Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07_550 Park Rd_Blackrock_FP1  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  SD‐21‐06_550 Park Road_Blackrock_FP.docx  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: February 12, 2021  Plans received: December 22, 2020  550 Park Road  Preliminary Plat Application #SD‐21‐06  Meeting date: March 3, 2021  Owner  Highlands Development Company, LLC  P.O. Box 132  Lyndon Ctr., VT 05850‐0132  Engineer  O’Leary Burke Civil Associates  13 Corporate Drive  Essex Jct, VT 05452  Property Information  Tax Parcel 0570‐01100  Southeast Quadrant – Neighborhood Residential North  4.42 acres  Applicant  Blackrock Construction  68 Randall Street  South Burlington, VT 05403  Location Map      PROJECT DESCRPTION  Final plat application #SD‐21‐06 of Blackrock Construction for the 6.91‐acre “Wheeler Parcel” phase of a  previously approved master plan for a 450‐acre Golf Course and 354‐unit residential development. The  2  planned unit development consists of establishing three lots for the purpose of constructing a public  road, 22 dwelling units in two‐family homes, and 10 units in single family homes, 550 Park Road.    CONTEXT  The project is located along Dorset Street, across from an existing residential development on Nicklaus  Circle which consists of two‐family homes.  It is served by an existing recreation path on Park Road and  Dorset Street and is in an area identified in the Comprehensive Plan as an area of very low intensity  development consisting principally of open space.    PERMIT HISTORY  This 6.91 acre parcel is part of the 8/24/2015 “Amended Agreement Among the City of South Burlington,  Highlands Development Company, LLC and JAM Golf, LLC” (“Amended Agreement”).  The parcel itself  was the subject of a land exchange between the City and these parties.  The Amended Agreement  incorporates the 9/28/2015 “Amended Consent Order and Decree” (“Consent Order”), which approves  at the Master Plan level up to 32 dwelling units for this “Wheeler Parcel” lot in buildings consisting of  between one and four dwelling unit each.  The Amended Agreement determined that the preliminary &  final plat reviews for the Wheeler Parcel would take place under an amended set of Land Development  Regulations, established through a collaborative process between the City and property owner.  “6. New Land Development Regulations for Wheeler Parcel Project Area.  a. A portion of the City Parcel, specifically the +/‐6.91 acres currently in the Wheeler Nature Park  east of Dorset Street and north of Park Road, being the lands labelled ‘6.91 Acres CITY of SOUTH  BURLINGTON to JAM GOLF, LLC’ on the survey incorporated herein as Exhibit A also referred to  as the Wheeler Parcel Project Area, is not presently in a zoning district that allows the use  contemplated by this Amended Agreement. The City agrees to amend its Land Development  Regulations, including necessary maps, to allow the Wheeler Parcel Project Area to be developed  with a maximum of 32 dwelling units in structures consisting of 1‐4 dwelling units within the  intent of this Amended Agreement. The City and Developers agree to cooperate and to work  together to ensure that the amendments contain provision that allow development of residential  structure consisting of 1‐4 dwelling units similar in type and size to those presently existing in the  Project, that include site and building design standards similar to those applicable to the  Southeast Quadrant, Neighborhood Residential Subdistrict version of the Land Development  Regulations that took effect on May 7, 2012, and that include site design standards that require  compatibility with adjacent natural areas. Applications for preliminary and final plat and site  plan approval for the Wheeler Parcel Project Area that be reviewed under the amended Land  Development contemplated by this Paragraph 6 (the ‘Amendments’).”  The amended Land Development Regulations contemplated in the paragraph above were adopted by  the City Council and took effect January 11, 2016, and were subsequently amended effective January 25,  2016 to correct an error in the included maps.  The parties agreed that the January 25, 2016 regulations  would satisfy condition #6 of the Amended Agreement above.    The Board reviewed the sketch plan application for the project on January 22, 2020.  Preliminary Plat  (#SD‐20‐17) was approved on June 17, 2020.    3  COMMENTS  Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner, hereafter  referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following  comments.  Numbered comments for the Board’s attention are in red.    A) DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS  The Applicant is proposing to subdivide one existing parcel into two lots in preparation for development  of 32 homes on one lot and construction of a public roadway on the other lot.  The non‐contiguous  residential lots must be considered as individual lots, making this a three lot subdivision.    SEQ‐NRN Required Proposed   Min. Lot Size 40,000 sf  2.23 ac (Lot 2) 1  @ Max. Building Coverage  15 %  30 %  @ Max. Overall Coverage  30 %  46 %   Min. Front Setback* 20 ft.  20 ft. 2   Min. Side Setback 10 ft.  30 ft.   Min. Rear Setback 30 ft.  N/A  @ Max. Height (pitched roof)  28 ft.  Unknown   Max. Stories 4  2   Max. Stories below roofline 3  2   Max. Stories facing street 2  2  *Along Dorset street, there is a minimum 50‐foot setback as well as specific landscaping buffer  and setbacks enumerated in Table 9‐2A and described below. The City owns an approximately  42‐foot strip of land between the development parcels and the Dorset Street right‐of‐way.  @ See discussion below  1. The applicant is proposing footprint lots.  This action would create non‐conforming lots  (being of insufficient individual size, and having zero setbacks, and no road frontage) and  therefore will not be considered individual lots for the LDRs. For purposes of the LDRs,  footprint lots 1 through 18 shall be considered one lot with the common land on Lot 1.   Footprint lots 19 through 32 shall be considered one lot with the common land on Lot 2  located on Parcel D.  Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to record a “Notice  of Condition” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording  the final plat plan.  2. Porches may protrude up to 8‐ft into the front setback per 9.08C.  The homes, excluding  porches, are set back a minimum of 20‐ft.  The master plan approval addressed the topic of overall coverage and building coverage, stating that the  maximum coverages were 30% and 15%, respectively.  This must be provided on an overall basis,  however, and not on a project by project basis.  The applicant approximated that the master plan is at  2% building coverage and 16% overall coverage.  At preliminary plat, the Board found the applicant’s  proposed coverages acceptable in the context of the overall master plan.  Staff considers no significant  changes to coverage have been proposed and recommends the Board approve the proposed coverages.  The SEQ‐NRN was established in 2016 as a specific response to a legal settlement agreement creating  this development area.  It was intended to be similar to the adjoining SEQ‐NR district, but to “include  site design standards that require compatibility with adjacent natural areas.”  The SEQ‐NRN district  4  includes only this parcel, therefore it is assumed that the intention of the drafters of those regulations  was strict compliance of this project with the standards of the SEQ‐NRN.  Compared to the SEQ‐NR, the  SEQ‐NRN contains additional regulations pertaining to landscaping buffers, and to height.  Figure 9‐2A  illustrates the areas of these additional regulations.     Landscape buffers are discussed below.    Pertaining to height, this application presents three height‐related issues.  In order from most specific to  most general, they are SEQ‐NRN height standards, adjustment of preconstruction grade, and maximum  building height.   SEQ‐NRN height standards:  Within the SEQ‐NRN district there are three zones in which  buildings are limited to one story.  The applicant has proposed to locate eight dwelling units in  these areas, consisting of four single family units and four units in duplex homes.  At preliminary  plat, the Board required the applicant to provide revised elevations showing roof lines  5  consistent with that of a traditional one‐story home, and not having more than one floor level,  as part of the final plat applications.  Staff considers the provided elevations satisfy this  requirement.   Adjustment of Preconstruction Grade:  At preliminary plat the Board found that there shall be  no adjustment of preconstruction grade in the single story areas because it would be counter to  the purpose of the single story areas, but allowed the applicant to request adjustment of  preconstruction grade pursuant to 3.12 outside of the single story areas.  The Board further  found that the height in the single story areas may be no more than 18‐20 feet measured from  average preconstruction grade.  The applicant has not provided enough information to evaluate  whether this condition of preliminary plat has been met1.    Further, the applicant has provided in their list of requested waivers a request for adjusted  preconstruction grade, but has not indicated whether the preconstruction grade shown on the  plans is adjusted or actual.    1. Since the Board has already determined adjustment of preconstruction grade is not allowed in  the single story area, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant clarify their plans to  show existing preconstruction grade and requested preconstruction grade, and if necessary,  amend their request to only request adjusted preconstruction grade outside of the single story  area.     Maximum Building Height:  Outside the single story area, the applicant did not provide  maximum heights measured to the midpoint of the roof as required by the Board at preliminary  plat.    2. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed house types  in the single‐story area will not exceed 18‐20 feet and that the proposed house types in the other  areas will not exceed 28 feet.    B) SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DISTRICT  The following general requirements of 9.06 are applicable to all sub‐districts.  A.  Height.  See Article 3.07.  (1) Heights of structures within the SEQ‐NRN sub‐district shall adhere to the standards of the  SEQ‐NR sub‐district except where limited by the requirements in Section 9.08.(C)(8).  See discussion above under dimensional standards.  B.  Open Space and Resource Protection.   (1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities  for creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels, creating or enhancing  stream buffer areas, or creating or enhancing buffers for primary or secondary natural  communities.     1 Information provided includes requested preconstruction grade, grade of the first floor, grade of the garage floor,  and maximum roof height, but not all of this information is provided for all units, and no information about the  height at the midpoint has been provided for any building type.  6  At preliminary plat, the applicant proposed a central open space consisting of a community  recreation path and community garden.  In response to public and Board comments, the applicant  has removed the central open space in order to preserve an existing wooded area.  The community  gardens are now located near the western road entrance to the development.  In the context of the  master plan, Staff considers this criterion met.   (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the  Regulating Plan for the applicable sub‐district, allowing carefully planned development at the  average densities provided in this bylaw.   The master plan settlement agreement allowed for up to 32 units on this parcel.  32 units are  proposed.  Staff considers this criterion met.  (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management  shall be established by the applicant. Such plan shall describe the intended use and maintenance  of each area. Continuance of agricultural uses or enhancement of wildlife habitat values in such  plans for use and maintenance is encouraged. Existing natural resources on each site shall be  protected through the development plan, including (but not limited to) primary natural  communities, streams, wetlands, floodplains, conservation areas shown in the Comprehensive  Plan, and special natural and/or geologic features such as mature forests, headwaters areas, and  prominent ridges. In making this finding the Development Review Board shall use the provisions of  Article 12 of this bylaw related to wetlands and stream buffers.   One application requirement is that the applicant submit “A written plan to preserve and protect  significant existing vegetation during and after construction. Such plan will be of sufficient detail  that the City of South Burlington will be able to inspect the site during construction to ensure that  existing vegetation is protected as per the plan.”  The applicant has provided a Vegetation  Management Plan, sheet L‐102, indicating how each type of landscaping area is to be maintained.   This includes preservation of a wooded area in the center of the parcel.    3. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to require the applicant to modify the  maintenance requirement for the wooded area to include removal of invasive species.    The applicant has also provided an EPSC Construction Plan, sheet E2, indicating which areas are to  be protected during construction.  The applicant has indicated the interior wooded area will be  protected by a construction fence.    4. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify this plan to indicate that the  wooded area, extending to the outer edge of the root zone, is not to be disturbed.  Staff  understands it is somewhat unconventional to have a no disturb “island” in the middle of the  construction site, but considers that damage to existing mature trees is irreversible and therefore  extreme precaution is warranted.  Staff considers such limit of disturbance should be reviewed by  the City Arborist prior to approval.  Further discussion of preservation of existing vegetation is included under 9.08D(2)(a) below.  (4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after  construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions  on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the Development Review  Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for  Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.   7  The project will be covered by a Construction General Permit.  Staff has reviewed the erosion  prevention and sediment control plan and considers it generally compliant with LDR Article 16.    (5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream,  or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically compatible  with the surrounding landscape. The use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is  encouraged. Chain link fencing shall be prohibited except:  (a)   fencing for agricultural purposes, and  (b)   fencing for recreational purposes, such as baseball diamonds, tennis courts, basketball  courts, dog parks, or similar activities. Any chain link fencing installed for these purposes shall  be plastic coated in either dark green or black.  In all cases, proposed fences shall comply with this section and section 13.17 (Fences) of these  Regulations   The applicant has proposed split rail fence along the perimeter of the property.  There is one  wetland located adjacent to the property, to which the proposed stormwater treatment system  discharges.  This wetland is beyond the proposed fence by more than 250 ft.  Staff considers this  criterion met.  C.  Agriculture.  The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through  development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans  that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural  operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for  agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community‐supported agriculture.  Provisions that enhance overall neighborhood and natural resource values rather than preservation of  specific soil types are strongly encouraged.   The master plan identified this lot as a development parcel, therefore Staff considers this criterion met.  D.  Public Services and Facilities.  In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review  Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development, the  location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned public  facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths, streets, park  land, schools, and sewer and water facilities.   No official map facilities are within the subject property.  (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to meet the  needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by  a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater  Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation.   The applicant estimates a water demand of 11,520 gpd and a wastewater flow of 6,720 gpd.    5. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to obtain preliminary water and wastewater  allocations prior to closing the hearing.  (2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting  shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and  infrastructure to adjacent properties.   8  (3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be  designed in a manner that is  consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the  applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.   The South Burlington Water Department reviewed the provided plans on 2/18/2021 and offers the  following comments.  Staff notes the Water Department also provided the comments as plan  markups, which Staff can provide to the applicant upon request.    Plan Sheet 2:     Install a main line valve on Park Road before the first 45‐degree bend at the entrance to  Zoey Circle.   Tee main line on Park Road to eastern entrance and install gate valve.   Install a main line valve between stations 5+00 and 6+00 near the intersection with the  recreation path.  Plan Sheet 3:   Extend water line to Park Road, then turn west and connect to water main at fist  entrance to Zoey Circle.  Install valve on Park Road Line east to second entrance of Zoey  Circle.   Install main gate valve where line turns west at intersection of east entrance if Zoey  Circle and Park Road.  Water Detail Sheet 6:   Correct all details to be the same as those found in the Champlain Water District  Specifications and Details for the Installation of Water Lines and Appurtenances, current  edition.  Specifications Sheet 9:   Correct note at bottom to read: All water lines and appurtenances shall be installed in  accordance with the Champlain Water District Specifications and Details for the  Installation of Water Lines and Appurtenances, current edition.  Correct all relative  specifications to be the same.  6. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the Water  Department as conditions of approval.  At preliminary plat, the Director of Public Works provided two technical comments (not repeated  here) and the following general comments:    1. Sheet 1 – The path labeled “New 8’ wide community rec path” that goes right through the  middle of the parcel needs to be 10’ minimum if it is to be publicly owned.  2. Sheet 1 – At station 10+00 I have concerns about sight distance to the east for cars exiting  the project road onto Park Road. Please have the applicant confirm adequate sight distances  for cars exiting the property and braking distances for westbound Park Road traffic exist.  When asked for an update based on the final plat submission, the Director of Public Works provided  the following responses on 2/18/2021.  At the bottom of Page 4 of the [Traffic Impact Assessment] (TIA) the applicant states:  Both new intersections of the Project roadway onto Park Rd will have intersection sight  distances exceeding the recommended 280 ft for the 25 mph posted speed limit. This  sight distance also provides the recommended safe stopping sight distance for vehicles  exceeding the speed limit by as much as 10 mph.  9  I agree with the TIA’s findings. There is plenty of capacity along Dorset and Park to handle the  proposed 32 housing units.  The overall site plan, titled “Overall Site Plan 12‐14‐20 OPT.pdf” shows a 12’ path connecting the  neighborhood to the existing rec path on the east side of Dorset St, which is a good idea. Of  concern, is its labeling as a an “Emergency Access Road.” We’ve had trouble with this exact type  of facility over on East Terrace in terms of normal vehicular traffic using it. Is FD requiring this  access? It seems like it would not be needed for emergency reasons and as such can be reduced  to 10’ as well.  I would like two 25 MPH speed limit signs added to the project, one at Sta 10+25 RT facing  south and the other at Sta 9+40 RT facing south. The Landscaping Plan was not stationed, so  to the extent these sign locations conflict with the Landscaping Plan, please have the  applicant modify the sign locations as needed.    Staff considers the comments regarding sight distances to have been addressed.  With respect to  the path, the Fire Chief expressed a similar concern on 1/22/2021, indicating that the recreational  path cannot be an emergency lane at it’s current width.  An easement over the recreation path is  proposed to be dedicated to the City for access to the Tree Nursery.  7. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to reduce the width of the recreation path to  10‐feet and remove it’s designation as an emergency lane.  The development has two points of  vehicular access and a third is not needed.    (4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire  protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not limited to,  minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where  possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants.   8. The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on 1/22/2021 and requested clarification on location of  hydrants and the street profile. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to coordinate  with the Fire Chief prior to close of the hearing.  E.  Circulation.  The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management  strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on of adjacent roads and sufficient to create  connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles  between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the  findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City  staff or consultants.   (1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services  and infrastructure to adjacent properties.   (2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and  maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance  that has been approved by the City Council.   (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and  neighborhoods shall apply.  The applicant has provided a typical roadway cross section indicating 26 ft of pavement with curbs  and a 5 ft concrete sidewalk separated from the pavement by a 5‐ft greenbelt.  The right of way is  proposed to be 50‐ft wide.    10  At preliminary plat, the applicant had proposed an 8‐ft wide recreation path through the center of  the site.  The Board found that the applicant needed to evaluate at final plat whether the omission  of the recreational path would allow greater conformance with tree preservation and open space  goals of this district.  The applicant has subsequently removed the path.  Further discussion is under  9.08D below.  Though the Board did not require one, the applicant has provided a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA)  to evaluate the traffic and safety impacts of the proposed project.  The applicant estimates the  proposed homes will generate 34 trips during the PM peak hour.  Staff notes that the master plan  contemplated and approved the overall development for 350 VTE, which included the 32 homes  currently proposed.  The TIA concludes the relevant Dorset/Park Road intersection is well below  maximum capacity or signal warrants both under build and no‐build conditions.  The TIA further  notes the Dorset Street/Park Road intersection is not a high crash location and there are no obvious  geometric deficiencies at this intersection or it’s approaches.  Staff reminds the Board that though  there are numerous public comments pertaining to traffic safety, the Board’s authority is limited to  the impacts of this project.  The Director of Public Works is available to discuss with residents  outside of the DRB setting if they have concerns about City roadways in general.  9.08 The following additional standards apply in the SEQ‐NRN.    (A) Street, block and lot pattern  (1) Development blocks.  Development block lengths should be between 300 and 500  linear feet.  Where unavoidable, blocks longer than 500 feet should include mid‐block  public sidewalk or recreation path connections.    The proposed road will be 1,020 ft long.  It is approximately bisected by a proposed  recreation path connecting to the existing recreation path on Dorset Street.  Staff  considers this criterion met.  (2) Interconnection of Streets At preliminary plat the Board found this criterion not  applicable.  (3)  Street Connection to Adjoining Parcels. Street stubs are required to be built to the  property line and connected to adjacent parcels per section 15.12(D)(4) of these  Regulations. Posting signs with a notice of intent to construct future streets is strongly  encouraged.   Adjoining parcels not separated by an existing right of way are within the Park and  Recreation zoning district.  At preliminary plat the Board found this criterion not applicable.  (4)  Lot ratios.  Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio  of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended.  The applicant is not proposing to construct the buildings on their own lots.  At preliminary  plat the Board found the proposed building configuration consistent with the intent of this  criterion.  B.  Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards   (1)  Street dimensions and cross sections.  Neighborhood streets (collector and local) are  intended to be low‐speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are safe for  pedestrians and bicyclists.  Dimensions for public collector and local streets shall be as set forth in  Tables 9‐1 and 9‐2, and Figures 9‐4 and 9‐5 below.  11  Table 9‐2 requires 26‐ft of pavement, to include parking on one side.  At preliminary plat the Board  found this criterion met.  (2)  Sidewalks.  (a)  Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet in width with an additional minimum five‐ foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the street.   (b)  Sidewalks are required on one side of the street.   At preliminary plat the Board found sidewalk criteria met.  (3)  Street Trees   (a)  Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet  wide.  (b)  Street tree types shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to the  City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size of 2.5 to 3 inches  DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30’) on center.   The City Arborist provided extensive comments at preliminary plat.  He reviewed the updated  plans on 1/25/2021 and offers the following comment.  There is a tree on the plan labeled ARRS but that tree isn’t listed in the plant  schedule.  Otherwise the plan looks OK  The applicant supplied the following response on 1/29/2021:  The plant schedule is correct but the plants labeled AARS on the plan are wrong.  All of the  AARS labels should read AS; Acer saccharum ‘Green Mountain’ Maple.  Staff recommends the board include a condition requiring the applicant to correct the callout on  the plans.   (4) On‐street parking.  Sufficient space for one lane of on‐street parking shall be provided on all  streets except for arterials outside of the SEQ‐VC and SEQ‐VR sub‐districts. This requirement  may be waived within the SEQ‐NRN sub‐district provided the DRB finds sufficient off‐street  parking has been provided to accommodate the parking needs of the uses adjacent to the  street.  The applicant has provided for on‐street parking.  At preliminary plat the Board found this criterion  met.  (5)  Intersection design.  Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing  distances and to slow traffic.   At the pedestrian crossing located mid‐block within the development, the applicant has proposed  bump outs to reduce pedestrian crossing width.  The pedestrian crossings at the entrances to the  neighborhood cross the full roadway width.  At preliminary plat the Board found this criterion met  to the extent feasible.  Several public comments have been provided requesting the project be required to install a  crosswalk from Nicklaus Circle to the Project across Dorset Street.  Staff considers such a request for  offsite improvements to be potentially reasonable and therefore asked the applicant to look into  this request.  The applicant’s engineer did so, and determined that there is no safe location for a  crosswalk to land on the west side of Dorset Street in the vicinity of Nicklaus Circle, therefore such a  12  crosswalk is not recommended.  Staff, including the Public Works Director, concurs.  Should the  applicant wish to work with the neighbors on a solution, Staff considers this application could  accommodate a related condition, but that it is not specifically required.  Staff considers this  criterion met.  (6)  Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian‐scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12’ to 14’) shall be  provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces.  Overall  illumination levels should be consistent with the lower‐intensity development patterns and  character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather than hot‐spots) and light  trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety.  The applicant has provided 12 ft street lights at pedestrian crossings.  At preliminary plat the Board  found this criterion met.    C.  Residential Design  The applicant has provided elevations for the proposed buildings and provided a plan showing exact  buildings to be located in specific locations.    9. Staff recommends the Board confirm this is a correct interpretation of the “Design Narrative Layout  Key” plan.  If this is not the case, Staff recommend the Board obtain a clear understanding of what is  proposed, and continue the hearing to allow review with the clarified proposal in mind.  The applicant has further provided a Narrative and Unit Design Guidelines document specifically  addressing each of the following criteria.  (1) Building Orientation.  Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries  for single family and multi‐family buildings must face the street. Secondary building entries may  open onto garages and/or parking areas.  (Special design guidelines apply to arterial streets; see  Section 9.11).    The applicant has oriented entries to the street.  The homes facing both Zoey Circle and Dorset  Street have front doors facing Zoey Circle and rear doors, clearly having the appearance of rear  doors, facing Dorset Street.  Though current practice is to design homes facing onto two streets to  have the appearance of two fronts, there is significant landscaping required between the homes and  Dorset Street.  Staff recommends the Board accept the orientation of the homes.    At preliminary plat, the Board required the applicant to provide additional details on the facades  facing Dorset Street at final plat, to potentially include deeper eaves, more variety in siding, and  balanced massing between the porches and windows.  The Board also required the applicant to  provide additional architectural details on the facades of the buildings to be located at the corners  of Park Road.   The following pairs of images show first the elevation provided at preliminary plat, and second the  elevation provided at final plat.  Two Family Facade Facing Dorset Street (model “Bolton”):  13      Single Family façade facing Park Road (model “Apple”):      The non‐principal façades of models “Grafton,” “Fir,” and “Stowe” should also be considered in this  way.    14  10. While Staff considers the improvements to be modest at best, Staff also notes that the LDR requires a  dense vegetative buffer between the homes and the streets.  Staff recommends the Board consider  whether to require the applicant to make more significant improvements to the street facing non  front facades.   A minimum of thirty‐five percent (35%) of translucent windows and surfaces should be oriented to  the south. In the SEQ‐NRN sub‐district, residential buildings should orient their rooflines to  maximize solar gain potential, to the extent possible within the context of the overall standards of  the regulating plan.  11. The applicant has requested a waiver to allow 30% of translucent surface oriented to the south for  the duplex units, but has proposed to meet this criterion for the single family homes.  Staff  recommends the Board determine whether to accept the requested waiver.  (2) Building Façades.  Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation  approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades should be  varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that  create semi‐private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged. In the SEQ‐NRN sub‐ district, residential buildings with rear facades that orient towards a public recreation path should  employ rear porches, balconies, or other features to enhance their architectural detail.  At preliminary plat, the Board found the applicant must provide elevations meeting this criterion for  these facades at final plat.   Of the eight single family homes, each is essentially the same as one other with the only difference  being siding or garage door types (see screenshot immediately below for high level comparison,  detailed elevations included in the packet).  However, since this results in effectively four different  home types amongst 10 different homes, Staff considers there to be sufficient variation in the single  family homes.    Regarding the duplex homes, Staff considers the applicant has achieved a “theme” but has not  provided sufficient “variation” to avoid monotony.  Two of the one‐story duplex home types are  proposed to be the same but for color, while the third differs only in the direction of the gable over  the garages.  All three two‐story duplex home types are proposed to be the same but for color. The  applicant has provided an alternative two story duplex which they indicate can be used to replace  the 1‐story duplexes consisting of units 3 & 4 and 5 & 6. Staff considers this two story duplex to be  substantially similar in style to the other duplexes and not present a significant improvement to  compliance with this criterion.    12. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide more variety between the proposed  facades, to include different housing styles and also to include more variation between homes of the  same style.    15  13. In conjunction with Building Design Criterion (1) above, Staff notes that the homes facing Dorset  Street also face towards a public recreation path, further supporting the case for additional  architectural detail on those facades.    (3) Front Building Setbacks.  A close relationship between the building and the street is critical  to the ambiance of the street environment.   (a) Buildings should be set back a maximum of twenty‐five feet (25’) from the back of  sidewalk.   Buildings along the side of the street with a sidewalk are proposed to be set back approximately  20 ft from the front of the sidewalk.  Buildings along the side of the street without a sidewalk  are proposed to be set back more than 30 ft from the edge of the road.  Because of the homes  being located on a curve, the Board preliminarily accepted the configuration at preliminary plat.   If the homes were located nearer to the edge of the road on the non‐sidewalk side, the homes  would be closer together.  Staff therefore recommends the Board approve the applicant’s  configuration.  (b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks.   Porches are proposed to encroach by one or two feet into the front setbacks.  Staff considers  this criterion met.      (4) Placement of Garages and Parking.  For garages with a vehicle entrance that faces a front  lot line, the  facade of the garage that includes the vehicle entrance must be set back a minimum  of eight feet (8’) behind the building line of the  single or two‐family dwelling.   (a)  For the purposes of this subsection:  (i)  The building width of a single or two‐family dwelling, not including the garage,  shall be no less than twelve feet (12’), except for a duplex with side‐by‐side primary  entries, in which case the building width of each dwelling unit in the duplex, not including  a garage, shall be no less than eight feet (8’)   (ii)    The portion of the single or two‐family dwelling that is nearest the front lot line  may be a covered, usable porch, so long as the porch is no less than eight feet (8’) wide.  At preliminary plat, the Board found the applicant must confirm compliance with this criterion  at the time of zoning permit application for each individual building.    The applicant provided the following statement in their design narrative document in support of  the criterion of 9.08C.  It is our hope that by providing this level of detail at Final Plat, that the boards approval of  this plan as a whole, will act as an acknowledgement of compliance for the project as  submitted. If the board agrees with this approach, then the only determination required by  the Zoning Administrator would be in the even of a modification of design from what the  DRB has approved.  Given the applicant’s (assumed) request in their Design Narrative for full approval for the  buildings as proposed, Staff has reviewed the proposed homes against this criterion.  14. This criterion does not appear to be met for units 1 or 18, the single family units nearest Park  Road.  Otherwise this criterion appears to be met.  Staff recommends the Board to modify units 1  and 18 to meet this requirement.  16  15. If the applicant is seeking flexibility in the actually constructed homes, Staff considers they  should make a specific request to the Board as to what authority to modify they are asking be  delegated to the Zoning Administrator.  (b)  The DRB may waive this provision for garages with vehicle entries facing a side lot  line, provided that (i) the garage is visually integrated into the single or two‐family dwelling;  and (ii) the façade of the garage that is oriented to the street is no more than eight feet (8’) in  front of the  façade of the house that is oriented to the street.    (c)  Rear alleys are encouraged for small lot single‐family houses, duplexes and  townhouses.  No side facing garages or rear alleys are proposed.  (d) Mix of Housing Styles.  A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.),  sizes, and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should  be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than  compartmentalized into sections of near‐identical units.   (i) Mix of Housing Styles, SEQ‐NRN sub‐district. A minimum of at least three (3)  housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and/or affordability is required  within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed within blocks, along the  street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near‐ identical housing styles. Where housing styles are repeated, different colors and/or  materials shall be employed to enhance variety.  Staff considers six housing styles are proposed: four single family and two duplex.  As noted  above, there are only minor variations between the single story duplex homes and between the  two story duplex homes, and the duplex homes are necessarily clustered by number of stories  based on the restrictions in the LDR.  Therefore as noted above, Staff recommends the Board  require further variation between the duplex homes.  D.  Landscape and Fence Buffer Standards, SEQ‐NRN sub‐district  (1) Applicability and submission requirements. This section provides standards for the  landscaping of development within the SEQ‐NRN sub‐district. A landscape plan shall be included  as part of any preliminary and/or final plat application.  (2) Existing Vegetation  (a) Existing vegetation that can effectively serve as landscape buffer to potentially  incompatible uses and/or are significant, heathy trees shall be retained to the maximum  extent possible, while accommodating the permitted level of development.   The applicant has provided an updated existing tree inventory plan.  The Board preliminarily  found that trees greater than 6‐inches in caliper within the required landscaping buffer should  be preserved, and that the grading plan must be revised to retain existing trees to the maximum  extent practical.  Beyond the “limits of clearing area” cloud in the center of the site, the  applicant’s tree inventory plan does not appear to show any trees to be retained.     There  appear to be several opportunities to retain existing beech, aspen, pine and butternut trees  located within the landscape buffer and throughout the common land.   16. Staff recommends first that the “limits of clearing area” be modified to exclude any areas within  the crown of the 32” oak tree and nearby shagbark hickory trees.  17  17. Staff further recommends the Board direct the applicant to evaluate which additional trees can  be retained with minor grading modifications, update the landscaping plan to clearly indicate  trees to be retained and removed, and indicate measures to protect retained trees.  As anticipated and mentioned above, the applicant’s plan to retain trees to the maximum extent  practical results in the proposed central recreation path being removed.  9.06E, addressed  above, includes in part the following requirement:  The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies… sufficient  to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency  service vehicles between neighborhoods.   18. At preliminary plat, the Board noted that there are existing recreation paths that go around the  project and the proposed central recreation path would only shorten the route slightly.  Staff  supports the removal of the central recreation path is acceptable and recommends the Board  approve the modified design.  Staff considers the Board must, in making this determination,  weigh preservation of trees against additional connectivity.    (3) Landscape Buffer Types  (a) Type 0 – Low Height Vegetation. A Type 0 landscaping typically includes grass or  meadow area with foundation screening at the buildings.  This type of buffer is intended to  provide separation between new buildings and the existing land uses.    (b) Type I ‐ Dense Plantings. A Type I landscaped buffer must be composed primarily of  continuous dense screening vegetation / hedge that will be at least five (5) feet in width and  grow to at least six (6) feet in height.   (c) Type II – Informal Plantings. A Type II landscaped buffer must be composed of a split  rail fence (or equivalent approved by the DRB), major trees, a partial understory of small  trees, and a berm with a mixture of shrub type plantings. The minimum amount of planting  per 100 horizontal feet of buffer shall be a full ground cover, two trees of at least 3” caliper,  three ornamental or understory trees of at least 2” caliper, and any combination of shrubbery  that occupies at least 50% of the area at the time of planting, all of which shall be distributed  throughout the minimum buffer width described in Table 9‐2A. With approval of the City  Council, up to 10 feet of the green space between a recreation path and a property line may  be used to enable the installation of the split rail fence and a portion of a berm.  The applicant has proposed Type I and Type II plantings where allowed in Table 9‐2A below.  At preliminary plat the Board found the open space management plan must include specific  language detailing the required upkeep of these landscape buffer areas.  The applicant has  proposed the following.  Type I Landscape Buffer:  Dense screening hedge to be maintained by the HOA with annual  mulching and shrub care maintenance.  Type II Landscape Buffer:  Informal planting area comprised of major trees, a partial  understory of small trees, and a mixture of shrub type plantings.  Area to be maintained by  the HOA, which shall include, necessary pruning plant health monitoring, weeding, and  mulching.  Staff considers this criterion met.  18  (4) Use of Berms. Earthen Berms. An earthen berm may be required to increase the  effectiveness of a landscaped buffer. The landscaping plan shall show the contours of the  proposed berm and one or more cross‐sections detailing its construction. The required buffer  width may be reduced by the height of the berm, up to a number of feet that shall not exceed 25%  of the required width, as provided in Table 9‐2A.  (a) Berms shall not exceed six feet (6’) in height.   (b) No berm shall have a slope greater than 3:1, except where a retaining wall is  used in accordance with these Regulations.  No berms are proposed.  (5) Delineation Fences. Any development proposed adjacent to a City park shall include a  fence delineating the separation of property lines, as depicted on Figure 9‐2A. Such fence shall be  of a split‐rail or similar variety.   A split rail fence is provided as discussed above.  (6) Permissible impervious surfaces in landscaped buffers.  (a) Crossings. Landscaped buffers may be crossed by driveways, roads, sidewalks, trails,  and utility lines, including necessary risers and boxes, serving the development. The width of  these crossings should be minimized.  (b) Light Standards. The bases of standards for approved outdoor lighting may be placed in  a landscaped buffer.  (c) Miscellaneous. Landscaped buffers may include retaining walls, planters, minor  impervious surfaces that are part of runoff and erosion control works; and sculptures or  other works of art.  A portion of the southern landscaped buffer contains a three‐foot deep stormwater conveyance  swale.  At preliminary plat the Board found the applicant must modify the grading to the right  (north) of the low point to redirect stormwater runoff to enter the storm pond upstream of the  landscaping buffer.  It appears the swale has been rerouted as required.  (7) Supplemental setback standards, SEQ‐NRN sub‐district. In addition to the standards set  forth in Table C‐2, Dimensional Standards and this section, the requirements of Table 9‐2A shall  apply.    19  Table 9‐2A Supplemental landscape buffer and setback requirements, SEQ‐NRN sub‐district  Adjoining Use Minimum Buffer Widths Minimum setback  (5)     Type 0  Type I (5)  Type II     High Use Rec Path (1)  n/a  n/a  30'  50'  Lower Use Rec Path (2)  70'  n/a  27'  30'  Resource Protection Area (3)  40'  5'  27'  35'  % Reduction for Use of Berm (4)  25%  n/a  25%  n/a'            (1) The section of recreation path running along the west side of the SEQ‐NRN sub‐ district, as shown on Figure 9‐2A.  (2) The section of recreation path running along the south and east sides of the SEQ‐NRN  sub‐district, as shown on Figure 9‐2A.  (3) The area located at the north boundary line of the SEQ‐NRN sub‐district, as shown on  Figure 9‐2A   (4) Plantings are to be placed on top of berm for added vertical screening effect.  Reduction not applicable to High Use Recreation Path.  (5) Setbacks apply to all principal structures.    At preliminary plat the Board required the applicant to modify their plan to explicitly show  compliance with the minimum setback requirements.  The applicant has done so.  Staff considers  this criterion met.  (8) Supplemental Height Standards, SEQ‐NRN sub‐district. In addition to the standards set  forth in Table C‐2, Dimensional Standards, residential structures shall be limited to a maximum of  one (1) total story within the areas marked as “1‐Story Building Area” on Figure 9‐2A.   Heights are discussed above.    C) SUBDIVISION STANDARDS  The general standards applicable to this subdivision are as follows.  (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the  project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water  allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the  Department of Environmental Conservation.  This Criterion was found met at a master plan level.  See discussion under 9.06D(1) above.  (2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after construction  to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject  property and adjacent properties.  In making this finding, the DRB may rely on evidence that the  project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont  Department of Environmental Conservation.  This criterion was found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for  individual phases.  See discussion under 9.06B(4) above.  20  (3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to  prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on  the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review  by City staff or consultants.  This criterion was found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for  individual phases.  See discussion under 9.06E above.  (4) The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife  habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. In  making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to  wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with  respect to the project's impact on natural resources.  See discussion of open space management plan under 9.06B(3) above.  (5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the  area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is  located.  Staff considers the residential design criteria of 9.08C ensure compliance with this criterion.  (6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for  creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.  These criteria were found to be met at master plan level but additional review at preliminary plat  approval was also required.  See 9.06B(1) above.    (7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure  that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not  be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two  directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and  location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in  accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water.  This criterion was found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for  individual phases.  See discussion under 9.06D(4) above.    (8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting  have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and  infrastructure to adjacent properties.  (9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is  consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific  agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.  These criteria were found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for  individual phases.  See discussion under 9.06D(2) and (3) above.  (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the  affected district(s).  This criterion was found to be met at master plan level but additional review at preliminary plat  approval was also required.  The Board finds this criterion met.  21  (11) The project’s deign incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate  structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less runoff  from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater as close as  possible to where it hits the ground.  The City Stormwater Section reviewed the plans and supporting documentation on 1/28/2021.  The  applicant responded to those initial comments, and the Stormwater Section provided updated  responses on 2/19/2021.  Those updated comments are included in the packet.  19. Staff recommends the Board continue the hearing to allow the applicant to address the remaining  comments of the City Stormwater Section.  D) SITE PLAN STANDARDS  14.06 General Site Plan Review Standards  A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due  attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use  policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.  The project is identified in the comprehensive plan as an area of very low intensity to lower intensity  land use.  However, this zoning district was established to allow for development of this parcel  consistent with the settlement agreement.  The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat.   B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.  (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from  structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and  adequate parking areas.  The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat.  (2) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable.  This criterion does not apply to single family and duplex homes.  (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale  of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining  buildings.  The Board found at preliminary plat that the height and mix of housing types requirements of  the SEQ‐NRN to ensure compliance with this criterion.  (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations  or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground.  Utilities are proposed to be underground.  C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.  (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common  materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing),  landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between  buildings of different architectural styles.  (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing  buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures.  22  The Board found at preliminary plat that the SEQ standards, if met, will result in these criteria being  met.    14.07 Specific Site Plan Review Standards  (A) Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of  access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto  an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to  improve general access and circulation in the area.  At preliminary plat the Board found no such access is necessary for the subject property, as it is  bounded on all sides not facing a street by a public park.    (B) Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire‐served utility lines and service connections shall  be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility  installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to  neighboring properties and to the site.  Aboveground elements of wire‐served utility services (ie pull boxes, transformers) are not shown at  this stage of review.  These features are required to be screened, as discussed below.    (C) Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance  with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with  opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles  intended for use by households or the public (ie, non‐dumpster, non‐large drum) shall not be  required to be fenced or screened.  The Board found this criterion not applicable at preliminary plat.  (D) Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening,  and Street Trees.  Section 13.06 standards do not apply to single and two family homes on their own lots.  However,  since the applicant is proposing shared lots, these standards do apply, including minimum landscape  budget.  The minimum required landscape value for the Project is based on an estimated building  construction cost of $7,039,0002.    Total  Building  Construction  Cost  % of total Construction Cost  Required Value  $0 ‐ $250,000  3%  $7,500  Next $250,000  2%  $5,000  Additional Over $500,000  1%  $65,390  Total  $77,890  The applicant has proposed $51,000 in buffer plantings, $8,600 in foundation plantings, and $24,000  in greenspace area, for a total of $83,600 in plantings.  All of these plantings are proposed to be  trees and shrubs.  Street trees, which do not count towards the minimum required landscaping    2 The applicant has erroneously included the roadway cost in estimating their required minimum landscaping  budget.  However they have provided enough information for Staff to recalculate the required minimum  landscaping budget.  23  budget, are proposed at $25,000, and utility cabinet screening is proposed at $1,800.  Staff  considers the required minimum landscaping budget to be met.  Utility cabinets are required to be screened with evergreens and deciduous plantings, or a wall or  fence.  The applicant is proposing screening on three sides with evergreens and deciduous plantings,  and the fourth side with grasses, consistent with what Green Mountain Power has indicated they  will accept.  Staff recommends the Board accept the proposed utility screening.    Comments of the City Arborist are included above.  (E) Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in  complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public  health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as  the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, with the  exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the  location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall  be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit  for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on  sites where the pre‐existing condition exceeds the applicable limit.  Requested waivers are discussed where applicable.    E) OTHER  Energy Standards  All new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and  Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.  E9‐1‐1 Addressing  At preliminary plat, the Board required the applicant to provide an addressing plan and to submit a  street name request to the Planning Commission prior to final plat.  The applicant has done both of  these things.  The Planning Commission accepted the street name Zoey Circle.  Staff considers that the  unit labeled 66 Zoey Circle should be 64, for consistency with addresses across the street, but otherwise  the numbers are appropriately assigned based on numbering according to the location of the front door.   Staff reminds the applicant that if the Board imposes conditions affecting location of doors, the  addresses should be reevaluated.   Ledge Removal  Appendix A provides performance standards for vibration and noise.  The applicant has presented a ledge  removal plan which indicates where ledge is proposed to be removed.  Staff recommends the Board require  the applicant to provide the following information in order to demonstrate that the performance standards  of A.2 and A.3 and the Public Nuisance Ordinance will be met.   Extent of ledge removal – The provided plan includes no legend or explanation, therefore Staff  cannot determine what it is intended to convey.  Is the plan showing areas of ledge removal, or  just areas where proposed grade is lower than existing grade?  Is each color change a  foot?  Does this account for finish grade or include over‐excavation for appropriate subbase  preparation?  What is the meaning of the 250 ft preblast survey radius line?   Methodology of removal. – No information has been provided.  24   Mitigation measures to minimize impacts and be consistent with the City’s performance  standards (LDR appendix A.2 and A.3) and noise ordinance (embedded within the City’s Public  Nuisance ordinance) – No information has been provided.  20.  Staff considers this information should be provided and reviewed prior to closing the hearing.    RECOMMENDATION  Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.  Respectfully submitted,    Marla Keene, Development Review Planner  Waiver List      Please refer to SH 2 and SH 3 of the plan set for the designated preconstruction  grade requested for each of the 2‐story units throughout the development.  The  preconstruction grade was determined to be 2‐4 feet above the proposed roadway.    According to Article 9, Section C, (1) Building Orientation: at least 35% of translucent  windows and surfaces shall be oriented to the south.  The Applicant is proposing to  meet the 35% standard for the single family units and 30% for the duplex units, on  the southern side of the units adjacent to Park Rd.  Please refer to the building  elevations provided.       Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 1 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wheeler Parcel Residential Development Traffic Impact Assessment Park Road South Burlington, VT November 13, 2020 Project Introduction This Project consists of a proposed 32-unit residential development located in the southwest corner of the Wheeler Parcel. The Project will be bounded on the west by Dorset Street and on the south by Park Road. Access will be via a looped roadway accessing onto Park Road. The proposed residential units will include 10 single-family units and 22 duplex units. The Project also includes new sidewalks and shared use path connections linking with existing nearby shared use paths. For purposes of this traffic impact assessment (TIA), it is anticipated that construction of this Project will commence in 2021. The following sections present the results of our analyses of traffic congestion and safety conditions in the immediate vicinity of the Project. Background Traffic Volumes Background traffic volumes at the Dorset Street / Park Road intersection were obtained from a pm peak period turning movement count performed by this office at the Dorset Street/Park Road intersection on Thursday, November 5, 2020. A copy of the count results is attached in Appendix A. The observed peak hour volumes from the above turning movement count require two adjustments. The first is the usual DHV adjustment. For this, we used hourly data from VTrans Continuous Count Station (CTC) D277 located on Shelburne Road just north of Shelburne village. Comparing the afternoon peak hour volume on the first Thursday in November 2019 to the design hour volume (DHV) for 2019 yielded a DHV adjustment factor of +14% (1.14). The second adjustment is to account for the effect of the COVID pandemic on traffic volumes. As this report is being written, the available data from CTC D277 extends to mid-October. Comparing the afternoon peak hour volume on Thursday, October 15, 2020 to the same volume on Thursday, October 17, 2019 yielded a second adjustment factor of +7% (1.07). Combining those two adjustment factors yields an overall DHV adjustment factor of +22% (1.22). Background traffic growth rates were obtained from VTrans’ Red Book.1 VTrans’ most recent estimates of traffic growth on Vermont’s highways predict a 1% growth rate from 2020 to 2021 and a 3% growth rate from 2020 to 2026. 1 Continuous Traffic Counter Report Based on 2019 Traffic Data, Vermont Agency of Transportation, July 2020. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 2 Consulting Engineers, Inc. With am peak hour volumes being less than pm peak hour volumes at both intersections, this traffic impact assessment (TIA) only examines traffic congestion conditions during the latter time period. Figure 1 presents the estimated 2021 and 2026 background (no-build) design hour turning movement volumes in the vicinity of this Project. Figure 1 - No-Build DHV’s 2021 2026 Dorset St Dorset St 437 39 446 40      30 Park Rd  30 Park Rd  2  3     293 4 299 4 Dorset St Dorset St Project-Generated Traffic Anticipated peak hour trips for this Project were calculated using published trip generation rates2 for single family dwellings (ITE Land Use Category #210). Table 1 summarizes the resulting peak hour trip generation estimates. Table 1 - Weekday Trip Generation Average Weekday (vte/day) AM Peak Hour (vte/hr) PM Peak Hour (vte/hr) Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total 302 7 21 28 21 13 34 The directional distribution of the above pm peak hour project-generated trips is estimated to be 85% to/from the north and 15% to/from the south. This is based on pm peak hour directional patterns observed entering and exiting the east approach of Swift St at its intersection with Dorset St during a June 2016 turning movement count performed by VTrans. Figure 2 presents the estimated project trip pm peak hour directional distributions. 2 Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 10th Edition Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 3 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 2 - Estimated Project PM Peak Hour Trips Dorset St 0 18    11 Park Rd  2   0 3 Dorset St Combining the project-generated trips with the no-build volumes provides the 2021 and 2026 Build DHV turning movements shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 - Build DHV’s 2021 2026 Dorset St Dorset St 437 57 446 58      41 Park Rd  41 Park Rd  4  5     293 7 299 7 Dorset St Dorset St 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)3. Table 2 summarizes the LOS/delay criteria for unsignalized intersections. Table 2 - Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service/Delay Criteria LOS Avg. Delay (sec/veh) LOS Avg. Delay (sec/veh) A B C ≤10 ≤15 ≤25 D E F ≤35 ≤50 >50 In Vermont, LOS C represents the desired design standard for roadways and signalized intersections4. At two-way stop controlled (unsignalized) intersections having greater than 100 vph approach volume on a single-lane side street approach or greater than 150 vph approach volume on a two-lane side street approach, the VTrans level of service policy establishes LOS D as the desired design standard on the minor street approach(s). There is no level of service standard for unsignalized intersections not meeting the 3 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 6th Edition 4 Vermont Agency of Transportation Highway Design “Level of Service” Policy, May 31, 2007 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 4 Consulting Engineers, Inc. above side street volume thresholds. Reduced levels of service are acceptable in densely settled areas where volume/capacity ratios remain below 1.0 and/or the improvements required to achieve LOS C would create adverse environmental and cultural impacts. Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies can also be used to help mitigate levels of service not meeting the foregoing standards. While the Dorset St/Park Rd intersection does not meet the above approach volume thresholds for unsignalized intersections, intersection capacity analyses were nonetheless performed for the purpose of this TIA. All analyses were performed using Highway Capacity Software v.2010. This Project’s impact on future levels of service and average delays was analyzed by performing both no-build and build analyses, and comparing the results of the two. All analyses were performed using existing geometric conditions. The results are presented in Table 3. Detailed analysis worksheets are also attached in Appendix B. Table 3 - Dorset St / Park Rd Levels of Service Approach & Lane Group No-Build Build LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C 2021 DHV Park Rd WB LT-RT Dorset St SB LT B A 10.4 7.9 0.05 0.03 B A 10.8 8.0 0.07 0.04 2026 DHV Park Rd WB LT-RT Dorset St SB LT B A 10.7 7.9 0.05 0.03 B A 11.0 8.0 0.07 0.05 The above results indicate that the Dorset St / Park Rd intersection will continue to experience low delays and good levels of service with this Project. Safety The posted speed limits on Dorset St and Park Rd in the vicinity of the Project are 40 mph and 25 mph, respectively. Both streets provide one travel lane in each direction and have parallel shared-use paths for use by pedestrians and bicyclists. Existing traffic patterns entering and exiting Park Rd are overwhelmingly directional to and from the north due to Park Rd being a loop street also connecting with Dorset St to the south via Old Cross Rd. A southbound left-turn lane presently exists on Dorset St serving the left-turn movement onto Park Rd. This exclusive left-turn lane reduces conflicts between southbound left-turns and through movements, thereby improving safety conditions for southbound traffic on Dorset St. Both new intersections of the Project roadway onto Park Rd will have intersection sight distances exceeding the recommended 280 ft for the 25 mph posted speed limit. This sight distance also provides the recommended safe stopping sight distance for vehicles exceeding the speed limit by as much as 10 mph.5 5 The safe stopping sight distance for a vehicle traveling at 35 mph on a flat grade is 250 ft. That increases to 275 ft on a 6% downgrade. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 5 Consulting Engineers, Inc. VTrans identifies high crash intersections and high crash segments on major highways and urban streets based on their five-year crash history. The most recent high crash report6 identifies the Dorset St/Kennedy Dr/I-189 intersection, located 1 mile north of the Project, as a high crash location. This intersection experienced 40 crashes over the 2012-2016 five-year period. Of those, 39 were property damage only crashes. There was one injury resulting in the remaining crash. During the 2014-2018 five-year period, the number of crashes dropped to 38; all of them being property damage only crashes. The large majority of the above crashes are same direction rear-end and sideswipe crashes. There are not any obvious geometric deficiencies at this intersection or on its approaches. It also operates under traffic signal control using split (exclusive) signal phases for each of its approaches; thus minimizing vehicular conflicts. Crosswalks, pedestrian signals and street lighting also exist. Multi-Modal Facilities This Project will be served by existing shared-use paths extending north and south on the east side of Dorset St and to the east on the north side of Park Rd. A new sidewalk will be constructed paralleling the new Project roadway. A new cross-country shared-use path connection will also be constructed from the approximate northerly apex of that roadway to the existing shared-use path on the east side of Dorset St. The closest local transit service is Green Mountain Transit’s Purple Line serving Dorset St from Kennedy Drive north. Transportation Impact Fees This Project will be responsible for paying both local and state transportation impact fees. At the City level, the Road Improvement Impact Fee is set at $924 per pm peak hour trip end for single family dwellings constructed in 2021. Thus, the cost of this impact fee is estimated to be $31,416. The Road Improvement Impact Fee is used to pay costs associated with the following City road improvement projects: C Hinesburg Road/Van Sicklen Road Intersection Improvements C Williston Road Reconstruction C Airport Drive Extension C Airport Parkway/Ethan Allen Road Intersection Improvements C Tilley to Community Drive Connector C City Center Road Network The City also assesses a Recreation Impact Fee of $1,665 per unit, the majority of which is designated for constructing recreation paths and bicycle lanes. At the State level, this Project will also be assessed an Act 145 Transportation Impact Fee. The only state highway improvement project located within a 3-mile travel distance of the Project is the Champlain Parkway in Burlington. That project has an impact fee of $2,069 per pm peak hour vehicle trip end. This Project is eligible for a 15% adjustment in that impact fee due to its new sidewalk and shared-use path connections; reducing the impact fee to $1,759 per pm peak hour vehicle trip end. It is estimated that this 6 2012-2016 High Crash Location Report, Vermont Agency of Transportation, August 2017 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 6 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Project will generate 2 new pm peak hour vehicle trip ends using the Champlain Parkway, resulting in an Act 145 transportation impact fee of $3,518. Calculations of the Project-generated trips using the Champlain Parkway are enclosed as Appendix C. Conclusions From the foregoing analyses, we have formed the following conclusions regarding the potential traffic congestion and safety impacts of this Project: C Intersection capacity analyses at the Dorset St/Park Rd intersection indicate that acceptable levels of service will be maintained with this Project. C The relatively small volume of additional traffic resulting from this Project will not create unsafe traffic conditions. C Payment of state and local transportation-related impact fees will mitigate this Project’s impact on future traffic conditions on the adjacent highway network. Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX A Dorset Street / Park Road Turning Movement Count Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX B Intersection Capacity Analysis Reports Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX C Act 145 State Transportation Impact Fee Calculations Site Plan Review Comments  The Stormwater Section (City) has reviewed the “Wheeler Parcel‐ Overall Site Plan” prepared by O’Leary‐ Burke Civil Associates, PLC, dated February 26, 2020. On 2/19/2021, they provided the following revised  comments:    1. As the project proposes to create more than one‐half acre of impervious surface, the project is  subject  to  the  requirements  of  section  12.03  of  the  South  Burlington  Land  Development  Regulations (LDRs).   OK.  As this project is subject to a settlement agreement between the City and the Landowner, the project  is being reviewed under the LDRs adopted January 25, 2016.  Please let me know if there is a section of  the 2016 regulations that is not being met.    From reviewing the 2016 LDRs, it appears that most of the standards are unchanged. Our main  concern is the post‐construction peak runoff rate is not exceeding the existing. The model that you  provided demonstrates this.     On a similar note, did you already apply for a Wetland Permit?      2. The  applicant  is  requested  to  provide  modeling  results  that  show  the  existing  and  post‐ development hydrographs for the WQv (1”) and the 1‐year, 24‐hour rain event.  Please see the attached HydroCAD results for the WQv and 1‐year events.  Thank you for the modeling. Could you also provide the drainage areas within the project? Specifically,  what flow is going to the Conveyance Swales?      3. Sheet 3, Site Plan East depicts a Stormwater Easement located next to the gravel wetland. Whose  easement is this? City GIS records do not show an existing easement.  The easement is located on City land.  The easement was granted to the landowner as part of the  settlement agreement for stormwater treatment of a future development.  Please refer to SH PL1 –  Subdivision plat for the project.  The plat shows the existing easement and cites the book and page for  the recording of the easement in the South Burling land records.  Thanks!    4. The cover letter dated April 6, 2020, states that the neighborhood will be served by municipal  facilities including stormwater collection and treatment systems. It is recommended that the 6”  riser and solid PVC pipe that carries flow from Cell 1 to Cell 2 be increased to a minimum 15” for  ease of maintenance. Additionally, it is recommended to add a hydraulic inlet of 4‐6” rip rap to  Cell 1 as the primary routing into the system (in addition to the perforated riser as the secondary).  For further detail see the following link:  https://www.unh.edu/unhsc/sites/default/files/media/unhsc_gravel_wetland_spec_6‐2016.pdf  Correct. As the project has been designed to municipal standards, the roadway, pump station and the  stormwater facilities will be turned over to the City once the warranty period has lapsed on the  infrastructure.      Please refer to SH S2 – Stormwater Details, the gravel wetland detail has been revised to include 15”  PVC for the cleanout and the carrier pipe from cell 1 to cell2.  Also, the gravel wetland detail has been  revised to provide rip rap on the backside of the cell berms.  We appreciate this revision for future maintenance purposes. In looking at the plans again  though‐ the Clean Crushed Drainage stone is labelled as 1.5”. I am assuming that this is in fact  1.5’ or 18”. With that assumption, the depth of the stone isn’t enough to accommodate the  larger 15” carrier pipe so the pipe would be exposed to the wetland muck. Is it possible to bring  the crushed stone to a full 2’ depth? This is what we customarily design ours to in the city. That  way the carrier pipe is still fully embedded in the crushed stone layer.    Additionally, my intent wasn’t to include rip rap on the backside of the berms. We have had  significant erosion on the front side of the berms‐ where flow would be occurring in larger  storms‐ so the entire berm should have protection.     The intent of my comment was to allow a hydraulic inlet through stone into the subsurface  gravel. The detail does show stone around the 24” perforated riser which would allow for this‐  but there is no note to show the dimensions being utilized. We have had a number of issues  with the perforations on the risers getting clogged and so prefer a larger stone pad (see below)  to act as an inlet.         5. It is recommended that the applicant revise the elevations given for the berms in the gravel  wetland and forebay. Rip rap should not be considered as an impermeable surface.  I do not understand how the elevations of the berms in the gravel wetland are related to rip rap being  considered an impermeable surface.  Please re‐phase this comment and I will try my best to address it.    The berms need to be designed so that they are made of impermeable material to the full elevation  designed for retention. It is difficult to determine the intention from the detail as they are not scaled  or labeled. We often have designers model a system to the elevation at the top of the rip rap as the  elevation that water will be detained to‐ and that is what we want to avoid.     6. The Stormwater Details sheet includes a detail for a grass drainage swale. Where is this intended  for?  This is a typical detail for swales used for stormwater conveyance.  For this project, there are swales  proposed along the perimeter of the project and on the backside of units 19‐22.  Please refer to attached  SH 2 and SH 3.     I understand the intent of the swale but did not see them noted on the plans‐ thank you for  identifying them here. Were these actually modeled in HydroCAD to determine the necessary  sizing? In looking at the landscaping plan, it also appears that there will be plantings incorporated  in these areas which may impact conveyance. Additionally, there is mulch specified in the planting  beds which could easily be carried into the swale. Could you modify the note pertaining to Bon  Terra S2 to reflect a product that is either woven or interlinked  and  made  from  100%  biodegradable materials? Many of these Bon Terra products use Polypropelene.     7. The outlet structure shows an 18” PE outlet pipe on an angle. This pipe should be installed  horizontally to achieve a better seal with the boot. Additionally, the orifice appears to be on  bottom of the angle section. It is recommended that the outlet pipe be lowered in the structure  so that the orifice can be located on a vertical face.    The purpose of the detail is to show the outlet structure penetrations and elevations.  The slope shown  on the outlet pipe is just an illustration, not a specification as nothing is labeled.  The slope of the outlet  pipe will be dictated by the elevation in the structure and the elevation at the discharge point.    This does not address my concern of the orifice being located on bottom of the angle section. It  is recommended that the outlet pipe be lowered in the structure so that the orifice can be located  on a vertical face. In order to properly maintain the orifice, it will need to be visible and accessible.      LOCATION MAPNOT TO SCALEACEHIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENTCO., LLCVERMONTNATIONALCOUNTRY CLUB1227 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON,VERMONTSOUTH BURLINGTON,VERMONTRECEIVED FOR RECORDING IN THE LAND RECORDS OFTHE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, AT______________ O'CLOCK ON THE ______ DAY OF__________, 20_____.ATTEST: ____________________________, CITY CLERKAPPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWBOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT,ON THE _____ DAY OF ________, 20____, SUBJECT TO THEREQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID RESOLUTION.SIGNED THIS _____ DAY OF _________, 20______.BY ___________________________________, CHAIRPERSONORIGINAL INK on MYLAR - REDUCED for RECORDING DESCRIPTIONDATEREV Park RoadSouth Burlington, VTPARK ROADPreblastSurveyDrawing250ft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x(;,67,1*75((/,1(66+2:15()/(&7&21',7,216'(3,&7(')52097257+2,0$*(5< :,'(&20081,7<5(&3$7+(0(5*(1&<$&&(6652$'63/,75$,/)(1&( 7<3 (;,67,1*67250:$7(5($6(0(17 :,'(&20081,7<5(&3$7+(;,67,1*3/$17,1*52:72%(5(/2&$7('&+$03/$,1:$7(5',675,&7&20081,7<*$5'(13/276'256(7675((73$5.52$'+,*+86(5(&3$7+/2:86(5(&3$7+9,//$6$7:$7(572:(5+,//+20(2:1(56$662&,$7,21,1&-$0*2/)//&&,7<2)6287+%85/,1*7211,&./$8 6 &,5&/(-$0*2/)//&&,7<2)6287+%85/,1*721/7<3,&$/87,/,7<&$%,1(73/$17,1*'(7$,/3$5.52$'5(9,6(')25),1$/3/$7$33/,&$7,21 UHYLVLRQVGDWH UHYLVLRQV GDWHFROOHJHVWUHHWEXUOLQJWRQYHUPRQWODQGVFDSHDUFKLWHFWVSODQQLQJFRQVXOWDQWVKWWSZZZWMER\OHFRPQRUWKVFDOHGUDZQE\GDWHVKHHWQR7\SLFDO/RWDQG8WLOLW\3ODQWLQJ'HWDLOV:KHHOHU3DUFHO/  GHVLJQE\'$'(FKHFNHGE\'$'(6&$/(  DW[21/< 0-%7-%R\OH$VVRFLDWHV//&&$55,$*(+20()281'$7,213/$17,1*/'83/(;)281'$7,213/$17,1*3/$17,1*'(7$,/  /72:1+20()281'$7,213/$17,1*3/$17,1*'(7$,/  /3/$17,1*'(7$,/  0(',806+58%+<'5$1*($$521,$$0(/$1&+,(57+8-$(7&0(',806+58%+<'5$1*($$521,$$0(/$1&+,(57+8-$(7&60$//6+58%7$;86-81,3(563,5($&/(7+5$(7&3(5(11,$/*5281'&29(53$&+<6$1'5$0<57/(/(17(1526((7&0(',806+58%6+<'5$1*($$521,$$0(/$1&+,(57+8-$(7&60$//6+58%67$;86-81,3(563,5($&/(7+5$(7&60$//6+58%67$;86-81,3(563,5($&/(7+5$(7&/7<3,&$/87,/,7<&$%,1(73/$17,1*3/$17,1*'(7$,/17687,/,7<6&5((1,1*'(7$,/127(6x63$&,1*6+$//%(,1$&&25'$1&(:,7+$//*5((102817$,132:(55(48,5(0(176PLAN ISSUEDFOR REVIEW12/17/20200(',806+58%+<'5$1*($$521,$$0(/$1&+,(57+8-$(7&60$//6+58%7$;86-81,3(563,5($&/(7+5$(7&35,0$5<75$16)250(5 6(&21'$5<3('(67$/ .3+$6(9$8/7&.)  &.)  &.)  70'  +3  70'  -&  5(9,6(')25),1$/3/$7$33/,&$7,21  :,'(&20081,7<5(&3$7+(0(5*(1&<$&&(6652$'63/,75$,/)(1&( 7<3 (;,67,1*67250:$7(5($6(0(17 :,'(&20081,7<5(&3$7+(;,67,1*3/$17,1*52:72%(5(/2&$7('(;,67,1*3/$17,1*52:72%(5(7$,1('&+$03/$,1:$7(5',675,&7&20081,7<*$5'(13/276'256(7675((73$5.52$'+,*+86(5(&3$7+/2:86(5(&3$7+9,//$6$7:$7(572:(5+,//+20(2:1(56$662&,$7,21,1&-$0*2/)//&&,7<2)6287+%85/,1*7211,&./$8 6 &,5&/(-$0*2/)//&&,7<2)6287+%85/,1*721$3352;,0$7(/2&$7,212)327(17,$/675($06($621$/675($0UHYLVLRQVGDWH UHYLVLRQV GDWHFROOHJHVWUHHWEXUOLQJWRQYHUPRQWODQGVFDSHDUFKLWHFWVSODQQLQJFRQVXOWDQWVKWWSZZZWMER\OHFRPQRUWKVFDOHGUDZQE\GDWHVKHHWQR9HJHWDWLRQ0DQDJHPHQW3ODQ:KHHOHU3DUFHO/  7-%R\OH$VVRFLDWHV//&GHVLJQE\'$'(FKHFNHGE\'$'(0-%6&$/(  DW[21/< *UHHQ2SHQ 6SDFH 'HVLJQDWHG RSHQ VSDFH WR EHPDLQWDLQHGE\WKH+2$DQGUHJXODUO\PRZHGZLWKDQQXDO PXOFKLQJ RI SODQWLQJ EHGV DQG WUHH DQGVKUXEFDUHPDLQWHQDQFH 7\SH,/DQGVFDSH%XIIHU'HQVHVFUHHQLQJKHGJHWREH PDLQWDLQHG E\ WKH +2$ ZLWK DQQXDO PXOFKLQJDQGVKUXEFDUHPDLQWHQDQFH 7\SH,,/DQGVFDSH%XIIHU,QIRUPDOSODQWLQJDUHDFRPSULVHG RI PDMRU WUHHV D SDUWLDO XQGHUVWRU\ RIVPDOOWUHHVDQGDPL[WXUHRIVKUXEW\SHSODQWLQJV$UHD WR EH PDLQWDLQHG E\ WKH +2$ ZKLFK VKDOOLQFOXGH QHFHVVDU\ SUXQLQJ SODQW KHDOWKPRQLWRULQJZHHGLQJDQGPXOFKLQJ :RRGHG$UHD$OOYHJHWDWLRQZLWKLQWKHZRRGHGDUHDVKDOO EH OHIW WR JURZ DQG PD\ QRW EH FOHDUHG'LVHDVHG RU IDLOLQJ WUHHV ZLOO EH PDQDJHG E\ WKH+2$ 6WRUPZDWHU7UHDWPHQW$UHD5RXWLQHPDLQWHQDQFHLQFOXGLQJ QHFHVVDU\ UHPRYDO RI YHJHWDWLRQ DQGGUHGJLQJ &RPPXQLW\ *DUGHQ+$2 WR RYHUVHH JDUGHQHUVPDLQWHQDQFHRIFRPPXQLW\JDUGHQSORWV 6WUHHWVFDSH5LJKWRI:D\7UHHVSODQWHGZLWKLQWKHURDG ULJKWRIZD\ WR EH PDLQWDLQHG E\ WKH FLW\DUERULVW9HJHWDWLRQ0DQDJHPHQW3ODQ/(*(1':22'('$5($67250:$7(575($70(17$5($7<3(,,/$1'6&$3(%8))(5PLAN ISSUEDFOR REVIEW12/17/20207<3(,/$1'6&$3(%8))(5*5((123(163$&(&20081,7<*$5'(1675((76&$3(&20081,7<1,7<<0020<81,7<81,008*$5'(13/276(17765**$$/2766276/27/23&20008,7,*$*'1/2666$$$20000''088888111177722222<6666665(9,6(')25),1$/3/$7$33/,&$7,21 D/Ͳ>K<ϭ/ůůƵŵŝŶĂŶĐĞ;&ĐͿǀĞƌĂŐĞсϭ͘ϮϱDĂdžŝŵƵŵсϭ͘ϵϲDŝŶŝŵƵŵсϬ͘ϯϱǀŐͬDŝŶZĂƚŝŽсϯ͘ϱϳDĂdžͬDŝŶZĂƚŝŽсϱ͘ϲϬ/ůůƵŵŝŶĂŶĐĞ;&ĐͿD/Ͳ>K<ϮǀĞƌĂŐĞсϭ͘ϰϮDĂdžŝŵƵŵсϭ͘ϵϮDŝŶŝŵƵŵсϭ͘ϬϴǀŐͬDŝŶZĂƚŝŽсϭ͘ϯϭDĂdžͬDŝŶZĂƚŝŽсϭ͘ϳϴ/ůůƵŵŝŶĂŶĐĞ;&ĐͿǀĞƌĂŐĞсϭ͘ϰϰDĂdžŝŵƵŵсϭ͘ϵϱDŝŶŝŵƵŵсϬ͘ϴϯD/Ͳ>K<ϯǀŐͬDŝŶZĂƚŝŽсϭ͘ϳϯDĂdžͬDŝŶZĂƚŝŽсϮ͘ϯϱ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´'(37+/$:1$5($6'(37+6+58%3/$17%('6´'(37+ 3/$1766+$//%(,167$//('68&+7+$77+(5227)/$5(,6$7256/,*+7/<$%29(),1$/*5$'( '8(721856(5<35$&7,&(67+,60$<5(48,5(5(029,1*62,/)5207+(7232)7+(5227%$//72/2&$7(7+(5227)/$5(  $//3/$1766+$//%(%$//('$1'%85/$33('25&217$,1(5*52:1$663(&,),('12&217$,1(5*52:1672&.:,//%($&&(37(',),7,65227%281'$//5227:5$33,1*0$7(5,$/0$'(2)6<17+(7,&6253/$67,&66+$//%(5(029('$77+(7,0(2)3/$17,1* :,7+&217$,1(5*52:1672&.7+(&217$,1(56+$//%(5(029('$1'7+(&217$,1(5%$//6+$//%(&877+528*+7+(685)$&(,17:29(57,&$//2&$7,216 7+('$<35,25723/$17,1*7+(/2&$7,212)$//75((6$1'6+58%66+$//%()/$**(')25$33529$/%<7+(352-(&7/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&725(48$/ /$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&70$<5(48,5($//3/$176%(635$<(':,7+$1$17,'(66,&$17:,7+,1+2856$)7(53/$17,1*,17(03(5$7(=21(6$//3/$1766+$//%(635$<(':,7+$1$17,'(66,&$17$77+(%(*,11,1*2)7+(,5),567:,17(5 67$.,1*3/$176,6$77+(',6&5(7,212)7+(/$1'6&$3(&2175$&72521/<67$.(3/$176,17+(0$11(563(&,),(',17+(3/$17,1*'(7$,/6 $//3/$1766+$//%(:$7(5('7+2528*+/<7:,&('85,1*7+(),567+2853(5,2'$)7(53/$17,1*$//3/$1766+$//7+(1%(:$7(5(':((./<,)1(&(66$5<'85,1*7+(),567*52:,1*6($621 7+(/$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$//5()(5727+(&2175$&763(&,),&$7,216)25$'',7,21$/5(48,5(0(176 7+(/$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$//5()(5727+(3/$17/,67)256($621$/5(48,5(0(1765(/$7('727+(7,0(2)3/$17,1*3/$17%('1761761766SDFLQJ ' 5RZ $ 1XPEHURI3ODQWV $UHD8QLW2&  64)72&  2&  2&  2&  64)72&  2&  2&  2&   2&  64)7 2&   2&   2&   2&   2&  64)7 2&   2&   2&   2&   2&   64)7'''$3/$1763$&,1*&+$572& 21&(17(575((3527(&7,21127(6x35,2572$1<&216758&7,21$&7,9,7<$//75((35(6(59$7,210($685(60867%(,03/(0(17('x&2175$&725&+26(1)257+,6:25.:,//%($1(;3(5,(1&('75((6(59,&(),507+$7+$668&&(66)8//<&203/(7('75((3527(&7,2152273581,1*$1'75,00,1*:25.6,0,/$5727+$75(48,5(')257+,6352-(&7x35,2572&216758&7,216+$///2&$7($1'9(5,)<7+((;,67(1&(2)$//87,/,7,(635,257267$57,1*:25.&217$&7',*6$)(7:2)8//%86,1(66'$<6%()25(3/$17,1* +2850,1 x35,25727+(6,7(9,6,7$//75((35(6(59$7,21$5($66+$//%(67$.('287216,7(%<6859(<x75((3527(&7,21)(1&,1*6+$//5(0$,1,17$&77+528*+287$//&216758&7,21$&7,9,7<x7+(5(:,//%(12(;&$9$7,21)25352326('6,7(:25.:,7+,1)(1&('$5($x120$7(5,$/625(48,30(176+$//%(6725('672&.3,/('2523(5$7(':,7+,175((3527(&7,21$5($6x75((3527(&7('$5($6:,//%(/()7$61$785$/$63266,%/(x,1$5($62)(;&$9$7,211($575((,'(17,)<$1'&8752276,1&2168/7$7,21:,7+2:1(5x5(029(3225/<$77$&+('$1'58%%,1*/,0%6&/($17+(&52:12)'($'',6($6('$1':($./,0%67+,11,1*2)+($/7+</,0%6,61275(&200(1'('$77+,67,0(x$1<1(&(66$5<75(1&+,1*6+$//%(,00(',$7(/<%$&.),//(':,7+5(029('62,/2527+(562,/0,;$6'(6&5,%(',1&2175$&763(&,),&$7,216x$1$,563$'($,5.1,)(,672%(86('72(;&$9$7('2:1720,1,0802) 6(('(7$,/63/$1763$&,1*&+$573/$1763$&,1*&+$57'(7$,/17675((3/$17,1*216/23('(7$,/17675((3527(&7,215(7(17,21$5($)(1&('(7$,/x7+,6)(1&(6(59(6$6$75((3527(&7,21'(9,&(21/<x5227'$0$*(6+$//%($92,'(':,7+,1)(1&('$5($x)(1&(6+$//%(0$,17$,1('7+528*+287&216758&7,2175((3527(&7,21)(1&(1761766,*1'(7$,/x$77$&+0(1762)6,*167275((6,6352+,%,7('x6,*166+28/'%(0$'(2)9,1</253/$67,&x6,*166+28/'%(3523(5/<0$,17$,1('3(1$/7,(6:,//%((1)25&(')255(029$/2)6,*16x$92,',1-85<7252276:+(13/$&,1*32676)257+(6,*16x6,*166+28/'%(3267(' 2&$1':,7+,1 2)7+(%(*,11,1*$1'(1'2)($&+)(1&(72%(9,6,%/(72$//&216758&7,213(56211(/x6,*1672%(6(&85(/<)$67(1('727+()(1&(25)(1&(32676x6,*1672+$9($:+,7(%$&.*5281'$1'25$1*(255('7(;752273581,1*75(1&+127(6x86($1$,563$'($,5.1,)(72',*7+( 75(1&+$1'(;326(7+(52276x(;326('522766+28/'%(&87:,7+$6$:25/233(56720$.($&/($160227+&871277251255,33('x08/&+(;326('52276'85,1*7+(&877,1*352&(6672.((3)520'5<,1*287x%$&.),//75(1&+:,7+0,;785(2)72362,/$1'&203267$63(5&2175$&763(&,),&$7,21675((3581,1*,//8675$7,2117675((3581,1*127(6x5()(572$16,$ 3DUW026783'$7('9(56,21 3581,1*63(&,),&$7,216)25$'',7,21$/,1)250$7,21x:25.6+28/'%(35()250('%<$&(57,),('$5%25,6725352)(66,21$/75((&203$1<x$92,''$0$*,1*%$5.$1'27+(5/,9,1*7,668(7+528*+2877+(3581,1*352&(66x0$.(685(3581,1*722/6$5(6+$53x0$.(&/($1&87$6&/26(727+(%5$1&+&2//$5$63266,%/('2127/($9($678%x5('8&(7+(6,=(2)7+(%5$1&+)25$%(77(5&87x7+(),567$1'6(&21'&8766+28/'%,6(&77+($1*/(%(7:((1,76%5$1&+%$5.5,'*($1'$1,0$*,1$5</,1(3(53(1',&8/$5727+(%5$1&+2567(0x127025(7+$12)*52:7+6+28/'%(5(029(')520$&$123<'85,1*$*52:,1*6($621/)2586(:+(13/$176$5(6+2:1(48,',67$17)520($&+27+(5 $66+2:1 *5281'&29(5),1(&+,33('%$5.08/&+12025('2127&29(5)2/,$*(0,1,0803/$17%(''(37+81',6785%('25&203$&7('62,/3581(725(029('($':22'$1'&5266,1*%5$1&+(67232)5227%$//72%(6$0(+(,*+7$635(9,286/<*52:1),1(&+,33('3,1(%$5.08/&+127025('21273/$&($*$,1673/$1767(0($57+6$8&(5$0(1'%$&.),//$663(&,),('%5($.83&/2'6$1'5(029('(%5,6$1'6721(681',6785%('25&203$&7('62,/5(029(%85/$3)5207232)7+(5227%$//1(9(5/($9(%85/$3(;326('$%29(7+(62,/,)&217$,1(5*52:15(029(327&203/(7(/</226(152270$667235(9(17*,5'/,1*7,0(6',$0(7(52)5227%$//7,0(6',$0(7(52)5227%$//86(:,'(%(/77<3(7,(6'212786(523(25:,5(,1+26(6/((9(6x3581('$0$*('25%52.(1%5$1&+(65(86$%/(3(5)25$7('3/$67,&75((:5$3 72%(5(029('21(<($5$)7(53/$17,1* 86(,)1(&(66$5<;+$5':22'67$.(6+(,*+72)75((250,12)$//2:)25$'(37+2)%(/2:81',6785%('*5$'( 67$.,1*72%(5(029('21(<($5$)7(53/$17,1* 5227)/$5(6+$//%(3/$17('$756/,*+7/<$%29(),1$/*5$'( '8(721856(5<35$&7,&(67+,60$<5(48,5(5(029,1*62,/)5207+(7232)7+(5227%$//72/2&$7(7+(5227)/$5( ),1(&+,33('%$5.08/&+127025('21273/$&(08/&+',5(&7/<$*$,1677581.($57+6$8&(5$0(1'%$&.),//$663(&,),('%5($.83&/2'6$1'5(029('(%5,6$1'6721(66&$5,)<68%*5$'(72x&87 5(029($//2)7+(:,5(%$6.(7(;&(377+$7:+,&+,681'(57+(5227%$///($9(12%85/$3(;326('$%29(7+(62,/685)$&(5(029(%85/$3)5207+(7232)5227%$//,)%85/$3,60$'(2)1$785$/),%(5,)%85/$3,63/$67,&2575($7('&87$1'5(029($//%877+$7:+,&+,681'(57+(5227%$//81',6785%('25&203$&7('62,//226(168%*5$'(%<'5$**,1*7((7+2)7+(%8&.(70,1,0803/$17%(''(37+x62,/&203$&7,21$)7(5,167$//$7,216+$//%(36,$762,/02,6785(%(7:((1),(/'&$3$&,7<$1':,/7,1*32,17x62,/&203$&7,21$)7(5,167$//$7,216+$//%(36,$762,/02,6785(%(7:((1),(/'&$3$&,7<$1':,/7,1*32,17/$:181',6785%('25&203$&7('62,//226(168%*$5'(%<'5$**,1*7((7+2)7+(%8&.(70,1,0803/$17%(''(37+),1(&+,33('%$5.08/&+12025('2127&29(5)2/,$*(('*(/$:13(53/$15(9($/ 0$; 52273581,1*75(1&+ 0,1 '(37+ 6((%/2:8375(1&+'(7$,/%$%29(75((3527(&7,21)(1&(3/$&('$7('*(2)6,'(:$/.&85%25 %(<21''5,3/,1(25)857+(5,)3266,%/('5,3/,1(2)75(( $,5.1,)(63$'(72%(86('72',* 75(1&+&/($1&87675((52276(;326('52276,175(1&+ 67((/25:22'3267+,*+/<9,6,%/()/$**,1*6(&85()(1&(72+25,=217$/;$/21*72325$1*(0(6+612:)(1&(:,5(8726(&85(%277202))(1&($1&+2532670867%(,167$//('72$'(37+2)12/(667+$12)7+(727$/+(,*+72)7+(32676,*1 6(('(7$,/%$%29(  0$;  0,1 6(&21'&87),567&87&87$7$1*/(727+(%5$1&+&2//$5%5$1&+&2//$5),1$/&87 0,1  0,1 /////////86(:,'(%(/77<3(7,(6'212786(523(25:,5(,1+26(6/((9(6x3581('$0$*('25%52.(1%5$1&+(6,)67$.,1*;+$5':22'67$.(6+(,*+72)75((250,12)$//2:)25$'(37+2)%(/2:81',6785%('*5$'( 67$.,1*72%(5(029('21(<($5$)7(53/$17,1* 5227)/$5(6+$//%(3/$17('$756/,*+7/<$%29(),1$/*5$'( '8(721856(5<35$&7,&(67+,60$<5(48,5(5(029,1*62,/)5207+(7232)7+(5227%$//72/2&$7(7+(5227)/$5( ),1(&+,33('%$5.08/&+127025('21273/$&(08/&+',5(&7/<$*$,1677581.($57+6$8&(5$0(1'%$&.),//$663(&,),('%5($.83&/2'6$1'5(029('(%5,6$1'6721(66&$5,)<68%*5$'(72x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oyle Associates | 301 College Street • Burlington VT 05401 | www.tjboyle.com WHEELER PARCEL December 17, 2020 LANDSCAPE BUDGET & ESTIMATE Prepared by T.J. Boyle Associates, LLC REQUIRED LANDSCAPING BUDGET Total Building Construction or Building Improvement Costs Landscape Percent of Total Construction / Improvement Cost Cost of Proposed Project $0 - $250,000 3% $7,500 Next $250,000 2% $5,000 Additional over $500,000 1% $71,000 Total Minimum Landscaping* $83,500 *Project cost used to calculate the landscape budget is $7,600,000, which includes construction of 8 duplex units, 14 townhome Units, 10 carriage home units and 1,020 L.F. of roadway ($550/L.F). OPINION OF POTENTIAL LANDSCAPING COST Planting Area Total Buildings Cost per Building Total Potential Cost Typical Duplex Foundation 4 $1,150 $3,000 Typical Townhome Foundation 7 $750 $2,600 Typical Carriage Home Foundation 10 $605 $3,000 Landscape Buffer Areas - - $51,000 Open / Greenspace Areas - - $24,000 Total Landscaping Costs: $83,600 ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL LANDSCAPING COSTS Street Trees (Total Site) $25,000 Utility Cabinet Screening (Total Site) $1,800 UHYLVLRQVGDWH UHYLVLRQV GDWHFROOHJHVWUHHWEXUOLQJWRQYHUPRQWODQGVFDSHDUFKLWHFWVSODQQLQJFRQVXOWDQWVKWWSZZZWMER\OHFRPQRUWKVFDOHGUDZQE\GDWHVKHHWQR/LJKWLQJ'HWDLOV:KHHOHU3DUFHO/GHVLJQE\'$'(FKHFNHGE\'$'(0-%7-%R\OH$VVRFLDWHV//&3('(675,$132/(25'(5,1*,1)247</3('(675,$1/,*+7),;785(285225'(5,1*,1)247<// /,*+7,1*'(7$,/127(6((/80,1$5(6&+('8/()2525'(5,1*,1)250$7,213('(675,$1/,*+7%$6('(7$,/17685/.81937%/73535$)0%/PLAN ISSUEDFOR REVIEW12/17/20205(9,6(')25),1$/3/$7$33/,&$7,21 FirAppleCherrySpruceMapleElmOakOakBirchBirchGraftonStoweBoltonStrattonJayJayGraftonStrattonStratton BurkeStowe BoltonJay GraftonStratton )LUVW)ORRU )LUVW)ORRU73 *UDGH 7RSRI)RXQGDWLRQ *DUDJH6ODE     )LUVW)ORRU )LUVW)ORRU73 *UDGH 7RSRI)RXQGDWLRQ *DUDJH6ODE   6&$/('$7('5$:1%<&+(&.('%<352-(&76+((77,7/(7+,6'5$:,1*,67+(3523(57<2)*'(6,*1678',26//&$1',612772%(&23,('5(352'8&('257+(&217(177+(5(2)86(',1:+2/(25,13$57:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1&216(172)67(9(*8,/')255(9,(:21/<127)25&216758&7,21  30$(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216%/$&.52&.&216758&7,21'83/(;6*:*,3$5.5'3$5.52$'  )5217(/(9$7,21  5($5(/(9$7,21 )LUVW)ORRU )LUVW)ORRU73 *UDGH 7RSRI)RXQGDWLRQ *DUDJH6ODE     )LUVW)ORRU )LUVW)ORRU73 *UDGH 7RSRI)RXQGDWLRQ *DUDJH6ODE   6&$/('$7('5$:1%<&+(&.('%<352-(&76+((77,7/(7+,6'5$:,1*,67+(3523(57<2)*'(6,*1678',26//&$1',612772%(&23,('5(352'8&('257+(&217(177+(5(2)86(',1:+2/(25,13$57:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1&216(172)67(9(*8,/')255(9,(:21/<127)25&216758&7,21  30$(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216%/$&.52&.&216758&7,21'83/(;6*:*,3$5.5'3$5.52$'  )5217(/(9$7,21  5($5(/(9$7,21 )LUVW)ORRU )LUVW)ORRU73 *UDGH 7RSRI)RXQGDWLRQ *DUDJH6ODE     )LUVW)ORRU )LUVW)ORRU73 *UDGH 7RSRI)RXQGDWLRQ *DUDJH6ODE   6&$/('$7('5$:1%<&+(&.('%<352-(&76+((77,7/(7+,6'5$:,1*,67+(3523(57<2)*'(6,*1678',26//&$1',612772%(&23,('5(352'8&('257+(&217(177+(5(2)86(',1:+2/(25,13$57:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1&216(172)67(9(*8,/')255(9,(:21/<127)25&216758&7,21  30$(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216%/$&.52&.&216758&7,21'83/(;6*:*,3$5.5'3$5.52$'  )5217(/(9$7,21  5($5(/(9$7,21 UPUP$&%'(41' - 0"8' - 0"22' - 6 1/2"44' - 11"22' - 6 1/2"90' - 0"49' - 0"23' - 0"44' - 0"23' - 0"90' - 0"41' - 0"8' - 0"49' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"GARAGE SLAB ON GRADE ABOVEOPEN BASEMENTOPEN BASEMENTGARAGE SLAB ON GRADE ABOVEOPEN BASEMENTOPEN BASEMENTSCALE:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT:SHEET TITLE:THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF G4 DESIGN STUDIOS, LLC AND IS NOT TO BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, OR THE CONTENT THEREOF USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STEVE GUILDFOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1/4" = 1'-0"4/10/2020 10:27:22 AMA-1.1BASEMENTPLANBLACKROCK CONSTRUCTIONDUPLEX #1SGWGI4/10/2020PARK RDPARK ROAD1/4" = 1'-0"1BASEMENT PLAN :'UPDNDN5()'::'5()':UPDNDNDNDN$&%'(MASTER BEDROOMMASTER BATHW.I.C.LIN.LAUNDRYBREAKFAST NOOKPANTRYMUDROOMCLOSETBENCHCLOSETFOYER1/2 BATHTWO-CAR GARAGEKITCHENDININGLIVINGMASTER BEDROOMMASTER BATHW.I.C.LIN.LAUNDRYBREAKFAST NOOKPANTRYMUDROOMCLOSETBENCHCLOSETFOYER1/2 BATHTWO-CAR GARAGEKITCHENDININGLIVING41' - 0"8' - 0"49' - 0"14' - 5 1/2"7' - 9 1/2"12' - 11 1/2"8' - 9 7/8"9 1/4"8' - 9 7/8"12' - 11 1/2"7' - 9 1/2"14' - 5 1/2"22' - 6 1/2"44' - 11"22' - 6 1/2"90' - 0"29' - 9 1/2"11' - 2 1/2"8' - 0"49' - 0"OPEN DECK (14'x8')OPEN DECK (14'x8')14' - 5 1/2"8' - 3"21' - 7 3/8"9 1/4"21' - 7 3/8"8' - 3"14' - 5 1/2"23' - 0"44' - 0"23' - 0"90' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"SCALE:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT:SHEET TITLE:THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF G4 DESIGN STUDIOS, LLC AND IS NOT TO BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, OR THE CONTENT THEREOF USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STEVE GUILDFOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1/4" = 1'-0"4/10/2020 10:27:23 AMA-2.1FIRSTFLOOR PLANBLACKROCK CONSTRUCTIONDUPLEX #1SGWGI/BH4/10/2020PARK RDPARK ROAD1/4" = 1'-0"1FIRST FLOOR PLAN DNDN$&%'(BEDROOM #1W.I.C.HALLW.I.C.BEDROOM #2CLOSETSHARED BATHROOMLINENBEDROOM #1W.I.C.HALLW.I.C.BEDROOM #2CLOSETSHARED BATHROOMLINEN12' - 11 1/2"4' - 1"5' - 1"4' - 1"13' - 3 1/2"41' - 0"14' - 9 1/2"7' - 11"23' - 0"13' - 3 1/2"19' - 5"7' - 8 1/2"41' - 0"7' - 11"14' - 9 1/2"23' - 0"SCALE:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT:SHEET TITLE:THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF G4 DESIGN STUDIOS, LLC AND IS NOT TO BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, OR THE CONTENT THEREOF USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STEVE GUILDFOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1/4" = 1'-0"4/10/2020 10:27:24 AMA-2.2SECONDFLOOR PLANBLACKROCK CONSTRUCTIONDUPLEX #1SGWGI/BH4/10/2020PARK RDPARK ROAD1/4" = 1'-0"1SECOND FLOOR PLAN First Floor0' -0"First Floor TP9' -1 1/8"Grade-1' -9 1/2"Second Floor10' -1 1/8"Second Floor TP18' -2 1/4"Top of Foundation-1' -1 1/2"Garage Slab-1' -5 1/2"8' - 1 1/8"1' - 0"9' - 1 1/8"1' - 1 1/2"First Floor0' -0"First Floor TP9' -1 1/8"Grade-1' -9 1/2"Second Floor10' -1 1/8"Second Floor TP18' -2 1/4"Top of Foundation-1' -1 1/2"1' - 1 1/2"9' - 1 1/8"1' - 0"8' - 1 1/8"SCALE:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT:SHEET TITLE:THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF G4 DESIGN STUDIOS, LLC AND IS NOT TO BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, OR THE CONTENT THEREOF USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STEVE GUILDFOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1/4" = 1'-0"4/10/2020 10:27:36 AMA-3.1EXTERIORELEVATIONSBLACKROCK CONSTRUCTIONDUPLEX #1SGWGI4/10/2020PARK RDPARK ROAD1/4" = 1'-0"1FRONT ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"2REAR ELEVATION First Floor0' -0"First Floor TP9' -1 1/8"Grade-1' -9 1/2"Second Floor10' -1 1/8"Second Floor TP18' -2 1/4"Top of Foundation-1' -1 1/2"8' - 1 1/8"1' - 0"9' - 1 1/8"1' - 1 1/2"First Floor0' -0"First Floor TP9' -1 1/8"Grade-1' -9 1/2"Second Floor10' -1 1/8"Second Floor TP18' -2 1/4"Top of Foundation-1' -1 1/2"8' - 1 1/8"1' - 0"9' - 1 1/8"1' - 1 1/2"SCALE:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT:SHEET TITLE:THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF G4 DESIGN STUDIOS, LLC AND IS NOT TO BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, OR THE CONTENT THEREOF USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STEVE GUILDFOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1/4" = 1'-0"4/10/2020 10:27:46 AMA-3.2EXTERIORELEVATIONSBLACKROCK CONSTRUCTIONDUPLEX #1SGWGI4/10/2020PARK RDPARK ROAD1/4" = 1'-0"1LEFT ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"2RIGHT ELEVATION )LUVW)ORRU )LUVW)ORRU73 *UDGH 6HFRQG)ORRU 6HFRQG)ORRU73 7RSRI)RXQGDWLRQ *DUDJH6ODE     )LUVW)ORRU )LUVW)ORRU73 *UDGH 6HFRQG)ORRU 6HFRQG)ORRU73 7RSRI)RXQGDWLRQ     6&$/('$7('5$:1%<&+(&.('%<352-(&76+((77,7/(7+,6'5$:,1*,67+(3523(57<2)*'(6,*1678',26//&$1',612772%(&23,('5(352'8&('257+(&217(177+(5(2)86(',1:+2/(25,13$57:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1&216(172)67(9(*8,/')255(9,(:21/<127)25&216758&7,21  30$(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216%/$&.52&.&216758&7,21'83/(;6*:*,3$5.5'3$5.52$'  )5217(/(9$7,21  5($5(/(9$7,21 )LUVW)ORRU )LUVW)ORRU73 *UDGH 6HFRQG)ORRU 6HFRQG)ORRU73 7RSRI)RXQGDWLRQ *DUDJH6ODE     )LUVW)ORRU )LUVW)ORRU73 *UDGH 6HFRQG)ORRU 6HFRQG)ORRU73 7RSRI)RXQGDWLRQ     6&$/('$7('5$:1%<&+(&.('%<352-(&76+((77,7/(7+,6'5$:,1*,67+(3523(57<2)*'(6,*1678',26//&$1',612772%(&23,('5(352'8&('257+(&217(177+(5(2)86(',1:+2/(25,13$57:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1&216(172)67(9(*8,/')255(9,(:21/<127)25&216758&7,21  $0$(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216%/$&.52&.&216758&7,21'83/(;6*:*,3$5.5'3$5.52$'  )5217(/(9$7,21  5($5(/(9$7,21 )LUVW)ORRU )LUVW)ORRU73 *UDGH 6HFRQG)ORRU 6HFRQG)ORRU73 7RSRI)RXQGDWLRQ *DUDJH6ODE     )LUVW)ORRU )LUVW)ORRU73 *UDGH 6HFRQG)ORRU 6HFRQG)ORRU73 7RSRI)RXQGDWLRQ     6&$/('$7('5$:1%<&+(&.('%<352-(&76+((77,7/(7+,6'5$:,1*,67+(3523(57<2)*'(6,*1678',26//&$1',612772%(&23,('5(352'8&('257+(&217(177+(5(2)86(',1:+2/(25,13$57:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1&216(172)67(9(*8,/')255(9,(:21/<127)25&216758&7,21  $0$(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216%/$&.52&.&216758&7,21'83/(;6*:*,3$5.5'3$5.52$'  )5217(/(9$7,21  5($5(/(9$7,21      !"  "" #"  $  !%! ! !&!'!()*+)* $($ $($ '(& $($                   !      !"  "" #"  $  !                                                    !! "!      !"  "" #"  $  !  # #   #  #  #   #  # $%$&'()* +,-.*/),0-* + $%$&12&'$$3/)'$$3$%$&12&'$$3$140(),$4 + $))$5$&$$),4-+ !&     !"  "" #"  $  ! !'     !"  "" #"  $  ! !(   )*  !"  "" #"  $  !         ! "  "  " #"  $   ! %! ! !&!'!()*+)* $($ $($ '(& $($                   !         ! "  "  " #"  $   !                                              !! "!         ! "  "  " #"  $   !  # # $%$&'()* +,-.*/),0-* + $%$&12&'$$3/)'$$3!&        ! "  "  " #"  $   ! !'        ! "  "  " #"  $   ! !(    )*    ! "  "  " #"  $   !      !"  "" #"  $  !%! ! !&!'!()*+)* (,( (,( '$  (,(         !      !"  "" #"  $  !                                                        !      !"  "" #"  $  !        -.-/0123, 45673825963 (4-.-/:;/0--<! 820--< 4-.-/:;/0--<!-:=9125-=!, 4-22->-/--25=6!  4!&     !"  "" #"  $  ! !'     !"  "" #"  $  ! !(   )*  !"  "" #"  $  !      !"  "" #"  $  !%! ! !&!'!()*+)* (,( (,( '$  (,(         !      !"  "" #"  $  !                                                      !      !"  "" #"  $  ! -.-/0123, 45673825963 (4-.-/:;/0--<! 820--< 4!&     !"  "" #"  $  ! !'     !"  "" #"  $  ! !(   )*  !"  "" #"  $  !      !"  "" #"  $  !%! ! !&!'!(!$)*+)* ,& ,& -, ((& &-                   !      !"  "" #"  $  !          !"           !"   # $ ###         # #$# #   # $ #                                                  %%&'(%&)#$*%'+)#&')(!      !"  "" #"  $  !              #####$  $ ######                                   +++**&++*++*&#*&&#!&     !"  "" #"  $  !                 &,-,./ 0! 1#2!032! 1 &,-,.45./,,"63$/,,"1&,-,./ 0!1&,-,.45./,,"0$/,,"&,-,.45./,,"$,463 0,61,00,7,.$,,0621!'     !"  "" #"  $  ! !(     !"  "" #"  $  ! !$   )*  !"  "" #"  $  !         !"  ! !     ! #   $   "  %"  " "&"'"("$)* +  ) * ,& ,& -, ((& &-                        "          !"  ! !     ! #   $   "       !          !      " " " "       " " #  " "   " " "                            $$%&'$%("#)$&*("%&('"         !"  ! !     ! #   $   "         " "  # " "  # " " "  "  " " " "                 ***) )%**)**)%")%%""&        !"  ! !     ! #   $   "  %,-,./0  1 "2 032 1%,-,.45./,,! 63#/,,! 1%,-,./0 1%,-,.45./,,!0#/,,! "'        !"  ! !     ! #   $   "  "(        !"  ! !     ! #   $   "  "$    )*    !"  ! !     ! #   $   "            !"  ! !      ! #    $   "   %"  " "&"'"("$)* +  ) * ($  ($  (( ' ( ' &              "           !"  ! !      ! #    $   "      !"#"#$%#!          !"#"#$%#!                                &'((&()*&+((&,&'')-"          !"  ! !      ! #    $   "             ((&("&         !"  ! !      ! #    $   "  )".#/"0. '121 34 511! 60*511! '121 34 511!#/*511!"'         !"  ! !      ! #    $   "  "(         !"  ! !      ! #    $   "  "$     )*    !"  ! !      ! #    $   "       !"  "" #"  $  !%! ! !&!'!(!$)*+ ($  (( ' ( ' &                 !      !"  "" #"  $  !     !"           !"                                  ##$%&&$&'($#)&&$*#$%%'+!      !"  "" #"  $  !           ,  , &&*&&$&!&     !"  "" #"  $  ! ,,- -  -  -   - ,,-  -  -  -   -    - - %./.0"1 2 '3 143 2 %./.560.. 74(0..2%./.0"1 2%./.560.. 1(0..%./.560..(.574"1.7 2.11.8.(..1732!'     !"  "" #"  $  ! !(     !"  "" #"  $  ! !$   )*  !"  "" #"  $  !   Public Comments on SD‐21‐06  For 3/3/2021 Hearing  Arranged from Oldest to Newest  Note:  Some public comments were received after the preliminary plat hearing was closed but before  the final plat application was submitted on 12/22/2020.  These comments may contain certain elements  which are not reflective of the current application.  1 Marla Keene From:John Bossange <johnbossange@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 9:15 AM To:Marla Keene; Paul Conner Subject:EXTERNAL: 550 Park Road Proposal         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.         Good morning to you both,    Thanks again for allowing me to participate in last evening's DRB meeting.  It was very well run and informative.  Thanks  to the DRB staff for all their comments and recommendations made to the BlackRock Co.  I think BlackRock presenters  were receptive to your concerns, and I look forward to hearing the detail and specifics of their responses as the next  DRB meeting.    Because I had only three minutes (which I understandable!), I wanted to be sure that not only the questions from your  staff but also my questions and those from others citizens are also addressed by BlackRock at your next meeting.  Will  that occur?    Here is a summary of my concerns which needs a response:    1.  Density.  This was mentioned by another citizen and it was also on my list but time prevented me from addressing the  issue.     32 units crammed in to 7 acres is a lot.  I understand density to preserve open space, but this is way too many  dwellings for such a small area.  Cars, people, storm water, sewerage, etc. from such a small area does not make  environment sense.  I know what the zoning regulations permit, but in the wisdom given to us from Supreme Court  Justice Brandeis, "Just because you have the right to do it, does not mean it is right to do."  Please reconsider decreasing  the number of approved buildings.    2.  Building types and heights.  It's not clear to me what variety of structures will be built and how they will be  arranged.  I know there was a lot of discussion about redesign from the architect, which was helpful.  What ever the  design, color, materials used, etc., I believe the homes along Dorset St. all need to be one story only, as do those which  border Park Rd.  This will be very important for a development in such a prominent, visible piece of land, just as the  other homes are across the street single story only.    3.  Traffic.  Can the entry to the development be further down Dorset St. and not off Park Rd.?  Park Rd. is a steep, curvy  hill in both directions and exiting and entering will be dangerous, especially in the winter when we routinely have cars  skidding off into the woods.  It would seem to make more sense to have a Dorset St. entry area just before the  community gardens, and have the loop return to that area with no loss of potential development.    4. Trees and Buffers.  How high will the berms be and how tall will the newly planted trees be?    Thanks again for listening.  Be well and stay safe.    John Bossange  578‐7468  1 Marla Keene From:Dalila Hall Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 1:35 PM To:Marla Keene Subject:FW: EXTERNAL: Tree Inventory for upcoming Wheeler project Hi Marla:  I know you have a standard response for when the public sends comments to the Board, I just don’t recall it  exactly.    From: Tracy perrapato <thawke5@comcast.net>   Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 11:18 AM  To: Dalila Hall <dhall@sburl.com>  Subject: EXTERNAL: Tree Inventory for upcoming Wheeler project       Could you please forward this to the DRB members as I know you have an upcoming meeting. Through Front Porch Forum I was made aware that the Tree Inventory for the Wheeler Parcel under review was incorrect and had left out at 3 least 3 large trees. There was also a concern about needing to regrade the property for another bike path. As the bike path already is close to the property, I feel that another path which would require regrading and stripping of the property would be not be needed. It is a shame that a lot of our natural areas are being exploited by developers without any constraints these last several years without concern for the nature of our area. The population of Vermont is not growing and with the recent Covid situation, many people are not able to afford new and expensive housing. Please review the tree survey and take into account whether we really need to be developing all our remaining natural spaces. Thank you. Tracy Perrapato 1 Marla Keene From:John Bossange <johnbossange@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 8, 2020 9:43 AM To:Marla Keene Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Re: SD-20-17 550 Park Road Marla,     Thanks for getting back to me.  I trust you have been safe and well.    I'm hopeful that the Board will not just let this proposal slide through the process because there are some serious  shortcomings in the overall proposal.  Between you and me, I have very little trust with developers.  Traditionally, they  submit sketchy plans waiting for staff comments to tell them what to do, when in fact, they already know what they  should do and could have submitted more thorough plans the first time.  I've been through this process before in other  towns, and do not wish to appeal or wish to get lawyers involved.    But I fear we will have a cluster development similar to all the ugly and undignified development south of us along  Dorset St.  Some of those homes and developments are truly eye‐sores and scar the landscape.  Not everything needs to  look like where I live, but design and fitting into the landscape are essential.  Some of the newer homes on Dorset and  Spear are just plopped into a field with no plantings, berms or landscape design.  I assume the Board approved those  developments as they now stand.  I fear the same look will occur at our entrance.  32 homes on seven acres is way too  much.  Affordable carriage homes and duplexes are fine and needed.  I understand that.  But the need to push the  density limits as allowed should not be permitted.    So, I hope the Board gives my four concerns serious thought.  They can be addressed. I'm sure the applicant will not!    Thanks again.    John    On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 10:34 AM Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com> wrote:  Hi John,  The Board is required to enforce the regulations, though they do take all public comment into consideration.  The  applicant may or may not choose to address your comments at the next application.  If the Board feels something  needs to be addressed, they will ask the applicant to do so.  If you are not satisfied with the Board’s decision, the  appeal process is described on the final page.  Note the 30 day timeline.  The same appeal process will be available at  final plat.     Marla Keene, PE   Development Review Planner   City of South Burlington    (802) 846‐4106   2    From: John Bossange <johnbossange@gmail.com>   Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 8:08 AM  To: Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com>  Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: SD‐20‐17 550 Park Road     Good morning, Marla.      I read through the hard copy, so much easier to read than the electronic copy on the screen!  Thanks again for sending  it.  I'm confused as to what occurs next. Will my issues be addressed and when? I think you said they have up to a year  to come back with their second, revised proposal., but is that in response only to the staff comments?  If I am not in  agreement with their responses to any of the requests, staff or mine, what is the appeal process?      Thanks.     John     On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 3:53 PM Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com> wrote:  In the mail today, John!     Marla Keene, PE   Development Review Planner   City of South Burlington    (802) 846‐4106      From: John Bossange <johnbossange@gmail.com>   Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 4:35 PM  To: Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com>  Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: SD‐20‐17 550 Park Road     3         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.         Thank you, Marla.      Please mail me a copy.     John Bossange  579 Golf Course Rd.  So. Burlington, VT  05403     John     On Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 1:49 PM Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com> wrote:  As a potentially interested person, please find attached the findings of fact and decision for the above referenced  application.  If you would like to request a hard copy please send me a message with your mailing address.     Sincerely,  Marla Keene, PE   Development Review Planner   City of South Burlington   575 Dorset Street   South Burlington, VT 05403   (802) 846‐4106   www.southburlingtonvt.gov     4 Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.      1 TO: South Burlington Development Review Board (DRB) (802) 846-4106 planning@sburl.com. Matt Cota, Chair Mark Behr Elissa Portman James Langan Dawn Philibert Brian Sullivan John Wilking CC: Paul Connor pconner@sburl.com Director, Planning and Zoning Marla Keene mkeene@sburl.com Development Review Planner Dalila Hall dhall@sburl.com Administrative Officer Ashley Parker, Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee, aparker@sburl.com Justin Rabidoux, Public Works Dept., jrabidoux@sblur.com From: Karen LeFevre Golf Course Road KBLeFevre@gmail.com John Bossange Golf Course Road johnbossange@gmail.com Randee Bloomberg Park Road Alan Luzzatto Nicklaus Circle RE: Public Comment about #SD-20-17, 550 Park Road Development proposal by Blackrock Construction for the 6.91-acre plot more commonly known as the “Wheeler Parcel” in the Southeast Quadrant, North corner of Park Road/Dorset Street intersection. Establishing two lots and constructing 22 duplex dwelling units and 10 units in single family homes with an interior (public) road cutting into Park Road at two points. Date: October 5, 2020 2 I. Introduction: Public Comment about #SD-20-17, 550 Park Road Development 10.05.2020 As South Burlington residents, we appreciate the knowledge and work of our local governing bodies and committees over the years, including the recent digitization of all DRB records made available as resources for the public. Although we are not professional planners, we too have invested considerable research and time in considering the proposed development, #SD-20-17, 550 Park Road . We hope to bring to this proposed development our personal experience with the various stages from land -swap proposal to now, ranging from 2-10 years. As Interested Persons, we have attended various public hearings and meetings with City Council and/or DRB, in person or, recently, virtually. Some of us have sent public comments and/or email questions to staff. We’ve studied digital minutes, applications, and recordings of relevant proceedings. Thousands of times we’ve observed, walked, hiked, and driven the streets, paths, intersections, and nature areas; we care deeply about this peaceful rural area including Wheeler Park . In that spirit, we make observations and suggestions regarding its development below, primarily about the likelihood of increased residential density with its potential for congestion and/or accidents on roads, sidewalks, rec paths, involving cars, motorcycles, bikers, walkers, strollers, dog walking, skateboarding, roller skating, etc. and at all intersections. II. Concerns over the Process In view of the changes brought on by COVID-19, we find ourselves with Zoom DRB meetings, staff working remotely, and no office to go to in person for face to face discussions and viewing visual materials up close. This brings challenges to everyone. We’ve been trying to come up with some suggestions that the DRB might consider, understanding that staff are likely pressed for time. A. Might the DRB consider an added way for discussion back and forth between staff and public? Perhaps a small, socially distanced group meeting of staff with public participants? B. Can the developer provide some quality paper visuals (labeled) for public distribution, such as maps, sketches, photographs? The online files do include visuals, but it is difficult to clearly see and understand from the digitized records. Perhaps provide a packet for people to pick up at City Hall? C. Especially with current limitations due to COVID with the lack of interpersonal discussions, is it possible for the DRB to sponsor a (masked, socially distanced, guided) site visit/tour for board, staff, and the public? We are aware that this has been done for some projects in the past. It might include the following: * the Dorset St/Park Road intersection; with vehicles, bikes, pedestrians; * the proposed design space for residences, parking, landscaping, sight distances, etc. and 3 * the two proposed cut-ins creating a new road for the development itself (conceived of as a Public Road) and the geography on Park Road with cars going up/down from intersection of Park with Golf Course Road and with Dorset Street;  Consider especially sight distances, speed control, signage, lighting planned. Note the lack of shoulders and the curving slopes (guardrails over a pond) which limit vision. III. Immediate Concerns A. Density Thirty-two units crammed into 6.91 acres is just too many. By contrast, across Dorset Street from the 550 development, Nicklaus Circle contains a total of just 9 dwelling units on 10.35 acres. The more spacious look of Nicklaus Circle is more desirable, we believe, in terms of fit into the natural surroundings and aesthetic appeal. We understand density as one way to preserve open space, but this is far too many dwellings for such a small area. Cars, people, storm water, sewerage, etc. arising from such a tight area do not make environmental sense. We know what the zoning regulations permit, but in the wisdom given to us from Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, "Just because you have the right to do it, does not mean it is right to do." Please decrease the number of approved buildings. There need to be far fewer total units in the 6.91 acres. B. Aesthetics of Building Types and Heights? It's not clear to us what variety of structures will be built and how they will be arranged. We know there has been a lot of discussion about redesign from the architect, which was helpful, but there was no clarity as to how many carriages, duplexes, single family homes, etc. were planned and where. Whatever the design, color, materials used, etc., we believe the homes along Dorset Street and Park Road all need to be one story only, just as the other homes across Dorset on Nicklaus Circle are single story only, which will also increase visibility. This will be very important for a development in such a prominent, visible piece of land. Please make sure the building designs are clear to understand and fit in with the open space environment on top of that hill. 4 C. Traffic Study Urged Before the DRB and applicant move on to a final plat decision on this proposed development, we request the DRB to implement a traffic study, perhaps by a consultant, with findings presented to the board, developer, and public in time to be useful as input in the process. We don’t have knowledge of the type(s) of studies that would be most appropriate. A TIA (traffic impact study)? A TIS (traffic analysis study)? Evaluation of delay/level of service (LOS)? Other? Such a study’s findings should be presented to the public in a timely matter, such as a well-warned DRB public hearing for discussion of this matter. Indeed, on this matter, at the Sketch Plan Application meeting of 1/2/2020 , the DRB staff raised the following question for the board : “Whether to require an evaluation of delay/level of service (LOS) at the adjacent Park Road/Dorset Street intersection as part of the next application.” Upon reviewing the televised recording of that meeting and its written minutes, however, it does not seem clear to us that a decision was actually reached. (In fact, there typically are no final decisions made at the DRB Sketch Plan discussion, which is more for discussion and providing Board feedback to the developer). On this occasion, there was a somewhat discursive discussion. One board member who often drives by the busy Dorset/Park intersection stated , according to the Sketch Plan Minutes (p. 6) that . . . “ it is tricky to get out of the area, but [ he] wouldn’t say it is a problematic level of service.” And he added that there are some “gaps” in traffic on Dorset Street now when vehicles from Park Road and other nearby Dorset access points can enter Dorset. By contrast, however, a public comment from a representative of Nicklaus Circle (right across Dorset—a one-minute drive from the 550 project) --- said that it is difficult to cross Dorset anywhere near that intersection. There is no light or crosswalk, so pedestrians must often “dart” to get across . The inevitable increase of additional cars along with ancillary vehicles turning in and out of that intersection (and probably more walkers and bikes) is worth concerning. The minutes from this meeting state that “ The Board felt a detailed evaluation was not needed.” At next stage, Preliminary Plat, Mr. Avery from Blackrock answers is recorded in minutes as saying that “ . . . at Sketch plan it [traffic study] was deemed unnecessary. They (Blackrock) have provided ITE information.” What is that? There was no comment by the DRB or staff about this viewpoint. What does that silence signify? We strongly suggest that there must be an independent traffic study including, as DRB staff brought up at the meeting, “an evaluation of delay/level of service (LOS) , ” before this proposal is approved. Despite the lack of clarity about whether a traffic study was/was not decided at this point in the process, the matter can still be revisited anyway, according to general requirements for the SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DISTRICT: Page 5, #(3): There is a requirement that: 5 The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding, the DRB may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. This criterion was found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for individual phases. Further, the document states that this criterion may be revisited and re-evaluated at any stage of the application process. A DRB staff member, when asked in email about conducting a traffic study , replied that such a study is “generally not done” for a project with fewer than 35 units; this project proposes 32 units . Why is 35 the cut-off number? We’d like to know where that number comes from. Are other factors considered? As residents of the areas under consideration, we are aware that this 550 Park Proposal is not an isolated matter; it is a part of a continuing trend in the Golf Course/Park Road area which will harm the natural environment and exacerbate traffic concerns. We agree that at present there are some gaps in the Dorset traffic for cars from Park to get through. But there will be fewer available. It is urgent to look to the very near future when an increase in projected developments will change traffic flow and may cause congestion, delays, and backed up traffic. Already there is ongoing construction of 10 new homes on a newly built road in the area, Long Drive (which cuts into Golf Course Road, then Park, then the busy Park/Dorset intersection). Of course, residential developments such as Long Drive and the proposed 550 Park one also bring vehicle increases, detours, and noise from the construction process itself, and then with the new residents and other accompanying activities, such as vehicles for deliveries, trash, repairs, maintenance, visitors, and so forth. Looking “down the road,” an additional development may be in the offing directly across from the proposed “550 Park” development on Park Road and near its intersection with Dorset. A proposal previously submitted to the DRB (SD-15-45, 1170 Dorset Street, 3/1/2016) was to build up to 15 townhomes and creating 2 additional private roads cutting into Park Road not far from the 2 road cuts currently proposed by “550 Park” on the other side of Park Road. These 4 new roads off Park Road would all feed into its intersection with Dorset Street. While this proposed SD-15-45 development appears to be inactive now, one could be introduced later because of what the Master Plan and land swap allow. So, there could be (if approved) four new roads dumping onto the narrow, winding Park Road (which is already a conduit of traffic from Fairway Drive, Golf Course Road, from another section of Park Road, and now from the new Long Drive) --- all headed to the same intersection with Dorset Street. This trend is alarming to contemplate. 6 IV. Additional Existing Park Road Problems • Road is narrow. Two cars that pass by each other going opposite ways just make it • Has no safe stopping or turning places from top to bottom along its natural field area • Has no streetlights or path lighting • No shoulders. No sidewalk but has a walking/biking path alongside • Has 2 curved slopes which make vision difficult and make for slippery winter conditions, cars going off the road • Runs over a stream, with rusty guide rails placed along the curve • Has seasonal challenges when very rainy or snow covered. Snow and wind, especially from near its entrance from Dorset and above from Golf Course/Park Road juncture . Braking or delaying or back-upped traffic can be hazardous. Difficult to get moving again on slopes without spinning. • Snowplowing challenges: to keep up with it, find places to snow, sometimes making it narrower; plow sometimes alarming drivers because road is so narrow, no center line Has the currently proposed development considered these key points? Have they suggested any possible mitigation? This is a city road and it must be safe. V. Additional Traffic Safety Considerations to be addressed in Traffic Study * How to control increased traffic and new road entrances, if they are allowed; * How to handle back-ups and delays on Dorset and Park * How to manage the construction process (This is mentioned by staff as a “good idea” in an email) considering especially that construction could last to 2025, as stated in Blackrock’s application. (Is that a currently a realistic estimate? With a timetable?). Construction plans should be detailed to include all locations herein: Golf Course Road from the 550 Park development into Park Road; the busy intersection of Park Road with Dorset Street. *Possible traffic calming on Dorset and/or Park (there are many speeding cars/motorcycles on Park Road now, even with ”Slow” and “ 25 mph” signs already posted); *Examination of the safety of Park Road’s existing (rusted) guardrails placed over a brook, in relation to increased traffic and residents walking up the road from the new housing; *Consideration of its curves and slopes *Consultation with the Bike/Pedestrian Committee, as suggested by the board for next phase of application *Possible lighting needs for Park Road and Dorset intersections, and the existing rec path? *Traffic lights and/or directional arrows; *Consider whether Park Road’s narrow width and complete lack of shoulders can safely handle the increase in vehicles, bikes, and pedestrians; *Adding a new pedestrian crosswalk (from Nicklaus Circle across Dorset to Park) 7 *Obtaining optimal sight distances at all points around the Park Rd/Dorset Street intersection and the proposed 2-entrance/exit points from the 550 development onto Park Road. Note that Public Works has at Preliminary Plat (June 2, 2020) questioned the safety of the ends of the street regarding sight distances. Currently these new road cuts are shown, we are told, where two staked road markers have been placed on the side Park Road. Unfortunately, they are positioned at points which current residents consider to be particularly troubling points on Park Road, with risks already: A. One new road cut for the project would appear just after the intersection of Park and Golf Course Road, running downward on a somewhat obscured bend in Park, just past where rusted guard rails line the road as it crosses a stream. The new road cut would be near where the existing Rec /Bike/ Pedestrian path and the existing Park Road closely co-exist. B. One new road cut is also proposed at the opposite end, near the entrance intersection between Dorset St. and the existing Park Road. Almost immediately after the turn from Dorset, Park Road has a downward slope just past the new road cut. In winter, this slope becomes very icy, with cars at times sliding off the slope into a field. This could be worse if drivers turning in from Dorset must brake suddenly when cars come out of the new road into the development. * We want to keep another safety challenge in mind, too: if cars are obstructed or delayed at either of these slopes, the only way out might be to back up quite a distance ---- a harrowing task ---- while being endangered by other cars which might be coming down the slopes. There are no road pull-offs, no shoulders, no cut-ins. And the road is too narrow ( narrower still with winter snow piled on its sides) and dangerous to attempt U-turns. Does the current proposal anticipate such issues, and are there plans to mitigate them? * importantly, is there an upfront budget of costs that may be required after considering the above road and safety matters: Which are to be paid by the developer, which by the city? If some important safety needs are left for later as the traffic from the development becomes more evident, are the city taxpayers willing to pay for the improvements? * If warranted by the traffic studies and other considerations, would the DRB explore an option for an entrance from further on Dorset into the 550 development, thus avoiding the likely congestion/delay issues with the Park Road/Dorset Street intersection. Recently, in reply to this question via email, a staff member stated : This [Dorset Street entrance idea] was brought up at the public hearing by a member of the public and the board chose not to ask the applicant to pursue it further. The land swap between the city and golf course specifically left out a segment along Dorset Street to retain the tree line and recreation path. A portion of the Wheeler Nature Park sites between the street and the property, so the applicant doesn’t have the authority to access from that side without another consideration of modifications by the city council. 8 But why not, then, direct this applicant to apply for such a “consideration of modification” from the City Council? That decision was many years ago. Meanwhile residential development on and off of Dorset Street speeds on with increasing density and traffic in what have been quiet, rural neighborhoods. VII. Conclusion Even though this land swap is nearly a decade old, the pace of recent developments in the proposal , combined with the increased distance between everyone due to the Covid-19 challenges, are creating a feeling of mistrust in the process. We expect Blackrock to address these issues and make common sense adjustments to ensure the development is built in a dignified manner conducive to the landscape, the surrounding homes and environments. We look forward to being kept informed and remaining a part of this process. That will help the public understand decisions and have trust in the process. __________________________________________________________ End Notes 1. To see televised video recordings of two main DRB meetings on 550 Park Road proposed development, #SD-2017 , go to https://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/series/south-burlington-development- review-board . 550 Park Road was discussed on January 22, 2020 (sketch plan) and on June 2, 2020 (preliminary plat). Oral public comments in in those sessions as well as in writing elsewhere. TO: South Burlington Development Review Board (DRB) (802) 846‐4106 planning@sburl.com. Matt Cota, Chair   Mark Behr   Elissa Portman   James Langan   Dawn Philibert   Brian Sullivan   John Wilking  CC: Paul Connor pconner@sburl.com Director, Planning and Zoning  Marla Keene mkeene@sburl.com Development Review Planner  Dalila Hall dhall@sburl.com Administrative Officer  Ashley Parker, Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee, aparker@sburl.com   Justin Rabidoux, Public Works Dept., jrabidoux@sblur.com     From: Randee Bloomberg Park Road    RE: Public Comment about #SD‐20‐17, 550 Park Road Development proposal by Blackrock  Construction for the 6.91‐acre plot more commonly known as the “Wheeler Parcel” in the  Southeast Quadrant, North corner of Park Road/Dorset Street intersection. Establishing two lots  and constructing 22 duplex dwelling units and 10 units in single family homes with an interior  (public) road cutting into Park Road at two points.   Date: October 4, 2020  I am writing because  I am very concerned about the  traffic that will occur on Dorset and Park  Roads including the road cuts into the new development off of Park Road.  I believe it is important  that a traffic study be done to decide whether or not a different path into the new development  should be considered as well as a traffic light placed on the intersection of Park Road and Dorset  Street.  In light of covid, should a traffic study take place, please note that the traffic pattern is substantially  less at this moment.   Keep in mind that not everyone is commuting to work or school yet it is  difficult at times to get out onto Dorset Street from Park Road even at this time.  What will it be like  when  the new development is built?  The only way to find out is to do a study.  Sincerely,    Randee Bloomberg  Cc:  Karen LeFevre Golf Course Road KBLeFevre@gmail.com          John Bossange Golf Course Road johnbossange@gmail.com   1 Marla Keene From:Martha Edwards <maril@gmavt.net> Sent:Saturday, October 24, 2020 4:32 PM To:Marla Keene Cc:Alan Luzzatto Subject:EXTERNAL: SD-20-17,550 Park Road          This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.      Karla,  We are writing as very concerned tax paying citizens of South Burlington in regards to the proposed development  that will be located directly across Dorset St from our residence on Nicklaus Circle.    Our primary concern is the proposed building of 32 units that in my opinion are being jammed into a less than 7 acre  space.  When you look at Nicklaus circle we have 9 units in a 10 acre space.  This density is absolutely ludicrous for many  reasons, safety being the primary concern.  Those units will be so closely clustered I would think that they would also  present a fire safety concern.   Not to talk about the impact those units will have on traffic safety for all concerned.   There are times during the day now that we have to wait for prolonged periods of time to be able to exit Nicklaus circle  in our cars not to even speak of just trying to walk across Dorset street to be able to access the walking path that is paid  for with our tax dollars, and that is before these new units are erected. How many additional cars are you estimating are  going to be using this area?    Then we are hearing that there are two more developments that are in process for this very same area.  How can this  be?  This is clearly going to present a dangerous cluster of activity in a very concentrated area and it does not need to  happen.  Has the impact that these developments are going to have on this area been seriously studied?    Aesthetically I can’t help but think theses units will not be pleasant to look at from Dorset Street.  Just how pleasant will  it be for passing  traffic or the people that live on Nicklaus circle to be looking at a myriad of backyards.  You know,   barbecues, swing sets, garbage cans and a plethora of children’s toys and general yard junk.  I can’t help but think that  you must also be taking into account the impact this development will have on our property values, and I’m not talking  about their increase but in their reduced value.  Surely when we go to sell our homes this backyard attraction we will see  from our homes will impact what we expect will be a reduced selling value in our homes.    We look forward to hearing from you.    Martha and Stephen Edwards  57 Nicklaus circle  Maril@gmavt.net  Sent from my iPad    1 Marla Keene From:Thomas Drumheller <thomasdrumheller@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, October 24, 2020 2:57 PM To:Marla Keene Subject:EXTERNAL: Fwd: Public Comment on #SD-2017 Park Road         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.               Begin forwarded message:  From: Thomas Drumheller <thomasdrumheller@gmail.com>  Date: October 24, 2020 at 2:51:09 PM EDT  To: mkeen@sburl.com  Subject: Public Comment on #SD‐2017 Park Road  Dear Ms Dean,  My name is Thomas C. Drumheller, I reside at 263 Golf Course RD and wish you to present my  comments to the DRB before final approval of the BlackRock construction project.  My primary concerns are the loss of open land and increased traffic with subsequent loss of safety. This  is a beautiful spot of property in one of the highest portions of S Burlington with magnificent trees. It is  not appropriate for high density development.    Park Road already has a very high amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and the rec path is right  next to it. The road is curvy and hilly, already prone to incidents that could be dangerous. Increasing  traffic here is just simply asking for trouble.     Please let the DRB know that profit for few should not be favored over the needs of many. Thank you,  Tom Drumheller.   1 Marla Keene From:Patty Barry <pbnana@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, October 25, 2020 12:25 PM To:Marla Keene Cc:ALAN LUZZATTO Subject:EXTERNAL: Public Comment on #SD-2017, 550 Park Road         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.         I am writing to express concern over certain aspects of the above development:     1. Density: there are too many buildings (32) proposed in such a small amount of space (6.91 acres).  Way too many for  aesthetic and environmental reasons.    2. What types of structures will be built? Although we have some idea, there is no sense of the aesthetics of what this  will look like. Will it be similar to the existing designs in the VT National area?    3. Traffic: it goes without saying that this much new traffic on the existing neighborhood streets and merging onto  Dorset will create more problems. How many more is unknown until an objective traffic study is done.    Patricia Barry  59 Nicklaus Cir, South Burlington, VT 05403    1 Marla Keene From:Alan Luzzatto <nesandal@comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, October 25, 2020 2:40 PM To:Marla Keene Subject:EXTERNAL: PUBLIC COMMENT on #SD-2017, 550 park Road         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.             PUBLIC COMMENT on #SD‐2017, 550 Park Road, South Burlington, VT         My wife and I live at 58 Nicklaus Circle which is directly across Dorset street from the proposed 32 unit development  on Park Road. I was in attendance at the second plat meeting and did raise some concerns then.         The proposed development is not proportional in either aesthetics or density of living units compared to other  completed developments in the area. The volume of the traffic that will be generated from these new homes as well as  the two other nearby developments has yet to be considered. A new traffic study must be ordered to determine what  must be done to maintain a reasonable and safe flow of traffic. Even now it is basically impossible for the residents of  my development to safely cross Dorset Street and connect with the City walking path! What will happen when the new  development is occupied?         To date I have yet to see the Development Review Board work proactively to protect the interests of the current  residents of South Burlington. I recognize that a new development will be built there but let’s do it right.    Sincerely,    Alan Luzzatto, President  Villas At Watertower Hill, HOA  802‐503‐2637        Sent from Mail for Windows 10      Sent from Mail for Windows 10    1 Marla Keene From:Tom Fischer <tomfischerdmd@me.com> Sent:Sunday, October 25, 2020 3:55 PM To:Marla Keene Subject:EXTERNAL: PUBLIC comment one SD-2017, 550 Park Road         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.         Dear Ms. Keene:              As residents of Nicklaus Circle, South Burlington, we wish to relay to you our serious concerns regarding the  proposed development identified as #SD‐20‐17, 550 Park Road. After reviewing the proposal we have significant  reservations concerning the scope, the esthetics, and most of all, the safety for the many South Burlington residents  who will be adversely impacted by this development.              The concentration of the project in terms of units per acre is drastically immoderate with regard to the  concentration all of the surrounding developments. Secondly, there has been no demonstration of the architectural  renderings of the proposed buildings as to their design with respect to the neighboring developments.   Thirdly, and most importantly for the citizens of South Burlington, the addition of so many housing units will increase the  automobile traffic to unsafe levels in such a small area of Dorset Street.              For example, as residents of Nicklaus Circle who utilize the wonderful South Burlington walking path located  across Dorset Street, we already have a difficult time crossing Dorset Street to utilize our community’s walking path. We  do not have a designated crosswalk and there is no easy, safe way for us to reach the path safely. There are times when  cars have stopped to let us cross Dorset with little to no notice of the cars behind them. It is a kind gesture, but a  dangerous one stopping all traffic on Dorset Street with little notice. The addition of so much additional traffic into such  a small area will, frankly, make it a significant safety hazard for us, as well all of our neighbors at Nicklaus Circle.        A  traffic study to evaluate the impact of so many more vehicles is an absolute necessity.              Thank you for your attention to our concerns.  Sincerely,  Tom & Debbie Fischer  28 Nicklaus Circle    1 Marla Keene From:Jonathan Bloom <jabloom@msn.com> Sent:Sunday, October 25, 2020 5:20 PM To:Marla Keene Subject:EXTERNAL: Fwd: #SD-20-17550 Park Road. Draft          This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.      >> Dear Ms. Keene,  >> I, Jonathan Bloom, a homeowner at 120 Nicklaus Circle, am writing you with concerns about the above noted  development. I have great difficulty in seeing why so many units are being planned for such a small site. I feel that the  current plan is definitely not in keeping with the density of the other areas developed around Vermont National Country  Club. Also, my major concern is the vehicular traffic this project, along with the two other projects to the south  (32units+15units+11units=58units X 2 vehicles per unit=116 more vehicles)will add to an already heavily travelled  portion of Dorset Street. As it is now, when I attempt to exit Nicklaus Circle and head north, I have a great deal of  difficulty negotiating the amount of traffic from both directions. Has the DRB conducted a recent traffic study. If so,  what data does it offer. If not, why don’t you mandate this be done before reviewing the final plat plan? Thanking you in  advance for you prompt and professional response, I remain......  >> Sincerely, Jonathan Bloom, DDS  >>  >> Sent from my iPad  1 Marla Keene From:toby tobyknox.com <toby@tobyknox.com> Sent:Monday, October 26, 2020 11:48 AM To:Marla Keene Subject:EXTERNAL: Public Comment on SD-2017 550 Park Rd         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.         Marla, It is imperative that a traffic and safety study be done regarding the planned development SD-2017. The proposed plan to have 2 traffic outlets on Park Rd. considering the road’s design, grades, narrowness and curves is ridiculous, not taking into account the increased traffic on the road. The development, while much too large for the 6.91 acres, should have an outlet to Dorset Street, not Park Rd. The Development Review Board members should drive on Park Rd in the winter when it is often icy and snowy. Adding the expected number of cars to the road at any time of the year, but especially winter, makes no sense at all. I question the number of units being proposed considering that there currently is new housing being built along Dorset Street along the 18th fairway and off Golf Course Rd. How much density can this area handle and still remain conducive to being an open area and attractive to differing fauna, which would be a crime to lose. The welfare of current residents of the area should take precedence over the greed of developers. South Burlington which seeks to have an attractive image will not have one if every open parcel is allowed to be developed. “SoBu” will be just another parcel of over-developed suburbia with no noteworthy identity (other than noise from F-35s) and nothing to make it an appealing place to live if you want to think you are still in Vermont and not living in suburban NJ or NY. It’s time to stand up to the developers who don’t appear to care about anything other than finding an open plot of land and digging into it. Toby Knox 122 Fairway, S. Burlington 1 Marla Keene From:Bronwyn Dunne <bronwyndunne@me.com> Sent:Monday, October 26, 2020 3:32 PM To:Marla Keene Cc:John Bossange; Karen Lefevre Subject:EXTERNAL: Public Comment on #SD-2017, 550 Park Road          This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.      Dear Marla,    Neighbors, John Bossange, Karen LeFevre on Golf Course Road;  Randee Bloomberg on Park Road and Alan Luzzatto on  Nicklaus Circle have made all of us in the Inverness and Gleneagles Associations know that the Final Plat Application for  the development south of Wheeler Park will be submitted next week.    I first heard about this development possibility almost ten years ago. It was a concern then for many of us. It has become  more so now that we are experiencing the development that is under construction on the Vermont National Golf Course  south and east of the new project.    Several aspects of the development plans to be submitted by the Black Rock Construction Co. are in question: the traffic  congestion that will be inevitable because of the two entrances from the developed area to bisect Park Road; the  number of units to be built on the 6.91 acres (32 buildings); the lack of information about the design, style, etc. of the  units; the lack of information about what landscaping, if any, that will be incorporated into the development plan.    Related to the congestion on Park Road, I’d like to ask if there’s been a traffic study of the impact that 32 new homes  will have on the intersection of Park Road and Dorset Street? It would also be of importance to know what if anything  has beed done to address the impact of so many new families to the existing community facilities that exist in the area,  including the invaluable Wheeler Park, a wonderful neighborhood woods and field area that has helped so many enjoy  nature in this time of Covid‐19.    Could you please let me know what information will be shared with the residents of condominiums and homes already a  part of the Vermont National Golf Course? I would like to attend any public meetings leading up to and including the  meeting that will decide the direction of the development known as #SD‐2017,550 Park Road. I believe it is important  that we whose lives will be disturbed and negatively affected should be allowed some say in what the South Burlington  Development Review Board decide is appropriate for the new development and construction.    With all thanks in advance for your attention to our community’s concerns,    Bronwyn Dunne  Park Road  South Burlington, VT  05403  802 860‐5022      2         1 Marla Keene From:Ted Lenski <tedlenski@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 27, 2020 12:56 PM To:Marla Keene Cc:Kathryn Lenski; Karen LeFevre; johnbossange@gmail.com Subject:EXTERNAL: Public Comment on #SD-2017, 550 Park Road         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.         Ted Lenski 601 Golf Course Road South Burlington, VT 05403 tedlenski@yahoo.com 443-280-8002 October 27, 2020 Ms. Marla Keene Development Review Planner Development Review Board 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 mkeene@sburl.com RE: Public Comment on #SD-2017, 550 Park Road Dear Ms. Keene: I am writing to express the concerns of my wife, myself, and our neighbors as to the proposed final plat submission of BlackRock Construction for the project identified as #SD-2017, 550 Park Road. We moved to our residence at 601 Golf Course Road in April of 2020. Since our arrival here, we have been overwhelmed by the kindness and generosity of our neighbors. They welcomed us to Vermont and made us feel a part of the community. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, our neighbors reached out to us to make sure we 2 had settled into our new home. The graciousness of our Inverness neighbors and of the other communities of Gleneagles and Ironwood has been outstanding. The city of South Burlington has been a great place to live. I have become involved in the community by volunteering as the Treasurer of the Library Board of Trustees. I think it is critical to have a community continue to grow, but that growth needs to be respectful of the communities that already exist. I am writing this letter to express the concerns of both my wife and myself regarding the approval of the final plat submission by BlackRock Construction and how it affects our neighbors and the Park Road communities as a whole. The first concern we have is in regard to safety. I have 31 years of experience working in the chemical manufacturing industry. Before any decision is made in my industry, safety must be evaluated thoroughly and properly. Regarding this project, the proposed increase in traffic associated with 32 units with dual access to a curvy and hilly Park Road is inherently unsafe. Traveling Park Road every day, I observe how the curves and hills make visibility difficult, and the road design increases these risks in the winter. Having up to 100 additional cars entering and exiting Park Road at locations that have reduced visibility is dangerous. Additionally, the beautiful bike and walking path that exists to support the entire South Burlington community will have to cross these two access points. Putting bikers, pedestrians, and cars in close proximity to each other creates unnecessary hazards. Creating unnecessary hazards is unacceptable in my industry and should be unacceptable to you and the South Burlington Development Review Board as well. This design must be changed. A traffic study with the appropriate safety considerations must be completed before final plat approval. The second concern is the unit density of the proposed development. The proposed unit density is significantly more than the unit density of any of the existing subdivisions surrounding the Vermont National Golf Course. Creating a high-density development in a limited access area does not align with the design criteria of the existing parcels and subdivisions. I am concerned that the reason for increasing the number of units is to offset the development costs and to make sure BlackRock Construction is achieving a profit. The profit-making goals of a construction company should never be put as the highest priority. I am sure that the DRB would not prioritize the creation of profit over the concerns of the South Burlington citizens. If the DRB supports this increased density plan, I would suggest the priorities of the DRB are not in line with the community it is designed to support. Finally, it is clear that South Burlington is a desirable place to live. We continue to be impressed with the services that the city has to offer and with the community development. However, this development must be done in an orderly and systematic way. Shoehorning residential developments into smaller and smaller parcels with increased density is not in line with what we see in the South Burlington community. This development is clearly inconsistent with the other residential developments being constructed right now. The DRB is the last line of defense to make sure South Burlington continues to grow, diversify AND support the vision that we all witnessed when we moved here. I respectfully request that the DRB not approve the final plat submission of BlackRock Construction until the concerns I have listed are addressed and discussed with the community. We want South Burlington to remain one of the great places to live and to reflect all the positive qualities that Vermont has to offer. Please feel free to reach out to us if you should have any questions about our concerns. Sincerely, Ted Lenski 3 tedlenski@yahoo.com 443-280-8002 Kathryn Lenski businesskat@gmail.com 330-620-3803          Phil and Sherri George            247 Fairway Drive           South Burlington, VT 05403           Email:  SABCO1000@gmail.com    PUBLIC Comment of #SD‐2017  55 Park Road      Comments regarding above referenced development on Park Road     We have lived on Fairway Drive for over 18 years and have seen many close call accidents  between pedestrians, bicyclist and children at the intersection of Dorset Street and Park Road.   Park Road has a significant S curve resulting in several blind spots.   The proposed two‐point entry on to Park Road, across an existing bike path, creates additional  traffic flow on to an already busy road which is steep, prone to ice and snow build up.   The 32 buildings on this piece of property is far too many given the current overuse of Dorset  Street and Park Road.  Not to mention the additional strain it will put on existing facilities  including on going issues with storm water runoff.    It is for these reasons, and many others, that we are opposed to the development as it stands.  We fully  support our neighbors from Inverness Association, Gleneagles and Nicklaus Circle in their request for  fewer buildings to be built.  For a clearer description of what is being built, color, height and design. And,  most importantly, and objective Traffic Study to be conducted right away.  There are serious safety  concerns with the proposed curb cuts on to Park Road.      Thank you for your time and consideration to our concerns.            1 Marla Keene From:Leslie Black Sullivan <lblack6000@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 28, 2020 11:27 AM To:Marla Keene Subject:EXTERNAL: PUBLIC COMMENT on #SD-2017, 550 Park Road         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.         Dear Ms. Keene, We are writing to express great concern about the plans for the new residential development (#SD-20-17) on Park Road. The developer plans to put 32 units on 6.9 acres. Unfortunately, there are a number of negative issues that this proposal will create. Thirty two new homes will mean a significant increase in cars, people, sewage, etc.. This is in addition to two other developments in progress right now. There are a number of homes being built right now off Golf Course Road and there is a development going in across the street from the Vermont National Country Club off Dorset Street. From the plans as they now exist, it appears that this new development has not been designed to fit in this area which would diminish this and surrounding neighborhoods. Plans that create streets and homes that are similar in design would be much more appropriate. We hope to have the opportunity to get a better understanding of how this development will actually look. Last, we are very concerned about the traffic this will create. Particularly on and around Park Road. It seems that an entrance directly onto Dorset Street will be much preferable. Will there be a Traffic Study that will determine the impact the development will make? We want to request that these issues are addressed by the developer and a more appropriately sized and designed development is created and approved. Thank you for your consideration. With our best, Leslie and Tom Sullivan 242 Fairway Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 1 Marla Keene From:John Carrigan <jcarriga781@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, October 29, 2020 10:27 PM To:Marla Keene Subject:EXTERNAL: FW: PUBLIC COMMENTS on #SD-2017, 550 PARK ROAD         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.             From: John Carrigan   Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 9:50 PM  To: MCKEENE@SBURL.COM  Cc: jcarriga781@hotmail.com; johnbossange@gmail.com  Subject: PUBLIC COMMENTS on #SD‐2017, 550 PARK ROAD    Hi Maria I am writing you with regard Public Comment on the Subject Development mentioned above. I have reviewed  the development plan and I am having concerns to parts this proposal. I live on Golf Course Road so this is close to me  and I for see future impacts if the development is built as is.    #1. (REVIEW THE OVERALL SCOPE AND IMPACTS OF THIS DEVEOPMENT)  The density of these 32 buildings built in six acres seems inappropriate when compared to the existing developments on  Dorset St.  Other units previously built on  Dorset St. have larger lots.  This plan looks like a shoulder to shoulder spacing  and will detract from developments already in place.      #2. (NEED  A MORE DESCRIPTIVE VIEW OF DEVELOPMENT AND HEIGHT AND SPECIFICATIONS)  While the aerial view of the cramped lots are  shown, I and others have not seen 3‐D displays of the units being  proposed. This seems like a gross oversight and a key point is at what height is this new construction.   Presently the  associations Glen Eagles, Inverness, Dorset Farms,  and others have larger lots and an appealing  layout. To date Black  Rock  has not provided this and a clearer description is needed.  It would be nice to know our neighbors layouts prior to  building.    #3. Traffic and Safety: (NEED A TRAFFIC STURY)                  Traffic density will be a handicap to all, with 2 cars/unit there can be 64 additional cars and possibly more. Are  the roads wide enough to accommodate parking on the road in BlackRock development.  Presently access to and from this dev will off of PARK street. Due to the steep drop off Park Rd many vehicles have slid  off the  road just past Inverness.  It is sure to be an accident prone side street.  I can visualize a car coming down Park on a snowy day and a car leaving  the Black Stone dev spinning wheels to go uphill, it is a perfect location for many accidents. Has any sort of a traffic study  been done on this?  Also traffic is almost at a point where a light will have to be put in at Dorset and Park. With more  cars it will be a more dangerous intersection, myself I have to be very alert and careful as cars coming from South Dorset  are hidden by a rise at this intersection.    Thanks for attention to this,    2 Yours truly  John Carrigan      PUBLIC COMMENTATOR:  NAME:  John Carrigan  ADDR:   580 Golf Course Road  CITY  :   South Burlington, VT 05403    Telephone:  802‐497‐6741  Email:   jcarriga781@hotmail.com      1 Marla Keene From:Karen Costello <cosmklc@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, October 30, 2020 12:48 PM To:Marla Keene Subject:EXTERNAL: Public Comment on #SD-2017, 550 Park Rd.         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.         Dear Ms. Keene,  We are writing to you regarding the proposed development that is in the planning stages for 550 Park Rd.,  South Burlington.  Like many of our neighbors, we have major concerns about the density of the proposed  site.  32 buildings in 6.91 acres are too many and we are concerned about the added traffic, sewerage and  storm water run‐off this development may create.  We request that the Planning Commission lessen the  amount of buildings to be constructed.    We also would like a better understanding of what type of buildings are being proposed for this site, i.e.  design, height, color, style.    Our biggest concern is the proposed entrances/exits from this development.  Park Rd is a very winding road  and there are often near miss accidents due to limited vision around the bends.  Adding 2 more entrances into  this road will create even more potential hazard and risk and as well as congestion at the exit of Park Rd.  We  would like to see an objective Traffic Study done before any approval of this development is given, taking into  consideration an entrance off Dorset St into this new development rather than Park Rd.    Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.    Sincerely,    Karen & Martin Costello  260 Park Rd.  South Burlington, VT  05403  cosmklc@comcast.net  1 Marla Keene From:linda wright <liwright802@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, October 30, 2020 1:55 PM To:Marla Keene Subject:EXTERNAL: PUBLIC Comment on #SD-2017, 550 Park Road         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.         From: Linda Wright            236 Park Rd           South Burlington, VT 05403           liwright802@gmail.com  I am writing to request an objective Traffic Study be done before any further decisions are made. I have lived here for  more than 18 years and can attest to the danger associated with Park Road. During the winter, the daily ice melt from  the hill slickens the base area of Park Road. It takes all of the area to get stopped and not head into oncoming traffic on  Dorset Street. If there are additional cars entering Park Road in that area, accidents are inevitable. There have been  countless slideoffs even with current traffic loads. I witnessed a South Burlington snow plow side off after making the  turn onto Park from Dorset. My family experienced a slideoff coming down the hill on Park Road heading to Dorset.   Park Road does not get the plowing regularity it needs and is plowed far less than the plow schedule for Dorset Street  where there is also more traffic to help keep the street clear after  plowing.You would be endangering South Burlington  lives by not putting access to the development on Dorset rather than the treacherous Park Road.  Thank you for your attention in this matter.    Sincerely,  Linda Wright   1 Marla Keene From:MKW Comcast <mkwoods12@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, November 2, 2020 12:29 PM To:Marla Keene Cc:Bob; johnbossange@gmail.com; KBLeFevre@gmail.com Subject:EXTERNAL: PUBLIC Comment on #SD-2017, 550 Park Road         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.         Dear Ms. Keene,   We are writing in response to the proposed development at 550 Park Road. Our concerns are as follows: 1. Density: We feel that 32 buildings packed into 6.91 acres is too much and inconsistent with developments surrounding the proposed development and not in keeping with preferred environmental goals. We respectfully request fewer units become part of the final plan. 2. Storm Water and Pump Station Capacity: We are especially concerned about: a. storm water capacity (is the development under the decades old JAM permit?) and b. pump station capacity (it's already hitting capacity and the fact that somehow Shelburne has access to it needs review). We respectfully request that an objective study be undertaken immediately prior to final plat approval so that any common sense cures/remediations/additional capacity be incorporated in any approvals and work completed as a prerequisite to development and that the cost be undertaken by the developer/future owners (not the full South Burlington taxpayer base). 3. Traffic and Safety: The developer’s proposal states that a new road (semi-circular) would be cut into Park Road at two points which we believe will create an unacceptable level of risk for those turning off Dorset Road onto Park Road and then onto its winding, narrow and icy slopes through the rest of this neighborhood's roads. In addition, the traffic at the already busy intersection of Park and Dorset will become worse. It may be necessary to move the entrance to the development directly from Dorset and a traffic light may be necessary. We respectfully request that an objective study be undertaken immediately before final plat approval. 4. Aesthetics, Building Types, Heights: It is unclear from the information presented to date as to what types of structures will be built, impact on current trees and other vegetation, as well as what trees/vegetation will ultimately be included. We feel it important to have some resemblance to the current surrounding neighborhoods. We respectfully request a clearer description of what is being envisioned with respect to structure, color, height and design. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us using this email or at the address/telephone number noted below. Thank you in advance for your attention and consideration of this matter. Sincerely, 2 Mary Kay Woods and Robert C. Wolcott (256 Golf Course Road, SB; (802) 652-1876) cc: johnbossange@gmail.com KBLeFevre@gmail.com 1 Marla Keene From:Kylie McLane <kmclane7987@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, November 12, 2020 7:24 AM To:Marla Keene; Nan McLane Subject:EXTERNAL: Public Comment on #SD-207, 550 Park Road         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.         Good Morning Marla Keene & The South Burlington Development Review Board –   We are contacting you in opposition of, and concern over the new residential development identified as #SD‐20‐17, 550  Park Road. As long‐term residents of South Burlington and 21‐year residents of Inverness Owners Association we have  several concerns with the proposal that we feel must be addressed immediately before any further development moves  forward.    Some of our primary concerns are as follows:   1. The 6.91 acres is far too small for 32 units to be constructed.  We are concerned about how densely  populated this development would be.  2. We have not received significant and adequate information regarding the description of the proposed  development.  We need additional information with regards to the color, height, and design of the 32 proposed  structures.   3. For safety reasons it is essential that an official and objective traffic study is done of the area.  The “S” curve  on Park Street is already a major safety hazard each winter, with 4‐5 cars going off the road. Several years ago  we even witnessed a plow truck going off the road on this dangerous curve.  It’s our belief that it would make  more sense and increase public safety to have the entrance to this development be on Dorset Street rather than  Park Road.   Thank‐you for your time and immediate consideration of our concerns,  Jim & Mary McLane   577 Golf Course Road, South Burlington VT 05403  jim.mary59@yahoo.com  1 Marla Keene From:Randee Bloomberg <randeeb30@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, December 1, 2020 6:13 PM To:Marla Keene Cc:Karen LeFevre; ben@blackrockus.com Subject:EXTERNAL: PUBLIC COMMENT. SD-20-17, 550 Park Road Proposed Development         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.         I  want to thank Blackrock for doing a traffic study.  I noticed, however, that it did not  include the impact on Park Road.  At this time the plan is to enter the development through  Park Road.  Park Road has a slight incline and a dangerous turn.   During normal times the  road can be a problem but during winter it is treacherous.    In order to get up the incline  heading east you have to gather speed.  In order to head west going down Park Road you  end up with too much speed.   Cars coming in and out of the development will make it even  more dangerous.   It would make much more sense to have the entrance to the  development off of Dorset Street.  Please don’t wait until there are serious accidents to  make that determination.  I am asking you to review the plans and use logic.    Thank you.    Randee Bloomberg  146 Park Road  1 Marla Keene From:John Bossange <johnbossange@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 11, 2021 1:24 PM To:Marla Keene Subject:EXTERNAL: Fwd: Park Rd. Photos for Packet Attachments:IMG_20210209_104945065.jpg; IMG_20210209_105013670_HDR.jpg; IMG_20210209_105037525 _HDR.jpg; IMG_20210209_105117520.jpg; IMG_20210209_105209133.jpg         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.         Hi Marla,    Thanks for your communication today.  These photos should be in the packet.    John    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: John Bossange <johnbossange@gmail.com>  Date: Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 9:23 AM  Subject: Park Rd. Photos for Packet  To: Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>  Cc: Matt Cota <mcota@sburl.com>, Karen LeFevre <kblefevre@gmail.com>, Alan Luzzatto <nesandal@comcast.net>,  Charles F. Siegel <cfsiegel@reprovt.com>, Phil Moll <phil.e.moll@gmail.com>    Here are photos for the packet.  They show the steep slope and curves, and jpg 520 show where a car, once again, has  skidded off the road into the guard rail.    Please be sure to have copies of these images in the hands of the DRB before the 3rd.      Thanks, Paul.    Johns  1 Marla Keene From:John Bossange <johnbossange@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 11, 2021 1:24 PM To:Marla Keene Subject:EXTERNAL: Fwd: Park Rd. Photos for Packet Attachments:IMG_20210209_104945065.jpg; IMG_20210209_105013670_HDR.jpg; IMG_20210209_105037525 _HDR.jpg; IMG_20210209_105117520.jpg; IMG_20210209_105209133.jpg         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.         Hi Marla,    Thanks for your communication today.  These photos should be in the packet.    John    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: John Bossange <johnbossange@gmail.com>  Date: Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 9:23 AM  Subject: Park Rd. Photos for Packet  To: Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>  Cc: Matt Cota <mcota@sburl.com>, Karen LeFevre <kblefevre@gmail.com>, Alan Luzzatto <nesandal@comcast.net>,  Charles F. Siegel <cfsiegel@reprovt.com>, Phil Moll <phil.e.moll@gmail.com>    Here are photos for the packet.  They show the steep slope and curves, and jpg 520 show where a car, once again, has  skidded off the road into the guard rail.    Please be sure to have copies of these images in the hands of the DRB before the 3rd.      Thanks, Paul.    Johns  275 COLLEGE STREET, PO BOX 4485 | BURLINGTON, VT 05406-4485 | PHONE 802 861-7000 | FAX 861-7007 | MSKVT.COM February 22, 2021 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND USPS CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Matt Cota, Chair South Burlington Development Review Board City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Email: mcota@sburl.com Re: 550 Park Road, Final Plat Application No. SD-21-06 Dear Chairperson Cota and members of the South Burlington DRB: I represent the Gleneagles Homeowners Association (“Gleneagles HOA”) and the Inverness Homeowners Association (“Inverness HOA”), collectively, the “HOA’s.” The Gleneagles HOA is made up of 54 member homes and the Inverness HOA is made up of 32 member homes, all in South Burlington. The HOA’s asked me to contact the DRB concerning the above-referenced Final Plat Application. The HOA’s have serious traffic safety concerns regarding the current PUD design, and in particular the two curb cuts along Park Road. Park Road is a steep winding slope from the PUD site to Dorset Street. Inverness resident John Bossange expressed his concerns in a March 31, 2020 e-mail message to Department of Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner. Mr. Bossange wrote in part as follows (with non-substantive typographical edits by me for added clarity): Is there a reason why this proposal does not show an entrance further down Dorset Street? Why use Park Road? Here’s my concern. The top entrance intersection is a windblown sheet of black ice most of the winter, or covered with windblown snow. It is very slick because that stretch of Park Roads is exposed to the blowing snow. To imagine vehicles stopping and turning into the new road and out onto Park Road without skidding is hard to see. That’s a dangerous first 100 yards of Park Road, just where there does not need to be intersection. Further, the lower entrance is at the bottom of an “S” curve hill, much steeper than shown on the sketch plan. Everyone gains speed each way and negotiates the curves carefully. Again, to have an intersection at that point could be dangerous, as well. This Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota February 22, 2021 Page 2 of 5 275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com winter, as in all winters, cars have ended up off the road there because they were going too fast down the hill, either way, and skidded into the shoulder of grass or into the woods. On October 5, 2020, four area residents – Randee Bloomberg (Park Road), John Bossange (Golf Course Road), Karen LeFevre (Golf Course Road) and Alan Luzzatto (Nicklaus Circle) – sent the DRB a memorandum that included the following bullet points at page six (with non-substantive typographical edits by me for added clarity): • Road is narrow. Two cars that pass by each other going opposite ways just make it; • Has no safe stopping or turning places from top to bottom along its natural field area; • Has no streetlights or path lighting; • No shoulders. No sidewalk but has a walking/biking path alongside; • Has 2 curved slopes which make vision difficult and make for slippery winter conditions, cars going off the road; • Runs over a stream, with rusty guide rails placed along the curve; • Has seasonal challenges when very rainy or snow covered. Snow and wind, especially from near its entrance from Dorset and above from Golf Course/Park Road juncture. Braking or delaying or back-upped traffic can be hazardous. Difficult to get moving again on slopes without spinning; and • Snowplowing challenges: to keep up with it, find places to park the snow, sometimes making it narrower; plow sometimes alarming drivers because road is so narrow, no center line. The neighbors’ October 5, 2020 memorandum raised other traffic safety concerns as follows (with non-substantive typographical edits by me for added clarity): Currently these new road cuts are shown, we are told, where two staked road markers have been placed on the side Park Road. Unfortunately, they are positioned at points which current residents consider to be particularly troubling points on Park Road, with risks already: Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota February 22, 2021 Page 3 of 5 275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com A. One new road cut for the project would appear just after the intersection of Park and Golf Course Road, running downward on a somewhat obscured bend in Park Road, just past where rusted guard rails line Park Road as it crosses a stream. The new road cut would be near where the existing Rec /Bike/ Pedestrian path and the existing Park Road closely co-exist. B. One new road cut is also proposed at the opposite end, near the entrance intersection between Dorset Street and the existing Park Road. Almost immediately after the turn from Dorset Street, Park Road has a downward slope just past the new road cut. In winter, this slope becomes very icy, with cars at times sliding off the slope into a field. This could be worse if drivers turning in from Dorset Street must brake suddenly when cars come out of the new road into the development. We want to keep another safety challenge in mind, too: if cars are obstructed or delayed at either of these slopes, the only way out might be to back up quite a distance – a harrowing task – while being endangered by other cars which might be coming down the slopes. There are no road pull-offs, no shoulders, no cut-ins. And the road is too narrow (narrower still with winter snow piled on its sides) and dangerous to attempt U-turns. Does the current proposal anticipate such issues, and are there plans to mitigate them? In addition to the above, I understand that numerous letters were submitted to the DRB in the past two months or so from area residents detailing traffic access/safety concerns (among other issues). In November 2020, the Applicant submitted a traffic study to the DRB entitled, “Wheeler Parcel Residential Development Traffic Impact Assessment” (Nov. 13, 2020) (“L&D Traffic Study”). The L&D Traffic Study focuses on the number of new trips the proposed PUD would generate. But there is no discussion about the neighbors’ traffic access/safety concerns. Indeed, the 26-page L&D Traffic Study does not contain any of the following words (or their variants): “slope,” “steep,” “narrow,” “curve,” “shoulder,” “snow,” “ice,” “danger,” or “hazard.” Also troubling is the L&D Traffic Study’s apparent failure to take Park Road’s steep grade into account. The “Two-Way Stop Control Summary” near the end of the L&D Traffic Study states several times that the “Percent Grade” of the “Eastbound”/“Westbound” street in question – which apparently refers to Park Road – is Zero. See, for example (my emphasis): Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota February 22, 2021 Page 4 of 5 275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com The HOA’s maintain that there is a solution to the numerous dangerous traffic safety issues which would be created by having curb cuts along Park Road, namely to abandon them and replace them with a single access on Dorset Street. A single Dorset Street access would cross the bike path paralleling Dorset Street only once, whereas the current proposal crosses the bike path paralleling Park Road twice. Numerous South Burlington developments have Dorset Street accesses. Driving south from Park Road, the following developments are on the west side of Dorset Street:  Willowbrook Lane (9 homes);  Weeping Willow (2 homes);  Minor Farms (6 homes); and  Sutton Farms (2 homes). Driving north from Cheese Factory Road/Barstow Road, the following developments are on the east side of Dorset Street:  Johnson Way (2 homes);  Sadie Lane (8 homes);  Link Road (9 homes); and  Foulsham Hollow (5 homes). The HOA’s and their members are spending time, energy and money to alert the DRB to the serious traffic safety hazards which would result if the project is built as proposed currently. The DRB need not need simply take the neighbors’ word for it, though. The DRB can require an independent technical review of the Applicant’s proposal. Section 14.05(J) of the applicable Land Development Regulations states as follows: Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota February 22, 2021 Page 5 of 5 275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com Technical or Consultant Review of Site Plans. The Development Review Board may require a site plan review applicant to pay for reasonable costs of an independent technical review of the application. The Development Review Board may table review of the application pending receipt of an independent technical review. SBLDR § 14.05(J) (Jan. 25, 2016). The Land Development Regulations require the “location and design of [PUD] project access” to take “traffic safety” into account, including “provisions for safe access. . . .” SBLDR § 15.12(F)(4)(e) (Jan. 25, 2016). The HOA’s submit that the project’s proposed Park Road accesses would be severe traffic safety hazards. To avoid creating the conditions for tragic consequences to occur, the HOA’s urge the DRB to table its review of the Final Plat Application and require the Applicant to pay for an independent technical review. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Respectfully submitted, MSK ATTORNEYS By: /s/ Daniel A. Seff Daniel A. Seff, Esq. P.O. Box 4485 275 College Street Burlington, VT 05406-4485 Phone: (802) 861-7000 Fax: (802) 861-7007 Email: dseff@mskvt.com Attorneys for the Gleneagles Homeowners Association and the Inverness Homeowners Association cc: Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via e-mail) Ms. Marla Keene, Development Review Planner (via e-mail) Mr. Ben Avery, BlackRock Construction, LLC (via e-mail)