'L=35.04'R=1659.99'N38°04'35"Echord 50.00'L=50.00'R=1659.99'N35°10'52"Echord 117.74'L=117.76'R=1659.99'N07°37'09"W139.06'N85°53'26"W 254.96'S51°49'35"E20.36'S08°41'18"E243.56'N08°41'18"W151.56'N75°30'12"Wchord 115.15'L=117.72'R=162.00'S75°42'39"Echord 155.06'L=158.46'R=222.00'S14°56'24"W46.88'N14°56'24"E46.88'S08°41'18"E72.40'N08°41'18"W72.40'N25°49'35"W19.00'S25°49'32"E111.00'S83°40'45"W53.96'S88°36'15"Wchord 39.55'L=39.54'R=230.00'S55°30'51"Wchord 81.85'L=90.07'R=60.00'N83°58'29"Wchord 20.03'L=20.04'R=230.00'S12°30'26"W239.82'N12°30'26"E239.82'S11°20'40"W675.39'N85°53'26"W119.09'N05°13'17"W168.82'S05°13'17"E260.82'S35°11'04"E16.91'N82°40'51"E chord 65.51'L=66.35', R=120.00'S88°53'59"E chord 43.91'L=44.04', R=170.00'N83°40'45"E4.61'N27°38'56"Echord 62.69'L=63.43'R=120.00'N49°35'10"E380.09'N39°03'08"Wchord 81.58'L=82.05'R=220.00'S41°51'32"Echord 76.76'L=77.00'R=280.00'S31°10'25"Echord 27.42'L=27.43'R=280.00'S36°21'09"Echord 61.13'L=61.33'R=220.00'N36°21'09"Wchord 77.80'L=78.05'R=280.00'N45°37'44"E250.78'N45°37'44"E60.00'N45°37'44"E258.76'N45°37'44"E156.67'N 4 4 ° 2 0 ' 1 8 " W 1 0 5 . 2 0 'N49°35'10"E107.28'S22°19'03"Wchord 603.89'N22°19'03"Echord 566.92'S04°22'20"W29.39'N04°22'20"E73.35'L=192.93'R=167.00N18°34'09"Wchord 197.17'N50°42'27"Echord 182.38'S43°04'58"Wchord 211.44'L=219.94'R=227.00'L=613.88'R=980.00'N40°15'45"E251.76'N4 9 ° 4 4 ' 1 5 " W 90 . 7 4 'S40°15'31"W129.97'S48°43'47"Wchord 126.71'N48°43'47"Echord 109.03'N24°40'54"Wchord 84.70'L=87.46'R=100.00'N08°39'17"Echord 28.81'L=28.91'R=100.00'S39°07'11"Wchord3.99'L=3.99'R=100.00'S04°44'15"Echord 56.57'L=56.57'R=40.00'141.38'N30°13'27"Echord 71.47'L=71.83'R=205.00'N23°27'25"Echord 83.85'L=85.06'R=145.00'N18°56'47"Echord 76.66'L=77.25'R=180.00'S13°25'07"Wchord 48.31'L=48.43'R=205.00'S21°04'56"W308.15'N30°04'25"E355.27'S18°56'47"Wchord 51.11'L=51.50'R=120.00'S14°28'35"W132.68'L=134.59'R=230.00'N05°06'35"Echord 213.73'L=214.33'R=830.00'N14°28'35"Echord 98.07'L=99.48'R=170.00'S05°06'35"Wchord 198.28'L=198.84'R=770.00'N02°17'17"W40.50'S02°17'17"E40.50'S06°19'15"E56.24'S40°25'51"W129.67'N40°15'45"E122.52'L=109.43'R=370.00'L=127.17'R=430.00'S21°56 '56 "E140.78 ' S75°00'36"E 83.40'N18°47'00"E306.64'N06°52'33"E60.66'S14°54'51"W44.06'S04°58'50"E324.19'S12°23'20"W191.04'S04°32'24"W233.92'S13°51'53"W311.80'S07°30'50"W334.38'N06°59'30"W371.47'N08°44'38"E457.62'N05°05'46"E143.93'S80°37'24"W48.39'S31°14'47"E26.08'N05°13'17"W31.00'N84°46'43"E46.00'N85°53'24"W16.77'N84°46'43"E31.00'N05°13'17"W42.00'S84°46'43"W46.00'N64°10'28"E31.00'N25°49'32"W42.00'N25°49'32"W31.00'N64°10'28"E46.00'N72°58'05"W64.04'S64°10'28"W46.00'N81°18'41"E31.00'N08°41'19"W42.00'S81°18'41"W46.00'N08°41'19"W31.00'N81°18'41"E46.00'S33°08'56"W5.00'N35°11'04"W16.91'S11°22'19"W151.91'S11°20'30"W248.64'S07°02'47"W49.94'S06°45'42"W243.58'S07°00'57"W232.01'S5 4 ° 2 5 ' 1 4 " E 97. 3 2 'S57°12'09"W11.46'N57°12'09"E10.09'S49°44'15"E10.59'S40°10'24"W244.60'S40°15'45"WS4 9 ° 4 4 ' 1 5 " E 12 1 . 6 2 ' N4 9 ° 4 4 ' 1 5 " W 12 1 . 6 2 'N40°15'34"E129.98'S4 9 ° 4 4 ' 1 5 " E 90 . 7 4 ' C-C1SC-C1NC-C2WC-C2EC-C3N02°24'36"W47.68'C-D1WC-D1EC-D2WC-D2EC-D3WC-D3EC-D4N06°19'15"W56.24'C-F1WC-F1EC-F2L=576.30'R=920.00'N23°19'06"E106.18'N23°19'06"E39.74'N80°59'51"W60.50'N80°59'51"W11.19'L=210.91'R=167.00N51°49'35"W20.44'N33°08'56"E99.35'N33°08'56"E55.03'S81°28'43"E47.75'N81°28'43"W47.75'N31°14'28"E50.20'S31°14'28"W50.20'S06°39'06"W123.57'N06°39'06"E123.57'S4 9 ° 4 4 ' 1 5 " E 78 . 9 2 ' S4 9 ° 4 4 ' 1 5 " E 84 . 5 7 'S33°44'47"E38.63'S81°18'51"W237.79'N51°50'56"W34.81'S81°18'51"W 376.24'S02°24'36"E47.68'N2 8 ° 2 2 ' 0 1 "W 5 1 . 4 3 'S2 8 ° 2 2 ' 0 1 "E 9 7 . 1 0 'S74°23'52"WS42°50'36"WN88°31'33"W217.90'N59°49'09"E189.31'N59°49'09"E191.43'N59°49'09"E48.86'N59°49'09"E45.12'N35°40'13"E265.01'Lot 18.9 acLot 2 5.0 acLot 32.0 acLot 41.06Lot 58.73 acLot 63.04 acLot 72.44 acLot 58.73 acLot 84.65 acLot 91.83 acLot 100.93 acLot 111.2 acLot 132.78 acLot 152.38 acLot 121.6 acLot 141.1 acLot 171.78 acLot 16 2.61 acLot 20 2.06 acLot 211.90 acLot 222.21 acLot 230.78 acLot 241.37 acLot 18 1.17 acLot 19 1.51 acLot 35156.62'S32°23'44"E122.01'S32°23'44"E32.60'S53°06'12"E55.58'S28°15'01"E93.87'42.76'N49°35'10"E215.80'N40°32'16"W289.90'N47°33'47"E240.22'S77°36'40"E110.58'N54°26'05"W231.69'S35°42'36"W195.86'N43°56'46"W79.54'S47°41'16"W99.70'N54°27'59"W173.53'N53°02'54"W175.43'N36°53'48"E297.51'S86°38'32"Echord 143.65'169.43'L=150.98'R=130.0'N50°39'44"Echord 144.43'N50°39'44"Echord 72.21'N09°08'27"Echord 160.14'N09°08'27"Echord 168.36'123.93'48.89'N82°50'58"W197.56'N21°31'44"Echord 224.98'S36°53'48"W60.35'S53°06'12"E17.07'S86°38'32"Echord 77.35'L=81.95'R=70.0'S53°06'12"E17.07'L=227.81'R=416.55'S27°27'23"Wchord 36.52'L=36.72'R=100.00'L=97.68'R=110.0'R=110.0'L=81.58'N51°51'07"Wchord 94.50'S77°17'27"E30.99'R=100.0'L=161.38'R=975.0'L=160.32'N09°11'45"Echord 55.19'L=55.26'R=340.00'N010°18'41"Echord 95.53'L=95.69'R=475.00'N16°04'57"E61.94'N04°32'24"E213.97'N13°51'06"E194.08'N04°25'48"E71.02'S83°06'21"E37.34'N30°36'15"Wchord 87.31'L=97.78'R=60.00'L=80.69'R=50.00'R=1025.0'L=168.55'N09°11'45"Echord 47.08'L=47.13'R=290.00'N010°18'41"Echord 105.58'L=105.76'R=525.00'N77°17'27"W29.80'N16°04'57"E61.94'N04°32'24"E213.97'N13°51'06"E194.08'N04°25'48"E71.02'S83°06'21"E37.24'S07°02'47"W119.40'S11°22'12"W155.79'S11°20'30"W215.73'378.92'chord 105.52'S53°06'12"E98.81'S53°06'12"E98.81'N36°53'48"E61.09'66.46'S83°04'05"E156.37'N21°31'44"Echord 189.33'L=199.71'R=350.55'N36°53'48"EN07°00'57"E110.00'N07°00'57"EN83°03'58"W156.69'N83°03'58"W156.51'S07°00'57"W229.53'S06°45'42"W243.65'S07°02'47"W171.99'N11°20'30"E408.39'S77°36'39"E91.37'S78°05'29"E113.21'N11°20'30"E99.85'S78°05'29"E113.03'S78°23'39"E157.99'N11°41'49"E101.43'N11°41'49"E80.58'N11°49'33"E255.06'S83°51'45"W New Hydrant assembly New Hydrant assembly New SMh Rim 413.85 Inv. in 408.15 Inv. out 408.05 New SMh Rim 417.43 Inv. in 411.73 Inv. out 411.63 New SMh Rim 419.28 Inv. in 413.58 Inv. out 413.48 New 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 2 5 New 8" P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 1 6 New 8" PVC Sew e r s = 0 . 0 1 New CB Rim 409.22 Inv. in 397.45 Inv. out 397.35 Inv. fd 398.95 New CB Rim 414.20 Inv. in 402.45 Inv. out 402.35 Inv. fd 403.7 New CB Rim 417.20 Inv. in 406.45 Inv. out 406.35 Inv. fd 407.7 New CB Rim 419.05 Inv. in 408.55 Inv. out 408.45 Inv. fd 409.8 New 1 5 " H D P E s = 0 . 0 2 5 New 15 " H D P E s = 0 . 0 2 New 15" HDP E s = 0 . 0 1 New 12" Cl 52 D.I . w a t e r l i n e New 12" x 12" x 12" tee, thrust block and gate valvle. New 12 " C l 5 2 D . I . w a t e r l i n e New 12" gate valves Finish Grade centerline Finish Grade centerline New Hydrant assembly New Hydrant assembly New SMh Rim 402.25 Inv. in 393.5 Inv. out 393.4 New SMh Rim 406.64 Inv. in 400.94 Inv. out 400.84 New 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 3 6 New CB Rim 402.02 Inv. fd 393.25 Inv. in 391.75 Inv. out 391.65 New CB Rim 404.46 Inv. in 393.45 Inv. out 393.35 Inv. fd 394.7 New 18" HD P E s = 0 . 0 1 5 New 15 " H D P E s = 0 . 0 2 New 1 2 " C l 5 2 D . I . w a t e r l i n e New 12" C l 5 2 D . I . w a t e r l i n e New 12" x 12" x 12" tee, thrust block and gate valvle. New 12" x 12" x 12" tee, thrust block and gate valvle. New 8" PVC SDR 35 sanitary New 12" gate valves New 12" gate valve Finish Grade centerline Old Farm Road HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: CP-1 Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II ROAD & UTILITY PROFILE MEADOW LOOP New SMh Rim 375.7 Inv. in 369.75 Inv. out 369.65 New SMh Rim 378.75 Inv. in 371.64 Inv. out 371.54 New SMh Rim 371.33 Inv. in 364.38 Inv. out 364.28 Finish Grade centerline New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.0075 New 8" P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 2 6 New DMh Rim 370.78 Inv. in 365.75 Inv. out 365.65 New CB Rim 375.2 Inv. in 370.25 Inv. out 370.15 New CB Rim 377.2 Inv. in 372.20 Inv. out 372.10 Inv. fd 373.45 New CB Rim 371.0 Inv. in 366.25 Inv. out 366.15 New CB Rim 370.85 Inv. in 366.1 Inv. out 366.00 New CB Rim 378.45 Inv. in 372.90 Inv. out 372.80 Inv. fd 374.05 New Hydrant assembly New Hydrant assembly New 8 " C l 5 2 D . I . w a t e r l i n e New 8" x 8" x 8" tee, thrust block and gate valvle. New 8" gate valves Hydrant assembly installed as part of Phase 1 Connect New 8" D.I. water main to existing stub. Provide all necessary fittings. New 15" HDPE New 15" HDPE New 15" HDPE New 15" H D P E New 15" HDPE New 15" HDPE New SMh Rim 380.20 Inv. in 373.6 Inv. out 373.5 New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.0075 New DMh Rim 380.22 Inv. in 374.1 Inv. out 374.0 Inv. fd 375.35 New CB Rim 379.52 Inv. in 373.51 Inv. out 373.41 Inv. fd 374.66 New CB Rim 379.3 Inv. in 374.65 Inv. out 374.55 Inv. fd 375.8 New 15" HDPE New 15" HDPE HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: CP-2 Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II ROAD & UTILITY PROFILE O'BRIEN FARM ROAD EXTENSION New 8" gate valve New SMh Rim 392.92 Inv. in 386.55 Inv. out 386.45 New SMh Rim 401.4 Inv. in 395.33 Inv. out 395.23 New SMh Rim 402.9 Inv. in 397.23 Inv. out 397.13 New SMh Rim 371.33 Inv. in 364.38 Inv. out 364.28 Finish Grade centerline Ne w 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 5 2 N e w 8 " P V C Se w e r s = 0 . 0 5 6 Ne w 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 5 6 N e w 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 8 New CB Rim 400.12 Inv. in 395.17 Inv. out 395.07 New CB Rim 390.5 Inv. in 385.55 Inv. out 385.45 New CB Rim 379.62 Inv. in 374.67 Inv. out 375.57 New CB Rim 372.00 Inv. in 367.05 Inv. out 366.95 New DMh Rim 370.78 Inv. in 365.75 Inv. out 365.65 New CB Rim 396.72 Inv. in 391.97 Inv. out 391.87 Inv. fd 393.12 New 8" x 8" x 8" tee with thrust block and valve New SMh Rim 378.95 Inv. in 372.75 Inv. out 372.65 New 1 5 " H D P E N e w 1 5 " H D P E N e w 1 5 " H D P E Ne w 1 5 " H D P E New 1 5 " H D P E Ne w 1 5 " H D P E Ne w 8 " C l 5 2 D . I . w a t e r l i n e HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: CP-3 Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II ROAD & UTILITY PROFILE RELOCATED OLD FARM ROAD New Hydrant assembly New 8" gate valve New SMh Rim 337.55 Inv. in 331.55 Inv. out 331.45 New SMh Rim 352.0 Inv. in 345.3 Inv. out 345.2 Finish Grade centerline N e w 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 6 9 N e w 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 7 3 New CB Rim 335.0 Inv. in 329.85 Inv. out 329.75 New CB Rim 365.36 Inv. in 360.41 Inv. out 360.31 New CB Rim 350.9 Inv. in 345.95 Inv. out 345.85 New CB Rim 344.6 Inv. in 340.0 Inv. out 339.9 New 12" x 8" tapping sleeve w/ thrust block and valve New 8" tee with valve and thrust block New 8" gate valve Ne w 1 5 " H D P E N e w 1 5 " H D P E N e w 1 5 " H D P E N e w 1 5 " H D P E Ne w 8 " C l 5 2 D . I . w a t e r l i n e Ne w 8 " C l 5 2 D . I . w a t e r l i n e HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: CP-4 Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II ROAD & UTILITY PROFILE RELOCATED OLD FARM ROAD New SMh Rim 424.12 Inv. in 418.42 Inv. out 418.32 New SMh Rim 408.45 Inv. in 402.0 Inv. out 401.9 New SMh Rim 413.45 Inv. in 407.75 Inv. out 407.65 New SMh Rim 419.05 Inv. in 413.35 Inv. out 413.25 Ne w 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 4 0 New 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 4 7 New 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 3 7 New CB Rim 423.42 Inv. fd 415.0 Inv. in 413.75 Inv. out 413.65 New CB Rim 414.82 Inv. fd 408.0 Inv. in 406.75 Inv. out 406.65 New CB Rim 419.10 Inv. fd 412.0 Inv. in 410.75 Inv. out 410.65 New CB Rim 410.02 Inv. fd 402.85 Inv. in 401.60 Inv. out 401.50 New CB Rim 400.05 Inv. in 395.2 Inv. out 395.1 New CB Rim 405.52 Inv. fd 400.6 Inv. in 399.35 Inv. out 399.25 New 1 5 " H D P E New 1 5 " H D P E New 1 5 " H D P E New 15 " H D P E Finish Grade centerline New Hydrant assembly New Hydrant assembly New Hydrant assembly New 12" x 12" x 8" tee, thrust block and gate valvle. New 12" x 8" reducer New 45° bends with thrust blocks New 12" gate valves Ne w 1 2 " C l 5 2 D . I . w a t e r l i n e New 8" C l 5 2 D . I . w a t e r l i n e New SMh Rim 403.67 Inv. in 396.12 Inv. out 396.02 HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: CP-5 Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II ROAD & UTILITY PROFILE LEGACY FARM AVENUE New SMh Rim 394.41 Inv. in 388.68 Inv. out 388.58 New SMh Rim 399.0 Inv. in 393.3 Inv. out 393.2 New SMh Rim 403.52 Inv. in 397.63 Inv. out 397.53 New 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0. 0 4 1 New 8" P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 3 4 New CB Rim 394.1 Inv. fd 390.6 Inv. in 389.35 Inv. out 389.25 New CB Rim 397.05 Inv. in 392.2 Inv. out 392.1 New CB Rim 400.05 Inv. in 395.2 Inv. out 395.1 New CB Rim 401.21 Inv. in 391.60 Inv. out 391.50 New CB Rim 403.0 Inv. fd 395.08 Inv. in 393.83 Inv. out 393.73 New 15" H D P E New 15" H D P E New 15" H D P E New 15" H D P E New 15" HDPE Finish Grade centerline New Hydrant assembly New Hydrant assembly New 8" gate valve New 8" C l 5 2 D . I . w a t e r l i n e New 8" C l 5 2 D . I . w a t e r l i n e HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: CP-6 Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II ROAD & UTILITY PROFILE LEGACY FARM AVENUE New SMh Rim 401.4 Inv. in 395.33 Inv. out 395.23 New SMh Rim 409.82 Inv. in 404.12 Inv. out 404.02 New SMh Rim 403.52 Inv. in 397.63 Inv. out 397.53 New SMh Rim 405.71 Inv. in 400.0 Inv. out 399.9 New SMh Rim 407.30 Inv. in 401.6 Inv. out 401.5 New SMh Rim 411.4 Inv. in 405.7 Inv. out 405.6 Ne w 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 4 6 New 8" PVC Sewer s = 0 . 0 1 New 8" PVC S e w e r s = 0 . 0 1 7 New 8" P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 3 1 New CB Rim 403.84 Inv. fd 396.0 Inv. in 394.75 Inv. out 394.65 New CB Rim 405.0 Inv. fd 396.5 Inv. in 396.25 Inv. out 396.15 New CB Rim 405.65 Inv. fd 399.6 Inv. in 398.35 Inv. out 398.25 New CB Rim 408.24 Inv. fd 401.3 Inv. in 400.05 Inv. out 399.95 New CB Rim 402.0 Inv. in 397.75 Inv. out 397.65 New CB Rim 408.14 Inv. in 403.74 Inv. out 403.64 New CB Rim 400.12 Inv. in 395.17 Inv. out 395.07 New 15" HDPE New 15" HDPE New 15 " H D P E New 15" HDPE Ne w 1 5 " H D P E New 15" HDPE Finish Grade centerline Finish Grade centerline New Hydrant assembly New Hydrant assembly New 45° bends with thrust blocks New 8" Cl 52 D.I. wa t e r l i n e New 8 " C l 5 2 D . I . w a t e r l i n e HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: CP-7 Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II ROAD & UTILITY PROFILE LEGACY FARM AVENUE New Hydrant assembly New 8 " C l 5 2 D . I . w a t e r l i n e New 12" x 12" x 8" tee, thrust block and gate valvle. New 8" gate valve New SMh Rim 398.8 Inv. in 393.1 Inv. out 393.0 Finish Grade centerline New CB Rim 396.5 Inv. fd 391.6 Inv. in 390.35 Inv. out 390.25 New CB Rim 399.8 Inv. fd 393.0 Inv. in 391.75 Inv. out 391.65 New CB Rim 406.25 Inv. in 400.19 Inv. out 400.09 New CB Rim 409.6 Inv. in 401.2 Inv. out 401.1 New 15" HDPE New 15" H D P E N e w 1 5 " H D P E New 15" HDPE Finish Grade centerline Three (3) new 3 4" k copper water services in common trench HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: CP-8 Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II ROAD & UTILITY PROFILE PRIVATE ROAD & LOT 35 PRIVATE DRIVEWAY New 12" x 8" tapping sleeve w/ thrust block and valve New Hydrant assembly assembly New 8" tee with valve and thrust block New 8" tee with valve and thrust block New 8" tee with valve and thrust block New SMh Rim 332.67 Inv. in 327.0 Inv. out 326.9 New SMh Rim 338.05 Inv. in 331.78 Inv. out 331.68 New SMh Rim 343.37 Inv. in 337.2 Inv. out 337.1 New SMh Rim 348.09 Inv. in 341.43 Inv. out 341.33 New 8" Cl 5 2 D . I . w a t e r l i n e New 8" C l 5 2 D . I . w a t e r l i n e New 8" P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 2 1 New 8" PV C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 2 0 New 8" PVC S e w e r s = 0 . 0 1 8 New 8" PVC Sewer s = 0 . 0 1 New CB Rim 333.0 Inv. in 328.75 Inv. out 328.65 New CB Rim 336.2 Inv. in 331.75 Inv. out 331.65 New CB Rim 340.75 Inv. in 335.8 Inv. out 335.7 New CB Rim 347.68 Inv. in 342.73 Inv. out 342.63 New CB Rim 344.78 Inv. in 339.93 Inv. out 339.83 New 15" HD P E New 15" HD P E New 15" HD P E New 15" HD P E New 15" HDPE Finish Grade centerline New Hydrant assembly New Hydrant assembly New 8" tee with valve and thrust block New 8" tee with valve and thrust block New 8" tee with valve and thrust block New 8" gate valves New SMh Rim 348.09 Inv. in 341.43 Inv. out 341.33 New SMh Rim 350.12 Inv. in 343.11 Inv. out 343.01 New 8" C l 5 2 D . I . w a t e r l i n e New 8" PVC Sewer s = 0 . 0 1 New CB Rim 347.92 Inv. in 342.97 Inv. out 342.87 New CB Rim 346.08 Inv. in 341.78 Inv. out 341.68 New CB Rim 349.81 Inv. in 344.92 Inv. out 344.82 New 15" HDPE New 15" HDPE Finish Grade centerline HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: CP-9 Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II ROAD & UTILITY PROFILE I/C ROAD Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. O’Brien Home Farm Traffic Impact Assessment June 16, 2020 APPENDICES Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX A Design Hour Volume Calculations Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX B Project Trip Generation Calculations Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX C Project Trip Distribution Calculations Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX D Williston Rd/Hinesburg Rd Intersection Capacity Analyses Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX E Williston Rd/Kennedy Dr Intersection Capacity Analyses Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX F Williston Rd/Industrial Ave Intersection Capacity Analyses Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX G Kennedy Dr/Hinesburg Rd Intersection Capacity Analyses Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX H Kennedy Dr/Two Brothers Dr Intersection Capacity Analyses Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX I Kennedy Dr/Kimball Ave Intersection Capacity Analyses Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX J Kimball Ave/Old Farm Rd Intersection Capacity Analyses Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX K Kimball Ave/I-C Lots Access Rd Intersection Capacity Analyses Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX L Kimball Ave/Gregory Dr Intersection Capacity Analyses Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX M Hinesburg Rd/Old Farm Rd Intersection Capacity Analyses Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX N Act 145 Transportation Impact Fee Calculations Lamoureux & Dickinson i Consulting Engineers, Inc. O’Brien Home Farm Traffic Impact Assessment June 16, 2020 Executive Summary The following summarizes the results of the traffic impact assessment (TIA) for the O’Brien Home Farm Phase Two mixed use development project (hereafter referred to as the Project). This Project proposes to develop lands of O’Brien Brothers located along Kimball Avenue, Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive in South Burlington. The involved zoning districts include the R1, C1-LR and I-C districts. The proposed development includes: C 126 residential units in single-family residences and duplexes, C 289 mid-rise multi-family units, C 120 attached congregate care units, C a 120 room hotel, C 4,000 sf of retail space, and C 406,000 sf of medical-dental office and commercial space. The initial construction phase of this Project will be the single-family and duplex residential units in the R1 Area. Subsequent construction phases will be market driven. Because this Project will most likely be developed over an extended time period this TIA examines future traffic conditions over a 10-year period commencing in 2022 instead of the traditional 5-year period. The study area of this TIA extends from Hinesburg Road on the west to Gregory Drive on the east, and from Williston Road south to Kimball Avenue, Kennedy Drive and Old Farm Road. Capacity analyses determined that each major intersection in this study area will experience acceptable levels of service upon the construction of the proposed residential units in the R1 Area. However, additional development will trigger selected roadway and intersection improvements to mitigate future traffic congestion impacts. A key roadway modification proposed by this Project is to relocate the northern section of Old Farm Rd to intersect with Kimball Ave directly opposite the existing access to the 20-30 Kimball Ave office complex. This will increase the separation between Old Farm Rd and Kennedy Dr, and reduce existing traffic conflicts in that immediate area. It is proposed to construct this relocation as the residential construction in the R1 Area nears completion and development in the C1-LR Area commences. This Project includes construction of new sidewalks and shared-use paths linking with the City’s existing sidewalk / shared use path network. It also proposes traffic calming measures on Old Farm Road to slow traffic traveling through the residential area and to improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. Ultimately, the following roadway and intersection improvements will be needed as this Project progresses towards full completion (build-out): Kennedy Dr / Kimball Ave intersection C Modify the signal phasing to provide split phasing for the Kimball Ave and Bayberry Lane approaches. C Lengthen the right-turn lane on the northbound Kennedy Dr approach. C Widen the westbound Kimball Ave approach to provide double left-turn and right-turn lanes. C Modify the existing traffic signal cantilever/mast arm poles to accommodate the above widening. Lamoureux & Dickinson ii Consulting Engineers, Inc. Kimball Ave / Old Farm Rd intersection C Widen Kimball Ave to provide right- and left-turn lanes for traffic turning onto Old Farm Rd. C Provide separate left- and right-turn lanes on the new Old Farm Rd approach. C Install a new traffic signal when warranted. Kimball Ave / I-C Lots Access Rd intersection C Widen Kimball Ave to provide right- and left-turn lanes for traffic turning onto Old Farm Rd. C Provide separate left- and right-turn lanes on the new I-C Lots Access Rd approach. C Install a new traffic signal when warranted. Williston Rd/Gregory Dr intersection C Install a new traffic signal when warranted (TBD in an addendum to the TIA). Hinesburg Rd/Old Farm Rd intersection C Widen the Old Farm Rd approach to provide a short right-turn slip lane. Conceptual plans illustrating the above improvements are attached to the TIA. Based on this Project’s estimated pm peak hour trip generation and directional patterns, it will also pay almost $3,000,000 in state and local transportation impact fees to mitigate its projected traffic impacts at other nearby off-site intersections and almost $700,000 in a local recreation impact fee. A large majority of the latter will be used to construct off-site sidewalk and shared use path improvements in the City of South Burlington. The TIA concludes that with the above improvements and impact fees, the existing street network in the immediate vicinity will have sufficient capacity and safety to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the Project. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 1 Consulting Engineers, Inc. O’Brien Home Farm Traffic Impact Assessment June 16, 2020 1.0 Introduction This traffic impact assessment (TIA) examines the potential traffic congestion and safety impacts of the proposed O’Brien Home Farm Phase Two development. The O’Brien Home Farm originally included lands east of Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road, along both sides of Old Farm Road, and along both sides of Kimball Avenue. Large portions of the farm have been developed over the years. Most recent is the Hillside at O’Brien Farm Phase One1 development presently under construction between Hinesburg Road, Kennedy Drive and Old Farm Road. O’Brien Home Farm Phase Two includes lands located on both sides of Old Farm Rd, fronting on Kennedy Drive and Kimball Avenue. Specifically, the land involved contains three distinct zoning districts, the Residential 1 PRD zoning district (“R1”), the Commercial 1 Limited Retail zoning district (“C1-LR”) and the Industrial Commercial zoning district (“I-C”). Each district allows for specific uses. City of South Burlington’s Land Development Regulations (LDR) require uses to be located on the land that is zoned accordingly; preventing mixing of certain uses across zoning lines. Given this, the potential uses in distinct areas of the Project will be identified herein by the zoning district in which those uses are located. The following mix of residential and commercial development is permissible in the R1 and C1-LR Areas of the Project: C 126 residential units in single family residences and duplexes (R1),2 C 289 mid-rise multi-family units (C1-LR), C 120 attached congregate care units (C1-LR), C a 120 room hotel (C1-LR), C 14,000 sf of retail space (C1-LR), and C 97,000 sf medical-dental office and commercial space (C1-LR). The above development will be accessed by several new side streets located on both sides of Old Farm Rd and also linking with the adjacent Phase One development. The northerly portion of Old Farm Road will be relocated; moving the intersection of Kimball Ave and Old Farm Rd ±360 ft east to be directly opposite the existing driveway access serving the office complex at 20-30 Kimball Ave and 275 Kennedy Dr. O’Brien Home Farm Phase Two also includes nine new industrial/commercial lots located further east on Kimball Ave in the I-C zoning district. While a range of uses are possible, this TIA is based on 309,000 sf of medical-dental office and commercial space to be distributed among the new I-C lots. This sizing is based on a schematic analysis of possible building and parking layouts, and represents an estimate of this area’s future build-out potential. The I-C Lots will be served by a separate new street accessing directly onto Kimball Ave. The location of the Project and the intersections which will be examined in this TIA are shown in Figure 1. More specifically, this TIA will: C Project present and future background design hour traffic volumes and traffic congestion conditions at major intersections near the Project. C Determine the future vehicular trip generation and peak hour directional patterns of the proposed land- uses. C Evaluate whether the proposed development will create unreasonable traffic congestion conditions. 1 Also sometimes referred to as Phase One. 2 Duplex units are treated as single family units for trip generation purposes. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 2 Consulting Engineers, Inc. C Examine traffic safety conditions. C Identify the scope of traffic improvements required to mitigate the effects of the proposed development. For the purpose of this TIA, it is anticipated that construction of this Project will begin in 2022, and will require 5-10 years to complete. This TIA therefore examines future traffic conditions for the years 2022 and 2032. Figure 1 - Project Location and Study Intersections 2.0 Background Traffic Volumes For this study, background traffic volumes were obtained from recent traffic counts performed by the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans). The study area of this TIA extends from Hinesburg Rd east to Industrial Avenue, and from Williston Rd south to Kennedy Dr and Old Farm Rd. The existing and proposed intersections which will be examined in this TIA are shown in Figure 1. Weekday turning movement count data is available at all but one of the existing intersections; Williston Rd/Gregory Dr. Unfortunately, as work on this TIA was beginning, the COVID-19 pandemic struck, and the resulting sharp decline in traffic volumes has prevented our being able to perform new weekday am and pm peak period turning movement counts at this intersection. Future traffic conditions at this location will be addressed in a supplement to this TIA when normal traffic patterns resume. Three new intersections are associated with this Project. The first, Kennedy Dr/Two Brothers Dr, will be constructed as part of the Hillside at O’Brien Farm Phase One development. Future peak hour turning movement volumes for this intersection were obtained from the TIA performed by this office for that development. The second proposed intersection is Kimball Ave/Old Farm Rd. The northerly portion of Old Farm Rd is proposed to be relocated as part of this Project; moving this intersection approximately 360 ft to the east to line up opposite the access to the office complex on the north side of Kimball Ave. The third new intersection will be located on Kimball Ave at the new street serving the I-C Lots. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 3 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Existing traffic count data indicates that the adjacent street network in the immediate vicinity of this Project experiences its highest traffic volumes during the afternoon peak hour period. Hourly traffic data from nearby VTrans continuous count stations (CTC) located in South Burlington and Williston reinforce this. Thus, the pm peak hour is the time period during which the design hour volume (DHV) generally occurs. The DHV is the 30th highest hourly traffic volume that occurs in a given year, and is used in the design of highways and intersections to determine existing and future traffic congestion conditions. To adjust the observed peak hour volumes to a design hour (DHV) condition, daily adjustment factors corresponding to the dates of the turning movement counts were calculated from nearby CTC’s. Additional adjustments were also made to account for future background traffic growth from the year of each turning movement count to the years 2022 and 2032. From VTrans data3, traffic growth in Vermont’s urban areas during the 2015 - 2019 period was flat (zero growth). From 2019 to 2022 and from 2022 to 2032, VTrans projects 2% and 5% traffic growth rates, respectively. Detailed design hour volume calculations are enclosed as Appendix A. The resulting estimated 2022 and 2032 background peak hour volumes for each intersection are shown in Figures 2 - 5. 3.0 Other Approved Development Peak Hour Trips To the above ‘No-Build’ pm peak hour volumes must also be added trips generated by other nearby major developments that have received their state and local permits, but have not yet been constructed. The first “Other Development” is the Hillside at O’Brien Farm Phase One development. Although this development is presently under construction and some homes have been completed, it is treated in this TIA as an unbuilt development. Estimated morning and afternoon peak hour trips for Hillside at O’Brien Farm Phase One were obtained from the TIA for that project.4 The second “Other Development” is the proposed FedEx Ground Distribution Center to be located on Community Drive at Technology Park. Estimated morning and afternoon peak hour trips were also obtained from the TIA for that project.5 The total peak hour trips from the above two developments are shown on Figures 6 - 7. Following that, Figures 8 - 11 present the sum of the 2022 and 2032 background peak hour volumes and other approved development trips. This is also referred to as the “No-Build” development scenario (see below). 4.0 Project-Generated Peak Hour Trips The trip generation of this Project was estimated using published trip generation rates6 for the proposed residential land-uses. In the case of the proposed commercial land-uses, the estimated peak hour trips are intended to include a broad range of potential businesses. It is proposed that medical-dental offices will comprise a large portion of the commercial development. Should actual land-uses and their sizes differ substantially from the above, careful attention will be needed to track the resulting peak hour trip generation relative to the estimated trips outlined below. 3 Continuous Traffic Counter Report Based on 2018 Traffic Data, Vermont Agency of Transportation, February 2019 and unpublished 2019 traffic data. 4 O’Brien Home Farm PUD - Phase 1 Traffic Impact Assessment, Lamoureux & Dickinson, August 8, 2016 5 Proposed FedEx Ground Distribution Center Traffic Impact Study, VHB, September 4, 2019 6 Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 10th Edition Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 4 Consulting Engineers, Inc. The ITE has also developed a methodology for estimating the internal capture of pm peak hour trips between the residential, office space, restaurant and retail components of mixed-use developments.7 While this Project includes connections with Phase One of the Hillside at O’Brien Farm development which will logically expand the internal trip capture between them, for the purpose of this study, the internal capture calculations have been limited to just the this Project (Phase Two). Additionally, internal trip capture for the I-C Area has been calculated separately from the R1 and C1-LR Areas. The same methodology also incorporates modal- split calculations to account for non-vehicular travel. For the purpose of this TIA, however, all trips were estimated to be vehicle trips without any credit for transit or bicycle/pedestrian trips. The resulting peak hour vehicular trip generation are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Detailed calculations are enclosed in Appendix B. Table 1 - O’Brien Home Farm Phase Two, R1 and C1-LR Areas Weekday Peak Hour Project-Generated Vehicle Trips (vte/hr) Land-Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Single-Family Residential 23 70 93 80 47 127 Multi-Family Residential (Mid-Rise) 25 72 97 75 48 123 Congregate Care Units 8 16 24 17 14 31 Hotel 33 23 56 33 31 64 Office/Commercial 172 117 289 336 321 657 Total Trips 261 298 559 541 461 1,002 Internal Capture Vehicle Trips 6 6 12 111 111 222 Transit & Non-Motorized Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total External Vehicle Trips 255 292 547 430 350 780 Table 2 - O’Brien Home Farm Phase Two, I-C Area Weekday Peak Hour Project-Generated Vehicle Trips (vte/hr) Land-Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Office/Commercial 449 132 581 411 731 1,142 Internal Capture Vehicle Trips 15 15 30 16 16 32 Transit & Non-Motorized Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total External Vehicle Trips 434 117 551 395 715 1,110 Some commercial land-uses also typically attract “pass-by” trips in addition to creating new “primary” trips. Pass-by trips are generated by motorists who are already driving by the site on the adjacent roadways; in this case Kennedy Drive or Kimball Ave. Instead of simply driving by, they enter the Project, and then exit in the same direction that they were originally traveling. For the purpose of this TIA, potential pass-by trips were 7 Trip Generation Handbook, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 3rd Edition Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 5 Consulting Engineers, Inc. not estimated. As specific commercial uses are identified, however, they may become significant in reducing future off-site traffic impacts. The directional distributions of weekday peak hour project trips were estimated based on U.S. Census residence to work travel patterns for the City of South Burlington. This data is available in two formats; the workplace destinations of South Burlington residents, and the origins of people traveling to work in South Burlington. Since residential trip patterns are primarily determined by the geographic distribution of employment opportunities8, the workplace destinations of South Burlington residents can be applied to estimate the directional patterns of those trips. Conversely, commercial trip patterns are primarily determined by the geographic distribution of population within an anticipated sphere of influence. Thus, the commercial trip patterns were based on the origins of people traveling to work in South Burlington. The resulting directional distributions of morning and afternoon peak hour Project-generated trips are shown in Figures 12 - 13. Detailed peak hour project trip distribution calculations are enclosed in Appendix C. Adding Project-generated trips to the No-Build volumes provides the projected 2022 and 2032 Build volumes shown in Figures 14 - 17. 5.0 Traffic Congestion Levels of service (LOS) at intersections are determined by the average control delay; measured in seconds per vehicle. The methodology for analyzing LOS is established by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)9. The analyses were performed using Synchro 10. Table 3 summarizes the LOS and delay criteria for signalized intersections. Table 3 - Intersection Level of Service Criteria LOS Avg. Delay (sec/veh) Quality of Service Stop Controlled Signal Controlled A B C D E F ≤10 ≤15 ≤25 ≤35 ≤50 >50 ≤10 ≤20 ≤35 ≤55 ≤80 >80 Free flow with little or no queuing Low delays with short queues Moderate delays and queues with occasional cycle failures* Moderate delays and queues with noticeable cycle failures Long delays and queues with frequent cycle failures Very long delays and queues with continued cycle failures * A cycle failure occurs when a vehicle has to wait more than one signal cycle to pass through the intersection. The City of South Burlington’s LDR’s identify LOS D as the minimum standard for the overall level of service at signalized intersections. The LDR’s also identify LOS D as the minimum standard for each through movement on the major street. VTrans’ Level of Service Policy10 for the state highway system identifies LOS C as the desired design standard, except that reduced LOS may be acceptable on a case-by-case basis, particularly within densely settled areas 8 Traffic Impact Analysis, American Planning Association, 1984 9 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 6th Edition 10 Highway Design “Level of Service” Policy, Vermont Agency of Transportation, May 31, 2007 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 6 Consulting Engineers, Inc. where the geometric improvements required to achieve LOS C would create negative cultural and environmental impacts. In cases where the existing LOS is less than desired and where the necessary geometric improvements are not feasible, the policy states that a lower LOS may be acceptable, provided that a development’s impact can be effectively mitigated by implementing other congestion management strategies. VTrans’ LOS Policy has been generally interpreted in built-up areas to permit LOS D as an acceptable overall intersection rating for signalized intersections. Also, that individual lane groups or approaches may experience LOS E. However, should an individual lane group or approach experience LOS F or a volume/capacity ratio greater than 1.0, the intersection is considered to have failed. In cases where an intersection fails under projected no-build and/or build conditions, mitigation may be required, if reasonably possible, in order to mitigate a development’s traffic impacts and not exacerbate the no-build conditions. LOS standards for unsignalized intersections are different than for signalized intersections. The LDR do not specifically establish a LOS standard for stop-controlled intersections. On the other hand, VTrans’ LOS Policy identifies LOS D as the minimum design standard for traffic exiting a stop-controlled approach when traffic volumes on that approach equal or exceed 100 vph for a one-lane approach, or 150 vph for a two-lane approach. VTrans does not identify a LOS standard for stop-controlled intersections having lower traffic volumes. This Project’s impact on future levels of service and average delays was analyzed by performing intersection capacity analyses for five development scenarios: C No-Build. This development scenario includes background traffic growth and other development- generated traffic as described above, but no Project-generated trips. C Ø2 SF Residential Build. This development scenario adds only the 126 single family and duplex units in the R1 Area to the No-Build traffic volumes. C Ø2 Residential Build. This development scenario adds all of the residential development trips from the R1 and C1-LR Areas to the No-Build traffic volumes. C Ø2 Residential + ½ Commercial Build. This development scenario adds all of the residential development trips from the R1 and C1-LR Areas plus 50% of the projected full-build commercial development trips from the C1-LR and I-C Areas to the No-Build traffic volumes. C Full-Build. This development scenario adds all of the residential development trips from the R1 and C1- LR Areas and all of the projected full-build commercial development trips from the C1-LR and I-C Areas to the No-Build traffic volumes. All four development scenarios were analyzed during the 2032 design year; but only the first two during the 2022 design year, as the office/commercial uses are not expected to be constructed that quickly. The traffic congestion impacts of the Project can be identified by comparing the results for each development scenario. The results are presented for each intersection below. Detailed intersection capacity analyses worksheets are grouped by intersection and enclosed in Appendices D - M. Williston Road/Hinesburg Road/Patchen Road Table 4 presents the results of the intersection capacity analyses at this intersection. The results indicate that LOS C will be maintained for all analyzed development scenarios. Detailed results are enclosed in Appendix D. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 7 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Table 4 - Williston Rd & Hinesburg Rd Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Time Period Development Scenario 2022 2032 Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS AM Peak Hour No-Build Ø2 SF Res. Build Ø2 Res. Build Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.77 0.76 0.76 - - 21.8 21.8 21.8 - - C C C - - 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 22.7 22.7 22.7 23.0 23.3 C C C C C PM Peak Hour No-Build Ø2 SF Res. Build Ø2 Res. Build Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.82 0.81 0.81 - - 22.5 22.5 22.6 - - C C C - - 0.81 0.86 0.85 0.86 0.92 23.8 23.9 23.9 25.0 27.9 C C C C C Williston Road/Kennedy Drive/Airport Drive Table 5 presents the results of the intersection capacity analyses at this intersection. The results indicate that LOS C will be maintained for all analyzed development scenarios except for the 2032 PM Full-Build; in which the LOS drops to D. Detailed results are enclosed in Appendix E. Table 5 - Williston Rd, Kennedy Dr & Airport Dr Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Time Period Development Scenario 2022 2032 Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS AM Peak Hour No-Build Ø2 SF Res. Build Ø2 Res. Build Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.73 0.74 0.74 - - 20.4 20.8 21.2 - - C C C - - 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.79 0.82 21.5 21.8 22.3 24.2 26.8 C C C C C PM Peak Hour No-Build Ø2 SF Res. Build Ø2 Res. Build Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.70 0.71 0.72 - - 20.6 21.0 21.6 - - C C C - - 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.82 0.98 21.6 22.1 22.7 29.3 46.1 C C C C D Williston Road/Gregory Drive/Palmer Court This intersection is located on a route expected to be used by a significant number of project-generated trips traveling to and from the northeast part of Chittenden County. As noted earlier, detailed capacity analyses could not be performed in this TIA due to the lack of turning movement data at it. It is our preliminary opinion, however, that future traffic volumes at this intersection will likely warrant signalization at some point during the development of this Project. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 8 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Williston Road/Industrial Avenue Table 6 presents the results of the intersection capacity analyses at this intersection. The results indicate that LOS B will be maintained for all analyzed development scenarios except for the 2032 AM and PM Full-Build; in which the LOS drops to C. Detailed results are enclosed in Appendix F. Table 6 - Williston Rd & Industrial Ave Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Time Period Development Scenario 2022 2032 Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS AM Peak Hour No-Build Ø2 SF Res. Build Ø2 Res. Build Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.80 0.80 0.80 - - 14.2 14.2 14.3 - - B B B - - 0.84 0.83 0.84 0.89 0.95 15.2 15.4 15.5 17.8 21.4 B B B B C PM Peak Hour No-Build Ø2 SF Res. Build Ø2 Res. Build Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.81 0.82 0.82 - - 14.1 14.2 14.5 - - B B B - - 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.87 0.90 15.1 15.2 15.5 18.2 22.0 B B B B C Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Road Table 7 presents the results of the intersection capacity analyses at this intersection. The results indicate that LOS C will be maintained for all analyzed development scenarios. Detailed results are enclosed in Appendix G. Table 7 - Kennedy Dr & Hinesburg Rd Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Time Period Development Scenario 2022 2032 Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS AM Peak Hour No-Build Ø2 SF Res. Build Ø2 Res. Build Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.79 0.79 0.79 - - 27.6 27.7 27.7 - - C C C - - 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.79 28.1 28.2 28.2 28.3 28.5 C C C C C PM Peak Hour No-Build Ø2 SF Res. Build Ø2 Res. Build Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.82 0.82 0.82 - - 27.4 27.5 27.7 - - C C C - - 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 28.0 28.1 28.6 29.1 30.3 C C C C C Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 9 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Kennedy Drive/Two Brothers Drive Table 8 presents the results of the intersection capacity analyses at this intersection. The results indicate that LOS B will be maintained for all analyzed development scenarios. Detailed results are enclosed in Appendix H. Table 8 - Kennedy Dr & Two Brothers Dr Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Time Period Development Scenario 2022 2032 Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS AM Peak Hour No-Build Ø2 SF Res. Build Ø2 Res. Build Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.64 0.69 0.73 - - 15.3 16.3 17.2 - - B B B - - 0.64 0.69 0.73 0.76 0.78 15.5 16.3 17.1 18.0 18.9 B B B B B PM Peak Hour No-Build Ø2 SF Res. Build Ø2 Res. Build Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.49 0.55 0.61 - - 9.7 10.5 11.4 - - A B B - - 0.49 0.61 0.61 0.69 0.74 9.7 11.1 11.4 12.4 13.3 A B B B B Kennedy Drive/Kimball Avenue Table 9 presents the results of the intersection capacity analyses at this intersection. The results indicate that LOS D will be maintained for all analyzed development scenarios except for the 2032 PM Full-Build; in which the LOS drops to E. In addition, the maximum volume/capacity (V/C) ratio will exceed 1.0 in three lane groups: both lanes exiting Kimball Ave and the northbound Kennedy Dr through lanes (both of which will also experience LOS F). Future traffic congestion conditions in the 2032 AM Full-Build development scenario are slightly better; with the V/C ratio exceeding 1.0 only in the Kimball Ave through/right-turn lane. That lane will again experiences LOS F, and the northbound Kennedy Dr through lanes will experience LOS E during the morning peak hour. Detailed results are enclosed in Appendix I. Table 9 - Kennedy Dr & Kimball Ave Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Time Period Development Scenario 2022 2032 Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS AM Peak Hour No-Build Ø2 SF Res. Build Ø2 Res. Build Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.79 0.81 0.82 - - 33.6 36.8 35.6 - - C D D - - 0.85 0.82 0.89 0.90 1.03 35.3 38.3 37.7 41.9 53.5 D D D D D PM Peak Hour No-Build Ø2 SF Res. Build Ø2 Res. Build Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.84 0.76 0.84 - - 33.4 35.5 37.6 - - C D D - - 0.89 0.81 0.89 0.92 1.05 35.1 36.8 39.5 40.5 57.7 D D D D E Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 10 Consulting Engineers, Inc. The above findings indicate that this intersection will require geometric improvements in order to maintain acceptable levels of service. Table 10 presents the results of additional capacity analyses incorporating the following intersection modifications and improvements in order to maintain a minimum LOS D: C The Kimball Ave approach is widened to provide double left- and double-right turn lanes (L-L/T-R-R). C The existing concurrent signal phasing for Kimball Ave and Bayberry Ln is modified to split phases. C The northbound right-turn lane on Kennedy Dr is lengthened from 150 ft to 300 ft. Table 10 - Kennedy Dr & Kimball Ave Intersection Capacity Analyses Results with Improvements Time Period Development Scenario 2032 Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS AM Peak Hour Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.85 0.98 36.8 44.6 D D PM Peak Hour Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.78 0.87 34.7 37.7 C D Kimball Avenue/Old Farm Road Note: As the preparation of this TIA was nearing completion, the City Development Review Board requested that Old Farm Rd relocation be moved from its originally proposed location which would have been a three- way intersection. Instead it was requested that Old Farm Rd line up with the existing 20-30 Kimball Ave office complex driveway access; thus creating a four-way intersection. The analyses shown in Tables 11 and 12 are for a three-way intersection. Unfortunately, no turning movement data is available for traffic entering and exiting the existing office complex, and the current COVID-19 pandemic prevented our being able to perform a new traffic count. Future traffic conditions associated with a four-way intersection at the new location will be addressed in a supplement to this TIA when normal traffic patterns resume. Table 11 presents the results of the intersection capacity analyses at this intersection using its present stop- sign traffic control. With this intersection being relocated, it is recommended that exclusive left-and right-turn lanes on Kimball Ave and separate left- and right-turn lanes exiting Old Farm Rd also be installed. Those improvements have been incorporated into the Phase Two Residential Build development scenario results shown in Table 11. The results indicate that even with those added lanes, future levels of service will drop quickly with development of this Project. Detailed results are enclosed in Appendix J. Table 11 - Kimball Ave & Old Farm Rd (Stop-Sign Controlled) Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Time Period Development Scenario 2022 2032 Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS AM Peak Hour No-Build Ø2 SF Res. Build Ø2 Res. Build 0.15 0.35 0.40 15.9 24.6 41.0 C C E 0.17 0.38 0.43 16.6 26.8 46.2 C D E PM Peak Hour No-Build Ø2 SF Res. Build Ø2 Res. Build 0.18 0.35 0.38 14.4 22.1 48.5 B C E 0.20 0.38 0.42 14.9 23.9 56.3 B C F Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 11 Consulting Engineers, Inc. The above findings indicate that this intersection will likely warrant signalization in order to maintain acceptable levels of service. Table 12 presents the results of additional intersection capacity analyses showing how the installation of a traffic signal in conjunction with the above-described additional lanes will improve future levels of service at this location. Table 12 - Kimball Ave & Old Farm Rd (Signalized) Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Time Period Development Scenario 2022 2032 Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS AM Peak Hour Ø2 Res. Build Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.52 - - 9.4 - - A - - 0.55 0.69 0.80 9.5 12.5 15.0 A B B PM Peak Hour Ø2 Res. Build Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.51 - - 8.6 - - A - - 0.55 0.70 0.73 8.5 12.4 16.5 A B B Kimball Avenue/I-C Lots Access This intersection will be newly constructed with development of the I-C area. As such, it is recommended that it be constructed with exclusive left- and right-turn lanes on Kimball Ave and separate left- and right-turn lanes exiting the I/C Lots Access Road. The analyses results shown in Table 13 are also based on this intersection being signalized once I-C area development reaches 50% of its projected build-out. Detailed results are enclosed in Appendix K. Table 13 - Kimball Ave & I/C Lots (Signalized) Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Time Period Development Scenario 2032 Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS AM Peak Hour Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.64 0.65 8.3 9.8 A A PM Peak Hour Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.82 0.92 16.0 29.9 B C Kimball Avenue/Gregory Drive/Community Drive Table 14 presents the results of the intersection capacity analyses at this intersection. The capacity analyses are based on this intersection being signalized by the proposed FedEx Ground Distribution Center development. The results indicate that LOS B will be maintained for all analyzed development scenarios. Detailed results are enclosed in Appendix L. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 12 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Table 14 - Kimball Ave, Gregory Dr & Community Dr Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Time Period Development Scenario 2022 2032 Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS AM Peak Hour No-Build Ø2 SF Res. Build Ø2 Res. Build Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.66 0.66 0.66 - - 9.9 9.9 9.9 - - A A A - - 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.71 0.74 10.1 10.1 10.1 11.0 12.1 B B B B B PM Peak Hour No-Build Ø2 SF Res. Build Ø2 Res. Build Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.74 0.75 0.75 - - 12.0 12.1 12.2 - - B B B - - 0.76 0.76 0.77 0.79 0.82 12.5 12.6 12.7 13.6 15.4 B B B B B Hinesburg Road/Old Farm Road Table 15 presents the results of the intersection capacity analyses at this intersection. Detailed results are enclosed in Appendix M. Being stop-sign controlled, traffic exiting Old Farm Rd, which is a single lane approach, experiences the delays and levels of service shown in Table 15. Hinesburg Rd traffic travels through this intersection with only minimal delays. Table 15 - Hinesburg Rd & Old Farm Rd Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Time Period Development Scenario 2022 2032 Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS AM Peak Hour No-Build Ø2 SF Res. Build Ø2 Res. Build Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.41 0.42 0.44 - - 32.0 31.8 32.8 - - D D D - - 0.45 0.47 0.49 0.53 0.56 35.6 36.8 37.9 40.6 42.9 E E E E E PM Peak Hour No-Build Ø2 SF Res. Build Ø2 Res. Build Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.38 0.39 0.41 - - 27.5 27.9 28.7 - - D D D - - 0.43 0.44 0.46 0.59 0.70 31.0 31.5 32.5 41.1 51.8 D D D E F The results indicate that this intersection, presently experiences LOS E and D, respectively during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The LOS will remain at E during the morning peak hour with development of this Project, but will drop to LOS F during the afternoon peak hour in the 2032 Full-Build development scenario. Existing (2022 No-Build) Old Farm Rd peak hour approach volumes equal 90 vph and 98 vph during the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. As such, VTrans’ LOS Policy does not presently apply. With background growth, other development and this Project, those peak hour approach volumes are estimated to increase to 116 vph and 156 vph, respectively; thereby triggering VTrans’ LOS Policy for a single lane stop-sign controlled side street approach. Future Old Farm Rd approach volumes, however, are unlikely to satisfy either Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 13 Consulting Engineers, Inc. the four-hour or eight-hour volume warrants for signalization. Signalizing this intersection would also facilitate increased use of Old Farm Rd by through traffic short-cutting between Hinesburg Rd and Kimball Ave. Future traffic congestion conditions on the Old Farm Rd approach could instead be improved by installing a short (50’) exclusive right-turn lane on the existing gravel shoulder exiting Old Farm Rd. The results of additional capacity analyses with this improvement are shown in Table 16. Table 16 - Hinesburg Rd & Old Farm Rd (with added RT lane) Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Time Period Development Scenario 2032 Max. V/C Ratio Avg. Delay Int. LOS AM Peak Hour Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.50 0.53 37.8 39.9 E E PM Peak Hour Ø2 Res. + ½ Com. Build Full-Build 0.51 0.62 34.3 42.1 D E 6.0 Traffic Safety Vehicular traffic safety is influenced by many factors, including road width, pavement conditions, sight distances, lighting, proper signing and pavement markings, speed limits, alignment, number and spacing of accesses, etc. The following discusses several of the more important factors with respect to conditions on the adjacent street network in the immediate vicinity of the Project. Speed limits on the major streets adjacent to the Project are typical of urban streets; i.e. 30-40 mph. The speed limit on Old Farm Rd is 25 mph. The new development streets are also proposed to have 25 mph speed limits. Safe traffic conditions on the new development streets will be provided by designing those roads and their intersections in accordance with accepted standards, and by providing adequate sight distances, street lighting, pavement markings and traffic signs. The Project also proposes to add new traffic-calming features on Old Farm Rd in order to slow vehicular traffic and provide a safer environment for pedestrians. Crash History Intersections and roadway segments which experience a statistically significant above average crash rate are identified as high crash locations. VTrans has traditionally updated its High Crash Location Report11 every two years based on the most recent five-year crash history. The most recent report, however, is for the 2012-2016 five-year period. The Identified high crash locations within the study area of this TIA are shown in Table 17. Of the 75 crashes that occurred at the Williston Rd/Hinesburg Rd/Patchen Rd intersection, 70 were property damage only crashes. The remaining 5 crashes resulted in 9 injuries. The Williston Rd (mm 1.658 - 1.958) segment begins just west of the Airport Rd intersection and continues east through the Kennedy Dr/Airport Dr intersection. Of the 75 crashes that occurred on this 0.3 mile long segment of Williston Rd, 63 were property damage only crashes. The remaining 12 crashes resulted in 14 injuries. It is pertinent to note that the Williston Rd/Kennedy Dr/Airport Dr intersection was not identified as a 11 High Crash Location Report: Sections and Intersections 2012-2016, Vermont Agency of Transportation, August 2017 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 14 Consulting Engineers, Inc. high crash location. With 36 of the 75 crashes in this segment occurring at the intersection, its presence is the primary reason for the segment being identified as a high crash location. Table 17 - High Crash Locations Location # Crashes Actual Crash Rate Actual/Critical Ratio Intersection Williston Rd/Hinesburg Rd/Patchen Rd Segment Williston Rd (mm 1.658 - 1.958) 75 75 1.373a 8.461b 1.808 1.298 a crashes per million vehicles b crashes per million vehicle miles Table 18 provides a breakdown of the crash types at the above locations. It shows that just over one-half of the crashes in the above high crash locations are rear-end crashes. Signalized intersections typically do experience greater numbers of rear-end crashes, which are generally minor and do not result in severe injuries; unlike opposing direction collisions which traffic signals are intended to prevent. Table 18 - Intersection Crash Types Crash Type Williston Rd/ Hinesburg Rd Intersection Williston Rd (mm 1.658 - 1.958) Segment Rear End Same Direction Sideswipe Opposing Dir. Sideswipe L/T Angle Broadside No Turns T/T Broadside 31 12 - 9 6 22 17 2 9 5 R/T Angle Broadside Head On Single Vehicle Other Unknown Total 1 3 1 1 11 75 1 4 2 7 6 75 7.0 Road & Intersection Improvement Phasing It is anticipated that construction of O’Brien Home Farm Phase Two will begin with the 126 proposed single- family/duplex/triplex residential units in the R1 area. Following that, the remaining residential and commercial development will be market driven. The following presents thresholds for implementing the above identified road and intersection improvements. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 15 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Old Farm Rd and the Kimball Ave / Old Farm Rd Intersection Old Farm Rd and its existing intersection with Kimball Ave has sufficient capacity to support the development of the 126 proposed residential units in the R1 Area. The principal traffic congestion issue will be queues of westbound traffic on Kimball Ave extending past Old Farm Rd at times during peak afternoon periods due to the relatively short distance between Old Farm Rd and Kennedy Drive. This is an existing condition which is not anticipated to be materially impacted by this initial development phase. Additional development in the C1-LR Area will necessitate relocating the northerly section of Old Farm Rd as proposed so that its intersection with Kimball Ave lines up with the curb cut to the office complex at 20-30 Kimball Ave. This will increase the distance between Kennedy Dr and Old Farm Rd from 180± ft to 520± ft. The initial construction of this new intersection should include separate left-and right-turn lanes on the Old Farm Rd approach, exclusive left- and right-turn lanes on Kimball Ave, and provisions for future signalization. It is not anticipated that future traffic volumes at this intersection will meet the warrants for signalization until approximately one-half of the projected full-build trip generation in the R-1 and C1-LR Areas is reached. This will require future traffic follow-up monitoring as development progresses. Kennedy Drive / Kimball Ave Intersection It is recommended that this intersection’s existing signal phasing be modified as development of the C1-LR Area and/or the I-C Area commences to provide split phasing of the Kimball Ave and Bayberry Dr approaches. This will improve traffic safety, and is a prerequisite to widening the Kimball Ave approach to provide double turn lanes. This intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service up to approximately one-half of the projected full- build trip generation of the R1, C1-LR and I-C Areas. Beyond that, the Kimball Ave approach should be widened to provide double left-turn and right-turns in a L-LT-R-R configuration, and the Kennedy Dr NB right- turn lane lengthened from 150’ to 300’ to provide additional storage. The proposed widening will also necessitate installing two new traffic signal cantilever poles with longer arms. Kimball Ave / I-C Lots Access Rd Intersection The initial construction of this intersection should include separate left-and right-turn lanes on the I-C Lots Access Rd approach and exclusive left- and right-turn lanes on Kimball Ave. It should also include provisions for future signalization. It is not anticipated that future traffic volumes at this intersection will meet the warrants for signalization until approximately one-half of the projected full-build trip generation in the I-C Area is reached. This will require future follow-up traffic monitoring as development progresses. Williston Rd/Gregory Dr Intersection It should be anticipated that future traffic volumes at this intersection will warrant signalization at some point as O’Brien Home Farm Phase Two is developed. This will be examined in an addendum to this TIA once turning movement counts can be performed. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 16 Consulting Engineers, Inc. 8.0 Multi-Modal Facilities This Project includes the construction of new sidewalks and shared use paths which will link with South Burlington’s existing sidewalk and path network in the Hillside at O’Brien Farm Phase One development and along Kimball Ave, Kennedy Dr and Hinesburg Rd. Marked crosswalks and pedestrian signals will also be provided at each new signalized intersection (i.e. Kimball Ave/Old Farm Rd and Kimball Ave/I-C Lots Access Road). Local transit service is also provided along Williston Rd, Kennedy Dr and Kimball Ave. Green Mountain Transit offers two routes which will provide transit service to this Project. The first is the Red Line which travels along Williston Rd to/from destinations in Burlington and Williston. The closest Red Line bus stops are on Williston Rd near its intersection with Kennedy Dr. The second is the Purple Line which circulates along Dorset St, Kennedy Dr, Airport Dr, White St and Hinesburg Rd together with providing service to destinations in Burlington. The closest bus stop along this route is in front of the Community Bank near the Kennedy Dr/Kimball Ave intersection. 8.0 Transportation Impact Fees This Project will be subject to paying impact fees which are related wholly or in part to transportation. They include: C City of South Burlington - Road Improvement Impact Fee C City of South Burlington - Recreation Impact Fee C District Environmental Commission #4 - Kimball Ave/Community Dr E Intersection Improvements Impact Fee C State of Vermont Act 145 Transportation Impact Fee. Each will be discussed in the following sections. City of South Burlington - Road Improvement Impact Fee The Road Improvement Impact Fee equals $1,010 per unit for single-family dwellings (which by definition in the LDR’s includes duplexes), $670 per unit for multi-family dwellings and $1,000 per pm peak hour trip end for non-residential development. The actual assessed fees are adjusted each year to credit past and future tax payments per the schedules in the City’s Impact Fee Ordinance. The City’s Road Improvement Impact Fee can be estimated as follows: Single Family Residential Units 126 units $127,260 Multi-Family Units 409 units $274,030 Non-Residential 1,863 pm peak hour trips $1,863,000 Total $2,264,290 City of South Burlington - Recreation Impact Fee A large portion of the Recreation Impact Fee is dedicated to the development of shared-use paths and bicycle lanes. In fact, in the projects identified in the City’s FY 2017-2026 Capital Improvement Program as being funded in part by recreation impact fees, shared use path and bike/ped facility projects account for 77% of the allocated recreation impact fees. The recreation impact fee is assessed only on residential development. The base fee for dwellings in structures containing three or less units equals $1,686 per unit. For dwellings in structures containing four or more units the base fee equals $1,180 per unit. The actual assessed fees are again adjusted each year to credit past and future tax payments per the schedules in the City’s Impact Fee Ordinance. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 17 Consulting Engineers, Inc. The City’s Road Improvement Impact Fee can be estimated as follows: Single Family & Duplex Units 126 units $212,436 Multi-Family Units 409 units $482,620 Total $695,056 District Environmental Commission #4 - Kimball Ave/Gregory Dr/Community Dr Intersection Improvements Impact Fee This impact fee has been established by the District Environmental Commission to reimburse the FedEx Ground Distribution Center developers for the cost of installing traffic signals and making other improvements at the Kimball Ave/Gregory Dr/Community Dr intersection. The amount of the fee equals $514 per pm peak trip end. This fee may be reduced by 20% since this Project will construct new sidewalks (10% discount) and shared-use paths (10% discount) connecting to existing sidewalks and shared use paths. The discounted fee equals $411 per pm peak trip end. This Project is estimated to generate a total of 461 new pm peak hour trips through this intersection. The resulting impact fee equals $189,471. We note that Finding of Fact #11.h in the Land-Use Permit for the FedEx project requires that this intersection improvement project be completed before the Commission begins assessing this impact fee. We also note that this same project is included in the City’s FY 2017-2026 Capital Improvement Program and is shown as being funded in part by the City’s Roadway Improvement Impact Fee. State Act 145 Transportation Impact Fee The Act 145 Transportation Impact Fee was established to provide funding for designated VTrans transportation improvement projects located within a five-mile travel distance of proposed developments. This impact fee is administered by VTrans through the District Environmental Commissions. The impact fee is based on the number of pm peak hour trips that are estimated to travel through the locations of the improvement projects. The number of trips traveling through each highway improvement project were estimated using available pm peak hour turning movement patterns at major intersections. The trips disperse at each intersection; thereby reducing the number of project-generated pm peak hour trips as one moves away from the Project. Detailed calculations are enclosed as Appendix N. Table 19 shows the estimated State Transportation Impact Fees for each transportation improvement project. Table 19 - Act 145 State Transportation Impact Fees Transportation Improvement Project Distance (Road Miles) Impact Fee per PM Peak Hour Trip PM Peak Hour Trips Act 145 Transportation Impact Fee Burlington - Champlain Parkway 4.1 $ 2,069 42 $ 86,898 Burlington - Shelburne St & Locust St Roundabout 4.1 $ 1,217 66 $ 80,322 Colchester - US 7 & I-89 Exit 16 4.8 $ 1,170 64 $ 74,880 Essex Jct. - Crescent Connector 4.5 $2,788 113 $ 315,044 Williston - VT 2A & James Brown Dr 3.3 $ 189 173 $ 32,697 Williston - VT 2A & Industrial Ave/ Mountain View Rd 2.6 $ 252 252 $ 63,504 Williston - US 2 & Trader Lane 2.6 $ 210 23 $ 4,830 Williston - VT 2A & I-89 Exit 12 3.0 $ 243 42 $ 10,206 Subtotal $ 668,381 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 18 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Transportation Improvement Project Distance (Road Miles) Impact Fee per PM Peak Hour Trip PM Peak Hour Trips Act 145 Transportation Impact Fee 20% Max. Reduction for TDM Measures (New Sidewalks, Bicycle Paths & Bus Shelters) - $ 133,676 Total $ 534,705 10.0 Conclusions & Recommendations The O’Brien Home Farm is designed to be a mixed use residential/commercial planned unit development. Located in a transitional area, it links and complements other neighboring developments. We conclude, based on the analyses performed as part of this TIA, that the existing off-site highways and intersections in the immediate vicinity of this Project have sufficient capacity and safety. This Project will require major improvements, however, to Kimball Avenue both at its intersection with Kennedy Drive and extending eastward to the new I-C Lots Access Drive. Further distant, the traffic impacts of the O’Brien Home Farm Phase Two development will be mitigated by future City and State transportation improvement projects currently under development; towards which Finney Crossing will pay local and state transportation impact fees. Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figures 2-17 Traffic Volume Diagrams 12841601218717158545     0 4920 107369 97586 538503 414274 275150 58177 190    2341703913516824332614001085126    22 16988 3611 2651 390708 438318 34412 17510 480 0116 101      135032935700439189030385  74 33392 312554402680 448113 57140 0  11026381120075639  27 264 121 3  43526658719 1476 51255Figure 22022 Base AM Peak HourOld FarmRdHinesburg RdHinesburg RdEldredge StTwo Brothers DrHayesAveEldredgeStHinesburg RdHinesburg RdKennedy DrOld Farm RdI-C LotsCommunity DrKennedy DriveKennedy DriveHinesburg RdKennedy DrGregory DrBayberryLnKimballAveKimball AveWillistonRdPatchen RdAirport DrIndustrial DrWilliston RdWillistonRdP:\2019\19083 O'Brien\TIA Report Figures 2-17.xlsx, 6/17/2020 12981681319618061447     0 5121 112387 102615 565528 435288 289158 61186 200    2461794114217625532744201135427    23 17792 3812 2684 410743 460334 36113 18411 500 0122 106      136834536000459199531889  78 35412 328582 422714 470119 60150 0   11627685130075919  28 274 122 3  4555262022 - 2032 Growth Factor =1.0561620 1580 53858Figure 32032 Base AM Peak HourOld FarmRdHinesburg RdHinesburg RdEldredge StTwo Brothers DrHayesAveEldredgeStHinesburg RdHinesburg RdKennedy DrOld Farm RdI-C LotsCommunity DrKennedy DriveKennedy DriveHinesburg RdKennedy DrGregory DrBayberryLnKimballAveKimball AveWillistonRdPatchen RdAirport DrIndustrial DrWilliston RdWillistonRdP:\2019\19083 O'Brien\TIA Report Figures 2-17.xlsx, 6/17/2020 1222310020172183463125     3 8531 179436 72456 721402 518502 382114 99118 219    23325268259286204183631311131353    15 29340 143 17415 747494 800442 46214 46611 530 040 23      20383227679001413012013319978  122 134394 539543 751630 843153 76140 0   1273288512003739421  15 90 131 1  31580747511 3266 63689WillistonRdPatchen RdAirport DrIndustrial DrWilliston RdWillistonRdHinesburg RdKennedy DrGregory DrBayberryLnKimballAveKimball AveOld Farm RdI-C LotsCommunity DrKennedy DriveKennedy DriveHayesAveEldredgeStHinesburg RdHinesburg RdKennedy DrFigure 42022 Base PM DHVOld FarmRdHinesburg RdHinesburg RdEldredge StTwo Brothers DrP:\2019\19083 O'Brien\TIA Report Figures 2-17.xlsx, 6/17/2020 1323410521181192486131     3 8933 188458 76479 757422 544527 401120 104124 230    24526571272300214193811381191456    16 30842 153 18436 784519 840464 48515 48912 560 042 24      21402238683001483212614020982  128 141414 566570 789662 885161 80150 0   1333448913003941422  16 90 133 1  3360972022 - 2032 Growth Factor =1.0549912 3469 66893WillistonRdPatchen RdAirport DrIndustrial DrWilliston RdWillistonRdHinesburg RdKennedy DrGregory DrBayberryLnKimballAveKimball AveOld Farm RdI-C LotsCommunity DrKennedy DriveKennedy DriveHayesAveEldredgeStHinesburg RdHinesburg RdKennedy DrFigure 52032 Base PM DHVOld FarmRdHinesburg RdHinesburg RdEldredge StTwo Brothers DrP:\2019\19083 O'Brien\TIA Report Figures 2-17.xlsx, 6/17/2020 01750130140     0 20 018 017 200 08 434 230 7    46230311514021290110    0 300 00 079 7979 7921 190 490 00 00 40      030500000312410550  0 5669 7012213143 305 5293 40  18155410147059  0 330 00 21  0516260 00 210Figure 6Other Development AM TripsOld FarmRdHinesburg RdHinesburg RdEldredge StTwo Brothers DrHayesAveEldredgeStHinesburg RdHinesburg RdKennedy DrOld Farm RdI-C LotsCommunity DrKennedy DriveKennedy DriveHinesburg RdKennedy DrGregory DrBayberryLnKimballAveKimball AveWillistonRdPatchen RdAirport DrIndustrial DrWilliston RdWillistonRdP:\2019\19083 O'Brien\TIA Report Figures 2-17.xlsx, 6/17/2020 02140150180     0 20 012 019 160 04 642 232 11    2412324116026320130    0 260 00 075 6975 6911 170 430 00 03 45      0164300003103601946  0 2959 431017735 2617 51169 44  1297351250537  0 210 00 11  0717160 00 240Figure 7Other Development PM TripsOld FarmRdHinesburg RdHinesburg RdEldredge StTwo Brothers DrHayesAveEldredgeStHinesburg RdHinesburg RdKennedy DrOld Farm RdI-C LotsCommunity DrKennedy DriveKennedy DriveHinesburg RdKennedy DrGregory DrBayberryLnKimballAveKimball AveWillistonRdPatchen RdAirport DrIndustrial DrWilliston RdWillistonRdP:\2019\19083 O'Brien\TIA Report Figures 2-17.xlsx, 6/17/2020 13011651220017159945     0 5120 107387 97603 558503 414282 279184 60207 197    2801933916618325732824291086226    22 19988 3611 2730 469787 517339 36312 22410 480 0119 141      13803793570046215990308135  74 89461 382676 533723 478118 621693 40   128278861610147756818  27 594 121 24  435312261319 1476 53355Figure 82022 No-Build AM (incl. ODV)Old FarmRdHinesburg RdHinesburg RdEldredge StTwo Brothers DrHayesAveEldredgeStHinesburg RdHinesburg RdKennedy DrOld Farm RdI-C LotsCommunity DrKennedy DriveKennedy DriveHinesburg RdKennedy DrGregory DrBayberryLnKimballAveKimball AveWillistonRdPatchen RdAirport DrIndustrial DrWilliston RdWillistonRdP:\2019\19083 O'Brien\TIA Report Figures 2-17.xlsx, 6/17/2020 13151731320918062847     0 5321 112405 102632 585528 435296 293192 63216 207    2922024117319126932954491136527    23 20792 3812 2763 489822 539355 38013 23311 500 0125 146      13983953600048216095323139  78 91481 398704 553757 500124 651793 40   134291901710147759618  28 604 122 24  455572264220 1580 55958Figure 92032 No-Build AM (incl. ODV)Old FarmRdHinesburg RdHinesburg RdEldredge StTwo Brothers DrHayesAveEldredgeStHinesburg RdHinesburg RdKennedy DrOld Farm RdI-C LotsCommunity DrKennedy DriveKennedy DriveHinesburg RdKennedy DrGregory DrBayberryLnKimballAveKimball AveWillistonRdPatchen RdAirport DrIndustrial DrWilliston RdWillistonRdP:\2019\19083 O'Brien\TIA Report Figures 2-17.xlsx, 6/17/2020 1224410420187183481125     3 8731 179448 72475 737402 518506 388156 101150 230    25726471283297210183891631132653    15 31940 143 17490 816569 869453 47914 50911 530 043 68      203992706790014440156133218124  122 163453 582644 828665 869170 812569 44   139337921551253739958  15 300 131 12  315872449111 3266 66089WillistonRdPatchen RdAirport DrIndustrial DrWilliston RdWillistonRdHinesburg RdKennedy DrGregory DrBayberryLnKimballAveKimball AveOld Farm RdI-C LotsCommunity DrKennedy DriveKennedy DriveHayesAveEldredgeStHinesburg RdHinesburg RdKennedy DrFigure 102022 No-Build PM (incl. ODV)Old FarmRdHinesburg RdHinesburg RdEldredge StTwo Brothers DrP:\2019\19083 O'Brien\TIA Report Figures 2-17.xlsx, 6/17/2020 1325510921196192504131     3 9133 188470 76498 773422 544531 407162 106156 241    26927774296311220194071701192756    16 33442 153 18511 853594 909475 50215 53212 560 045 69      214182816830015142162140228128  128 170473 609671 866697 911178 852669 44   145353961651253941959  16 300 133 12  336162451512 3469 69293WillistonRdPatchen RdAirport DrIndustrial DrWilliston RdWillistonRdHinesburg RdKennedy DrGregory DrBayberryLnKimballAveKimball AveOld Farm RdI-C LotsCommunity DrKennedy DriveKennedy DriveHayesAveEldredgeStHinesburg RdHinesburg RdKennedy DrFigure 112032 No-Build PM (incl. ODV)Old FarmRdHinesburg RdHinesburg RdEldredge StTwo Brothers DrP:\2019\19083 O'Brien\TIA Report Figures 2-17.xlsx, 6/17/2020 001603601060     0 130 055 0150 920 011 150 7180 19    00111424200323110200    0 15046 00 0278 7552 4934 610 52111 58312 1225 0      081701228784337000036  0 25203 122239 147160 520 0079 3   0000968000  0 00 00 0  00000 021 035Fiogure 12O'Brien Home Farm Phase 2 AM Peak Hour TripsOld FarmRdHinesburg RdHinesburg RdEldredge StTwo Brothers DrHayesAveEldredgeStHinesburg RdHinesburg RdKennedy DrOld Farm RdI-C LotsCommunity DrKennedy DriveKennedy DriveHinesburg RdKennedy DrGregory DrBayberryLnKimballAveKimball AveWillistonRdPatchen RdAirport DrIndustrial DrWilliston RdWillistonRdP:\2019\19083 O'Brien\TIA Report Figures 2-17.xlsx, 6/17/2020 002004401250     0 230 0164 0182 2310 022 190 6219 32    00227655260529011100    0 354162 00 0253 45867 8294 730 258188 139284 11112 0      04154153995152009000045  0 56244 312288 368154 2580 00134 5   00001094000  0 00 00 0  00000 053 042WillistonRdPatchen RdAirport DrIndustrial DrWilliston RdWillistonRdHinesburg RdKennedy DrGregory DrBayberryLnKimballAveKimball AveOld Farm RdI-C LotsCommunity DrKennedy DriveKennedy DriveHayesAveEldredgeStHinesburg RdHinesburg RdKennedy DrFigure 13O'Brien Home Farm Phase 2 PM Peak Hour TripsOld FarmRdHinesburg RdHinesburg RdEldredge StTwo Brothers DrP:\2019\19083 O'Brien\TIA Report Figures 2-17.xlsx, 6/17/2020 13011811223617170545     0 6420 107442 97753 650503 414293 294184 67387 216    2801934028020727732856602106226    22 349134 3611 21008 544839 517373 42412 276121 106312 0124 141      138854912514433053215990308171  74 114664 504915 680883 530118 6216172 43   128278861619755756818  27 594 121 24  435312261319 1497 53390Figure 142022 Full-Build AM Peak HourOld FarmRdHinesburg RdHinesburg RdEldredge StTwo Brothers DrHayesAveEldredgeStHinesburg RdHinesburg RdKennedy DrOld Farm RdI-C LotsCommunity DrKennedy DriveKennedy DriveHinesburg RdKennedy DrGregory DrBayberryLnKimballAveKimball AveWillistonRdPatchen RdAirport DrIndustrial DrWilliston RdWillistonRdP:\2019\19083 O'Brien\TIA Report Figures 2-17.xlsx, 6/17/2020 13151891324518073447     0 6621 112460 102782 677528 435307 308192 70396 226    2922024228721528932986802156527    23 357138 3812 21041 564874 588389 44113 285122 108312 122130 146      1406565125147843355216095323175  78 116684 520943 700917 552124 6517172 43   134291901719755759618  28 604 122 24  455572264220 15101 55993Figure 152032 Full-Build AM Peak HourOld FarmRdHinesburg RdHinesburg RdEldredge StTwo Brothers DrHayesAveEldredgeStHinesburg RdHinesburg RdKennedy DrOld Farm RdI-C LotsCommunity DrKennedy DriveKennedy DriveHinesburg RdKennedy DrGregory DrBayberryLnKimballAveKimball AveWillistonRdPatchen RdAirport DrIndustrial DrWilliston RdWillistonRdP:\2019\19083 O'Brien\TIA Report Figures 2-17.xlsx, 6/17/2020 1224412420231183606125     3 11031 179612 72657 968402 518528 407156 107369 262    25726473559352236183944532242653    15 673202 143 17743 1274636 869547 55214 767199 192284 055 68      20403424159178200015340156133218169  122 219697 894932 1196819 1127170 8125203 49   1393379215160293739958  15 300 131 12  315872449111 32119 660131WillistonRdPatchen RdAirport DrIndustrial DrWilliston RdWillistonRdHinesburg RdKennedy DrGregory DrBayberryLnKimballAveKimball AveOld Farm RdI-C LotsCommunity DrKennedy DriveKennedy DriveHayesAveEldredgeStHinesburg RdHinesburg RdKennedy DrFigure 162022 Full-Build PM DHVOld FarmRdHinesburg RdHinesburg RdEldredge StTwo Brothers DrP:\2019\19083 O'Brien\TIA Report Figures 2-17.xlsx, 6/17/2020 1325512921240192629131     3 11433 188634 76680 1004422 544553 426162 112375 273    26927776572366246194124602302756    16 688204 153 18764 1311661 991569 57515 790200 195284 11157 69      2142243515918251520016042162140228173  128 226717 921959 1234851 1169178 8526203 49   1453539616160293941959  16 300 133 12  336162451512 34122 692135WillistonRdPatchen RdAirport DrIndustrial DrWilliston RdWillistonRdHinesburg RdKennedy DrGregory DrBayberryLnKimballAveKimball AveOld Farm RdI-C LotsCommunity DrKennedy DriveKennedy DriveHayesAveEldredgeStHinesburg RdHinesburg RdKennedy DrFigure 172032 Full-Build PM DHVOld FarmRdHinesburg RdHinesburg RdEldredge StTwo Brothers DrP:\2019\19083 O'Brien\TIA Report Figures 2-17.xlsx, 6/17/2020 P:\2019\19083 O'Brien\dwg\19083-1 Kimball Ave Improvements.dwg 6/11/2020 16:23:17 1 : 1 P:\2019\19083 O'Brien\dwg\19083-2 Old Farm Rd Improvements.dwg 6/11/2020 16:24:20 1 : 1 HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: D-1 CIVIL DETAILS Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 PHASE II 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com SPECIFICATIONS: Plan Section 1" x 45° Chamfer Conduit Anchor Bolts Conduit, typ. Anchor Bolts PVC PVC 24" 5 ft. min. NOTE: See Electrical Plans for electrical, conduit, and grounding design. - Concrete Minimum Strength 5000psi @ 28 days - Reinforcement per Specification. Reinforcing shall be ASTM A615 Grade 60 - PVC Conduit Supplied by Others - Anchor Bolts Supplied by Others - Weights Subject to Variation (4) #4 Vertical rebar #4 rebar @ 12" o.c. horizontal 3" reveal. Verify with SBDPW.Finished grade Coordinate bolt configuration with light pole Maintain 3" clear (min.) for rebar from top, bottom, and sides Maintain 3" clear for rebar Weep hole for grounding conductor. 24" No. 6 soft drawn copper grounding conductor. Connect to grounding lug in pole. Weep hole. Install 1/2" flexible plastic conduit for #6 AWG soft copper grounding conductor. Connect to grounding electrode using an exothermic weld. 3/4" X 10' minimum copper clad grounding electrode Top of grounding electrode 12" minimum below ground level HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: D-2 CIVIL DETAILS Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: D-3 CIVIL & WATER DETAILS Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 403 QUEEN CITY PARK ROAD DRAWING NO.: DATE: TAPPING SLEEVE & VALVE DETAIL Specifications Detail CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT A-5 A-5 Tapping Sleeve and Valve.dwg JUNE 2019 403 QUEEN CITY PARK ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT Minimum Area In Square Feet, Of Bearing Surface Required For Concrete Thrust Blocks 403 QUEEN CITY PARK ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT NOT TO SCALE θ NOT TO SCALE CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 403 QUEEN CITY PARK ROAD DRAWING NO.: DATE: BEARING BLOCK Specifications Detail CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT A-27 A-27 Bearing Block.dwg April 2019 PHASE II HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: D-4 CIVIL & WATER DETAILS Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL TRENCH DETAIL CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 403 QUEEN CITY PARK ROAD DRAWING NO.: DATE: TYPICAL TRENCH DETAIL Specifications Detail CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT A-1 A-1 Typical Trench.dwg April 2019 HYDRANT ASSEMBLY NOT TO SCALE CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 403 QUEEN CITY PARK ROAD DRAWING NO.: DATE: HYDRANT ASSEMBLY Specifications Detail CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT A-16 A-16 Hydrant Assembly.dwg JUNE 2019 PHASE II HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: D-5 CIVIL & WATER DETAILS Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com · · · · · · ·√ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·¾ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PHASE II HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: D-6 CIVIL & SANITARY DETAILS Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II A A B B HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: D-7 CIVIL & STORM DETAILS Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: D-8 CIVIL & STORM DETAILS Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II 2'-0"1'-0" HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: D-9 CIVIL & STORM DETAILS Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: D-10 EROSION PREVENTION & SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com 3B. 1. 6. 7. 2. 5. 4.8. 3. 1. 3A. PHASE II HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: D-11 EROSION PREVENTION & SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com “ ” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” ’ ’ · · · · PHASE II NOTE: Details on this sheet provided by Green Mountain Power. HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: D-12 SITE ELECTRIC DETAILS Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.01 New 15"HDPENew 15" HDPENew 15" HDPE s=0.01 New SMh Rim 417.43 Inv. in 411.73 Inv. out 411.63 New SMh Rim 419.28 Inv. in 413.58 Inv. out 413.48New 12" D.I. water mainNew 12"CL 52 D.I. Water. Connect to Phase 1 stub. Verify elevation prior to laying pipe New 12" x 12" x 12" tee with thrust block New 12" gate valves New 12" CL 52 D.I. water main New Hydrant assembly New CB Rim 417.20 Inv. in 406.45 Inv. out 406.35 Inv. fd 407.7 New CB Rim 417.20 Inv. fd 407.8 Inv. out 406.55 New CB Rim 419.05 Inv. in 408.55 Inv. out 408.45 Inv. fd 409.8 New CB Rim 419.05 Inv. fd 410.3 Inv. out 409.05 Lot 18 Open Space 1.17 ac 16-1 16-2 16-3 16-4 20-1 20-2 20-3 20-4 20-5 20-6 20-7 Lot 16 2.61 ac Lot 20 2.06 ac New 3 4" k copper water service and curb stop. Typical all units. New 4" PVC SDR 35 sanitary service. s=1 4"/ft. min. Typical all units. New 12" CL 52 D.I. wat e r m a i n New 12" x 12" x 4" tee with thrust block New 4" gate valve FUTURE ATHLETIC FIELD PCG 418.0 PCG 419.0 PCG 418.5 PCG 418.0 PCG 419.0PCG 420.0 HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-2 SITE PLAN - Meadow Loop Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II Lot 5 8.8 ac New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.025 New 8" PVC S e w e r s = 0 . 0 1 6 New 15" HDPENew 15"HDPENew 15"HDPENew 15" HDPE s=0.0 2 New 15" HDPE s=0.025 New 15" HD P E s = 0 . 0 2 New 8" PVC S e w e r s = 0 . 0 2 3 New SMh Rim 406.64 Inv. in 400.94 Inv. out 400.84 New SMh Rim 413.85 Inv. in 408.15 Inv. out 408.05 New SMh Rim 417.43 Inv. in 411.73 Inv. out 411.63 New SMh Rim 415.9 Inv. in 410.23 Inv. out 410.13 New Hydrant assembly New Hydrant assembly New 12" CL 52 D.I. water main New Hydrant assembly New 12" CL 5 2 D . I . w a t e r m a i n New CB Rim 409.22 Inv. in 397.45 Inv. out 397.35 Inv. fd 398.95 New CB Rim 409.22 Inv. fd. 398.8 Inv. out 397.55 New CB Rim 414.20 Inv. in 402.45 Inv. out 402.35 Inv. fd 403.7 New CB Rim 414.20 Inv. fd 403.8 Inv. out 402.55 New CB Rim 417.20 Inv. in 406.45 Inv. out 406.35 Inv. fd 407.7 New CB Rim 417.20 Inv. fd 407.8 Inv. out 406.55 Lot 16 2.61 ac Lot 20 2.06 ac 16-4 16-7 16-6 16-5 16-8 16-9 16-10 16-11 16-12 31-1 31-2 31-3 31-4 31-5 20-7 20-8 20-9 20-10 20-11 20-12 20-13 20-14 20-15 20-16 20-17 20-18 20-19 20-20 20-21 20-22 Lot 31 4.80 ac New 3 4" k copper water service and curb stop. Typical all units. New 4" PVC SDR 35 sanitary service. s=1 4"/ft. min. Typical all units. New CB Rim 414.25 Inv. out 404.4 PCG 418.0 PCG 417.5 PCG 417.5 PCG 415.0 PCG 414.0 PCG 411.0 PCG 409.5 PCG 408.0 PCG 406.0 PCG 410.0 PCG 412.0 PCG 415.0 PCG 418.0 PCG 417.0 PCG 418.0 PCG 418.0 PCG 418.0 PCG 418.0 PCG 416.5 HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-3 SITE PLAN - Meadow Loop and Old Farm Road Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II Ne w C B Ri m 3 6 7 . 2 II n v . o u t 3 6 2 . 8 2 Ne w C B Ri m 3 6 8 . 4 In v . i n 3 6 2 . 7 2 II n v . o u t 3 6 2 . 6 2 Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 2 . 5 In v . i n 3 6 7 . 7 5 II n v . o u t 3 6 7 . 6 5 St o r a g e Sn o w St o r a g eNew 12" HDPENew 12" HDPENew 1 2 " H D P E New 15" HDPE Ne w 1 5 " H D P E Ne w 1 5 " H D P E New 15" HDPENew 8" PVC Sewers=0.076New 8" P V C S e w e r s=0.01 New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.036 New 18 " H D P E New 18"HDPENew 15" HDPENew 18" H D P E New 18" HDPE s=0.015 New 15" HDPE s=0.02 New 8" PVC S e w e r s = 0 . 0 5 2 New 8" PVC S e w e r s = 0 . 0 2 2 New 8 " P V C S e w e r s=0. 0 5 6 New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.046New 15"HDPENew 15" HDPE New 15" HDP E New 15" HDPENew SMh Rim 399.9 Inv. in 394.2 Inv. out 394.1 New SMh Rim 402.25 Inv. in 393.5 Inv. out 393.4 New SMh Rim 406.64 Inv. in 400.94 Inv. out 400.84 New 8" PVC SDR 35 Connect to Phase 1 stub. Verify elevation prior to laying pipe New SMh Rim 392.92 Inv. in 386.55 Inv. out 386.45 New SMh Rim 401.4 Inv. in 395.33 Inv. out 395.23 New SMh Rim 408.9 Inv. in 403.23 Inv. out 403.13 New SMh Rim 402.9 Inv. in 397.23 Inv. out 397.13 New Hydrant assemblyNew 8" D.I. water mainNew 8"CL 52 D.I. Water. Connect to Phase 1 stub. Verify elevation prior to laying pipe New 12" x 12" x 12" tee with thrust block New 12" CL 52 D.I. water main New Hydrant assembly New 12" CL 5 2 D . I . w a t e r m a i n New 12" gate valves New 12" gate valves New 12"tee with valve & thrust block New CB Rim 402.02 Inv. fd 393.25 Inv. in 391.75 Inv. out 391.65 New CB Rim 402.02 Inv. fd 392.95 Inv. in 391.45 Inv. out 391.35 New CB Rim 404.46 Inv. in 393.45 Inv. out 393.35 Inv. fd 394.7 New CB Rim 404.46 Inv. fd 394.8 Inv. out 393.55 New CB Rim 402.25 Inv. fd 399.15 Inv. in 397.9 Inv. out 397.8 New CB Rim 402.0 Inv. in 397.75 Inv. out 397.65 New CB Rim 394.0 Inv. in 383.35 Inv. out 383.25 Lot 19 Open Space 1.51 ac 16-12 16-13 16-14 16-15 16-16 16-17 16-18 31-8 31-9 31-10 31-11 30-1 30-2 20-21 20-22 20-23 20-24 20-25 20-26 Lot 16 2.61 ac Lot 20 2.06 ac Lot 31 4.80 ac Lot 30 2.38 ac New SMh Rim 389.2 Inv. in 383.5 Inv. out 383.4 New SMh Rim 395.25 Inv. in 386.6 Inv. out 386.5 N e w 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 1 0New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.034±New 12" x 8" reducer New 3 4" k copper water service and curb stop. Typical all units. New 4" PVC SDR 35 sanitary service. s=1 4"/ft. min. Typical all units. New CB Rim 400.12 Inv. in 395.17 Inv. out 395.07 New CB Rim 400.12 Inv. out 395.37 New CB Rim 396.72 Inv. in 391.97 Inv. out 391.87 Inv. fd 393.12 New CB Rim 408.0 Inv. fd 400.98 Inv. in 399.98 Inv. out 399.88 New Hydrant assembly PARK SPACE PCG 406.0 PCG 404.0 PCG 403. 5 PCG 400 . 0 PCG 399. 0 PCG 400.0PCG 400.5PCG 405.0 PCG 407.0 PCG 405.0PCG 416.5 PCG 416.0 PCG 414.0 PCG 414.0 PCG 413.0 PCG 412.0 PCG 410.0Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 2 . 8 II n v . o u t 3 6 8 . 0 5 Ne w s t r e e t lig h t ( t y p . ) bu i l d i n g . C o n n e c t t o Ph a s e 1 s t u b . Co o r d i n a t e w i t h m e c h a n i c a l p l a n s . Lot 11 1.2 ac HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-4 SITE PLAN - Meadow Loop, Old Farm Road, Legacy Farm Avenue Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II New SMh Rim 392.92 Inv. in 386.55 Inv. out 386.45 New CB Rim 396.72 Inv. in 391.97 Inv. out 391.87 Inv. fd 393.12 New Trash/ Recylcing Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 1 In v . i n 3 6 6 . 2 5 In v . o u t 3 6 6 . 1 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 4 . 5 In v . i n 3 6 9 . 7 5 In v . o u t 3 6 9 . 6 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 5 . 1 5 In v . o u t 3 7 0 . 4 Sn o w St o r a g e Sn o w St o r a g e Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 2 . 8 In v . i n 3 6 7 . 9 1 In v . o u t 3 6 7 . 8 1 In v . u d 3 6 8 . 6 6 Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 2 . 9 In v . o u t 3 6 8 . 1 5 In v . u d 3 6 8 . 9New 1 5 " HDPE s= 0 . 0 2 1 New 8 " PVC SDR 3 5s=0.024Ri m 3 7 0 . 9 In v . i n 3 6 6 . 1 5 In v . o u t 3 6 6 . 0 5 In v . u d 3 6 6 . 9 Ne w g a t e va l v e , c a p , st u b , t h r u s t bl o c k , a n d wi t n e s s f o r 8 " wa t e r m a i n . Ne w H y d r a n t as s e m b l y Ne w 8 " x 8 " x 8 " tee , t h r u s t b l o c k an d g a t e v a l v e . Ne w 8 " w a t e r st u b w i t h c a p , tr h u s t b l o c k a n d wi t n e s s Ne w S M H Ri m 3 7 4 . 2 0 In v . i n 3 6 8 . 5 3 In v . o u t 3 6 8 . 4 3New 12" HDPENew 15" H D P E New 1 5 " HD PE New 15" HDPE Gravel Wetland #3 Cell#1 60' x 62' Elev. 374.0 N e w 1 5 " H D P E New 15" HDPENew 8" PVC Sewer s=0.08 New 1 5 " H D P E New 15" HDPE New 15" HDPENe w 1 5 " H D P ENew 15"HDPENew 15" HDPENew 15"HDPENew SMh Rim 375.7 Inv. in 369.75 Inv. out 369.65 New SMh Rim 378.95 Inv. in 372.75 Inv. out 372.65 New 6" PVC SDR 35 sanitary sewer stub, cap , and witness New 6" PVC SDR 35 sanitary sewer stub, cap , and witness New 8" x 8" x 8" tee with thrust block and valveNew 8" gate valves New 8" CL 52 D.I. water main New 8"CL 52 D.I. Water. Connect to Phase 1 stub. Verify elevation prior to laying pipe New Hydrant assembly New End Section Inv. out 377.5 Forebay New Outlet Structure 3. See detail. New rip rap dispersal pad New berm with stone weir overflow New stone overflow New CB Rim 375.2 Inv. in 370.25 Inv. out 370.15 New DMh Rim 388.0 Inv. in 380.5 Inv. out 380.4 Lot 11 1.2 ac Lot 22 2.21 ac Lot 24 1.37 ac Lot 25 2.20 ac Lot 19 Open Space 1.51 ac Lot 24 1.37 ac Gravel Wetland #3 Cell#1 60' x 62' Elev. 374.0 New 6" PVC cross pipe between cells 2, New 18" PVC vertical inlet pipes 2, New 18" PVC vertical inlet pipes New 1 8 " H D P E Ne w 1 5 " HD P E Ne w 1 5 " HD P E New 15"HDPENew 15"HDPENew CB Rim 390.5 Inv. in 385.55 Inv. out 385.45 New CB Rim 390.5 Inv. out 385.75 New CB Rim 379.62 Inv. in 374.67 Inv. out 375.57 New CB Rim 379.62 Inv. out 374.87 New CB Rim 372.00 Inv. in 367.05 Inv. out 366.95 New CB Rim 372.0 Inv. out 367.25 New CB Rim 371.4 Inv. out 366.65 New CB Rim 370.92 Inv. in 366.25 Inv. out 366.15 New CB Rim 370.85 Inv. in 366.1 Inv. out 366.00 New CB Rim 371.33 Inv. out 366.58 New DMh Rim 370.78 Inv. in 365.75 Inv. out 365.65 New CB Rim 365.36 Inv. in 360.41 Inv. out 360.31 New CB Rim 365.36 Inv. out 360.61 New SMh Rim 371.33 Inv. in 364.38 Inv. out 364.28 New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.026New CB Rim 387.0 Inv. out 382.20 Inv ud 382.7 New 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 6 9 New 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 5 6 New 18" HDPE HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-5 SITE PLAN - Old Farm Road and O'Brien Farm Road Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II New 8" P V C Se wer s=0.031New 1 5 "HDP E New 1 5 "HDP E New 15" H DP E New SMh Rim 411.4 Inv. in 405.7 Inv. out 405.6 Inv. in 404.12 Inv. out 404.02 New 8" CL 52 D.I. water main New CB Rim 408.24 Inv. out 402.0 New CB Rim 378.45 Inv. in 372.90 Inv. out 372.80 Inv. fd 374.05 Lot 30 2.39 ac 31-14 30-5 30-7 30-9 30-14 30-15 30-16 30-17 30-6 30-8 30-10 30-1130-12 PCG 385.0 PCG 385.0 PCG 385.0PCG 412.0PCG 412.0PCG 410.0 PCG 4 0 7. 5 PCG 412.0 New 8" P V C Se wer s=0.0075 N e w 1 5 " H D P E New 15" H DPE New Hydrant assembly New CB Rim 375.2 Inv. out 370.45 New CB Rim 377.2 Inv. in 372.20 Inv. out 372.10 Inv. fd 373.45 New CB Rim 377.2 Inv. out 372.45 Lot 25 2.20 ac 30-13 PCG 384.0 New 8" P V C Se wer s=0.0075 New 15" H DP E New SMh Rim 378.75 Inv. in 371.64 Inv. out 371.54 New SMh Rim 380.20 Inv. in 373.6 Inv. out 373.5 New Hydrant assembly New 8" CL 52 D.I. water main New CB Rim 378.45 Inv. out 373.7 New DMh Rim 380.22 Inv. in 374.1 Inv. out 374.0 Inv. fd 375.35 New CB Rim 379.3 Inv. out 375.05 Lot 28 2.46 ac 30-18 30-19 30-20 30-21 New 1 5 "HDPE New CB Rim 379.52 Inv. in 373.51 Inv. out 373.41 Inv. fd 374.66 New CB Rim 379.52 Inv. out 374.77 New CB Rim 379.3 Inv. in 374.65 Inv. out 374.55 Inv. fd 375.8 New parking with PCG 386.0 PCG 387.0 PCG 386.0 PCG 387.0 PCG 386.0 Lot 28 2.47 ac HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-6 SITE PLAN - O'Brien Farm Road East Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II New 18" HDPENew 15" HDPENe w 1 5 " H D P E Ne w 8 " P V C S e w e r s=0. 0 9 5 New 18" HDPENew 15" HDPENe w 1 5 " H D P E New 6" PVC SDR 35 sanitary sewer stub, cap , and witness New 6" PVC SDR 35 sanitary sewer stub, cap , and witness New 6" PVC SDR 35 sanitary sewer stub, cap , and witness New 6" PVC SDR 35 sanitary sewer stub, cap , and witness New 8" CL 52 D.I. New 8" water stub with cap, trhust block and witness New Hydrant assembly New Hydrant assembly New 12" x 8" tapping sleeve w/ thrust block and valve New 8" tee with valve and thrust block New DMh Rim 336.0 Inv. in 327.9 Inv. out 327.8 Lot 23 0.78 ac Lot 26 1.87 ac Lot 25 2.20 ac New CB Rim 335.0 Inv. in 329.85 Inv. out 329.75 New CB Rim 335.0 Inv. out 330.25 New CB Rim 370.85 Inv. in 366.1 Inv. out 366.00 New DMh Rim 370.78 Inv. in 365.75 Inv. out 365.65 New CB Rim 365.36 Inv. in 360.41 Inv. out 360.31 New CB Rim 350.9 Inv. in 345.95 Inv. out 345.85 New CB Rim 350.9 Inv. out 346.15 New CB Rim 344.6 Inv. in 340.0 Inv. out 339.9 New CB Rim 344.6 Inv. out 340.35 Core and boot new penetration. New Inv. 322.0± New SMh Rim 333.0 Inv. in 326.3 Inv. out 326.2 New 8" P V C S e w e r s=0.03 6 New SMh Rim 337.55 Inv. in 331.55 Inv. out 331.45 New SMh Rim 352.0 Inv. in 345.3 Inv. out 345.2 New 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 6 9 Ne w 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 7 3 Landscape retaining wall. Refer to landscape plans. Landscape retaining wall. Refer to landscape plans. Kimball Avenue Road widening Kimball Avenue Road widening HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-7 SITE PLAN - Old Farm Road Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II Gravel Wetland #6 Cell#1 126' x 35' Elev. 323.0 ForebayNew 18" HDPEN e w 1 8 " HD P E New End Section Inv. out 324.0 New rip rap dispersal pad 2, New 18" PVC vertical inlet pipes New stone berm New DMh Rim 334.0 Inv. in 325.2 Inv. out 325.1 Business Park North Lot 4 2.4 ac Lot 26 1.87 ac Gravel Wetland #6 Cell#2 126' x 35' Elev. 323.0 N ew 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 9 1 New SMh Rim 333.25 Inv. in 327.58 Inv. out 327.48 Core and boot new penetration. New Inv. 323.83± New 6" PVC SDR 35 sanitary sewer stub, cap , and witness New 6" PVC cross pipe between cells New berm with stone weir overflow 2, New 18" PVC vertical inlet pipes New Outlet Structure 6. See detail. New End Section Inv. out 320.0 New rip rap dispersal pad Lot 27 1.49 ac Lot 29 0.73 ac Lot 28 2.47 ac HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-8 SITE PLAN - Old Farm Road Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II New 12" x 12" x 8" tee with thrust block and valve New Hydrant assembly Lot 32 3.60 ac Lot 33 1.13 ac 33-1 33-3 33-6 33-7 33-2 33-4 33-5 33-8 Historic Barn New CB Rim 414.82 Inv. fd 408.0 Inv. in 406.75 Inv. out 406.65 Rim 419.10 Inv. fd 412.0 Inv. in 410.75 Inv. out 410.65 New 12" CL 52 D.I. wat e r m a i n Event Tent New parking with pervious pavement New 12" x 12" x 4" tee with thrust block New 4" gate valve Ne w 4 " C L 5 2 D . I . w a t e r s e r v i c e New SMh Rim 418.0 Inv. in 411.8 Inv. out 411.7 New 6" PVC Sewer s=0.059New 6" PVC S e w e r s=0.021 Landscape retaining wall. Refer to landscape plans. Pool & Patio. Refer to landscape plans. HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-9 SITE PLAN - Historic Barn Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II New 8" PVC Sewers=0.040New 15" HDPENew 15" HDPE New SMh Rim 424.12 Inv. in 418.42 Inv. out 418.32 New 12" x 12" x 8" tee with thrust block and valve Lot 33 1.13 ac 33-1 33-3 33-6 33-7 33-2 33-4 33-5 33-8 New 1 5 " H D P E New Hydrant assembly New 15" H D P E Lot 34 1.76 ac Lot 35 1.54 ac 34-1 34-2 34-3 34-4 34-5 34-6 34-7 35-3 35-1 35-2 New SMh Rim 406.5 Inv. in 400.8 Inv. out 400.7 New SMh Rim 413.45 Inv. in 407.75 Inv. out 407.65 New SMh Rim 419.05 Inv. in 413.35 Inv. out 413.25 Three (3) new 3 4" k copper water services in common trench with curb stops. Three (3) new 3 4" k copper water services in common trench New 3 4" k copper water services to each unit. New CB Rim 423.42 Inv. fd 415.0 Inv. in 413.75 Inv. out 413.65 New 8 " PVC S ew e r s = 0 . 0 3 5New 8" PVC Sewers=0.037New 4" PVC SDR 35 sanitary service. s=1 4"/ft. min. Typical all units. New CB Rim 414.82 Inv. fd 408.0 Inv. in 406.75 Inv. out 406.65 New CB Rim 414.82 Inv. fd 408.15 Inv. out 406.9 New CB Rim 419.10 Inv. fd 412.0 Inv. in 410.75 Inv. out 410.65 New CB Rim 419.10 Inv. fd 412.15 Inv. out 410.9 New CB Rim 423.42 Inv. fd 415.15 Inv. out 413.9 New 12" CL 52 D.I. wat e r m a i n Event Tent Lot 49 0.75 ac PCG 42 0 . 0 PCG 4 2 0 . 0PCG 4 2 2 . 5 PCG 426.5PCG 425.5PCG 424.5PCG 422.5PCG 420.5PCG 418.5PCG 416.5HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-10 SITE PLAN - Legacy Farm Avenue & Lot 35 Private Drive Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II Gravel Wetland #4 Cell#2 62' x 30' Elev. 381.0 Gravel Wetland #4 Cell#1 62' x 30' Elev. 381.0 New 15" HDPENew 8" PVC Sewer s=0.0075 New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.0075 New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.051 New SMh Rim 386.86 Inv. in 381.16 Inv. out 381.06 New SMh Rim 389.0 Inv. in 383.33 Inv. out 383.23 New Hydrant assembly New 12" x 12" x 8" tee with thrust block and valve New 8" CL 52 D.I. water main New 12" gate valves New 12" x 8" reducer New End Section Inv. out 382.0 Forebay New Outlet Structure 4. See detail. New rip rap dispersal pad New 6" PVC cross pipe between cells New berm with stone weir overflow New End Section Inv. out 378.0 New rip rap dispersal pad 2, New 15" PVC vertical inlet pipes 2, New 15" PVC vertical inlet pipes New stone berm New DMh Rim 385.0 Inv. in 382.3 Inv. out 382.2 New CB Rim 396.5 Inv. fd 391.6 Inv. in 390.35 Inv. out 390.25 33-7 36-1 36-2 36-3 36-4 36-5 33-8 33-9 33-10 Lot 47 Open Space 12.23 ac New 15"HDPE New 1 5 " H D P E New Hydrant assembly New 1 5 "HDPENew 15"HDPELot 36 1.64 ac Lot 34 1.76 ac 34-6 34-7 34-834-934-10 34-11 New DMh Rim 388.0 Inv. in 383.75 Inv. out 383.25New 15" HDPE s=0.071New CB Rim 399.8 Inv. fd 393.0 Inv. in 391.75 Inv. out 391.65 New 15 " H D P E s = 0 . 0 0 9 New CB Rim 406.25 Inv. in 400.19 Inv. out 400.09 New 15" HDPE s=0.066 New SMh Rim 408.45 Inv. in 402.0 Inv. out 401.9 New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.0075 New SMh Rim 398.8 Inv. in 393.1 Inv. out 393.0New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.082New SMh Rim 406.5 Inv. in 400.8 Inv. out 400.7 New 8" PVC Sewer s=0 .045 New SMh Rim 402.25 Inv. in 396.55 Inv. out 396.45 Ne w 8 " P VC S e w e r s = 0 . 0 5 New SMh Rim 413.45 Inv. in 407.75 Inv. out 407.65 New 8 " PVC S ew e r s = 0 . 0 3 5 New 4" PVC SDR 35 sanitary service. s=1 4"/ft. min. Typical all units. New CB Rim 405.52 Inv. out 400.77 New CB Rim 405.52 Inv. fd 400.6 Inv. in 399.35 Inv. out 399.25 New CB Rim 409.6 Inv. in 401.2 Inv. out 401.1 New CB Rim 410.02 Inv. fd 402.85 Inv. in 401.6 Inv. out 401.5 New CB Rim 410.0 Inv. out 402.7 New CB Rim 414.82 Inv. fd 408.15 Inv. out 406.9 New 1 5 " H D P E s = 0. 0 1 PCG 4 0 4 . 0 PCG 404.0 PCG 4 0 3 . 0 PCG 39 8 . 5 PCG 400.5 PCG 404.5 PCG 409.5 PCG 408.5PCG 418.5PCG 416.5PCG 414.5HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-10 SITE PLAN - Legacy Farm Avenue & Private Drive Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II New 8" PVC S e w e r s = 0 . 0 0 7 5 New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.0075 New 8" PV C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 2 0 New 15" HDPENew 15" HDPE New 15" H D P E New 15" HDPENew 15" HDPENew SMh Rim 385.52 Inv. in 379.82 Inv. out 379.72 New SMh Rim 385.5 Inv. in 377.7 Inv. out 377.6 New Hydrant assembly New 8" CL 52 D.I. water main New DMh Rim 374.2 Inv. in 369.7 Inv. out 369.6 New CB Rim 394.1 Inv. in 389.15 Inv. out 389.05 New CB Rim 394.1 Inv. fd 390.6 Inv. in 389.35 Inv. out 389.25 New CB Rim 397.05 Inv. out 392.3 New CB Rim 397.05 Inv. in 392.2 Inv. out 392.1 New CB Rim 400.05 Inv. out 395.3 New CB Rim 400.05 Inv. in 395.2 Inv. out 395.1 Lot 47 Open Space 12.23 ac Lot 37 3.54 ac 37-637-7 37-8 37-9 37-10 37-11 Lot 32 2.28 ac New CB Rim 405.52 Inv. out 400.77 New 8" in-line gate valveNew 6" PVC Sewer s=0.059New SMh Rim 403.67 Inv. in 396.12 Inv. out 396.02 New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.120Landscape retaining wall. Refer to landscape plans. PCG 402.0 PCG 400 . 5 PCG 39 9 . 5 PCG 397.5 PCG 396.0 PCG 395.0 HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-12 SITE PLAN - Legacy Farm Avenue Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.125New 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0. 0 4 1 New 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0. 0 3 4 New 8" PVC S e w e r s = 0 . 0 1 New 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0. 0 1 7 New 15" HDPE s=0.133New 15" HDPENew 15" HDPE New 15"HDPENew 15"HDPENew 1 5"HDPENew SMh Rim 374.57 Inv. in 368.87 Inv. out 368.77 New SMh Rim 394.41 Inv. in 388.68 Inv. out 388.58 New SMh Rim 399.0 Inv. in 393.3 Inv. out 393.2 New SMh Rim 403.52 Inv. in 397.63 Inv. out 397.53 New SMh Rim 405.71 Inv. in 400.0 Inv. out 399.9 New Hydrant assembly New 8" CL 52 D.I. water main New CB Rim 394.1 Inv. in 389.15 Inv. out 389.05 New CB Rim 394.1 Inv. fd 390.6 Inv. in 389.35 Inv. out 389.25 New CB Rim 401.21 Inv. out 394.58 New CB Rim 401.21 Inv. in 391.6 Inv. out 391.5 New CB Rim 403.0 Inv. fd 395.08 Inv. in 393.83 Inv. out 393.73 New CB Rim 403.84 Inv. fd 396.0 Inv. in 394.75 Inv. out 394.65 New CB Rim 403.84 Inv. out 396.75 New CB Rim 405.65 Inv. fd 399.6 Inv. in 398.35 Inv. out 398.25 New CB Rim 405.65 Inv. out 399.85 Lot 31 4.80 ac Archaeology Zone 31-1631-1731-18 31-19 31-2031-21 31-22 31-23 31-24 37-1 37-2 37-3 37-4 37-5 37-6 Lot 31 4.80 ac Lot 47 Open Space 12.23 ac Lot 37 3.54 ac Inv. out 407.0 New CB Rim 405.0 Inv. fd 396.5 Inv. in 396.25 Inv. out 396.15 New CB Rim 408.5 Inv. out 404.5 New 12" HDPENew CB Rim 405.25 Inv. out 401.25 New 12" HDPENew CB Rim 404.0 Inv. in 395.3 Inv. out 394.3 New 8" in-line gate valve PCG 408.0 PCG 407.0 PCG 406.0 PCG 408.5 PCG 410.0 PCG 410.0 PCG 40 9.5PCG 405.5PCG 403.5PCG 395.0 PCG 3 9 5. 0 PCG 3 9 8. 0 PCG 4 0 3. 0 PCG 404.5 PCG 405.5 HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-13 Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II SITE PLAN - Legacy Farm Avenue Gravel Wetland #5 Cell#2 63' x 50' Elev. 366.0 Gravel Wetland #5 Cell#2 63' x 50' Elev. 366.0 New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.01 New 8" PVC Sewer s = 0 . 0 1New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.125New 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0. 0 4 1 New 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0. 0 3 4 New 8" PVC S e w e r s = 0 . 0 1 New 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 1 7 New 18" HDPENew 15" HDPE s=0.133New 15" HDPENew 15"HDPENew 15"HDPENew 1 5"HDPENew SMh Rim 373.7 Inv. in 365.94 Inv. out 365.84 New SMh Rim 374.57 Inv. in 368.87 Inv. out 368.77 New SMh Rim 377.5 Inv. in 371.8 Inv. out 371.7 New SMh Rim 394.41 Inv. in 388.68 Inv. out 388.58 New SMh Rim 399.0 Inv. in 393.3 Inv. out 393.2 New SMh Rim 403.52 Inv. in 397.63 Inv. out 397.53 New SMh Rim 405.71 Inv. in 400.0 Inv. out 399.9 New Hydrant assembly New Hydrant assembly New 8" CL 52 D.I. water main New End Section Inv. out 367.0 Forebay New rip rap dispersal pad 2, New 18" PVC vertical inlet pipes New stone berm New 6" PVC cross pipe between cells New berm with stone weir overflow 2, New 18" PVC vertical inlet pipes New Outlet Structure 5. See detail. New End Section Inv. out 359.0 New rip rap dispersal pad New DMh Rim 374.2 Inv. in 369.7 Inv. out 369.6 New CB Rim 401.21 Inv. out 394.58 New CB Rim 401.21 Inv. in 391.6 Inv. out 391.5 New CB Rim 403.0 Inv. fd 395.08 Inv. in 393.83 Inv. out 393.73 New CB Rim 403.84 Inv. out 396.75 New CB Rim 405.65 Inv. out 399.85 Archaeology Zone 31-23 31-24 37-1 37-2 37-3 37-4 37-5 30-1130-12 Lot 47 Open Space 12.23 ac Lot 37 3.54 ac New CB Rim 404.0 Inv. in 395.3 Inv. out 394.3 PCG 4 0 7. 5PCG 405.5PCG 403.5PCG 3 9 5. 0 PCG 3 9 8. 0 PCG 4 0 3 . 0 PCG 404.5 PCG 405.5 30-21 New CB Rim 379.3 Inv. in 374.65 Inv. out 374.55 Inv. fd 375.8 PCG 386.0 HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-14 Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II SITE PLAN - Legacy Farm Avenue New 8" PVC S e w e r s = 0 . 0 1 New 8" P V C S e w e r s = 0. 0 1 7 New 8" P V C Se wer s=0.031New 15"HDPENew 1 5 "HDP E New 15"HDPENew 8" PVC S e w e r s = 0 . 0 2 2 New 8" PVC S e w e r s = 0 . 0 2 3 New 8 " P V C S e w e r s=0. 0 5 6 New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.046New 15"HDPENew 15" HDPE New 15" HDPE New 15" HDP E New 15" HDPENew SMh Rim 405.71 New SMh Rim 407.30 Inv. in 401.6 Inv. out 401.5 New SMh Rim 411.4 Inv. in 405.7 Inv. out 405.6 New SMh Rim 392.92 Inv. in 386.55 Inv. out 386.45 New SMh Rim 408.9 Inv. in 403.23 Inv. out 403.13 New SMh Rim 402.9 Inv. in 397.23 Inv. out 397.13 New SMh Rim 409.82 Inv. in 404.12 Inv. out 404.02 New Hydrant assembly New Hydrant assembly New 8" CL 52 D.I. water main New Hydrant assembly New 12" CL 5 2 D . I . w a t e r m a i n New 12" gate valves New 12"tee with valve & thrust block New CB Rim 403.84 Inv. fd 396.0 Inv. in 394.75 Inv. out 394.65 New CB Rim 405.65 Inv. fd 399.6 Inv. in 398.35 Inv. out 398.25 New CB Rim 405.65 Inv. out 399.85 New CB Rim 408.24 Inv. fd 401.3 Inv. in 400.05 Inv. out 399.95 New CB Rim 408.24 Inv. out 402.0 New CB Rim 402.25 Inv. fd 399.15 Inv. in 397.9 Inv. out 397.8 New CB Rim 402.0 Inv. in 397.75 Inv. out 397.65 New CB Rim 408.14 Inv. in 403.74 Inv. out 403.64 New CB Rim 408.14 Inv. out 403.89 Lot 30 2.39 ac Lot 31 4.80 ac 31-5 31-6 31-7 31-8 31-9 31-10 31-11 31-12 31-13 31-14 31-15 31-1631-1731-18 31-19 31-20 30-1 30-5 30-7 30-9 30-16 30-17 30-2 30-3 30-4 30-6 30-8 30-10 30-11 2.06 ac Lot 31 4.80 ac Lot 30 2.38 ac New CB Rim 400.12 Inv. in 395.17 Inv. out 395.07 New CB Rim 396.72 Inv. in 391.97 Inv. out 391.87 Inv. fd 393.12 New CB Rim 413.5 Inv. fd 405.5 Inv. in 404.5 Inv. out 404.4 New CB Rim 411.5 Inv. fd 402.5 Inv. in 401.5 Inv. out 401.4 New CB Rim 408.0 Inv. fd 400.98 Inv. in 399.98 Inv. out 399.88 New CB Rim 410.1 Inv. fd 401.5 Inv. in 400.5 Inv. out 400.4 New CB Rim 405.0 Inv. fd 396.5 Inv. in 396.25 Inv. out 396.15 New CB Rim 408.5 Inv. out 404.5 New 12" HDPENew CB Rim 405.25 Inv. out 401.25 New 12" HDPENew Hydrant assembly PCG 385.0PCG 405.0PCG 409.0PCG 412.0PCG 412.0PCG 410.0 PCG 4 0 7. 5 PCG 416.5 PCG 416.0 PCG 414.0 PCG 414.0 PCG 413.0 PCG 412.0 PCG 410.0PCG 411.0PCG 412.0PCG 412.0 PCG 4 1 0. 0 PCG 408.0 PCG 407.0 PCG 406.0 PCG 408.5 PCG 410.0 New CB Rim 379.52 Inv. in 373.51 Inv. out 373.41 HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-15 Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II SITE PLAN - Legacy Farm Avenue Grave l W e t l a n d # 7 Cell# 2 50' x 2 1 ' Elev. 3 2 8 . 0 Grave l W e t l a n d # 7 Cell#1 50' x 2 1 ' Elev. 3 2 8 . 0 Ne w 8 " P V C S e w e r s=New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.068Ne w 8 " P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 2 1 New 8" P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 2 0 New SMh Rim 324.5 Inv. in 318.83 Inv. out 318.73 Core and boot new penetration. New Inv. New SMh Rim 332.67 Inv. in 327.0 Inv. out 326.9 New SMh Rim 338.05 Inv. in 331.78 Inv. out 331.68 New SMh Rim 343.37 Inv. in 337.2 Inv. out 337.1 New 6" PVC SDR 35 sanitary sewer stub, cap , and witness New 6" PVC SDR 35 sanitary sewer stub, cap , and witness New 6" PVC SDR 35 sanitary sewer stub, cap , and witness New 6" PVC SDR 35 sanitary sewer stub, cap , and witness Lot 38 4.41 ac Lot 39 4.52 ac Lot 44 2.02 ac Lot 48 Open Space 4.20 ac New End Section Inv. out 327.0 New rip rap dispersal pad New 6" PVC cross pipe between cells New berm with stone weir overflow 2, New 15" PVC vertical inlet pipes Forebay 2, New 15" PVC vertical inlet pipes New stone berm New End Section Inv. out 328.45 New rip rap dispersal pad New Outlet Structure 7. See detail. New 12" x 8" tapping sleeve w/ thrust block and valve New Hydrant assembly New CB Rim 333.0 Inv. in 328.75 Inv. out 328.65 New CB Rim 333.1 Inv. out 328.9 New 15" HDPENew 15" HDPENe w 1 5 " H D P E New CB Rim 336.2 Inv. in 331.75 Inv. out 331.65 New CB Rim 336.2 Inv. out 331.95 New CB Rim 340.75 Inv. in 335.8 Inv. out 335.7 New CB Rim 340.75 Inv. out 336.0 New 8" water stub with cap, trhust block and witness New 8" tee with valve and thrust block New 8" water stub with cap, trhust block and witness New 8" tee with valve and thrust block Kimball Avenue Road widening Kimball Avenue Road widening HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-16 SITE PLAN - I/C Road Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II Gravel We t l a n d # 8 (2) 15' x15 ' c e l l s Elev. 341.0 New 8" P V C S e w e r s = 0 . 0 1 8 New 8" PVC Sewer s=0 . 0 1 New SMh Rim 348.09 Inv. in 341.43 Inv. out 341.33 New SMh Rim 350.12 Inv. in 343.11 Inv. out 343.01 New 8" PVC SDR 35 sanitary sewer stub, cap , and witness New 6" PVC SDR 35 sanitary sewer stub, cap , and witness New 6" PVC SDR 35 sanitary sewer stub, cap , and witness Lot 42 2.79 ac Lot 43 2.99 ac Lot 45 2.17 ac Lot 46 1.90 ac New Outlet Structure 8. See detail. New End Section Inv. out 337.0 New rip rap dispersal pad Forebay New End Section Inv. out 341.5 New rip rap dispersal pad New End Section Inv. out 339.5 New berm with stone weir overflow and 6" PVC cross pipe between cells2, New 15" PVC vertical inlet pipes New Hydrant assembly New Hydrant assembly New 8" x 8" x 8" tee with thrust block and valve New 8" gate valves New CB Rim 347.68 Inv. in 342.73 Inv. out 342.63 New CB Rim 347.68 Inv. out 342.93 New CB Rim 349.81 Inv. in 344.92 Inv. out 344.82 New 15" HDPE storm stub, cap, and witness New CB Rim 347.92 Inv. in 342.97 Inv. out 342.87 New CB Rim 347.92 Inv. out 343.17 New CB Rim 346.08 Inv. out 341.83 New CB Rim 346.08 Inv. in 341.78 Inv. out 341.68 New CB Rim 344.78 Inv. in 339.93 Inv. out 339.83 New CB Rim 344.78 Inv. out 340.03 New 8" water stub with cap, trhust block and witness New 8" tee with valve and thrust block New 8" water stub with cap, trhust block and witness New 8" tee with valve and thrust block New 8" water stub with cap, trhust block and witness New 8" tee with valve and thrust block New 8" water stub with cap, trhust block and witness HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-17 Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II SITE PLAN - I/C Road Lot 40 2.90 ac Lot 41 2.68 ac Lot 42 2.79 ac Lot 43 2.99 ac HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-18 Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II SITE PLAN - I/C Road2 New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.020 New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.018 New 6" PVC SDR 35 san i t a r y sewer stub , c a p , and witnes s New 6" PVC SDR 35 san i t a r y sewer stub, c a p , and witnes s Lot 38 4.41 ac Lot 39 4.52 ac New Hydrant assembly New CB Rim 333.1 Inv. out 32 8 . 9 New 15" HDPENew CB Rim 336.2 Inv. out 33 1 . 9 5 New CB Rim 340.75 New CB Rim 340.75 Inv. out 33 6 . 0 Inv. in 342. 7 3 New CB Rim 344.78 New CB Rim 344.78 Inv. out 34 0 . 0 3 New 8" wat e r stub with c a p , trhust bloc k a n d witness New 8" tee w i t h valve and th r u s t block New 8" wat e r stub with c a p , trhust bloc k a n d witness New 8" tee w i t h valve and t h r u s t block New 8" tee with valve a n d thrust bloc k Kimball Avenue Road HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-19 SITE PLAN - Rock Extraction & Crushing Area Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II Temporary gravel pad for rock crushing operations Area of re-grading and rock extraction Area of re-grading and rock extraction I/C ROAD KIMBALL AVENUE SCALE: 1” = 100’-0” 07.23.2020 SCALE: 1” = 100’-0”SCALE: 1” = 100’-0” O’BRIEN HILLSIDE PHASE II| OVERALL SITE PLAN| L100 SHEET L101 SHEET L200 SHEET L201 SHEET L202 SHEET L102 SHEET L103 MOWED PLAYING FIELD COMMON SPACE. LANDFORMS AND SCREENING WILDLIFE CONNECTION CORRIDOR WILDLIFE CONNECTION CORRIDOR 7 MARBLE AVENUE, BURLINGTON, VT 05401 SCALE: 1” = 60’-0” 07.23.2020 O’BRIEN HILLSIDE PHASE II| DETAIL SITE PLAN L101 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L103 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L102MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L102MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L103 OLD FARM ROAD LEGACY FARM AVE MEADOW LOOP OPEN PLAY FIELD OLD BARN POTENTIAL PICKLEBALL COURTS COMMUNITY GARDENS PERMEABLE ASPHALT WALKWAY NEIGHBORHOOD POOL COMPLEX FUTURE CONNECTION SHOULD THIS PROPERTY EVER BECOME A PART OF DEVELOPMENT 5’ WIDE PERMEABLE ASPHALT PATH, TYP. SPLIT RAIL FENCE EXISTING WOODS TO REMAIN GRAVEL WETLAND NEIGHBORHOOD PLAYGROUND NEW COMMUNITY CENTER CIRCUIT TRAINING GRAVEL WETLAND EVENT LAWN & TENT 7 MARBLE AVENUE, BURLINGTON, VT 05401 SCULPTURAL LANDFORMS & NATURAL PLAY SCALE: 1” = 60’-0” 07.23.2020 O’BRIEN HILLSIDE PHASE II| DETAIL SITE PLAN L102 NEW PARK EXISTING WOODS TO REMAIN CURRENT OLD FARM ROAD ALIGNMENT LEGACY FARM AVENUEKIMBALL AVENUEO’BRIE N FAR M R OAD 5’ WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK, TYP. 10’ WIDE MULTI-USE PATH 10’ WIDE MULTI-USE PATH OL D F A R M R O A DMATCHLINE SEE SHEET L101MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L101MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L103 STONE ENTRY WALLS SPECIAL PAVING GRAVEL WETLAND 7 MARBLE AVENUE, BURLINGTON, VT 05401 SCALE: 1” = 60’-0” 07.23.2020 O’BRIEN HILLSIDE PHASE II| DETAIL SITE L103 I / C ROAD2I / C R O A D 2 10’ WIDE MULTIUSE PATHKIMBALL AVENUEMATCHLINE SEE SHEET L101 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L102 GRAVEL WETLAND GRAVEL WETLAND 5’ WIDE PERMEABLE ASPHALT PATH 5’ WIDE PERMEABLE ASPHALT PATH DOG PARK- 1 ACRE STORMWATER DETENTION EXISTING WOODS TO REMAIN EXISTING WOODS TO REMAIN 179’317’ 7 MARBLE AVENUE, BURLINGTON, VT 05401 SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”07.23.2020O’BRIEN HILLSIDE PHASE II| COMMUNITY CENTER AND GARDENS L200SCALE OF FEET 20020 40 STONE WALL 25 YARD POOL FOR PLAY AND LAP SWIM PRIVACY HEDGE CHILDREN’S SPLASH PAD AND ZERO DEPTH ENTRY RELOCATED SILO - LANDMARK AND STORAGE FOR GARDEN OLD BARN NEW COMMUNITY CENTER LANDFORM AND NATUAL PLAY AREA NATURAL PLAY STRUCTURE PARKING - PERMEABLE ASPHALT PAVING FENCE 4’ WIDE PERMEABLE ASPHALT PATH PERGOLA COMMUNITY GARDEN PLOTS EVENT TENT 40’x80’ EVENT LAWN 134’ 89’ REINFORCED TURF FOR COMMUNITY FOOD TRUCK PARKING & EVENT CATERING CONCRETE PAVERS, TYP. WOOD DECKING ON EAST SIDE OF POOL & UNDER PERGOLA SCORED CONCRETE W/ INTEGRAL COLOR 4’ WIDE PERMEABLE ASPHALT PATH, TYP.7 MARBLE AVENUEBURLINGTON, VT 05401 O’BRIEN HILLSIDE PHASE II| OPEN SPACE PARK L201SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”07.23.2020SCALE OF FEET 20020 40 GRAVEL WETLAND WOODLAND TO REMAIN ADJUST ADA PARKING PATH PLAY LAWN ORNAMENTAL GRASS STONE WALL SPECIAL PAVING@ PLAZA GRADE SIDES 4:1 SOUTH FACING BENCHES 5’ WIDE PERMEABLE ASPHALT PAVING RETAIN WOODS 7 MARBLE AVENUEBURLINGTON, VT 05401 SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”07.23.2020O’BRIEN HILLSIDE PHASE II| PLAYGROUND & FITNESS TRAIL L202SCALE OF FEET 20020 40 CIRCUIT TRAINING STATION - STONEDUST GRAVEL WETLAND SPLIT RAIL FENCE 5’ WIDE PERMEABLE ASPHALT PAVING PLAY EQUIPMENT PARKING BIKE RACKS STONE WALLS DOG PARK 1 ACRE ENTRY GATES AND FENCING 317’7 MARBLE AVENUEBURLINGTON, VT 05401 P: (802) 878-0375 | email@krebsandlansing.com August 13, 2020 Paul Conner Director of Planning & Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Hillside PHASE II Kennedy Drive, Two Brothers Drive, and O’Brien Farm Road South Burlington, Vermont Dear Paul, As part of O’Brien Brothers request for Wastewater Allocation for the Hillside Phase 2 project, we offer the below summary of wastewater design flows: Lot # Total Units Muliplier Total Design Flow (GPD) 16 18 210 3780 20 26 210 5460 30 21 210 4410 31 24 210 5040 33 10 210 2100 34 11 210 2310 35 3 210 630 36 5 210 1050 37 11 210 2310 Subtotal 128 210 27090 Lot # Total Club Users Base Design Flow @ 8 GPD/participant 32 25 200 Infiltration Length of pipe Pipe Diameter Base Design Flow @ 300 gallons/inch of diameter/mile of pipe/day (GPD) 8792 8” 3996 765 6” 174 6025 4” 2054 Subtotal 6224 Paul Conner South Burlington Planning & Zoning Hillside Phase 2 Wastewater Allocation PAGE [ 2 ] We are requesting a total water supply allocation of 33,514 gallons/day at this time. Please contact us with any questions or comments. Best Regards, Scott Homsted, P.E. cc: Andrew Gill 19182\ Ph2 WWPreliminary Allocation Request P: (802) 878-0375 | email@krebsandlansing.com Stormwater Collection, Treatment, & Detention System Narrative Hillside @ O'Brien Farm PHASE 2 Project Description Phase 2 of the Hillside @ O’Brien Farm project involves a mixed use development consisting of single family homes, duplexes, and industrial/commercial lots. The project involves the re-routing of Old Farm Road, the extension of O’Brien Farm Road, and two new City streets, Meadow Loop, and Legacy Farm Avenue. At this time, only subdivision of the commercial and industrial lots is proposed. Additional site plans and stormwater designs will be completed when the lots are developed. Existing Condition The west side of O’Brien Farm Road includes Phase 1 of the Hillside development, featuring five City streets and 115 dwelling units in a combination of single family homes and duplexes. Construction of Phase 1 is in progress and ongoing. Lots 11-15 permitted in Phase 1 for future development. Plan development and permitting is ongoing for a series of multi- family apartment buildings on these lots. The land generally slopes east to west towards Kennedy The east side of O’Brien Farm features three permitted lots surrounding an existing farmstead. There is a high spot adjacent to Old Farm Road that drains back towards the road. The rest of the site drains west to east toward wetlands bisecting the property, and an unnamed tributary of Potash Brook on the east side. There are a variety of soil types on the property. On the west side of Old Farm Road, development is mostly in soils identified as Farmingon-Stockbridge rocky loam (FsB) with portions of Adams-Windsor loamy sands (AdA, AdB). The FsB soils are type “D” soils and contribute to a high degree of runoff from the site. AdA and AdB soils are type “A” soils and typically have low runoff potential. However, our experience on the site and on site soil testing indicate a high water table, even in the “A” soils. On the east side of Old Farm Road there are additional FsB and AdB soils, along with Vergennes clay (VeC, VeB), Covington silty clay (Cv), and Farmington extremely rockly loam (FaC). Smaller pockets of other soil types existing as well. The Farmington, Covington, and Vergennes soils are all type “D”, indicating a high degree of runoff from the site. Hillside @ O’Brien Farm PHASE 2 Stormwater Narrative August 16, 2020 PAGE [ 2 ] Existing Stormwater System The original Eldredge Street development received State of Vermont Stormwater discharge Stormwater Permit #7815-INDS, which was obtained in September 2017 for Phase 1 of the Hillside development. This permit also incorporated previously permitted infrastructure from Stormwater discharge Permit #1-1520. Existing permitted stormwater infrastructure includes Extended Detention Ponds 1, 2, and 3, Wet Ponds A and B, Infiltration Basin A, six grass channels, and four infiltration trenches. Wet Pond B and the infiltration trenches have not been constructed at this time. Wet Pond “B” and Wet Pond “C’, which was shown on the plans but not permitted, are proposed to be converted to Gravel Wetlands #1 and #2 as part of the Hillside Apartments project. Proposed Stormwater System: The proposed stormwater collection, treatment, and detention system will utilize a series of gravel wetlands as the primary stormwater treatment practices. Based on prior experience, we are assuming that even the areas of “A” soil on the site are unsuitable for infiltration based practices due to high seasonal groundwater table. This will be verified with on-site soil testing prior to completing our final designs. If favorable soil conditions are identified, one or more of the gravel wetlands will be converted to infiltration based practices. We have summarized the areas draining to each practice below:  Gravel wetland #3 treats impervious surface from the Meadow Loop road and sidewalk, as well as all of the buildings, driveways, and walks for the Meadow Loop units. Approximately 3.89 acres of impervious surface proposed to be treated.  Gravel wetland #4 treats impervious surface from the first 460 feet of Legacy Farm Avenue, Legacy Farm extension, and the private driveway on Lot 35. It also treats runoff from the buildings, driveways, and walks for the units along these sections of road. Approximately 1.97 acres of impervious surface proposed to be treated.  Gravel wetland #5 treats impervious surface from Station 4+60 to 19+50 of Legacy Farm Avenue. It also treats runoff from the buildings, driveways, and walks for the units along these sections of road. Approximately 3.05 acres of impervious surface proposed to be treated.  Gravel wetland #6 is located on an adjacent lot, Business Park North Lot 4, owned by the applicant. This wetland will treat runoff from the relocated Old Farm Road, as well as O’Brien Farm Road East, and Station 19+50 to 22+00 of Legacy Farm Avenue. The gravel wetland will also treat the runoff from the roofs and driveways of the units fronting these roads. Approximately 4.53 acres of impervious surface proposed to be treated.  Gravel wetland #7 treats impervious surface from the first 900 feet of the proposed Industrial/Commercial road. Future development on the industrial/commercial lots will have additional stormwater treatment practices. Approximately 1.08 acres of impervious surface proposed to be treated.  Gravel wetland #78 treats impervious surface from the last 280 feet of the proposed Industrial/Commercial road. Future development on the industrial/commercial lots Hillside @ O’Brien Farm PHASE 2 Stormwater Narrative August 16, 2020 PAGE [ 3 ] will have additional stormwater treatment practices. Approximately 0.22 acres of impervious surface proposed to be treated.  Gravel wetland #9 is shown on the westerly edge of Lot 17. This gravel wetland has been “rough sized” to accommodate impervious surface from the C1-LR Lots 17, 22, and portions of Lots 21 and 23.  At this time the applicant is proposing the use of pervious pavement in multiple locations to reduce the amount of impervious surface on the site. These areas include: o The proposed parking lot for the barn and event tent located east of Old Farm Road. o The proposed parking lot for the dog park and recreation facilities at the end of O’Brien Farm Road East. o All of the “cross-country” pedestrian trails and connections. i) Description of Impervious Area: The proposed impervious surfaces include paved roads and driveways, concrete walkways, paved recreation paths, roofs, and concret e pads. A summary of the approximate area of impervious surface draining to each watershed is above. ii) Receiving Body: (1) Wetlands in Potash Brook watershed. (2) Unnamed tributaries of Potash Brook iii) Fish Habitat Designation for Receiving Water: http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/stormwater/docs/msgp/sw_water_quality_stand ards.pdf)] (1) Warm (both wetlands and tributaries of Potash Brook. iv) Description of compliance with each of the 5 Unified Sizing Criteria in the 2017 VSMM Vol. I including the treatment practices or credits/waivers used to meet each of the following standards: (a) Water Quality Treatment Standard (WQv): This standard will be met via the use of the gravel wetlands. All of the gravel wetlands have been sized to contain 50% of the WQv in the voids of the gravel. The remainder of the WQv will be provide in extended detention via a low flow orifice in a controlled outlet structure. (b) Groundwater Recharge Treatment Standard: The Groundwater Recharge standard will be waived for the majority of the site due to the “D” soils. On site soil testing will confirm whether the standard can be waived for the “A” soils. If testing indicates adequate depth to groundwater, one or more of the gravel wetlands will be converted to infiltration based practices to meet the standard. (c) Channel Protection Standard (CPv): Hillside @ O’Brien Farm PHASE 2 Stormwater Narrative August 16, 2020 PAGE [ 4 ] The Cpv standard is met by the use of Gravel Wetlands #3-9. The gravel wetlands will feature additional storage capacity above the wetland and outlet structures using low flow orifices to provide the required detention times. (d) Overbank Flood Protection Standard (Qp10): The Overbank Flood Protection Standard is met by the use Gravel Wetlands #3-9. The gravel wetlands will feature additional storage capacity above the wetland and controlled outlet devices to limit post development peak flows to below pre development levels for the 10 year, 24 hour storm event. (e) Extreme Flood Protection Standard (Qp100) : The Extreme Flood Protection Standard is met by the is met by the use Gravel Wetlands #3-9. The gravel wetlands will feature additional storage capacity above the wetland and controlled outlet devices to limit post development peak flows to below pre development levels for the 100 year, 24 hour storm event. Version: 1/29/2018 Project Name:Hillside @ OʹBrien Farm Phase2 Discharge Point: Treatment Wetland # Practice Drainage Area For Permit  Coverage Not for Permit  Coverage Total to  Practice 1 Total Area (acres)5.920 0.000 5.920 2 3.890 0.000 3.890 3 0.000 0.000 0.000 WQV for  credit WQV not for  credit Total  WQV  4 WQV to practice 0.3164 0.0000 0.3164 96 5 2 6 2 Response Attachment location 7 8 9 10 11* 12* 13* Response Attachment location 14 Forebay ↑Enter this value on the Standards  Compliance Workbook Is outlet elevation designed such that a sub‐surface water level is maintained  in the gravel wetland? If the gravel wetland is designed with an organic soil layer at the surface, have  vertical perforated riser pipes been provided to deliver stormwater  stormwater from the surface down to the gravel bed? Have the outfalls and the conveyance to the discharge point been designed  and protected to avoid erosion? Practice Type Discharges to Cold or  Warm Water Fishery? Modified CN for WQ  (1.0ʺ) storm Note: Designers may use the Practice Drainage Area Runoff Calculator (second tab) for calculation of practice‐ specific runoff volumes for other treatment standards. Conveyance (4.3.5.2) Are inlets stabilized to ensure that non‐erosive conditions exist for at least the  1‐year, 24 hour storm? * Questions preceded by an asterix (*) may change based on previously entered values Have inlet pipes been set at the permanent pool or the base of the gravel bed? New Impervious (acres) 4 3Treatment Wetlands (4.3.5) Redeveloped Impervious Has a low for orifice been provided to meet the the WQV and CPV extended  Has a liner designed in accordance with Section 4.3.5.2 been provided if the  infiltration rate exceed 0.05 inches per hour and the wetland is located above  Pre‐Treatment (4.3.6.3) Has pretreatment been provided for non‐rooftop runoff?  Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes NoYes Cold Warm NoYes NoYes NoYes Shallow surface wetland Gravel wetland Page 1 of 2 15 Response Attachment location 16 ft3 1378 17 ft3 6891 18 ft3 8269 19* 20* 21 60.0%Yes 22 23 Response Attachment location 24 25 26 27 28 29 Attachment location: Indicate the specific location (i.e. appendix, page, plan sheet) where the requisite support documentation has  been provided within the application. What is the volume stored in the forebay or other volumetric pre‐ treatment if used? (minimum 10% WQV) What is the volume stored in the permanent pool? What is the total WQV stored at the normal water level (pre‐ treatment + permanent pool)? Does the pre‐treatment volume plus the permanent pool equal at least 50% of  the WQV? Has a planting plan been prepared showing how aquatic and terrestrial areas  will be stabilized, including plant species, plant locations, sources of plant  material and any required soil amendments? Are any donor organic soils used in the practice obtained from a source other  than natural wetlands? Is the remaining WQV provided  for by extended detention over 24 hours? Does the planting plan specify that no woody vegetation >2 inches in diameter  shall be planted or allowed to grow on the dam, within 15 feet of the dam or  the toe of the embankment, or within 25 of a principal spillway outlet? What type of pretreatment is being  used? Has an aquatic been been provided that extends at least 5 feet inward from the  normal water edge and is no more than 18 inches deep? Has a setback been provided that extends 25 feet from the maximum design  water surface elevation of the practice? Are all deep pool areas of ≥ 4 feet depth with side slopes steeper than 4:1 (H:V)  surrounded by a safety bench with ≤6% slope  extending 10 feet outward from  the normal water edge to the toe of the side slope? Landscaping (4.3.6.5) Treatment (4.3.6.4) Has a minimum flow path at normal water level of 3:1 been provided? Swale Filter Strip Forebay (10% WQv) Deep Sump Catch Basins Proprietary NoYes NoYes NoYes Yes No NoYes NoYes NoYes NoYes NoYes NoYes Page 2 of 2 Version: 1/29/2018 Project Name:Hillside @ OʹBrien Farm Phase2 Discharge Point: Treatment Wetland # Practice Drainage Area For Permit  Coverage Not for Permit  Coverage Total to  Practice 1 Total Area (acres)4.240 0.000 4.240 2 1.970 0.000 1.970 3 0.000 0.000    WQV for  credit WQV not for  credit Total  WQV  4 WQV to practice 0.1654 0.0000 0.1654 93 5 2 6 2 Response Attachment location 7 8 9 10 11* 12* 13* Response Attachment location 14 Forebay New Impervious (acres) 6 4Treatment Wetlands (4.3.5) Has a low for orifice been provided to meet the the WQV and CPV extended  Has a liner designed in accordance with Section 4.3.5.2 been provided if the  infiltration rate exceed 0.05 inches per hour and the wetland is located above  Redeveloped Impervious Pre‐Treatment (4.3.6.3) Has pretreatment been provided for non‐rooftop runoff?  Discharges to Cold or  Warm Water Fishery? Modified CN for WQ  (1.0ʺ) storm Note: Designers may use the Practice Drainage Area Runoff Calculator (second tab) for calculation of practice‐ specific runoff volumes for other treatment standards. Conveyance (4.3.5.2) Are inlets stabilized to ensure that non‐erosive conditions exist for at least the  1‐year, 24 hour storm? * Questions preceded by an asterix (*) may change based on previously entered values Have inlet pipes been set at the permanent pool or the base of the gravel bed? ↑Enter this value on the Standards  Compliance Workbook Is outlet elevation designed such that a sub‐surface water level is maintained  in the gravel wetland? If the gravel wetland is designed with an organic soil layer at the surface, have  vertical perforated riser pipes been provided to deliver stormwater  stormwater from the surface down to the gravel bed? Have the outfalls and the conveyance to the discharge point been designed  and protected to avoid erosion? Practice Type Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes NoYes Cold Warm NoYes NoYes NoYes Shallow surface wetland Gravel wetland Page 1 of 2 15 Response Attachment location 16 ft3 721 17 ft3 3602 18 ft3 4323 19* 20* 21 60.0%Yes 22 23 Response Attachment location 24 25 26 27 28 29 Does the planting plan specify that no woody vegetation >2 inches in diameter  shall be planted or allowed to grow on the dam, within 15 feet of the dam or  the toe of the embankment, or within 25 of a principal spillway outlet? What type of pretreatment is being  used? Has an aquatic been been provided that extends at least 5 feet inward from the  normal water edge and is no more than 18 inches deep? Has a setback been provided that extends 25 feet from the maximum design  water surface elevation of the practice? Are all deep pool areas of ≥ 4 feet depth with side slopes steeper than 4:1 (H:V)  surrounded by a safety bench with ≤6% slope  extending 10 feet outward from  the normal water edge to the toe of the side slope? Landscaping (4.3.6.5) Treatment (4.3.6.4) Has a minimum flow path at normal water level of 3:1 been provided? Attachment location: Indicate the specific location (i.e. appendix, page, plan sheet) where the requisite support documentation has  been provided within the application. What is the volume stored in the forebay or other volumetric pre‐ treatment if used? (minimum 10% WQV) What is the volume stored in the permanent pool? What is the total WQV stored at the normal water level (pre‐ treatment + permanent pool)? Does the pre‐treatment volume plus the permanent pool equal at least 50% of  the WQV? Has a planting plan been prepared showing how aquatic and terrestrial areas  will be stabilized, including plant species, plant locations, sources of plant  material and any required soil amendments? Are any donor organic soils used in the practice obtained from a source other  than natural wetlands? Is the remaining WQV provided  for by extended detention over 24 hours? Swale Filter Strip Forebay (10% WQv) Deep Sump Catch Basins Proprietary NoYes NoYes NoYes Yes No NoYes NoYes NoYes NoYes NoYes NoYes Page 2 of 2 Version: 1/29/2018 Project Name:Hillside @ OʹBrien Farm Phase2 Discharge Point: Treatment Wetland # Practice Drainage Area For Permit  Coverage Not for Permit  Coverage Total to  Practice 1 Total Area (acres)9.800 0.000 9.800 2 3.050 0.000 3.050 3 0.000 0.000    WQV for  credit WQV not for  credit Total  WQV  4 WQV to practice 0.2696 0.0000 0.2696 90 5 2 6 2 Response Attachment location 7 8 9 10 11* 12* 13* Response Attachment location 14 Forebay New Impervious (acres) 7 5Treatment Wetlands (4.3.5) Has a low for orifice been provided to meet the the WQV and CPV extended  Has a liner designed in accordance with Section 4.3.5.2 been provided if the  infiltration rate exceed 0.05 inches per hour and the wetland is located above  Redeveloped Impervious Pre‐Treatment (4.3.6.3) Has pretreatment been provided for non‐rooftop runoff?  Discharges to Cold or  Warm Water Fishery? Modified CN for WQ  (1.0ʺ) storm Note: Designers may use the Practice Drainage Area Runoff Calculator (second tab) for calculation of practice‐ specific runoff volumes for other treatment standards. Conveyance (4.3.5.2) Are inlets stabilized to ensure that non‐erosive conditions exist for at least the  1‐year, 24 hour storm? * Questions preceded by an asterix (*) may change based on previously entered values Have inlet pipes been set at the permanent pool or the base of the gravel bed? ↑Enter this value on the Standards  Compliance Workbook Is outlet elevation designed such that a sub‐surface water level is maintained  in the gravel wetland? If the gravel wetland is designed with an organic soil layer at the surface, have  vertical perforated riser pipes been provided to deliver stormwater  stormwater from the surface down to the gravel bed? Have the outfalls and the conveyance to the discharge point been designed  and protected to avoid erosion? Practice Type Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes NoYes Cold Warm NoYes NoYes NoYes Shallow surface wetland Gravel wetland Page 1 of 2 15 Response Attachment location 16 ft3 1174 17 ft3 5871 18 ft3 7045 19* 20* 21 60.0%Yes 22 23 Response Attachment location 24 25 26 27 28 29 Does the planting plan specify that no woody vegetation >2 inches in diameter  shall be planted or allowed to grow on the dam, within 15 feet of the dam or  the toe of the embankment, or within 25 of a principal spillway outlet? What type of pretreatment is being  used? Has an aquatic been been provided that extends at least 5 feet inward from the  normal water edge and is no more than 18 inches deep? Has a setback been provided that extends 25 feet from the maximum design  water surface elevation of the practice? Are all deep pool areas of ≥ 4 feet depth with side slopes steeper than 4:1 (H:V)  surrounded by a safety bench with ≤6% slope  extending 10 feet outward from  the normal water edge to the toe of the side slope? Landscaping (4.3.6.5) Treatment (4.3.6.4) Has a minimum flow path at normal water level of 3:1 been provided? Attachment location: Indicate the specific location (i.e. appendix, page, plan sheet) where the requisite support documentation has  been provided within the application. What is the volume stored in the forebay or other volumetric pre‐ treatment if used? (minimum 10% WQV) What is the volume stored in the permanent pool? What is the total WQV stored at the normal water level (pre‐ treatment + permanent pool)? Does the pre‐treatment volume plus the permanent pool equal at least 50% of  the WQV? Has a planting plan been prepared showing how aquatic and terrestrial areas  will be stabilized, including plant species, plant locations, sources of plant  material and any required soil amendments? Are any donor organic soils used in the practice obtained from a source other  than natural wetlands? Is the remaining WQV provided  for by extended detention over 24 hours? Swale Filter Strip Forebay (10% WQv) Deep Sump Catch Basins Proprietary NoYes NoYes NoYes Yes No NoYes NoYes NoYes NoYes NoYes NoYes Page 2 of 2 Version: 1/29/2018 Project Name:Hillside @ OʹBrien Farm Phase2 Discharge Point: Treatment Wetland # Practice Drainage Area For Permit  Coverage Not for Permit  Coverage Total to  Practice 1 Total Area (acres)9.180 0.000 9.180 2 4.530 0.000 4.530 3 0.000 0.000    WQV for  credit WQV not for  credit Total  WQV  4 WQV to practice 0.3780 0.0000 0.3780 94 5 2 6 2 Response Attachment location 7 8 9 10 11* 12* 13* Response Attachment location 14 Forebay ↑Enter this value on the Standards  Compliance Workbook Is outlet elevation designed such that a sub‐surface water level is maintained  in the gravel wetland? If the gravel wetland is designed with an organic soil layer at the surface, have  vertical perforated riser pipes been provided to deliver stormwater  stormwater from the surface down to the gravel bed? Have the outfalls and the conveyance to the discharge point been designed  and protected to avoid erosion? Practice Type Discharges to Cold or  Warm Water Fishery? Modified CN for WQ  (1.0ʺ) storm Note: Designers may use the Practice Drainage Area Runoff Calculator (second tab) for calculation of practice‐ specific runoff volumes for other treatment standards. Conveyance (4.3.5.2) Are inlets stabilized to ensure that non‐erosive conditions exist for at least the  1‐year, 24 hour storm? * Questions preceded by an asterix (*) may change based on previously entered values Have inlet pipes been set at the permanent pool or the base of the gravel bed? New Impervious (acres) 8 6Treatment Wetlands (4.3.5) Redeveloped Impervious Has a low for orifice been provided to meet the the WQV and CPV extended  Has a liner designed in accordance with Section 4.3.5.2 been provided if the  infiltration rate exceed 0.05 inches per hour and the wetland is located above  Pre‐Treatment (4.3.6.3) Has pretreatment been provided for non‐rooftop runoff?  Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes NoYes Cold Warm NoYes NoYes NoYes Shallow surface wetland Gravel wetland Page 1 of 2 15 Response Attachment location 16 ft3 1646 17 ft3 8232 18 ft3 9878 19* 20* 21 60.0%Yes 22 23 Response Attachment location 24 25 26 27 28 29 Attachment location: Indicate the specific location (i.e. appendix, page, plan sheet) where the requisite support documentation has  been provided within the application. What is the volume stored in the forebay or other volumetric pre‐ treatment if used? (minimum 10% WQV) What is the volume stored in the permanent pool? What is the total WQV stored at the normal water level (pre‐ treatment + permanent pool)? Does the pre‐treatment volume plus the permanent pool equal at least 50% of  the WQV? Has a planting plan been prepared showing how aquatic and terrestrial areas  will be stabilized, including plant species, plant locations, sources of plant  material and any required soil amendments? Are any donor organic soils used in the practice obtained from a source other  than natural wetlands? Is the remaining WQV provided  for by extended detention over 24 hours? Does the planting plan specify that no woody vegetation >2 inches in diameter  shall be planted or allowed to grow on the dam, within 15 feet of the dam or  the toe of the embankment, or within 25 of a principal spillway outlet? What type of pretreatment is being  used? Has an aquatic been been provided that extends at least 5 feet inward from the  normal water edge and is no more than 18 inches deep? Has a setback been provided that extends 25 feet from the maximum design  water surface elevation of the practice? Are all deep pool areas of ≥ 4 feet depth with side slopes steeper than 4:1 (H:V)  surrounded by a safety bench with ≤6% slope  extending 10 feet outward from  the normal water edge to the toe of the side slope? Landscaping (4.3.6.5) Treatment (4.3.6.4) Has a minimum flow path at normal water level of 3:1 been provided? Swale Filter Strip Forebay (10% WQv) Deep Sump Catch Basins Proprietary NoYes NoYes NoYes Yes No NoYes NoYes NoYes NoYes NoYes NoYes Page 2 of 2 Version: 1/29/2018 Project Name:Hillside @ OʹBrien Farm Phase2 Discharge Point: Treatment Wetland # Practice Drainage Area For Permit  Coverage Not for Permit  Coverage Total to  Practice 1 Total Area (acres)2.140 0.000 2.140 2 1.080 0.000 1.080 3 0.000 0.000    WQV for  credit WQV not for  credit Total  WQV  4 WQV to practice 0.0899 0.0000 0.0899 94 5 2 6 2 Response Attachment location 7 8 9 10 11* 12* 13* Response Attachment location 14 Forebay New Impervious (acres) 9 7Treatment Wetlands (4.3.5) Has a low for orifice been provided to meet the the WQV and CPV extended  Has a liner designed in accordance with Section 4.3.5.2 been provided if the  infiltration rate exceed 0.05 inches per hour and the wetland is located above  Redeveloped Impervious Pre‐Treatment (4.3.6.3) Has pretreatment been provided for non‐rooftop runoff?  Discharges to Cold or  Warm Water Fishery? Modified CN for WQ  (1.0ʺ) storm Note: Designers may use the Practice Drainage Area Runoff Calculator (second tab) for calculation of practice‐ specific runoff volumes for other treatment standards. Conveyance (4.3.5.2) Are inlets stabilized to ensure that non‐erosive conditions exist for at least the  1‐year, 24 hour storm? * Questions preceded by an asterix (*) may change based on previously entered values Have inlet pipes been set at the permanent pool or the base of the gravel bed? ↑Enter this value on the Standards  Compliance Workbook Is outlet elevation designed such that a sub‐surface water level is maintained  in the gravel wetland? If the gravel wetland is designed with an organic soil layer at the surface, have  vertical perforated riser pipes been provided to deliver stormwater  stormwater from the surface down to the gravel bed? Have the outfalls and the conveyance to the discharge point been designed  and protected to avoid erosion? Practice Type Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes NoYes Cold Warm NoYes NoYes NoYes Shallow surface wetland Gravel wetland Page 1 of 2 15 Response Attachment location 16 ft3 392 17 ft3 1958 18 ft3 2350 19* 20* 21 60.0%Yes 22 23 Response Attachment location 24 25 26 27 28 29 Does the planting plan specify that no woody vegetation >2 inches in diameter  shall be planted or allowed to grow on the dam, within 15 feet of the dam or  the toe of the embankment, or within 25 of a principal spillway outlet? What type of pretreatment is being  used? Has an aquatic been been provided that extends at least 5 feet inward from the  normal water edge and is no more than 18 inches deep? Has a setback been provided that extends 25 feet from the maximum design  water surface elevation of the practice? Are all deep pool areas of ≥ 4 feet depth with side slopes steeper than 4:1 (H:V)  surrounded by a safety bench with ≤6% slope  extending 10 feet outward from  the normal water edge to the toe of the side slope? Landscaping (4.3.6.5) Treatment (4.3.6.4) Has a minimum flow path at normal water level of 3:1 been provided? Attachment location: Indicate the specific location (i.e. appendix, page, plan sheet) where the requisite support documentation has  been provided within the application. What is the volume stored in the forebay or other volumetric pre‐ treatment if used? (minimum 10% WQV) What is the volume stored in the permanent pool? What is the total WQV stored at the normal water level (pre‐ treatment + permanent pool)? Does the pre‐treatment volume plus the permanent pool equal at least 50% of  the WQV? Has a planting plan been prepared showing how aquatic and terrestrial areas  will be stabilized, including plant species, plant locations, sources of plant  material and any required soil amendments? Are any donor organic soils used in the practice obtained from a source other  than natural wetlands? Is the remaining WQV provided  for by extended detention over 24 hours? Swale Filter Strip Forebay (10% WQv) Deep Sump Catch Basins Proprietary NoYes NoYes NoYes Yes No NoYes NoYes NoYes NoYes NoYes NoYes Page 2 of 2 Version: 1/29/2018 Project Name:Hillside @ OʹBrien Farm Phase2 Discharge Point: Treatment Wetland # Practice Drainage Area For Permit  Coverage Not for Permit  Coverage Total to  Practice 1 Total Area (acres)0.450 0.000 0.450 2 0.220 0.000 0.220 3 0.000 0.000    WQV for  credit WQV not for  credit Total  WQV  4 WQV to practice 0.0184 0.0000 0.0184 94 5 2 6 2 Response Attachment location 7 8 9 10 11* 12* 13* Response Attachment location 14 Forebay ↑Enter this value on the Standards  Compliance Workbook Is outlet elevation designed such that a sub‐surface water level is maintained  in the gravel wetland? If the gravel wetland is designed with an organic soil layer at the surface, have  vertical perforated riser pipes been provided to deliver stormwater  stormwater from the surface down to the gravel bed? Have the outfalls and the conveyance to the discharge point been designed  and protected to avoid erosion? Practice Type Discharges to Cold or  Warm Water Fishery? Modified CN for WQ  (1.0ʺ) storm Note: Designers may use the Practice Drainage Area Runoff Calculator (second tab) for calculation of practice‐ specific runoff volumes for other treatment standards. Conveyance (4.3.5.2) Are inlets stabilized to ensure that non‐erosive conditions exist for at least the  1‐year, 24 hour storm? * Questions preceded by an asterix (*) may change based on previously entered values Have inlet pipes been set at the permanent pool or the base of the gravel bed? New Impervious (acres) 6 8Treatment Wetlands (4.3.5) Redeveloped Impervious Has a low for orifice been provided to meet the the WQV and CPV extended  Has a liner designed in accordance with Section 4.3.5.2 been provided if the  infiltration rate exceed 0.05 inches per hour and the wetland is located above  Pre‐Treatment (4.3.6.3) Has pretreatment been provided for non‐rooftop runoff?  Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes NoYes Cold Warm NoYes NoYes NoYes Shallow surface wetland Gravel wetland Page 1 of 2 15 Response Attachment location 16 ft3 81 17 ft3 401 18 ft3 482 19* 20* 21 60.2%Yes 22 23 Response Attachment location 24 25 26 27 28 29 Attachment location: Indicate the specific location (i.e. appendix, page, plan sheet) where the requisite support documentation has  been provided within the application. What is the volume stored in the forebay or other volumetric pre‐ treatment if used? (minimum 10% WQV) What is the volume stored in the permanent pool? What is the total WQV stored at the normal water level (pre‐ treatment + permanent pool)? Does the pre‐treatment volume plus the permanent pool equal at least 50% of  the WQV? Has a planting plan been prepared showing how aquatic and terrestrial areas  will be stabilized, including plant species, plant locations, sources of plant  material and any required soil amendments? Are any donor organic soils used in the practice obtained from a source other  than natural wetlands? Is the remaining WQV provided  for by extended detention over 24 hours? Does the planting plan specify that no woody vegetation >2 inches in diameter  shall be planted or allowed to grow on the dam, within 15 feet of the dam or  the toe of the embankment, or within 25 of a principal spillway outlet? What type of pretreatment is being  used? Has an aquatic been been provided that extends at least 5 feet inward from the  normal water edge and is no more than 18 inches deep? Has a setback been provided that extends 25 feet from the maximum design  water surface elevation of the practice? Are all deep pool areas of ≥ 4 feet depth with side slopes steeper than 4:1 (H:V)  surrounded by a safety bench with ≤6% slope  extending 10 feet outward from  the normal water edge to the toe of the side slope? Landscaping (4.3.6.5) Treatment (4.3.6.4) Has a minimum flow path at normal water level of 3:1 been provided? Swale Filter Strip Forebay (10% WQv) Deep Sump Catch Basins Proprietary NoYes NoYes NoYes Yes No NoYes NoYes NoYes NoYes NoYes NoYes Page 2 of 2 Version: 1/29/2018 Project Name: Discharge Point: Treatment Wetland # Practice Drainage Area For Permit  Coverage Not for Permit  Coverage Total to  Practice 1 Total Area (acres)3.750 0.000 3.750 2 2.430 0.000 2.430 3 0.000 0.000 0.000 WQV for  credit WQV not for  credit Total  WQV  4 WQV to practice 0.1979 0.0000 0.1979 96 5 2 6 2 Response Attachment location 7 8 9 10 11* 12* 13* Response Attachment location 14 Forebay ↑Enter this value on the Standards  Compliance Workbook Is outlet elevation designed such that a sub‐surface water level is maintained  in the gravel wetland? If the gravel wetland is designed with an organic soil layer at the surface, have  vertical perforated riser pipes been provided to deliver stormwater  stormwater from the surface down to the gravel bed? Have the outfalls and the conveyance to the discharge point been designed  and protected to avoid erosion? Practice Type Redeveloped Impervious Pre‐Treatment (4.3.6.3) Has pretreatment been provided for non‐rooftop runoff?  Discharges to Cold or  Warm Water Fishery? Modified CN for WQ  (1.0ʺ) storm Note: Designers may use the Practice Drainage Area Runoff Calculator (second tab) for calculation of practice‐ specific runoff volumes for other treatment standards. Conveyance (4.3.5.2) Are inlets stabilized to ensure that non‐erosive conditions exist for at least the  1‐year, 24 hour storm? * Questions preceded by an asterix (*) may change based on previously entered values Have inlet pipes been set at the permanent pool or the base of the gravel bed? New Impervious (acres) Hillside @ OʹBrien Farm Phase2 4 9Treatment Wetlands (4.3.5) Has a low for orifice been provided to meet the the WQV and CPV extended  Has a liner designed in accordance with Section 4.3.5.2 been provided if the  infiltration rate exceed 0.05 inches per hour and the wetland is located above  Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes NoYes Cold Warm NoYes NoYes NoYes Shallow surface wetland Gravel wetland Page 1 of 2 15 Response Attachment location 16 ft3 862 17 ft3 4310 18 ft3 5172 19* 20* 21 60.0%Yes 22 23 Response Attachment location 24 25 26 27 28 29 Attachment location: Indicate the specific location (i.e. appendix, page, plan sheet) where the requisite support documentation has  been provided within the application. What is the volume stored in the forebay or other volumetric pre‐ treatment if used? (minimum 10% WQV) What is the volume stored in the permanent pool? What is the total WQV stored at the normal water level (pre‐ treatment + permanent pool)? Does the pre‐treatment volume plus the permanent pool equal at least 50% of  the WQV? Has a planting plan been prepared showing how aquatic and terrestrial areas  will be stabilized, including plant species, plant locations, sources of plant  material and any required soil amendments? Are any donor organic soils used in the practice obtained from a source other  than natural wetlands? Is the remaining WQV provided  for by extended detention over 24 hours? Are all deep pool areas of ≥ 4 feet depth with side slopes steeper than 4:1 (H:V)  surrounded by a safety bench with ≤6% slope  extending 10 feet outward from  the normal water edge to the toe of the side slope? Landscaping (4.3.6.5) Treatment (4.3.6.4) Has a minimum flow path at normal water level of 3:1 been provided? Does the planting plan specify that no woody vegetation >2 inches in diameter  shall be planted or allowed to grow on the dam, within 15 feet of the dam or  the toe of the embankment, or within 25 of a principal spillway outlet? What type of pretreatment is being  used? Has an aquatic been been provided that extends at least 5 feet inward from the  normal water edge and is no more than 18 inches deep? Has a setback been provided that extends 25 feet from the maximum design  water surface elevation of the practice? Swale Filter Strip Forebay (10% WQv) Deep Sump Catch Basins Proprietary NoYes NoYes NoYes Yes No NoYes NoYes NoYes NoYes NoYes NoYes Page 2 of 2 P: (802) 878-0375 | email@krebsandlansing.com August 13, 2020 Jay Nadeau Retail Superintendent Champlain Water District 403 Queen City Park Road South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Hillside Phase 2 Kennedy Drive, Two Brothers Drive, and O’Brien Farm Road South Burlington, Vermont Dear Jay, As part of O’Brien Brothers request for Preliminary Water Allocation for the Hillside Phase 2 project, we offer the below summary of potable water supply flows: Lot # Total 4 Bedroom Total 3 Bedroom Total Units Total Bedrooms Base Design Flow @ 150 GPD/BR Design Flow after 10% Reduction for Water Saving Devices (GPD) 16 18 0 18 72 10800 9720 20 18 8 26 96 14400 12960 30 21 0 21 84 12600 11340 31 24 0 24 96 14400 12960 33 10 0 10 40 6000 5400 34 11 0 11 44 6600 5940 35 3 0 3 12 1800 1620 36 5 0 5 20 3000 2700 37 11 0 11 44 6600 5940 129 SubTotal 68580 Lot # Total Club Users Base Design Flow @ 10 GPD/user Design Flow after 10% Reduction for Water Saving Devices (GPD) 32 25 250 225 TOTAL 68805 Jay Nadeau- South Burlington Water Department Hillside Phase 2 August 13, 2020 PAGE [ 2 ] We are requesting a total water supply allocation of 68,805 gallons/day at this time. Please contact us with any questions or comments. Best Regards, Scott Homsted, P.E. cc: Andrew Gill 19182\ Ph 2 Preliminary Allocation Request Gilman & Briggs Environmental, Inc. 1 Conti Circle, Suite 5 Barre, Vermont 05641 Tel: (802) 479-7480; FAX: (802) 476-7018 team@gbevt.com 11 June 2020 Andrew Gill O’Brien Brothers 1855 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Andrew, This is to summarize our findings at the O’Brien Home Farm site during fieldwork on 8 October 2019. Arthur Gilman and I visited the site to investigate environmental resources, to include wetlands, wildlife habitat, and rare, threatened and endangered species. Our work encompassed the area from near the existing barn off Old Farm Road down slope to the east, eventually along the southern property line to the SE corner of the parcel, then northerly, delineating wetlands along the eastern margin of the property. Wetland areas along the northern side of the property were then delineated, including low spots in fields near Kimball Avenue and a long riparian wetland on a tributary stream to Potash Brook that is culverted under the street. Wetlands associated with Potash Brook and those along tributary streams near Kimball Avenue are considered Class II wetlands protected under provisions in the Vermont Wetland Rules. The borders of these wetlands were flagged so that development plans can avoid them and any impact to them and their associated buffer zones. Provided development does not disturb the wetlands or their associated buffers, their functions and values will remain intact. Smaller isolated wetlands in wet meadows near Kimball Avenue that are not contiguous to Class II wetlands and do not meet the presumptions in Section 4.6 of the Rules would be Class III. These may, however, fall under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. These Class III wetlands were also flagged so that development plans can account for them as appropriate. Although all undeveloped land at the project site may be used by wildlife at some level, areas that rise to significance (i.e., they demonstrate diversity of community and structure that can support a variety of wildlife species) are concentrated in forested areas along Potash Brook at the eastern margin, particularly low mixed woods at the toe-of-slope. Much of these areas are included in the buffers associated with wetlands and the Brook and therefore will remain unimpacted by the proposed development. Open fields, especially those that have been managed as hayfields for decades, offer limited cover for wildlife, usually limited to mice, other small rodents and some grassland songbirds Although fields may be used as feeding habitat by such species as turkeys and deer, and also by rodent predators, such areas do not constitute core habitat. Forest cover is primarily found in two areas of the property. The wooded area on the ridge between open fields and the stream is dominated by mature hemlock, with little or no understory community; as such, it has low diversity for wildlife habitat. Other scrub/wooded or shrub areas on the project site (such as the small knoll adjacent to Kimball Avenue) provide habitat for species common to suburban habitats near human activity (particularly near Old Farm Road and the heavily traveled Kimball Avenue), these species would include turkeys, rabbits, skunks, raccoons and other common animals. There was no evidence of large mammals, however transient deer may visit the property. Given that these species are adapted to living in suburban areas, and are relatively common in South Burlington, it can be expected that they will continue to use available habitats even with development on other sections of the property. The woodland along the eastern side of the property is part of a cluster of woodlots along Potash Brook, hemmed in by commercial development along Kimball Avenue to the east, along Williston Road to the north, and by Interstate 89 to the south. It can be expected that wildlife utilizing this area consists primarily of resident species rather than species requiring extensive non-fragmented habitats. These fragmented wooded patches are not included as a “Habitat Block” in the ANR Natural Resource Atlas, even though nearby but disconnected woodlots to the north, east and west are included, and even these are ranked as low priority (at level 2 out of 10). The presence of non-resident transient species is related to their ability to travel freely due to the need for a fairly large territory. This freedom of movement is already limited in this area and should not be encouraged in proximity to heavily traveled highways and other major road networks where human/wildlife interactions result in frequent wildlife mortality. While animals naturally shy away from such areas, the volume of vehicular traffic already present in this area poses a threat to transient species. No rare, threatened or endangered species are indicated on the ANR Natural Resource Atlas for this area. None were identified during our fieldwork, nor are there specialized habitats on the property that are likely to support such species. This field evaluation found no evidence of any rare or irreplaceable wildlife communities or species on the Project site, nor was there evidence of significant environmental resources other than wetlands and stream buffers which have been flagged and will be avoided. Prudent development on this property will not have undue adverse impacts on any significant habitats, and will not involve removal of any high priority forest block mapped by the Agency of Natural Resources or those included in the recent Arrowwood Environmental mapping commissioned by the City of South Burlington.. Sincerely, Errol C. Briggs O'Brien Home Farm Subdivision Phase II Footprint Lot Floor Plan Matrix Row #Lot # (Main Lot)Footprint # SF-1 SF-2 SF-3 SF-4 SF-5 SF-6 SF-7 Trillium Lupine Daisy Aster Primrose Clover Daylilly Bluebell TH1-1 TH2-1 TH2-2 TH2-3 1 16 1 X X X X 2 16 2 X X X X 3 16 3 X X X X 4 16 4 X X X X 5 16 5 X X X X 6 16 6 X X X X 7 16 7 X X X X 8 16 8 X X X X 9 16 9 X X X X 10 16 10 X X X X 11 16 11 X X X X 12 16 12 X X X X 13 16 13 X X X X 14 16 14 X X X X 15 16 15 X X X X X X X X 16 16 16 X X X X X X X X 17 16 17 X X X X X X X X 18 16 18 X X X X X X X X 19 20 1 X X X 20 20 2 X 21 20 3 X X X 22 20 4 X X X 23 20 5 X 24 20 6 X X X 25 20 7 X X X 26 20 8 X 27 20 9 X X X 28 20 10 X X X 29 20 11 X 30 20 12 X X X 31 20 13 X X X 32 20 14 X X X 33 20 15 X X X 34 20 16 X 35 20 17 X X X 36 20 18 X X X 37 20 19 X 38 20 20 X X X 39 20 21 X X X 40 20 22 X 41 20 23 X X X 42 20 24 X X X 43 20 25 X 44 20 26 X X X 45 30 1 X X X 46 30 2 X X X 47 30 3 X X X 48 30 4 X X X 49 30 5 X X X 50 30 6 X X X 51 30 7 X X X 52 30 8 X X X 53 30 9 X X X 54 30 10 X X X 55 30 11 X X X 56 30 12 X X X 57 30 13 X X 58 30 14 X X 59 30 15 X X 60 30 16 X X 61 30 17 X X 62 30 18 X X 63 30 19 X X 64 30 20 X X 65 30 21 X X 66 31 1 X X X X X X X X 67 31 2 X X X X X X X X 68 31 3 X X X X X X X X 69 31 4 X X X X X X X X 70 31 5 X X X X X X X X 71 31 6 X X X X X X X X 72 31 7 X X X X X X X X 73 31 8 X X 74 31 9 X X 75 31 10 X X 76 31 11 X X 77 31 12 X X 78 31 13 X X X X X X X X 79 31 14 X X X X X X X X 80 31 15 X X X X X X X X 81 31 16 X X X X X X X X 82 31 17 X X X X X X X X 83 31 18 X X X X X X X X 84 31 19 X X X X X X X X 85 31 20 X X X X X X X X 86 31 21 X X X X X X X X 87 31 22 X X X X X X X X 88 31 23 X X X X X X X X 89 31 24 X X X X X X X X 90 33 1 X X X 91 33 2 X X X 92 33 3 X X X 93 33 4 X X X 94 33 5 X X X 95 33 6 X X X 96 33 7 X X X 97 33 8 X X X 98 33 9 X X X 99 33 10 X X X 100 34 1 X X X X X X X X 101 34 2 X X X X X X X X 102 34 3 X X X X X X X X 103 34 4 X X X X X X X X 104 34 5 X X X X X X X X 105 34 6 X X X X X X X X 106 34 7 X X X X X X X X 107 34 8 X X X X X X X X 108 34 9 X X X X 109 34 10 X X X X 110 34 11 X X X X 111 35 1 X X X X X X X 112 35 2 X X X X X X X 113 35 3 X X X X X X X 114 36 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 115 36 2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 116 36 3 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 117 36 4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 118 36 5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 119 37 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 120 37 2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 121 37 3 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 122 37 4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 123 37 5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 124 37 6 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 125 37 7 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 126 37 8 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 127 37 9 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 128 37 10 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 129 37 11 X X X X X X X X X X X X X BSB Design, Inc. 4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208 West Des Moines, IA 50266 u BSB Design, Inc. 4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208 West Des Moines, IA 50266 e BSB Design, Inc. 4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208 West Des Moines, IA 50266 South Bur BSB Design, Inc. 4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208 West Des Moines, IA 50266 BSB Design, Inc. 4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208 West Des Moines, IA 50266 South Burlington, BSB Design, Inc. 4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208 West Des Moines, IA 50266 BSB Design, Inc. 4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208 West Des Moines, IA 50266 BSB Design, Inc. 4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208 West Des Moines, IA 50266 7 BSB Design, Inc. 4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208 West Des Moines, IA 50266 South Burlington, BSB Design, Inc. 4601 Westown Pkwy., Suite 208 West Des Moines, IA 50266 JOB NO:DRAWN:PROJ MGR:CHECKED:ISSUE DATE:O'Brien Home Farm Single Family Downhill LotSouth Burlington, VT 05403JSJMJMA-1--/--/--PLAN ELEVATIONSTRILLIUMREVISIONSSCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" (22x34)1Main FloorSCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" (22x34)2Front Elevation - ASCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" (22x34)3Front Elevation - B JOB NO:DRAWN:PROJ MGR:CHECKED:ISSUE DATE:O'Brien Home Farm Single Family Downhill LotSouth Burlington, VermontJSJMJMA-1--/--/--O'Brien Brothers AgencyLUPINEREVISIONSSCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"1Main Floor PlanSCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"2Front Elevation - ASCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"3Front Elevation - B DWJOB NO:DRAWN:PROJ MGR:CHECKED:ISSUE DATE:O'Brien Home Farm Single Family Downhill LotSouth Burlington, VT 05403JSJMJMA-1--/--/--DAISYREVISIONSSCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" (22x34)1Main Floor PlanSCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" (22x34)2Front Elevation - ASCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" (22x34)3Front Elevation - B A-13A-14JOB NO:DRAWN:PROJ MGR:CHECKED:ISSUE DATE:O'Brien Home Farm Single Family Downhill LotSouth Burlington, VermontJSJMJMA-1--/--/--ASTERREVISIONSSCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" (22x34)1Main Floor PlanSCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" (22x34)2Upper Floor PlanSCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" (22x34)3Front Elevation - ASCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" (22x34)4Front Elevation - B JOB NO:DRAWN:PROJ MGR:CHECKED:ISSUE DATE:O'Brien Home Farm Single Family Downhill LotSouth Burlington, VermontJSJMJMA-1--/--/--O'Brien Brothers AgencyLUPINEREVISIONSSCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"1Main Floor PlanSCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"2Upper Floor PlanSCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"3Front Elevation - ASCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"4Front Elevation - B DWJOB NO:DRAWN:PROJ MGR:CHECKED:ISSUE DATE:O'Brien Home Farm Single Family Downhill LotSouth Burlington, VermontJSJMJMA-1--/--/--O'Brien Brothers AgencyCloverREVISIONSSCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" (22x34)1Main Floor PlanSCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" (22x34)2Upper Floor PlanSCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" (22x34)3Front Elevation - ASCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" (22x34)4Front Elevation - B REF.DWFDJOB NO:DRAWN:PROJ MGR:CHECKED:ISSUE DATE:O'Brien Home Farm Single Family Uphill LotSouth Burlington, VermontAuthorDesignerCheckerA-104/19/17DAYLILYREVISIONSSCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" (22x34)2Main Floor PlanSCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" (22x34)1Lower Level Floor PlanSCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" (22x34)4Front Elevation - BSCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" (22x34)3Front Elevation - A FDJOB NO:DRAWN:PROJ MGR:CHECKED:ISSUE DATE:O'Brien Home Farm Single Family Uphill LotSouth Burlington, VermontJSJMJMA-1--/--/--BluebellREVISIONSSCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"1Lower Level Floor PlanSCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"2Main Floor PlanSCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"3Front Elevation - ASCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"4Front Elevation - B New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.020 New 8" PVC Sewer s=0.018 New 6" PVC SDR 35 san i t a r y sewer stub , c a p , and witnes s New 6" PVC SDR 35 san i t a r y sewer stub, c a p , and witnes s Lot 38 4.41 ac Lot 39 4.52 ac New Hydrant assembly New CB Rim 333.1 Inv. out 32 8 . 9 New 15" HDPENew CB Rim 336.2 Inv. out 33 1 . 9 5 New CB Rim 340.75 New CB Rim 340.75 Inv. out 33 6 . 0 Inv. in 342. 7 3 New CB Rim 344.78 New CB Rim 344.78 Inv. out 34 0 . 0 3 New 8" wat e r stub with c a p , trhust bloc k a n d witness New 8" tee w i t h valve and th r u s t block New 8" wat e r stub with c a p , trhust bloc k a n d witness New 8" tee w i t h valve and t h r u s t block New 8" tee with valve a n d thrust bloc k Kimball Avenue Road HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-19 SITE PLAN - Rock Extraction & Crushing Area Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II Temporary gravel pad for rock crushing operations Area of re-grading and rock extraction Area of re-grading and rock extraction I/C ROAD KIMBALL AVENUE NOTES: 1. DEMARCATION TAPE (OR "CONSTRUCTION DEMARCATION") SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITIES. 2. DEMARCATION TAPE TO BE INSTALLED AS PROTECTION TO LARGE AREAS OF EXISTING WOODLAND . THIS BARRIER TAPE IS HIGH VISIBILITY FIBER-GLASS TAPE, MINIMUM 3" IN WIDTH COMMONLY USED IN SKI AREAS FOR DEMARCATING CLOSED AREAS. BARRIER TAPE AND ROPE SHOULD BE ATTACHED TO STAKES, AT A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 4 FEET FROM THE GROUND.4' MIN.WOOD STAKES DRIVEN ON OUTSIDE OF FENCE ORANGE POLYESTER MESH WEBBING BY WORLD CUP SUPPLY OR APPROVED EQUAL. (3" WIDE MIN.) TO BE INSTALLED AT EDGE OF TREE LINE, SEE SHEET L000 A A SECTION A-A WOOD STAKE ORANGE POLYESTER MESH WEBBING BY WORLD CUP SUPPLY OR APPROVED EQUAL (3" WIDE MIN.) FASTEN FENCE TO STAKE NOTES: 1. MINIMUM 1 TO 2 ROWS OF MESH BARRIER TAPE TO BE INSTALLED ALONG WOODLAND PERIMETER AS INDICATED IN PLAN. 2. EACH ROW OF BARRIE TAPE TO BE 3" WIDE MINIMUM. 3. BARRIER TAPE TO BE ORANGE. 4. SECURE BARRIER TAPE TO STAKES WITHJ BOTTOM ROW AT 4' DISTANCE FROM GROUND SURFACE (MINIMUM). 5. MAINTAIN AND REPLACE AS NEEDED. REMOVE AT COMPLETION OF PROJECT. # DESCRIPTION 1 DESCRIPTION 2 00.00.0000 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE WAGNER HODGSON © WHLA ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2020 VT 802.864.0010 JOB NO. SCALE: DRAWN BY: DATE: wagnerhodgson.comNY518.567.1791 NO.DESCRIPTION DATE HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM PHASE II SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 039 430 Warren Street Hudson, NY 12534 PLOT DATE: 7/23/2020 9:40 AMTREE PROTECTION DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS AS SHOWN jfs 07.23.2020 L001 TREE PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS: 1. Locate and clearly identify trees to remain. Flag each trunk at 54 inches above the ground. 2. Protect tree root systems from damage caused by runoff or spillage of noxious materials while mixing, placing, or storing construction materials. Protect root systems from ponding, eroding, or excessive wetting caused by dewatering operations. TREE AND PLANT PROTECTION ZONES 1. Protection-Zone Fencing: Install protection-zone fencing at the Critical Root Radius - a distance of 1' per every inch diameter of tree diameter measured at DBH (diameter @ breast height). Install protection-zone fencing along edges of protection zones before materials or equipment are brought on site and construction operations begin in a manner that will prevent people and animals from easily entering protected area except by entrance gates. Construct fencing so as not to obstruct safe passage or visibility at vehicle intersections where fencing is located adjacent to pedestrian walkways or in close proximity to street intersections, drives or other vehicular circulation. a. Plastic Protection-Zone Fencing: Install to comply with manufacturer's written instructions. b. Posts: Set or drive posts into ground one-third the total height of the fence without concrete footings. Where a post is located on existing paving or concrete to remain, provide appropriate means of post support acceptable to Landscape Architect. 2. Maintain protection zones free of weeds and trash. 3. Repair or replace trees to remain or be relocated that are damaged by construction operations, in a manner approved by the Landscape Architect. a. Do not remove protection-zone fencing, even temporarily, to allow deliveries or equipment access through the protection zone. b. Temporary access is permitted subject to pre-approval in writing by arborist if a root buffer effective against soil compaction is constructed as directed by arborist. Maintain root buffer so long as access is permitted. ROOT PRUNING 1. Prune roots that are affected by temporary and permanent construction. Prune roots as follows: a. Cut roots manually by digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with sharp pruning instruments: do not break, tear, chop or slant the cuts. Do not use a backhoe or other equipment that rips, tears or pulls roots. b. Cut Ends: Do not paint cut root ends c. Temporarily support and protect roots from damage until t hey are permanently redirected and covered with soil. d. Cover exposed roots with burlap and water regularly. e. Backfill as soon as possible. 2. Root Pruning at Edge of Protection Zone: Prune roots flush with the edge of the protection zone, b y cleanly cutting all roots to the depth of the required excavation. 3. Root Pruning within Protection Zone: Clear and excavate by hand to the depth of the required excavation to minimize damage to root systems. use narrow-tine spading forks, comb soil to expose roots, and cleanly cut roots as close to excavation as possbile. CROWN PRUNING 1. Prune branches that are affected by temporary and permanent construction. Prune branches as follows: a. Prune trees to remain to compensate for root loss caused by damaging or cutting root system. Provide subsequent maintenance during Contract period as recommended by arborist. b. Pruning Standards: Prune trees according to ANSI A300 (Part1). c. Cut branches with sharp pruning instruments; do not break or chop. d, Do not apply pruning paint to wounds. 2. Chip removed branches and dispose of off-site. REGRADING 1. Lowering Grade: Where new finish grade is indicted below existing grade around trees, slope grade beyond the protection zone. Maintain existing grades within the protection zone. 2. Lowering Grade within Protection Zone: Where new finish grade is indicated below existing grade around trees, slope grade away from trees as recommended by arborist unless otherwise indicated. a. Root Pruning: Prune tree roots exposed by lowering the grade. Do not cut main lateral roots or taproots; cut only smaller roots. Cut roots as required for root pruning. 3. Raising Grade; Where new finish grade is indicated above existing grade around trees, slope grade beyond the protection zone. Maintain existing grades within the protection zone. NOTE: If Contractor fails to enforce tree protection measures, resulting in damage and loss of tree(s), Contractor shall replace tree(s) with a 4" caliper substitute at the Contractors Expense in addition to liquidated damages. EXISTING TREE TO BE PROTECTED 6' LENGTH WOODEN GRADE STAKES NOTE: NYLON ZIP TIES (3 PER POST) TO SECURE MESH TO TABS ON POST HIGH DENSITY POLYETHELENE 3200 PSI, ORANGE MESH WITH NOMINAL OPENINGS, 3 1/2" x 1 1/2" EXISTING GRADE TREE PROTECTION SIGN, MIN. 1' SQ. TO BE PLACED ON EACH SIDE OF FENCING OR EVERY 16' O.C. OF LINEAR FENCE. SECURE TO MESH WITH (4) NYLON ZIP TIES 4'-0" MIN.3'-0" MIN.2'-0"4'-0" TYP. 8'-0" MAX. INDIVIDUAL TREE PROTECTION FLAGGING - PROJECT DEMARCATION NTS DEMARCATION TAPE DETAIL FOR PROTECTION OF MASS AREAS OF EXISTING TREES NTS Hillside at O'Brien Farm Phase II Master Plan and PUD Area and Coverage Chart Zoning District Areas Per Sheet C-1 Date: 7/28/20 Zoning District Coverage Allowed in District Buildings Only. Coverage Allowed in District Combined R1* 18%30% C1LR 40%70% R12 40%60% IC 40%70% Zoning District Area of Land In Phase II Master Plan (includes adjustments to district lines shown at Sheet C-1) Area in Square Feet Existing Building Coverage Existing All Impervious Total Coverage Proposed Buildings Total Coverage Proposed Roads Combined Coverage Coverage Allowed Buildings Coverage Allowed All R1 1707552 11900 27230 288017 217564 505581 307359.36 512265.6 C1LR 914760 0 72688 72688 365904 640332 R12 52272 0 17063 17063 20908.8 31363.2 IC 1690128 0 41300 41300 676051.2 1183089.6 *Our understanding is that the Incluzionary Oridnance in effect allows for a 20% increase in coverage for accomodation of offset units provided. This coverage limit includes that 20% offset. 50' Wetland Se t b a c k Wetlan d A T y p e I I I 50' We t land Se tback Wetla n d B T y p e I I I 50' WetlandSetbackWetland C Type III Ne w E n d Sec t i o n Inv. 3 2 5 . 8 Ne w em e r g e n c y spi l l w a y Ne w E n d S e c t i o n Inv . 3 2 6 . 7 5 Ne w O u t l e t Str u c t u r e B . See d e t a i l . Ne w eme r g e n c y spill w a y Ne w O u t l e t Str u c t u r e C . See d e t a i l .NewstonebermNe w E n d S e c t i o n Inv . 3 2 9 . 5 Ne w r i p r a p spla s h p a d Rel o c a t e d C B # 6 8 A NE W R I M 3 4 6 . 8 Inv . i n 3 4 1 . 4 3 Inv . o u t 3 3 1 . 9 Ne w 1 8 " H D P E s = 0 . 0 0 5 Ne w r i p r a p dis p e r s a l p a d Gr a v e l W e t l a n d # 1 C e l l # 2 55' x 2 0 ' El e v . 3 2 6 . 5 Gr a v e l W e t l a n d # 1 C e l l # 1 55' x 2 0 ' El e v . 3 2 6 . 5 Gr a v e l W e t l a n d # 2 C e l l # 2 12 1 ' x 3 2 ' El e v . 3 3 1 . 0 Ne w C B Ri m 3 3 0 . 2 5 Inv. i n 3 2 6 . 9 7 Inv. o u t 3 2 6 . 8 7 Ne w E n d Sec t i o n Inv . 3 2 6 . 7 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 3 2 . 0 Inv . i n 3 2 7 . 8 Inv. o u t 3 2 7 . 7 Ne w C B Ri m 3 3 3 . 2 5 Inv . i n 3 2 8 . 2 2 Inv . o u t 3 2 8 . 1 2 Ne w C B Ri m 3 3 3 . 5 Inv . i n 3 2 8 . 5 Inv . o u t 3 2 8 . 4 Ne w C B Ri m 3 3 7 . 0 Inv . i n 3 3 2 . 2 5 Inv . o u t 3 3 2 . 1 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 4 3 . 4 5 Inv . o u t 3 3 9 . 2 Ne w C B Ri m 3 4 3 . 4 5 Inv . i n 3 3 8 . 9 Inv . o u t 3 3 8 . 8 Ne w C B Ri m 3 4 1 . 4 Inv . i n 3 3 6 . 6 5 Inv. o u t 3 3 6 . 5 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 4 3 . 0 Inv . i n 3 3 8 . 2 5 Inv. o u t 3 3 8 . 1 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 4 3 . 3 5 In v . i n 3 3 7 . 7 1 Inv. o u t 3 3 7 . 6 1 Ne w C B Ri m 3 4 5 . 0 Inv . i n 3 4 0 . 2 5 Inv. o u t 3 4 0 . 1 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 4 8 . 6 Inv . i n 3 4 4 . 3 5 Inv . o u t 3 4 4 . 2 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 4 8 . 9 Inv . i n 3 4 4 . 6 5 Inv. o u t 3 4 4 . 5 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 4 9 . 9 Inv . i n 3 4 4 . 4 9 Inv. o u t 3 4 4 . 3 9 Ne w C B Ri m 3 5 0 . 6 Inv. i n 3 4 5 . 8 5 Inv. o u t 3 4 5 . 6 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 4 7 . 1 Inv . i n 3 4 2 . 5 4 Inv. o u t 3 4 2 . 4 4 Ne w C B Ri m 3 4 7 . 0 Inv. i n 3 4 2 . 2 5 Inv . o u t 3 4 2 . 1 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 5 5 . 2 Inv . o u t 3 5 0 . 4 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 5 5 . 4 Inv . i n 3 5 0 . 1 5 Inv . o u t 3 5 0 . 0 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 5 8 . 2 Inv. i n 3 5 3 . 2 5 Inv. o u t 3 5 3 . 1 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 5 8 . 2 IIn v . o u t 3 5 3 . 4 5 Ne w T r a s h / Re c y l c i n g Ne w C B Ri m 3 6 7 . 0 Inv. o u t 3 6 3 . 2 Ne w C B Ri m 3 6 7 . 7 5 Inv . i n 3 6 3 . 0 Inv . o u t 3 6 2 . 9 Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 1 . 4 Inv. i n 3 6 6 . 6 5 Inv. o u t 3 6 6 . 5 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 1 . 3 Inv . i n 3 6 6 . 4 5 Inv. o u t 3 6 6 . 3 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 5 . 2 Inv . i n 3 7 0 . 4 5 Inv. o u t 3 7 0 . 3 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 8 . 0 Inv . i n 3 7 3 . 2 5 In v . o u t 3 7 3 . 1 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 8 . 1 IIn v . o u t 3 7 3 . 4 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 6 7 . 2 IIn v . o u t 3 6 2 . 8 2 Ne w C B Ri m 3 6 8 . 4 Inv . i n 3 6 2 . 7 2 IIn v . o u t 3 6 2 . 6 2 Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 2 . 5 Inv . i n 3 6 7 . 7 5 IIn v . o u t 3 6 7 . 6 5 Ne w 1 8 " E n d Sec t i o n Inv . 3 3 2 . 0 Ne w r i p r a p dis p e r s a l pa d Ne w C B Ri m 3 4 2 . 0 Inv . i n 3 3 6 . 6 Inv . o u t 3 3 6 . 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 4 2 . 9 Inv . i n 3 3 7 . 9 Inv . o u t 3 3 7 . 8 Ne w C B Ri m 3 4 8 . 0 Inv . i n 3 4 3 . 0 Inv . o u t 3 4 2 . 9 Ne w C B Ri m 3 4 8 . 1 Inv . i n 3 4 3 . 3 5 Inv. o u t 3 4 3 . 2 5 New 8" P V C S e w e r s=0.0066 New 8 " P V C S e w e r s=0. 0 0 6 6 Ne w s t r e e t ligh t ( t y p . ) Ne w s t r e e t ligh t ( t y p . ) Ne w s t r e e t lig h t ( t y p . ) Ne w s t r e e t ligh t ( t y p . ) Ne w 1 0 " PV C R o o f Dra i n Ne w 1 0 " PV C R o o f Dra i n Ne w 1 0 " PV C R o o f Dra i n Ne w 1 0 " PV C R o o f Dr a i n Sn o wSto r a g e Sno wSto r a g e Sno wSto r a g e Sn o w Sto r a g e Sno w Sto r a g e New Trash/Recylcing New Trash/ Recylcing Sn o wSto r a g e Sn o wSto r a g e Sn o w Sto r a g e Ne w Bik e Rac k Ne w Bik e Ra c k Ne w B i k e Rac k Ne wSto n e ret a i n i n g wall Ne w s t o n e ret a i n i n g wal l Gr a v e l W e t l a n d # 2 C e l l # 1 12 1 ' x 3 2 ' Ele v . 3 3 1 . 0 Ne w c o n c r e t e reta i n i n g wa l l Ne w 6 " D . I . C l 5 2 wa t e r s e r v i c e t o bui l d i n g . C o n n e c t t o Pha s e 1 s t u b . Co o r d i n a t e w i t h me c h a n i c a l p l a n s . Ne w 6 " D . I . C l 5 2 wa t e r s e r v i c e s t o bui l d i n g . C o n n e c t t o Ph a s e 1 s t u b w i t h t e e an d r e d u c e r . Coo r d i a n t e w i t h me c h a n i c a l p l a n s . Ne w 6 " D . I . C l 5 2 wa t e r s e r v i c e s t o bui l d i n g . C o n n e c t t o Pha s e 1 s t u b w i t h t e e and r e d u c e r . Co o r d i n a t e w i t h me c h a n i c a l p l a n s . Ne w S M h Ri m 3 4 2 . 4 Inv . i n 3 2 8 . 4 6 Inv . o u t 3 2 8 . 3 6 Ne w 6 " P V C S D R 3 5 san i t a r y s e w e r s e r v i c e to b u i l d i n g . C o n n e c t to P h a s e 1 s t u b . Co o r d i a n t e w i t h mec h a n i c a l p l a n s . Ne w 6 " P V C S D R 3 5 san i t a r y s e w e r s e r v i c e to b u i l d i n g . C o n n e c t to P h a s e 1 s t u b . Co o r d i a n t e w i t h me c h a n i c a l p l a n s . Co n v e r t 8 " P V C S D R 35 s a n i t a r y s e w e r inst a l l e d i n P h a s e 1 t o buil d i n g s e r v i c e . Co o r d i n a t e w i t h me c h a n i c a l p l a n s . Ne w 6 " P V C S D R 3 5 san i t a r y s e w e r s e r v i c e to b u i l d i n g . C o n n e c t to P h a s e 1 s t u b . Co o r d i n a t e w i t h me c h a n i c a l p l a n s . Ne w 6 " P V C S D R 3 5 san i t a r y s e w e r s e r v i c e to b u i l d i n g . C o n n e c t to P h a s e 1 s t u b . Co o r d i n a t e w i t h me c h a n i c a l p l a n s . Ne w 8 " x 8 " x 8" t e e , t h r u s t blo c k . Ne w6" D . I . wa t e r ser v i c e Ne w 6 " D . I . wa t e r s e r v i c e Ne w 8 " x 8 " x 8 " tee, t h r u s t b l o c k . Ne w 1 8 " HD P E s=0 . 0 0 5 Ne w 1 8 " HD P E Ne w 1 8 " HD P E s=0 . 0 0 5 New 18" HDPENe w 1 5 " H D P E Ne w 1 2 " H D P E New 15" H D P E New 1 2 " H D P E New 15" HDPENew 1 2 " H D P E New 1 2 " H D P E Ne w 1 5 " H D P E New 15 " HD P E Ne w 1 5 " H D P E Ne w 1 2 " H D P E New 15" HDPENew 12" HDPENew 12" HDPENew 12" HDPENew 1 2 " H D P E New 15" HDPE New 1 5 " H D P E New 15" HDPENew 15" HDPE New 1 5 " H D P E Ne w 1 5 " H D P E New 1 5" HDPENew 18" HDPENew 18" HDPENew 1 5 " HDPE Ne w 1 8 " H D P ENew 1 5" HD PE New 12"New 18" HDPENe w 1 8 " H D P E New Trash/ Recylcing Ne w C B Ri m 3 6 6 . 2 5 Inv . i n 3 6 1 . 8 Inv . o u t 3 6 1 . 7 Ne w C B Ri m 3 6 6 . 2 5 Inv. i n 3 6 2 . 0 Inv . o u t 3 6 1 . 9 Ne w C B Ri m 3 6 7 . 5 In v . i n 3 6 1 . 4 5 Inv . o u t 3 6 1 . 3 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 2 . 8 IIn v . o u t 3 6 8 . 0 5 s=0 . 0 7 2 s=0. 0 2 3 Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 1 Inv . i n 3 6 6 . 2 5 Inv. o u t 3 6 6 . 1 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 0 . 0 In v . i n 3 6 5 . 2 5 Inv . o u t 3 6 5 . 1 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 4 . 5 Inv . i n 3 6 9 . 7 5 In v . o u t 3 6 9 . 6 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 5 . 1 5 Inv. o u t 3 7 0 . 4 Ne w C B Ri m 3 5 2 . 2 Inv . i n 3 4 7 . 4 5 In v . o u t 3 4 7 . 3 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 5 2 . 7 5 Inv . i n 3 4 8 . 2 Inv. o u t 3 4 8 . 1 Ne w C B Ri m 3 5 2 . 7 5 Inv . i n 3 4 8 . 4 Inv. o u t 3 4 8 . 3 Ne w C B Ri m 3 5 3 . 5 Inv . i n 3 4 8 . 7 5 Inv. o u t 3 4 8 . 6 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 5 4 . 4 5 Inv . i n 3 4 9 . 7 Inv. o u t 3 4 9 . 6 Ne w C B Ri m 3 5 4 . 4 5 Inv . i n 3 4 9 . 7 Inv . o u t 3 4 9 . 6 Ne w C B Ri m 3 5 5 . 1 Inv . i n 3 5 0 . 3 5 Inv . o u t 3 5 0 . 2 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 6 1 . 0 Inv . o u t 3 5 6 . 2 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 6 2 . 0 Inv. i n 3 5 7 . 2 5 Inv. o u t 3 5 7 . 1 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 6 5 . 3 Inv . o u t 3 6 0 . 5 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 5 7 . 2 5 Inv . i n 3 5 2 . 5 Inv . o u t 3 5 2 . 4 Ne w C B Ri m 3 6 1 . 9 Inv . i n 3 5 6 . 4 5 Inv. o u t 3 5 6 . 3 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 6 5 . 8 Inv. i n 3 6 1 . 1 5 Inv . o u t 3 6 1 . 0 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 6 1 . 5 Inv. o u t 3 5 6 . 7 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 5 8 . 5 Inv . i n 3 5 3 . 7 5 Inv . o u t 3 5 3 . 6 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 6 2 . 6 Inv. i n 3 5 7 . 8 5 Inv. o u t 3 5 7 . 7 5 Ne w C B Ri m 3 6 6 . 4 Inv. i n 3 6 1 . 6 5 Inv . o u t 3 6 1 . 5 5 Ne w s t r e e t lig h t ( t y p . ) Ne w s t r e e t ligh t ( t y p . ) Ne w s t r e e t ligh t ( t y p . ) Ne w s t r e e t ligh t ( t y p . ) Ne w s t r e e t ligh t ( t y p . ) Ne w 1 0 " PV C R o o f Dra i n Ne w 1 0 " PV C R o o f Dr a i n Ne w 1 0 " PV C R o o f Dr a i n Ne w r i p r a p dis p e r s a l p a d Ne w E n d Sec t i o n Inv . 3 3 2 . 0 Sno wSto r a g e Sno wSto r a g e Sn o w Sto r a g e Ne w M a i l Bui l d i n g a n d Tr a s h / R e c y l c i n g Sn o wSto r a g e Sno wSto r a g e Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 2 . 8 Inv . i n 3 6 7 . 9 1 Inv . o u t 3 6 7 . 8 1 Inv . u d 3 6 8 . 6 6 Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 2 . 9 Inv. o u t 3 6 8 . 1 5 Inv . u d 3 6 8 . 9New 1 5 " HD P E s= 0 . 0 2 1 Ne w 8 "PVC S D R 3 5 s= 0 . 0 2 4 Ne w B i k e Ra c k Ne w B i k e Ra c k Ne w B i k e Ra c k Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 0 . 9 Inv. i n 3 6 6 . 1 5 In v . o u t 3 6 6 . 0 5 Inv . u d 3 6 6 . 9 Ne w C B Ri m 3 7 0 . 9 Inv . i n 3 6 5 . 9 Inv. o u t 3 6 5 . 8 Inv . u d 3 6 6 . 6 5 Ne w 6 " D . I . C l 5 2 wa t e r s e r v i c e t o buil d i n g . C o n n e c t t o Pha s e 1 s t u b . Co o r d i n a t e w i t h me c h a n i c a l p l a n s . Ne w g a t e val v e , c a p , stu b , t h r u s t blo c k , a n d wit n e s s f o r 8 " wa t e r m a i n . Ne w Hy d r a n t ass e m b l y Ne w 8 " x 8 " x 8 " tee, t h r u s t b l o c k an d g a t e v a l v e . Ne w 8 " w a t e r stu b w i t h c a p , trh u s t b l o c k a n d wit n e s s Ne w 6 " P V C S D R 3 5 sani t a r y s e w e r s e r v i c e to b u i l d i n g . C o n n e c t to P h a s e 1 s t u b . Co o r d i n a t e w i t h me c h a n i c a l p l a n s . Ne w S M H Ri m 3 7 4 . 2 0 Inv . i n 3 6 8 . 5 3 Inv. o u t 3 6 8 . 4 3New 12" HDPENew 15" HDPE Ne w 1 5" HD P ENew 1 5" HDPENew 15" HDP E New 15" HDPE New 15" HDPENew 12" HDPENew 12" HDPENew 1 2 " H D P E New 1 2 " H D P E Ne w 1 2 " HDP ENew 15" HDPE Ne w 1 5 " H D P E New 1 5 " H D P E N e w 1 5 " H D P E New 15" HDPENew 15" HDPE New 1 5 " H D P ENew 15" HDPE New 15" HDPENew 15" HDPENew 15" HDPENew 15 " HDPE New 1 5 " HDP E Storm Water Detention HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: PH-1 OVERALL PHASING PLAN Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 PHASE II 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com Meadow Loop Phase Open Space, Park, Amenities Phase Relocated Old Farm Road Phase O'Brien Farm Road extension to new Old Farm Road Phase Existing Old Farm Road improvements & Village Green Phase I/C Road Phase Old Farm Road/Kimball Avenue Intersection Phase Open Space amenities Phase Legacy Farm Avenue, Mountainview, Village Green, & Northslope Phase Parkway Homes and Mountainview Phase I/C Road/Kimball Avenue intersection Phase O'Brien Farm Road cul-de-sac & Northslope Phase Barn Improvements Village Green Phase Old Farm Gateway Phase Open Space, Park, Amenities Phase Construction Staging & Ledge Processing Phase EX. POND #1 EX. POND #2 EX. POND #3 WET POND A GRAVEL WETLAND #1 GRAVEL WETLAND #2 GRAVEL WETLAND #3 GRAVEL WETLAND #4 GRAVEL WETLAND #5 GRAVEL WETLAND #6 GRAVEL WETLAND #7 GRAVEL WETLAND #8 Lot 1 8.9 ac Lot 2 5.0 ac Lot 3 2.0 ac Lot 4 1.1 ac Lot 5 8.8 ac Lot 6 3.0 ac Lot 7 2.4 ac Lot 5 8.8 ac Lot 8 4.6 ac Lot 9 1.9 ac Lot 10 0.9 ac Lot 11 1.2 ac Lot 13 2.78 ac Lot 15 2.38 ac Lot 12 1.6 ac Lot 14 1.1 ac Lot 17 1.78 ac Lot 16 2.61 ac Lot 20 2.06 ac Lot 21 1.90 ac Lot 22 2.21 ac Lot 23 0.78 ac Lot 24 1.37 ac Lot 25 2.20 ac Lot 26 1.87 ac Lot 27 1.49 ac Lot 28 2.46 ac Lot 32 3.60 ac Lot 30 2.39 ac Lot 31 4.80 ac Lot 34 1.76 ac Lot 47 Open Space 12.23 ac Lot 29 0.73 ac Lot 38 4.41 ac Lot 39 4.52 ac Lot 44 2.02 ac Lot 45 2.17 ac Lot 46 1.90 ac Lot 48 Open Space 4.20 ac Business Park North Lot 4 2.4 ac Archaeology Zone Archaeology Zone Lot 33 1.13 ac Lot 37 3.54 ac Lot 18 Open Space 1.17 ac Lot 19 Open Space 1.51 ac 16-1 16-2 16-3 16-4 16-716-616-5 16-8 16-9 16-10 16-11 16-12 16-13 16-14 16-15 16-16 16-17 20-131-1 31-2 31-3 32-4 32-5 32-6 32-7 32-8 32-9 32-10 31-11 31-12 31-13 31-14 31-15 31-1631-1731-18 31-19 31-2031-21 31-22 31-23 31-24 30-1 30-5 30-7 30-9 30-13 30-14 30-15 30-16 30-17 30-18 30-19 33-1 33-3 33-6 33-7 37-137-2 37-3 37-4 37-537-637-737-837-9 37-1037-1136-1 36-236-336-4 36-5 33-2 33-4 33-5 33-8 33-933-1030-2 30-3 30-4 30-6 30-8 30-10 30-1130-1220-220-320-420-520-620-720-820-920-1020-1120-1220-1320-1420-1520-1620-1720-1820-1920-2020-2120-2220-2320-2420-2520-2630-20 30-21 Lot 36 1.64 ac 34-1 34-2 34-3 34-4 34-5 34-6 34-7 34-834-934-10 34-11 Lot 35 Phase Lot 35 1.54 ac 35-135-2 35-3 Lot 49 0.75 ac 16-18 pcg 338.5 O'Brien Home Farm Subdivision Phase II Abutter Addresses Updated 8/11/20 Per Current City Mailing Address File 911 Unit Number Road Name First and Last Name Owner Owner 2 (If Applicable)Mailing Address City State Zip 1 BAYBERRY LN NORZ JENNIFER 1 BAYBERRY LN S BURLINGTON VT 05403 2 BAYBERRY LN SNAY JENNIFER 2 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 3 BAYBERRY LN SCRIPNIC VEACESLAV 3 BAYBERRY LN S BURLINGTON VT 05403 4 BAYBERRY LN SETTINO CHRISTOPHER 4 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 5 BAYBERRY LN BLUTO JEANNE R 5 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 6 BAYBERRY LN MOUSSAWI MOHAMAD & PENNY L 6 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 7 BAYBERRY LN CARVALHO ZACHARY D 7 BAYBERRY LN S BURLINGTON VT 05403 8 BAYBERRY LN ADAMS MARGARET D TRUST 8 BAYBERRY LN S BURLINGTON VT 05403 9 BAYBERRY LN NINE BAYBERRY LLC 57 RIVER RD BOX 1017 ESSEX JCT VT 05452 10 BAYBERRY LN HARTIGAN BRENT L 10 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 11 BAYBERRY LN LEVI P ANDREW 38 MANSFIELD DR JERICHO VT 05465 12 BAYBERRY LN AKLAMA YAOVI 12 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 13 BAYBERRY LN TOWER JOHN F III & LISA F 411 TEMPLE ST DUXBURY MA 02332 14 BAYBERRY LN CURTIS ABBIE 14 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 15 BAYBERRY LN TRINGALE ANGELICA P 15 BAYBERRY LN S BURLINGTON VT 05403 16 BAYBERRY LN DIVENUTI MARTIN 16 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 17 BAYBERRY LN FARRELL CHARLOTTE M 17 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 18 BAYBERRY LN PERKINS DOUGLAS BRADFORD TRUST 1750 LAKE DUNMORE RD LEICESTER VT 05733 19 BAYBERRY LN HEWSON ROGER G JR & CHRISTIE A 5 IBY ST S BURLINGTON VT 05403 20 BAYBERRY LN CZUHANICH AMY M 20 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 21 BAYBERRY LN GEORGE LORRAINE C 21 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 22 BAYBERRY LN JARVIS TARA LEIGH CHASTENAY SUZANNE 22 BAYBERRY LN S BURLINGTON VT 05403 23 BAYBERRY LN GEORGES FLORENCE G TRUSTEE FLORENCE GEORGES REV TRUST 23 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 24 BAYBERRY LN YERSEL AYLA 24 BAYBERRY LN S BURLINGTON VT 05403 25 BAYBERRY LN STEWART DALE 25 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 26 BAYBERRY LN ROSSI-HOWARD FREDRICK J & MARG 26 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 27 BAYBERRY LN METCALFE JEREMY PAUL & VERONICA 128 FOND RD ROCKVILLE CENTRE NY 11570 28 BAYBERRY LN WISE SETH RANDALL 7126 E OSBORN RD #3022 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251-6557 29 BAYBERRY LN LIPSON DEBRA R P O BOX 1102 BREWSTER MA 02631 30 BAYBERRY LN BROOKFIELD DEBORAH 30 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 31 BAYBERRY LN DIRICO PATRICK A DENTON KATELYN E 31 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 32 BAYBERRY LN GREENE ALLISON C & JEFFREY T & VALERIE 32 BAYBERRY LN S BURLINGTON VT 05403 33 BAYBERRY LN KIEY MICHAEL 288 WHITEWATER CIR WILLISTON VT 05495 34 BAYBERRY LN STURGEON MILES D & BRIANNA J 34 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 35 BAYBERRY LN SMITH KATHERINE L & ALLISON 35 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 36 BAYBERRY LN CARGILL GRAY 36 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 37 BAYBERRY LN COOKE RUSSELL T 147 WHITE BIRCH LANE WILLISTON VT 05495 38 BAYBERRY LN FRANCKLYN CHRISTOPHER & BETSEY TRUST 845 SOUTH PROSPECT ST BURLINGTON VT 05401 39 BAYBERRY LN LAMELL RONALD R JR 82A JERICHO RD ESSEX JCT VT 05452 40 BAYBERRY LN BAYLOR ROBYN L 40 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 41 BAYBERRY LN SAULNIER THOMAS L SCHROEDER AMELIA M 41 BAYBERRY LN S BURLINGTON VT 05403 42 BAYBERRY LN WOLBACH THERESA M 42 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 43 BAYBERRY LN BURLEIGH MATTHEW B & DEBRA V 197 CHAPIN RD ESSEX JCT VT 05452 44 BAYBERRY LN BECKER ELLA SHORTSLEEVES & THEODORE III 44 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 45 BAYBERRY LN JOHNSTON RUSSELL L 45 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 46 BAYBERRY LN GRIGGS JAIME MARIE 46 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 47 BAYBERRY LN RANDALL VIRGINIA G GADHUE CAITLIN R 47 BAYBERRY LN S BURLINGTON VT 05403 48 BAYBERRY LN LEITHEAD RYAN 425 DORSET ST #40 S BURLINGTON VT 05403-8211 49 BAYBERRY LN DURAND ROBERT L GORHAM LISA A 151 CATTAIL LN BRISTOL VT 05443 50 BAYBERRY LN HOELTGE AMY M 50 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 51 BAYBERRY LN SEGUIN GERALD & MARY 51 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 52 BAYBERRY LN HEBERT JANET T 52 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 53 BAYBERRY LN BERTEAU PARTICK & APRIL 53 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 54 BAYBERRY LN MCKEE JAMES E TRUST 365 BIRCHWOOD DR COLCHESTER VT 05446 55 BAYBERRY LN BARRETT MARY 55 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 56 BAYBERRY LN MANGUM NANCY J 56 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 57 BAYBERRY LN CHERRIER LAWRENCE A JR & CONSTANCE A 104 LONESOME TRAIL WATERBURY VT 05676 58 BAYBERRY LN PENOYER PATRICIA A 58 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 59 BAYBERRY LN LIN WEI YOKOYAMA KYOKO 59 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 60 BAYBERRY LN TSAI FAMILY TRUST C/O JACEK SMOLINSKI 120 TARBOX RD JERICHO VT 05465 61 BAYBERRY LN KOENIG ANNELIESE K 61 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 62 BAYBERRY LN SPILLANE LOWELL T III 174 E 90TH ST APT 3D NEW YORK VT 10128-0000 63 BAYBERRY LN SIMENDINGER JAMIE L 63 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 64 BAYBERRY LN SHORTSLEEVES PENNY 64 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 65 BAYBERRY LN AGNARSSON INGI 65 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 66 BAYBERRY LN RUSHFORTH CHRISTINE 171 Braeburn Street South Burlington VT 05403-4472 67 BAYBERRY LN PUGH ANN D 67 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 68 BAYBERRY LN KINVILLE MELISSA STEVENS TAYLOR 68 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 69 BAYBERRY LN DOUGLAS BONNIE F 69 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 70 BAYBERRY LN LOYER KASEY ZONNEVYLLE AUSTIN 70 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 71 BAYBERRY LN HEURTEMATTE DOUGLAS E 71 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 72 BAYBERRY LN PRINCE SAMANTHA 72 BAYBERRY LANE SO BURLINGTON VT 05403 73 BAYBERRY LN CHAGNON CAITLIN M 73 BAYBERRY LN S BURLINGTON VT 05403 74 BAYBERRY LN CANDON JOHN C & MARTHA P LIFE ESTATE CANDON PATRICK P 74 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 75 BAYBERRY LN 75 BAYBERRY LANE LLC 301 OLD STAGE RD ESSEX JCT VT 05452 76 BAYBERRY LN LEE JESSE A 76 BAYBERRY LN S BURLINGTON VT 05403 77 BAYBERRY LN HEWSON ROGER G JR & CHRISTIE A 5 IBY ST S BURLINGTON VT 04503 78 BAYBERRY LN STOUT ANTHONY T & JILL H 382 MT PHILO RD N FERRISBURGH VT 05473 79 BAYBERRY LN LEUPP ANN 18 PINE TREE TERR S BURLINGTON VT 05403 80 BAYBERRY LN MANNING JAMES A 80 BAYBERRY LN S BURLINGTON VT 05403 81 BAYBERRY LN ALLEN SUSAN G 1299 PALMER AVE APT 216 LARCHMONT NY 10538-3125 82 BAYBERRY LN WALKER DAWN P 82 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 83 BAYBERRY LN PERKINS JOYCE M 83 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 84 BAYBERRY LN JACOBS SANDRA E 3145 MORNING WAY LA JOLLA CA 92037-1908 85 BAYBERRY LN PARKER JASON STEIN MIKAIL J 85 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 86 BAYBERRY LN LEVI P ANDREW 38 MANSFIELD DR JERICHO VT 05465 87 BAYBERRY LN MORSE DANIEL P & ALLISON B 21 WEED RD ESSEX JCT VT 05452 88 BAYBERRY LN DESARNO MARK T 88 BAYBERRY LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 89 BAYBERRY LN DURAND ROBERT L GORHAM LISA A 150 CATTAIL LN BRISTOL VT 05443 90 BAYBERRY LN ANGER KYLE & KATHERINE MONEY NANCY J 90 BAYBERRY LN S BURLINGTON VT 05403 91 BAYBERRY LN FECTEAU JEAN R 91 BAYBERRY LN S BURLINGTON VT 05403 92 BAYBERRY LN PEP PROPERTY LLC C/O JOHN RULLELL 1161 WILLISTION RD S BURLINGTON VT 05403 Williston Road Burlington City Of 1200 Airport Dr #1 S Burlington VT 5403 105 OLD FARM RD WEINER WILLIAM D & MARLA K 105 OLD FARM RD S BURLINGTON VT 05403 150 OLD FARM RD O'BRIEN DANIEL J & SANDRA T 1855 WILLISTON RD S BURLINGTON VT 05403 200 OLD FARM RD O'BRIEN PATRICK 200 OLD FARM ROAD S BURLINGTON VT 05403 205 OLD FARM RD O'BRIEN FAMILY LLC 1855 WILLISTON RD SO BURLINGTON VT 05403 80 OLD FARM RD DICKEY DOUGLAS 80 OLD FARM RD S BURLINGTON VT 05403 51 OLD FARM RD RENDELL DONALD J JR & SANDRA S 51 OLD FARM RD S BURLINGTON VT 05403 75 OLD FARM RD LARKIN SEAN & APRYL 75 OLD FARM RD S BURLINGTON VT 05403 103 OLD FARM RD HENNING JOHN A & KARLA J 103 OLD FARM RD S BURLINGTON VT 05403 275 KENNEDY DR VERMONT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION P O BOX 407 BURLINGTON VT 05402 20 KIMBALL AVE 20 KIMBALL COMMONS LLC 5576 DORSET ST SHELBURNE VT 05482 30 KIMBALL AVE KIMBALL PARTNERS LLC 30 KIMBALL AVE STE 101 S BURLINGTON VT 05403 40 KIMBALL AVE KULA'AINA LLC 30 KIMBALL AVE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 50 KIMBALL AVE O'BRIEN BROTHERS LLC 1855 WILLISTON ROAD S BURLINGTON VT 05407 60 KIMBALL AVE VT ASSOCIATION FOR THE BLIND INC 37 ELMWOOD AVE BURLINGTON VT 05401 70 KIMBALL AVE 70 KIMBALL AVENUE, LLC 6501 GOLDLEAF DRIVE BETHESDA MD 20812 80 KIMBALL AVE 70 KIMBALL AVENUE LLC 6501 GOLDLEAF DRIVE BETHESDA MD 20812 55 COMMUNITY DR 55 COMMUNITY DR LLC 88 TECHNOLOGY PARK WAY SUIT S BURLINGTON VT 05403 750 HINESBURG RD PIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES LLC 462 SHELBURNE RD #1 BURLINGTON VT 05401 40 LAURENTIDE LANE MICHELLE & SHERRIE PETERSON 40 LAURENTIDE LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 50 LAURENTIDE LANE DAVID FASSLER 86 LAKE STREET BURLINGTON VT 05401 58 LAURENTIDE LANE DION ELEFTHERAKIS 58 LAURENTIDE LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 68 LAURENTIDE LANE TYLER SMITH & CARRIE PLUNKETT 68 LAURENTIDE LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 55 LAURENTIDE LANE SCOT ROSE & BRENDA ROSE 55 LAURENTIDE LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 35 LAURENTIDE LANE TOREY OLSON & NICHOLAS GORDON 35 LAURENTIDE LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 23 LAURENTIDE LANE JAN & KRISTINA KRUK 23 LAURENTIDE LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 15 LAURENTIDE LANE JOSHUA PARKER & KATIE PARKER 15 LAURENTIDE LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 9 LAURENTIDE LANE SANGAY DHONDUP 9 LAURENTIDE LANE S BURLINGTON VT 05403 12 LEDGE WAY BILL MICHAUD 12 LEDGE WAY S BURLINGTON VT 05403 26 LEDGE WAY WILLIAM & ATHENA RUBLEE 26 LEDGE WAY S BURLINGTON VT 05403 36 LEDGE WAY KRISTA EVANS 36 LEDGE WAY S BURLINGTON VT 05403 46 LEDGE WAY ANDRJEZ SZARYK & MERIDITH SUMNER 46 LEDGE WAY S BURLINGTON VT 05403 54 LEDGE WAY CURTIS GREEN 54 LEDGE WAY S BURLINGTON VT 05403 72 LEDGE WAY EMILY CORRADA 72 LEDGE WAY S BURLINGTON VT 05403 82 LEDGE WAY JOHN & CONNIE STORER 82 LEDGE WAY S BURLINGTON VT 05403 90 LEDGE WAY MARTIN & MIA SNOW 90 LEDGE WAY S BURLINGTON VT 05403 102 LEDGE WAY STEVE & BRIT KELSON 102 LEDGE WAY S BURLINGTON VT 05403 77 LEDGE WAY MATT MULLIGAN 77 LEDGE WAY S BURLINGTON VT 05403 67 LEDGE WAY TIMOTHY SHAW & EMILY SHAW 67 LEDGE WAY S BURLINGTON VT 05403 232 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD DAWN PHILIBERT 232 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD S BURLINGTON VT 05403 236 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD DAN STANILONIS & DANIELLE GALLANT 236 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD S BURLINGTON VT 05403 246 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD FIEH CHAN & RORY HOUSE 246 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD S BURLINGTON VT 05403 250 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD ERIN PATTERSON 250 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD S BURLINGTON VT 05403 260 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD BRIAN SAUNDERS & JEANNE DUNCAN 260 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD S BURLINGTON VT 05403 264 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD JAMIE & LINDSAY McQUEEN 264 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD S BURLINGTON VT 05403 272 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD ANDREW & MOLLY PEET 272 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD S BURLINGTON VT 05403 276 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD R. HOWARD & LAUREN WOODEN 276 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD S BURLINGTON VT 05403 239 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD DOLLY DOHERTY & HENRI PERRREAULT 239 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD S BURLINGTON VT 05403 243 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD ALLISON ROGERS 243 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD S BURLINGTON VT 05403 269 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD WAYNE & LINDA ELLIOTT 269 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD S BURLINGTON VT 05403 281 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD RANDOLPH & CAROL SMITH 281 O'BRIEN FARM ROAD S BURLINGTON VT 05403 HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: X-3 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN BUSINESS PARK NORTH LOT 4 Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com PHASE II Business Park North Lot 4 2.4 ac Vermont Association for the Blind & Visually Impaired Existing shared access Business Park North Lots 3& 4 Existing shared access easement Business Park North Lots 3 & 4 50' Wetland S e t b a c k Wetla n d A T y p e I I I 50' We t land Se tback Wetla n d B T y p e I I I 50' WetlandSetbackWetland C Type III Existing Lot 1 Area = 8.9 acres "Lancaster" Area = 5.0 acres "Stonington" Existing Lot 2 Existing Lot 3 Open Land Area = 2.0 acresExi s t ing Pond #1 Existin g P o n d # 2 Existing P o n d # 3 Appendix E Submission Requirments  Preliminary Plat  Item Description Description of Location  Completed application form.  Exhibit 001 One full size copy one 11x17 copy and one digital copy of plans Plans submitted Digitally As Confirmed List of the owners of record of abutting properties.  Exhibit 031 Name and address of the owner of record See Exhibit 001 Section 1 Name and address of the applicant  See Exhibit 001 Section 3 Name and address of engineer All Engineering Exhibits labeled with address.  Exhibit 002, 003, 011, 012, 015, 027 Name and address of architect See Architectural Exhibits 006, 007, 008, 010 Name and address of landscape architect.  See Landscape Exhitibs 016, 017 Plan preparation dates  Plans are dated  Plan revision dates As Applicable This is the First Filing True North Arrow and scale.  Preferred scale not more than on hundred feet to the inch.  Landscape and Engineering Plans Include Narrative Description of project.  See Enclosed Narrative  Narrative Demonstration of compliance with applicable review standards  See Enclosed Narrative and table of contents  referencing each applicable criteria.  Narrative list of submission elements.  See Exhibit Table of Contents Included Narrative list of changes made from previous submittals.  None, First Submission List of waivers requested.  Details on why the request and authority to grant. See Section X of Narrative Provided. Waivers  Requested List.  Any other data the administrative officer or development review board shall require.  Please advise.  Location map showing relation of subject property to surrounding areas.  All Engineering Exhibits labeled with address.  Exhibit 002, 003, 011, 012, 015, 027 Boundaries and area of existing subject property.  Existing Conditions Plan Exhibit 032 Proposed property lines  Exhibit 011 Plat Plans  Boundary lines of all zoning districts, transects and overlay districts. See Zoning District Plan, Exhibit 003 City official map designations As Applicable on Plans  Lots proposed are numbered.  See Engineering Exhibits.  See Exhibit 004 Lot  Number and Type Table Location of existing restrictions on land, easments and covenants.  Exhibit 032 Existing Conditions Plan Lot area in square feet and acres.  See Exhibit 004 Lot coverage calculations including building and overall. See Exhibit 029 Front yard coverage. Not Applicable No Commercial Building  Proposed Location and layout of any off‐street parking or loading areas.  Not applicable  Location and layout of any traffic circulation areas.  Not applicable Roadways shown on Civil  Drawings.  Location and layout of any pedestrian walkways.  Not applicable  Location and layout of fire lanes.  Not applicable  Preliminary grading and drainage plans.  All Engineering Exhibits 002, 003, 011, 012,  015, 027 Preliminary landscaping and buffering plan.  See Exhibits 016 and 017 Location of any outdoor equipment storage  Not applicable  Location of any outdoor materials storage  Not applicable  Location of any solid waste related facilities dupmpsters, recycle bins.  Not applicable  Estimate of all earthwork including quantity of material to be imported or removed from the site.  Applicant believes that the site can be net  neutral but this will depend on requests made  to the board in this application, and must be  analyzed more fully in context of those  requests.  At this time no material is planned  to be removed or imported.  As project details  are confirmed by the Board we can adjust this  prediction if needed.  See Section XII(3) of the  narrative for more information.  Location of existing structures on the site.   Existing Conditions Exhibit 032 Plan showing all site conditons to remain.  All Engineering Exhibits 011, 012, 015 Plan showing existing water courses and buffers. Existing Conditons Plan Exhibit 032  Plan showing wetlands and bufferes.  Existing Conditons Plan Exhibit 032  Base flood elevations if located in special flood hazard area. Not applicable  Plan showing current wooded areas. Exhibit 029 Tree Protection Plan Satelite View  Plan showing existing ledge outcrops.  Not applicable No Visible Ledge Outcrops Plan showing other natural features, if any.  Existing Conditons Plan Exhibit 032  Plan showing existing and proposed open space.  Exhibit 016 and 017, Exhibit 011, 012, 015 The location of open space to be dedicated to the City.  See Section III(e‐l) of Project Narrative   The location of open space to be retained by the Applicant.  See Section III(e‐l) of Project Narrative   Existing and proposed contours at maximum interval of 2'. All Engineering Exhibits 011, 012, 015 A general concept of landscaping in graphic form.  Exhibit 016 and 017 A general concept of landscaping in written form.  See Section V(C) of Narrative A list of existing vegetation with the location, type and size of existing trees six inches or greater.  Given the size of the project parcel, this  information is not attainable.  A Tree  Protection Plan is provided at Exhibit 028.   Other trees will be removed during the course  of the Project.  An index of trees on the Project  is not feasible.  If the Board has an interest in  trees within a certain limited area, we would  be happy to survey them, but a review of 100  acres is not feasible.  A written plan to protect vegetation during and after construction.  See Sheet L001 Exhibit 28  Existing and proposed structures.  All Engineering Exhibits 011, 012, 015 Elevation, Floor Plan and section of proposed buildings.  See Exhibit 010 022, 023, 024 Elevations to demonstrate compliance with Building Envelope Standards.  See Exhibit 010 022, 023, 024 Elevations of buildings proposed as part of a planned unit development.  See Exhibit 010 022, 023, 024 Location of proposed roads.  All Engineering Exhibits 011, 012, 015 Width of propoes roads. All Engineering Exhibits 011, 012, 015 Location of sidewalks and recreation paths.  All Engineering Exhibits 011, 012, 015 Plans showing location of existing and proposed street pavements.  All Engineering Exhibits 011, 012, 016 Plans showing proposed elevations along center lines of all streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks.  All Engineering Exhibits 011, 012, 017 Plans showing location of existing and proposed street pavements.  All Engineering Exhibits 011, 012, 018 Plans showing elevation of manholes and catch basins and culverts.  All Engineering Exhibits 011, 012, 019 Plans showing the location size and invert elevations of planned sewer and storm drains.  All Engineering Exhibits 011, 012, 020 Plans showing fire hydratds, water, gas, electricity and other utilities.  All Engineering Exhibits 011, 012, 021 Location of existing septic systems.  Existing Conditons Plan  Location of existing wells.  Existing Conditons Plan  Existing and proposed water usage.  Exhibit 020 Water Allocation Request  Existing and proposed wastewater usage.  Exhibit 018 Wastewater Allocation Request Location and design of utilities.  All Engineering Exhibits 011, 012, 021 Design for any bridges and culverts.  Not applicable  All means of vehicular access and egress to and from the site.  All Engineering Exhibits 011, 012, 021, Traffic  Improvement Exhibits 014 Plans showing pedestrian circulation.  All Engineering Exhibits 011, 012, 021 Analysis of traffic  impacts.  Exhibit 006, 013, 014 Proposed stormwater management system including location and suporting design data.  All Engineering Exhibits 011, 012,019, 021 Copies of all computations as a basis for the design capacity. Exhibit 019