Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH 3 - Supplemental - 1302 1340 1350 1404 1406 Spear StreetNo Text F° r �. �M r r � • � f.� � l r ti �' a.� i . � _71» No Text City of South Burlington 3/13/2014 3926 continuance fee for DRB hearing ��4 50.00 2 s. Farrell Real Estate Spear Meadows Continuance Fee 50.00 The Snyder Group, Inc. Merchants Bank 4076 Shelburne Road #6 Shelburne, VT 05482 VENDOR:130215 CITY OF S BURLINGTON CHECK NO:192453 CHECK DATE:08/12/14 DATE INVOICE ENTITY GROSS DISCOUNT NET EXPLANATION 8/12/14 81214SPEAR 001 The Snyder Group, 50.00 .00 50.00 Spear Meadows Check Total: 50.00 .00 50.00 City of South Burlington 7/10/2012 3506 continuance 50.00 Farrell Real Estate Spear Meadows 50.00 T _ = t s _ ,$ { .r • _ - `Ok a - - - - it : ■ �I 11 . • ,D �■ ■IN .. rA ■ �� _ fj4. t • t •M PARCEL Community '-(Potential T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC : t • • • ' _. is I t I I I I I / M. and M. Scollins I I I. am Estate ' 160-00214 I T. and L. Kleh 0570-01225 R. and M. Skiff I 1160-00219 / 1645-00069 20 - Recreational ` Easement L LOT -LOT LOT I — _-_-- --- LID �19� T`, T LO� 1315 N��GH 6 enS_ ace-OT T iI-7 I I $ RKt -nnacle Q'Spear, - - I 1 I I I- 1 5 Acre Total I on -Wetland \ `` - - - - - Buffer 1 `� _ -- - - (Min. 0.84) I 1 -/ - Lar .,n, Milot Partnership K - it o I . ,0 ao l i- -tLOT 37� LOT 361 g II I �I�-��I �I N -/ 4L'_ ------- L{I II / I i - ---- I II II I li II II II LOT - I LOT I a- u- I I r - I L� I LO .I - LOT OT LOT LOTI i ^ Z4 I LOT - 3 2 25 4 l iLOT i LOT 3 I L3 33 3 7 - i.1. LL Q �m 39%nLOT 38 - - ' I Spear,MeadoWs lnc. ' �. ��00� •. . . .i. U 1 . . . . . . . . . p . . Y. .' " f 1; -� — ..... _ = - - - i, . .. ..... ,.- -- _ _ _ I/ .Z, .'.'P' RCEL 3 .... ... . . z. - - _ ... HOA 1 1' HOA I PARCEL 2 PARCEL 1- E - ------ =- W. d Gilbert LOT 3 - - - - - - -- r---- Gllb / - -- --- an M e ( AUG2 4 2012 / l LOT 2 HOA i _ i C -'- / T-390-J I PARCEL \; I City of So. Burlington r _ _ (Potential I LOT 1 i Cornmuni i - _ G. and J. Farrell I Gardens))i Open Space -'I--- j Pinnacle at Spear / / I F 1640-01350 O Ewanrrc SINGLEfMALY / ' I J / / RESIDENTIAL UNIT / I �� Yl _J J 1 and D. Y ng G.nd� 3Farrell l 1 Ival"na�4Z454-6s4001oHackett 1 / / I O ��j a2.8C5es Jl / L-1.-J G. Sp' rzynsk± 1 `'--- R. and T. 164o-014a= I Consuela Bailey Estate \ � I - F I M. Dencker c/o L." � I arrant I _,r / �,`` 1640-01430 . Hackett xown„ I \ ���\\ I 1 40--014u4 / \ /— f 1640-01317 �s --•/ I I I • ; \ I I / . and C. Frado°ni GRAPHIC SCALE I I R. and E. Lavigne sp��t� I I 1640-01406 I % / P 1640--01331 %M Mal. I I "o >o ao ,io sb I 1 B. and T. Cimmonetti 'T'�%r \ i I5 / I i/ COO (n]C7CP��4(�Ml��°1dDL'3nG^Q�4 PC�L�1G9 FEET inch = eo ) I / / IILJ/LSLS/CSO 1 t on ft.1640-01393 I I I T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC 17�a.t. I.w.lol. ame licant: Erle Farrell - APP landscape architects .planning consultants mJb/lba elwnbD 0�8-22-2012 SPEAR MEADOWS PO Box 1335 T _ 1 0 0 Burlington, VT 05402 301 college street • budington . vemlont • 05401 802 .658 •3555 http:/A—.0.yle.com _0 m'b I. 1" = 60' S0-Unit Conceptual Plan 1J 1 RECEIVED AUC) 2 4 22; 11 2 City of So. Burlington 4 �m vex z 0 co z __j 0 u z No Text 1 ,m. - a , FAI ol ` %•. , 7' _. .� "" *11 aq'4 :IX rl�� "" Wwi' q n ■■ nuurNi i ` •¢•;`b F. , I (rt • � �, 'q.�� l ,. ,..fib ii;} 4 '��,Jt�!"�' a e,i Iy"� {:.• � I+ � :d� � x1,t 4 �/.� � k wk. .<?�n x 1 f � � t , ..:, ....... ..... :.<,�..+„ •.. ���� ,,. ., ,.�', o. } . , ..:,,,,, �„t•;,M�, i � �` r ,."� y ',+ �, tS �. I{I k d iN` �A� N A!, ILLUSTRF, � � I +{ 5ti-52 t4 Eli i ^' ?tin t 4r Y1}I t + m �Mk in 77- Y't 40, -.'CAW Yo It a� r lK t x -,� �(a � . �� � I • � Fir. 4 RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2012 City of So. Burlington .mom �a � A '•� } ` y -: Awls OWN ---Mm�illillilillill x �- AWN _ 7T7 VA ys IV � ! Pik � � h •��.TY 5A'rT` J a <7" s s ,> w . " �I ' r .. +."'�,.5 r.� a, Awl Pr 77 A� N r yy f � 1 1 r,. Ni CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: February 16, 2012 drb\staffcomments\2011\SD_11_51_MP_11_03_SpearSt_ Plans received: December 23, 2011 Farrell_SpearMeadows_Prelim_M P 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street Preliminary Plat Application #SD-11-51 Master Plan Application #MP-11-03 #4 Meetinq date: February 21, 2012 Owner Applicant Spear Meadows, Inc Eric Farrell Gary N. and Jane G. Farrell PO Box 1335 1350 Spear Street Burlington, VT 05402 South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer Property Information Civil Engineering Associates Inc. Tax Parcel 1640-01302; Tax Parcel 1640-01340 PO Box 485 Tax Parcel 1640-01350 Shelburne, VT 05482 SEQ Zoning District- Neighborhood Residential 25.91 acres Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows Farrell Real Estate, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking preliminary plat and master plan approval for a planned unit development on 25.91 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 24 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 21 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. The application was reviewed by the Development Review Board through a series of sketch plan meetings, beginning on November 1, 2011 and ending on January 3, 2012. Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose, Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on December 23, 2011. Plans have also been reviewed by additional staff members, including department heads. Staff has the following comments. DENSITY The base density of the parcel generated by the land at 1.2 units per acre, based on 25.91 acres, is 31 units. The maximum units allowed, in accordance with Chapter 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and determined by the Neighborhood residential sub -district under the Transferred Development Right program, are 103 units. The applicant is proposing 66 new units, with one existing dwelling to be razed and one to remain, for a total of 67 units within the PUD. This is a proposed density of approximately 2.6 units per acre. A total of 36 transferred development rights would be required. The applicant has stated that they have a legal option to purchase enough development rights to build the project as proposed. Staff has previously recommended that the Board require the applicant to submit the legal documents pertaining to the options for review by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. Staff has also recommended that the development rights be purchased by the applicant prior to issuance of zoning permits for any units beyond the 31 allowed by the property's inherent density. The Board did not previously raise issues with these recommendations regarding timing of transferred development rights. However, they should determine at this stage whether they shall be submitted prior to preliminary plat approval or prior to final plat approval. 1. The applicant shall submit legal documents pertaining to the options to purchase Transferred Development Rights (TDRs) to the City Attorney for approval, at a time determined by the Board. 2. The applicant shall submit legal documents showing clear ownership of the 36 development rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the 32" d unit. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT Pursuant to Section 15.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (hereafter referred to as the SBLDRs), the Development Review Board shall require a master plan for any application of more than ten (10) dwelling units in the Southeast Quadrant. This application may, at the applicant's request, be combined with preliminary subdivision plat review. The DRB shall review the master plan and all areas proposed for preliminary plat simultaneously and shall make separate findings of fact as to the master plan and the areas reviewed for preliminary plat. 15.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations govern Master Plan review and approval. As the master plan may be combined with the preliminary plat, many of the items required are included in the preliminary plat, and do not necessitate redundant mention in this paragraph. There are some items which are exclusively tied to the master plan process which staff will try to distinguish below. (3) Master Plan Application. The master plan shall consist of one or more maps or drawings, with all dimensions shown in feet or decimals of a foot, drawn to a scale of not more than one hundred (100) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (100) feet of frontage, showing or accompanied by the information listed below. The applicant shall submit complete preliminary site plan or preliminary plat applications consistent with the master plan application for any area or phase for which approval is sought simultaneously with the master plan. (a) Accurate and updated Sketch Plan data (b) The name of the proposed Master Plan or an identifying title (c) Name and address of the land surveyor and plat designer (d) The names of all subdivisions immediately adjacent and the names of owners of record of adjacent acreage (e) An overall plan for the property indicating the following: i. the locations and total combined area of the propert(y)(ies) proposed for subdivision and/or site plan phase, either in conjunction with the initial master plan application or in the future, specifying which area or areas are currently proposed for subdivision or development. ii. The location and total area of the propert(y)(ies) currently proposed for subdivision or development that are to be deeded as perpetually open spaces, and which areas proposed to be left open are subject to future evaluation within the parameters of the master plan. iii. the location, total area and nature of any public amenities or facilities other than buildings proposed either in conjunction with the initial master plan application or in the future, specifying which features are currently proposed for development. iv. The maximum impervious coverage proposed for the property or properties subject to the Master Plan. V. The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and/or number of dwelling units proposed for the property or properties subject to the Master Plan. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows vi. The maximum number of vehicle trip ends (VTEs) and associated parking proposed for the property or properties subject to the master plan. vii. The location and size of any existing sewers and water mains, culverts and drains on the property or serving the property. viii. The location, names and widths of existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts and parking areas and their relationship to existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts and parking areas on surrounding properties ix. Contour lines at intervals of five feet, based on USGS datum of existing grades and also of finished grades. Contour intervals closer than five feet may be required by the Development Review Board in order to properly evaluate specific aspects of the project, such as storm drainage, landscaping, etc. X. A complete survey of any tracts to be subdivided completed by a licensed land surveyor xi. The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the DRB to locate readily and appraise the basic layout in the field. Unless an existing street intersection is shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall be shown. xii. A list of waivers the applicant desires from these regulations. The application was deemed complete by the Administrative Officer on December 23, 2011. D. Approval and Amendment of Master Plan. (1) Upon receipt of a complete application for master plan approval, with or without an associated preliminary site plan or preliminary plat application, the DRB shall take action to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the master plan at a duly warned public hearing. The Board is reviewing the master plan concurrent with the preliminary plat. While the staff comments and discussions may be concurrent, the Board shall issue two separate decisions. (2) In its approval of a Master Plan, the DRB shall specify the level of review and process required for subsequent applications pursuant to the approved Master Plan provided such procedure is consistent with the intent of these Regulations. The DRB may, for example, specify that final site plan only shall be required for specified portions of a project subject to a master plan, or that a section of a PUD shall be able to be amended with a final plat amendment action. Staff recommends that any items of change which would otherwise necessitate Board level review pursuant to the SBLDRs, require a final plat amendment. Although the proposed project is within its coverage limitations, the project is subject to residential design review. As such, Staff also recommends that the Board be required to approve any future proposed additions such as sheds, porches, decks, and balconies. The Board should discuss this. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows 3. The Board should discuss what land development should require future review by the Development Review Board and under what form. (3) Any application for amendment of the master plan, preliminary site plan or preliminary plat that deviates from the master plan in any one or more of the following respects, shall be considered a new application for the property and shall require sketch plan review as well as approval of an amended master plan: (a) An increase in the total FAR or number of residential dwelling units for the property subject to the master plan; (b) An increase in the total site coverage of the property subject to the master plan; (c) A change in the location, layout, capacity or number of collector roadways on the property subject to the master plan; (d) Land development proposed in any area previously identified as permanent open space in the approved master plan application; and/or (e) A change that will result in an increase in the number of PM peak hour vehicle trip ends projected for total buildout of the property subject to the master plan. This is primarily a judicial statement for which the applicant shall be bound without any special condition included herein. For simplicity and transparency, the Board should establish the total site coverage, vehicle trip ends, and land which is proposed for future development or permanent open space. 4. The proposed project is estimated to generate 49.07 pm peak vehicle trip ends (using the fitted curves for LUCs 210 and 230 respectively). Any increase in this number shall require further review by the Development Review Board. 5. The proposed development will result in site coverage of 24.7% and building site coverage of 11.5%. Any increase to this shall require further review by the Development Review Board. The applicant should submit a plan which generally labels those areas which may be considered for further future development. Units and layouts would not need to be included. The plan should also show which areas will be permanently unbuildable. The Board has expressed an interest in keeping a corridor along the wetland and in line with the open space on the adjacent property. The master plan should show this is as permanently restricted from any land development. 6. The applicant shall submit a plan which generally labels any areas considered for further future development. This plan shall also label any land which is to be permanently undeveloped. (4) Any application for amendment of the master plan that does not reduce the total area or alter the location of proposed permanent open spaces, and which does not meet any of the criteria in (3) above, and any application for preliminary plat or preliminary site plan that is found to be consistent with the findings of fact for the master plan, shall not require sketch plan review. The DRB may, at its discretion, allow applicants for preliminary plat or preliminary site plan review pursuant to a master plan to combine preliminary and final review into one application and approval action. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows These applications have been combined for review. (5) The DRB may in its findings of fact on the master plan, or its approval of a site plan or preliminary plat pursuant thereto, specify certain minor land development activities (such as but not limited to the addition of decks or porches to dwelling units) that will not require DRB action, and may be undertaken pursuant to issuance of a Zoning Permit. Staff has already addressed this item for review by the Board. As the project requires residential design review, the Board should review any additional land development, including those listed above, that are not already shown on the plans. (6) The City shall in its approvals maintain a record of such criteria as are applicable to the project such as residential density, total site coverage, required off-street parking, sewer capacity, and the location and status of public amenities. Staff has already addressed density and site coverage. Parking, sewer capacity, and public amenities (parks) are discussed below in this report. The subject parcels total 25.91 acres. Table 1. Dimensional Requirements F_ SEQ Zoning District Required Proposed Min. Lot Size 12,000 SF* 3 acres** Max. Building Coverage 15% 11.8% Max. Overall Coverage 30% 25.2% " Min. Front Setback 20 ft." See below Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft N Min. Rear Setback L 30 ft. 30 ft �l zoning compliance * 12,000 sf is the minimum lot size for single family dwellings ** the smallest parcel proposed for development is 3 acres ^ the front yard setback requirement for the Southeast Quadrant Zoning district is 20 feet. The Residential Design criteria for the Neighborhood Residential sub -district (SBLDR section 9.08) states that "buildings should be set back twenty-five feet from the back of the sidewalk." The guidelines further state that "a close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment." The applicant is proposing between 15- 20 foot setbacks for front units, with rear units located between 40 and 60 feet back. The Board discussed the location of units at length throughout the sketch plan review process and all members expressed favorability with respect CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows to the proposed location of buildings given the increased stream -side buffer, and instructed the applicant to proceed without changes. The Board should discuss this item again and include its reasoning for any waivers in its decision. 7. The Board should discuss the location of the proposed buildings with respect to the front setback and detail any waivers or deviations from recommended placements that they wish to grant. SUBDIVISION CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, subdivisions shall comply with the following standards and conditions: A. General Standards. In all zoning districts of the City, the DRB shall make findings of fact on a PUD, subdivision and/or Master Plan in keeping with the standards for approval of subdivisions in Article 15 and/or site plans and conditional uses in Article 14. PUD, subdivision and Master Plan applications in the Central District shall meet the standards and criteria applicable in the appropriate sub -district and shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals for the City Center. For PUD, subdivision and/or Master Plan applications within the SEQ, 10 and R1-Lakeshore districts, the DRB shall also make positive findings with respect to the project's compliance with the specific criteria in this section. The general standards applicable to all PUDs, subdivisions and Master Plans are: (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. The City of South Burlington Water Department has reviewed the plans and provided comments in a consolidated memo from the Department of Public Works, dated February 17, 2012 (from Justin Rabidoux, attached). The applicant shall adhere to these comments, shall revise the plans where necessary, and shall obtain preliminary and final wastewater allocations per the recommendations included herein. 8. The applicant shall address and/or adhere to the comments of the South Burlington Water Department per the memo from the Department of Public Works dated February 17, 2012 and any additional comments. The plans shall be revised accordingly. The applicant shall receive preliminary wastewater allocation prior to final plat approval. 10. The applicant shall receive final wastewater allocation prior to issuance of any zoning permits. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows (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. The City of South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent has reviewed the plans and provided comments in a memo from the Department of Public Works, dated February 17, 2012 (from Justin Rabidoux, attached). The applicant shall adhere to these comments, shall revise the plans where necessary, and shall obtain preliminary and final wastewater allocations per the recommendations included herein. 11. The applicant shall address and/or adhere to the comments of the South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent per the memo from the Department of Public Works dated February 17, 2012 and any additional comments. The plans shall be revised accordingly. (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. Access is proposed via a public street connection to Spear Street as well as to the existing public road of Vale Drive. The applicant is proposing a short, private dead-end street connection to the parcel to the north, labeled as UVM and State Agricultural College, as well as a paved public drive to the proposed public park and private community gardens. Vale Drive is currently a public street terminated in a cul-de-sac. A right-of-way exists at the end of the cul-de-sac, always intended as a secondary access to this parcel. The applicant has submitted details of the roadway (including cross -sections) as part of the preliminary plat application. The road details have been extensively reviewed by the Director of Public Works. Comments are provided in the afore -mentioned memo from the Department of Public Works. The applicant shall adhere to these comments, shall revise the plans where necessary, and shall obtain preliminary and final wastewater allocations per the recommendations included herein. Staff has already stated that the applicant should work closely with the Director of Public works to address and/or adhere to the comments per the memo from the Department of Public Works and any additional comments. Where necessary, the plans shall be revised accordingly. This should be worked out prior to preliminary plat approval. Staff has reviewed the proposed lot layout in accordance with the Regulating Plan illustrated in Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and discussed below in this report. Staff finds that the project does not meet the strict guidelines of the SEQ which call for short development blocks and limits the lengths of roadways, in order to minimize impacts on the wetlands which traverse the site from north to south and fit into the unique shape of the lot. One possibility to remedy this could include a connection from the newly proposed road to split the block in an east -west CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows fashion and provide for a connection to the east to a property there, which could support development in the future and which would be a logical planned connection. In this case of competing objectives, staff finds that the design presented achieves the best possible layout given the restrictions on the site. Staff does not advocate for an additional connection, but as it would be an option for bringing the property into more strict compliance with the guideline stated above, the Board may wish to discuss it. The proposed development is expected to generate 49.07 pm peak vehicle trip ends (using Land Use Codes 210 and 230 for the single family and condominium units, respectively). With respect to traffic management, the applicant has submitted a traffic impact study, prepared by RSG Inc, dated August, 2010. The City's Director of Public Works reviewed the study and has incorporated comments in the aforementioned memo. In summary, there do not appear to be any major issues, though the department has asked for additional clarification. Furthermore, the Board has the authority to seek a third -party, technical review of the study. The Board should discuss this. 12. The Board should review and discuss the traffic study submitted by the applicant's consultant as well as the comments made in response by the Director of Public Works. The Board should also discuss whether an additional third -party review is warranted. The applicant is proposing a dead-end street to access the park area, which is more than 700 feet in length. The South Burlington Land Development Regulations state that: (2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets may not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). This guideline is waivable. Given the unique shape of the lot, the location of the wetlands on site, and the existence of two access points, and the close proximity of the cul-de-sac to an adjacent lot with development potential, and that the dead-end road is proposed only to access a park, staff is comfortable with this request. The Board has previously discussed this request several times and expressed favorability of the proposal. (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 There are small encroachments into a Class II wetland on the site. Staff finds that the proposed development minimizes the impact to these wetlands to the greatest extent possible while still allowing for a road to access the site. Pursuant to the SBLDRs, the applicant should obtain a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) from the State of Vermont CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows prior to final plat approval. However, the State of VT no longer issues CUDs. Staff is working with the State to determine the new requirements and ensure that the spirit and intent of the regulations, including proper oversight of wetland impacts, is fully met. 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain [the equivalent of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD)] for the proposed wetlands impacts prior to final plat approval. Furthermore, staff recommends a ground delineation of the wetland buffer where it gets close to the rear of the homes proposed along the west side of the road so as to reduce impact by residents of those units. The wetland and wetland buffers shall be protected and should not in any case be used as useable lawn or other recreational areas. The applicant has submitted a plan which includes a line of shrubbery and tress along the wetland buffer. There appears to be sections of shrubbery which fills in some of the gaps between landscaping. 14. The Board shall discuss the applicant's proposal for the wetland buffer delineation. Staff also suggests additional measures of protection, including limitations on fertilizers and mowing. The following are suggested conditions: 15. There shall be no use of pesticides or non -organic fertilizers within the wetlands or associated 50 foot buffers. This shall be reflected in the association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. 16. There shall be no mowing within 50 feet of the wetlands on the property. Brush - hogging shall be allowed no more than three (3) times per year. This shall be reflected in the association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. 17. Deeds and association covenants shall reflect all of the standards included above, especially the prohibition of use of the wetland buffer as lawn or other recreation areas, and the use of pesticides on site. (5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The stated purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located (Southeast Quadrant) is as follows: A Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ) is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and well - planned residential use in the area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The natural features, visual character and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 11 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows resources in the City and worthy of protection. The design and layout of buildings and lots in a manner that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will best create neighborhoods and a related network of open spaces consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Southeast Quadrant shall be encouraged. Any uses not expressly permitted are hereby prohibited, except those which are allowed as conditional uses. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 9.02 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: "These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, and any adopted amendments to such plan, and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. In the event of a conflict between the Southeast Quadrant chapter and other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the Southeast Quadrant chapter shall control." (6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The Board discussed this objective as part of the sketch plan review. Previous plan iterations were altered so as to remove some buildings from the area which were proximate to, but not inside, the wetland corridor which bisects the site from the north to south. This corridor was widened with homes moved further from the wetland buffer. Homes are now clustered more closely and a continuous corridor is now present. Furthermore, the largest portion of the wetland and undeveloped portion of the site is immediately adjacent to a wetland/buffer area on the adjoining development to the south. (7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water. The South Burlington Fire Chief reviewed the plans and provided comments on February 17, 2012. Staff has reviewed his comments and disagrees with several of the recommendations, while finding that others, including the sprinklering of units, have no basis in the Land Development Regulations which do not legalize building codes. Staff recommends that the applicant meet with the Fire Chief and the Public Works Director together to discuss these issues and then return for continued preliminary plat proceedings. 18. The applicant shall meet with the Fire Chief to discuss the plans. Any items not agreed upon shall be reviewed by the Development Review Board for decision prior to preliminary plat approval. (8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 12 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. The road details have been extensively reviewed by the Director of Public Works. The applicant shall adhere to these comments, shall revise the plans where necessary. Staff has already commented on the need for connection to adjacent properties. The Recreation Path Committee has been reviewing the sketch plan and preliminary plat plan submittals. The Committee has requested a recreation path easement along the western boundary. The applicant should respond to this request, and the Board should determine whether one must be provided. Spear Street is within a very wide right of way for a two lane road, and there remains substantial land available within the public right of way for facilities. Constructing a path outside of the right of way in this area would require dozens of private easement agreements before a complete path could be constructed. The applicant is proposing street improvements which include a turning lane. It may be more appropriate to discuss whether the street improvements should include a recreation path or on -road bicycle lanes within the public right of way. 19. The Board should discuss the Recreation Path Committee's request for an easement along the western property boundary. If one is not warranted, the Board should discuss the road improvement plan within Spear Street and determine whether any additional provisions should be made within the road right of way. (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. Staff has already stated that the applicant should continue to work with the Director of Public Works/City Engineer regarding the road design and with respect to his written comments. The applicant is proposing a private road to access a public park. The applicant should work with the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and the City Attorney to ensure that proper public access will be secured. A basic agreement should be reached prior to final plat approval, with final legal documents signed and recorded prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the site. Discussed further below, the Board should determine when the park is to be constructed. 20. The applicant shall reach agreement with the Director of Public Works/City Engineer as to adequate public access to the park prior to final plat approval. Final legal documents shall be signed and recorded prior to issuance of the first zoning permit for a building on the property. (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Comprehensive Plan has a chapter dedicated to the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. The goal statements have guided the work of the Planning Commission and City Council in outlining the density, zoning, coverage limitations, and allowable uses in the district and its sub -districts. Staff encourages the Board to read the entirety of the Chapter (Chapter 8 Southeast Quadrant) which is attached. An excerpt of the goal statement is included herein, and the objectives may be found near the end of the chapter. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 13 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows It is a goal of this City to support a planned strategy for land conservation and neighborhood development in the Southeast Quadrant that preserves areas of ecological significance, creates a cohesive and publicly accessible open space system, and encourages neighborhood development patterns, including street systems that create walkable neighborhoods, a range of housing choices, an a strong sense of place. Each subset of these goals is included in the general review standards for PUDs as well as specific standards for the SEQ and the SEQ-NR sub -district. Though they may be addressed individually, Staff believes that the general goals are met with the proposal. At question is not whether any land development is appropriate for the parcel (this has been decided through the City zoning, and subsequent sub -zones of the SEQ, a multi -year public process ultimately approved by vote of the City Council) but whether the adherence to the specific regulations adopted thereafter meets the general goals. 14.06 General Review Standards The following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design. 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. Staff has addressed the proposed project's compliance with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see the section in the staff notes above. 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. Staff and the Board worked with the applicant at the sketch plan level to ensure suitable and safe pedestrian movement throughout the PUD. The plans include sidewalks on both sides of the road, safe crosswalks, and a paved recreation path. The plans also provide provisions for the adjacent neighborhood to access the recreation path, sidewalk network, and park. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 14 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home; (iii) The lot has unique site conditions such as a utility easement or unstable soils that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street, (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re -used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s); or, (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation. (c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all proposed parking areas that are both to the side of a building and between the front lot line and the building line of the building on the lot that is closest to the public street shall not exceed one-half of the total building width of all buildings on the lot that are located adjacent to the public street. Buildings separated from the front lot line by parking approved pursuant to 14.06(C)(2)(b) shall be considered adjacent to the public street. Buildings separated from the front lot line by any other parking areas shall not be considered adjacent to the public street. (d) The DRB shall require that the majority of the parking on through lots and corner lots be located between the building(s) and the side yards or between the building and the front yard adjacent to the public street with the highest average daily volume of traffic. Where the rear yard of a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, the majority of parking shall be located between the building and the side yards or between the building and the yard that is adjacent to the Interstate. The parking on site serves single family and two family residential use, or is for the park (public recreation). Therefore, parking is permissible to the front of the buildings. Nevertheless, the Board worked with the applicant through the sketch process to ensure that most parking was set back from the road and beyond the buildings. (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 heights of all buildings are within the limits of the district and characteristic of typical CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 15 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows and nearby single and two-family dwellings. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. 21. Newly installed utility services shall 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. The design of buildings is discussed in greater detail in a discussion of the specific Southeast Quadrant design standards found elsewhere in this report. 14.07 Specific 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. Access is proposed via a public street connection to Spear Street as well as to the existing public road of Vale Drive. Vale Drive is currently a public street terminated in a cul-de-sac. A right-of-way exists at the end of the cul-de-sac, always intended as a secondary access to this parcel. As is customary, the applicant will submit more details of the roadway (including cross -sections) as part of the preliminary plat application. The applicant is now proposing a short dead- end street connection to the parcel to the north, labeled as UVM and State Agricultural College. This connection would be made if any development were to be approved on the UVM parcel. The Director of Public Works has commented on the road connection to Vale Drive, a connection that was planned and approved as part of the Pinnacle subdivision and which has existed on the plans since. The abutting property owners have expressed concern about the safety of this connection. The Fire Chief and the Director of Public Works have commented on whether or not the island should remain in the cul-de-sac. Although an understanding of how the roadway functions is important to the design of this development, the area on Vale Drive around the cul-de-sac is an existing city -owned street and right of way and is not on the land CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 16 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows owned by the party listed in this application. It is not part of the land described in the PLID. Staff strongly advises that the Director of Public Works continue to work with the residents of Vale Drive, as well as the Fire Chief to address the configuration of the cul-de-sac. However, it is not for the review of this Board. 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. Staff has already stated that the utility lines must be underground 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). No dumpsters or group disposal facilities are proposed. Residential trash disposal and recycling facilities shall be treated like all others in the City. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. 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. The applicant is asking for the following waivers: 1. Section 9.08 2. Table C-2 Section 9.08 states that blocks which are not shorter than 300-500 linear feet in length must include mid -block public sidewalks or recreation path connections. The longest block between the intersection of Spear Meadow Drive and Park Street is 775'. These blocks could be broken up by recreation path or road connections. The applicant argues that new recreation paths introduced between the blocks would not make sense as they would lead to dead ends at the property lines, or would be duplicative. Staff adds that they may also terminate in a location that does not provide a safe crossing or access. Staff has reviewed the proposed lot layout in accordance with the Regulating Plan illustrated in Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Staff finds CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 17 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows that the project does not meet the strict guidelines of the SEQ which call for short development blocks and limits the lengths of roadways, in order to minimize impacts on the wetlands which traverse the site from north to south and fit into the unique shape of the lot. In this case of competing objectives, staff finds that the design presented achieves the best possible layout given the restrictions on the site. The Development Review Board previously discussed this matter and agreed. The Board should discuss this again and provide a decision. 22. The Board should discuss the applicant's request for a waiver on block length and mid -block connections. Table C-2 relates to the setback requirement for structures in the district. Staff fully supports this waiver request as the goal of the requirement is being met. The front yard setback for buildings in the SEQ is stated at 20 feet. Closer proximity of buildings is appropriate to foster a closer relationship to the street and a larger buffer from the wetland, wetland buffer, and other property lines. This is discussed at the beginning of this report and calls for the Board to review and render a decision. The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The planned character of the area is defined in the comprehensive plan, the goals of which have already been identified and discussed in this report. Again, the Board should read the Southeast Quadrant chapter of the Comprehensive Plan in order to best assess this criterion. The South Burlington Land Development Regulations, purpose of the zoning district is "to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and well -planned residential use" and that the "design and layout of buildings and lots in a matter that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will best create neighborhoods and related network of open spaces consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Southeast Quadrant shall be encouraged." Southeast Quadrant District This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district. Therefore it is subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR. 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub -Districts The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. A. Height. (1) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT, or SEQ-NR sub -district shall not exceed forty-five feet (45'); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub -districts. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 18 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows (2) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-VR or SEQ-VC sub- district shall not exceed fifty feet (50'); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub -districts. The applicant has stated that the heights of buildings will remain below the height limitations of the sub -district. 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 The Board discussed the layout of the site with respect to open space corridors at length during the sketch plan review, including some revisions to the location of proposed dwelling units near the wetland and wetland buffer, and near the corridor which would continue a line of open space from the adjacent PUD. (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. Staff has already addressed this criterion with respect to the requested waiver from the block length. The average density remains below that which is permitted in the sub -district. (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. Staff has discussed the need for a plan for the future spaces as part of the master plan requirements. The applicant is proposing a 2.3 acre parcel to be deeded to the city as a neighborhood park, as well as a 1.6 acre lot to be used for community gardens. The proposed park will serve as an amenity not just to the residents of the PUD, but will also be convenient to the adjacent neighborhoods as well as open to the general public. The applicant has begun discussions with the Director of the Recreation Department, and should continue to as the application evolves. The Director and the applicant should address which facilities shall be planned for the space (ie- basketball courts, play structures, etc), as well as parking needs. The park is proposed to be accessed via a narrow cul-de-sac off of a wider road stub (labeled on the plans as `Road C'). As previously stated, the applicant should work with the Director of Public Works to determine the needs for access and turn -around to this parcel. Section 9 of the SBLDR states that "a range of parks should be distributed through the SEQ to meet a variety of needs including children's play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation." Furthermore, "parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program" and "a neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be provided within a one -quarter mile walk of every home not so served by an existing City park or other publicly -owned recreation area." The proposed park space exceeds the requirements of this section CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 19 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows Legal documents shall be worked out prior to final plat approval and recorded prior to issuance of a zoning permit. 23. The applicant shall work with the City Attorney, Planning Director, and Director of Recreation to formalize ownership of the park lands. This shall have a draft agreement prior to final plat approval and formalized and recorded prior to issuance of a zoning permit for any buildings on the property. (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. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The applicant has submitted a grading and erosion control plan as part of the phasing plan. The Stormwater Superintendent has reviewed the plans and given the size of the parcel, it will be subject to all levels of state review. 24. The proposed project should adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan should meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. (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. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged. As previously stated, there are small encroachments into a Class II wetland on the site. Staff previously recommended a ground delineation of the wetland buffer where it gets close to the rear of the homes proposed along the west side of the road so as to reduce impact by residents of those units. The wetland and wetland buffers shall be protected and should not in any case be used as useable lawn or other recreational areas. 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 20 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows 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. (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. (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. (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. E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. (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. These items have all been previously addressed in this report. (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and neighborhoods shall apply. 9.08 SEQ-NR &NRT Sub -District; Specific Standards The SEQ-NRT sub -district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 21 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 400 linear feet; see Figure 9-2 for example. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks 400 feet or longer must include mid -block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. Staff has discussed this at length elsewhere in this report (2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets may not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). Staff has discussed this at length elsewhere in this report. (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. Staff has already commented on this matter with respect to the street connection to Vale Drive. This is a requirement of the regulations, as well as part of the original intent of a Vale Drive connection. (4) 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 proposed development is a large PUD without individual home lots. This criterion applies to subdivision of land. B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards (1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the NR sub -district 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 of the SBLDR. Staff has already commented on the roadway, sidewalk, and recreation path design. (2) Sidewalks. Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5') in width with an additional minimum five-foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the street. Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, and must be connected in a pattern that promotes walkability throughout the development. The DRB may in its discretion require supplemental sidewalk segments to achieve this purpose. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 22 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows This criterion is being met and are on both sides of the street. Again, the Board should discuss whether any additional pedestrian or bicycle pathways are necessary along Spear Street. (3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3) Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet wide. Street tress 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 applicant is proposing street trees in accordance with the regulations along both sides of every street. The City Arborist has reviewed the plans. (4) On -street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4). On street parking is appropriate in a small neighborhood. The roadway is of sufficient width and well -planned to accommodate such. Once the road becomes public and is taken over by the City, the City Council will have complete control to dictate either way. (5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and to slow traffic; see Figure 9-6 and Section 9.08(B)(5). The City Engineer and Director of Public Works shall more specifically comment on this issue. (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 trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety. The applicant has submitted sufficient lighting details. C. Residential Design (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). (2) Building Facades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but facades 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. Staff has already addressed the project's compliance with the lot layout and road configuration. The applicant has also addressed the Residential Design, pursuant to Section 9.08(C) of the Regulations, including building orientation, building facades and CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 23 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows front building setbacks, placement of garages and parking, and mix of housing types. The applicant has submitted drawings which illustrate the general layout of the proposed units. The applicant has submitted two pages showing the variations in building type. (3) Front Building Setbacks. In pedestrian districts, a close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. Buildings should be set back twenty-five feet (25') from the back of sidewalk. This is discussed repeatedly elsewhere in this report. (4) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8') into the front setbacks. Porch, stoop and balcony areas within the front setback shall not be enclosed or weatherized with glazing or other solid materials. This criterion is being met (5) Placement of Garages and Parking. See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9-7. The front building line of the garage must be set behind the front building line of the house by a minimum of eight feet. The plans are in compliance with this requirement. (6) Mix of Housing Types. A mix of housing types is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. Housing types should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of identical housing types. Please see the attached memo from the applicant. This testimony will be added to the decision at a later time, but for now will be sufficient to be referenced as a secondary document. The Board discussed this item at length throughout sketch plan review meetings, and it was agreed that this criterion was met. OTHER Street names- The applicant shall submit proposed street names to the Planning Commission prior to final plat approval. 25. The applicant shall submit proposed street names to the Planning Commission prior to final plat approval. Utility cabinets- The plans do not appear to show utility cabinets. This information should be provided on the final plat plans or the applicant will be required to return to the Board for an amendment at a later date. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 24 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows Sheet revisions- 26. Sheet L001 should be revised to replace "Town" of South Burlington with "City" of South Burlington. PHASING The Board should discuss phasing for the following items: • Road completion; • Road connection to Vale Drive; • Timing for construction and completion of Park; • General phasing for the order of construction of buildings; • Improvements on Spear Street and at the Spear Street intersection; Staff recommends that the connection to Vale Drive occur before the issuance of the zoning permit for the 50th building. Staff recommends that the park be completed prior to issuance of building permits for any units above the base density of 31. Staff recommends consulting with the Recreation Path Committee and Director of Public Works for timing of completion of improvements along Spear Street. NOTICE OF CONDITIONS There are "footprint' lots proposed around several of the units. For purposes of planning and zoning, all lots will be considered one lot. 27. For purposes of planning and zoning, the lots in this subdivision shall be considered one (1) lot. The applicant will be required to record a "Notice of Condition" to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plans. RECEIVED DEC 0 5 2012 City of So. Burlington Development Review Board South Burlington, VT Pear DRB members: 214 Meadowood Drive South Burlington, Vt. 05403 November 28, 2012 Thank you for the generous time you gave to the Spear Meadows proposal at the Nov. 20"' meeting, especially given your packed agenda for the evening. While we were initially quite disappointed and surprised by the Board's negative reaction, by the end of the session we sensed that we were all closer together, and hopefully nearing a mutually satisfactory resolution. We chose to approach the Farrell's with this compromise after hearing repeated statements from the DRB and P&Z in the last several meetings, that a full connection to Vail Drive would NOT be required if the project did not exceed 50 units. We have felt from the beginning that a major flaw in the early proposals was the need for a full Vail connection: most Vail homeowners were not aware of a possible future connection, and the City failed to pursue a suggested remedy 8 years ago, so even after significant turnover, the Vail neighborhood has still not been made universally aware of the future connection. Beyond that fact, a full connection would be a regressive step for many reasons. The benefits of a limited (emergency) connection are apparent to us, and would be realized by the Pinnacle residents AND the residents of the new Spear Meadows: less traffic, less pollution and a quieter environment. These would all enhance the value of the new development, and give owners there a stronger sense of neighborhood. As we argued at the meeting, connectivity is far better achieved by discouraging auto traffic and encouraging foot and bicycle traffic. It is no surprise that the police and fire departments would prefer full connections, because that is their orientation, but I strongly doubt they have any documentation that it makes a significant safety difference. The Ridgewood - Indian Creek and Cider Mill -Dorset Heights emergency connections are prime examples that this concept works very well. In an era when we are as a society trying to get away from excessive use of the automobile and all its attendant problems, a policy designed to connect all streets by car, seems backward. It is the DRB who should weigh police and fire department input, but exercise their OWN discretion in formulating a final plan. Mark Behr's visceral and largely derogatory reaction to the proposal was troubling. His statement that the prior plan, which included 69 units packed in a disorderly array, was preferable in light of the need to find more affordable housing for those displaced from the airport neighborhood, and his characterization of this as a "gated community", raised concerns about his fairness and objectivity. Toward the end of the meeting his tone softened, so we are still optimistic that we are close to a solution. We are all committed to help meet the demand for affordable housing in the City, but as a neighbor previously testified, placing more than 50 units on this tract is "like fitting a square peg in a round hole". If this community is "gated", then so are the Cider Mill, Indian Creek and Ridgewood. Regarding the park, we readily acknowledge that its placement in the southwest corner is suboptimal. Our initial proposal to Eric placed it at the southeast corner of the site, where it would offer the best Adirondack views, and be intersected by the rec path. The resulting park, while larger than required, seemed too small to some, so it was moved in the iteration you saw. We are eager to rework the original idea placing the park at the southeasterly ridgeline. This would bring the Vail and Spear Meadows neighborhoods together in an effective and novel way. A full road connection would certainly destroy this effect, whereas an emergency connection would not. If the park were relocated to the southeast corner, it would potentially create a space for solar panels in the southwest area. We would encourage Mr. Farrell to consider the option of setting aside land for that purpose, or to design the homes in such a way that they could readily accommodate roof solar panels. We wouldn't ask the DRB to rule on this, but simply suggest that this feature could make the units more functional and marketable. The neighbors feel that the 50-unit proposal with reduced traffic flow will lend a stronger sense of community to the new neighbors, and alleviate prior concerns about privacy and safety. Accordingly, we would leave open the private access paths from the rec path in Spear Meadows, to Meadowood Drive. The new neighbors would thus have the same access to the adjoining woods and trails, that all present residents of the area enjoy. The Farrell's, as well as the neighbors, have made very significant concessions from their initial positions, and devoted considerable time and expense to make this work. I would respectfully ask that the DRB be prepared to make some compromises as well. We are all very close to a plan that would be satisfactory to all. Let's work together to achieve it. We plead with you to indicate to Eric Farrell, before he spends still more money on design changes, your willingness to consider a 50-unit plan with a limited road connection to Vail Drive, and a park at the southeast corner adjoining the two neighborhoods. This is the kind of progressive thinking that we are counting on our DRB to support! Respectful Michael J. Scolli Cc: Paul Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning Cathyann Larose, City Planner Rosanne Greco, City Council Chair Eric Farrell Daniel Seff William Gilbert Neighbors Paul Conner From: Justin Rabidoux Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 12:45 PM To: Cathyann La Rose Cc: Paul Conner Subject: Spear Meadows Project - Road Connections Hello Cathy, Having followed the plan development process for the referenced project, I have the following comments to offer regarding a recent plan submission eliminating the vehicular connection to Vale Drive. 1._ _ The _Department of Public Works _feels strongly that this connection should remainaspart of the Spear Meadows application, subject to conditions affecting the connection's design. 2. Lack of connectivity is a current problem in South Burlington and as our city grows increasing pressure will be placed on existing arterial and major collector streets and the intersections that service them if this land use design persists. During recent public meetings for the Shelburne Road and Williston Road Corridor Studies a strong sentiment existed among the public that our main roadways were on the verge of becoming overburdened, and more travel options are needed to address current congestions issues and to avoid exacerbating them in the future. This is not to suggest that the Spear Meadows project in and of itself represents a tipping point, but these - impacts continue to add up and proper transportation planning mandates a thoughtful discussion about roadway connectivity for any development proposal. 3. The major benefit of street connectivity is that it redistributes traffic on a network providing an overall increase in the capacity of the existing system and growth potential for the future roadway system. As connectivity increases, travel distances decrease and route options increase, allowing more direct travel between destinations, creating a more accessible system. It can therefore help reduce traffic congestion, accidents and pollution emissions. As a result, improving connectivity of residential streets could reduce or delay the need for arterial/collector highway widening and signalized intersection geometric and hardware upgrades by providing more options for local trips. 4. That being said, there is a critical balance between proper connectivity and excessive, detrimental through traffic. Enough connectivity has to be provided so that residents of a neighborhood can easily move to all edges of the neighborhood and adjacent land uses but not to an extreme so that residential streets become attractive choices for through traffic. I do not feel the Spear Meadows project, if connected to Vale Drive, creates the negative result of connectivity nor would it result in undue adverse traffic impacts on the Vale Drive/Nowland Farm Road neighborhood. 5. In my experience, measures to increase roadway connectivity must overcome the typical desire amongst existing, adjacent land uses for residential cul-de-sacs. Cul-de-sacs are popular because they have limited traffic volumes and speeds. Connected residential streets and neighborhoods can have these attributes if designed properly. We have not been afforded the option to discuss this recently with the applicant, but would welcome the opportunity. 6. South Burlington's numerous "dead end" neighborhoods add time to Public Works' regular maintenance activities; this is of greater concern in the winter when our road and sidewalk plows conduct snow removal operations. Please let me know if you wish to discuss this furhter or if you have questions. Thanks, JUSTIN RABIDOUX DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, V-F 05403 (802) 658-7961 Paul Conner From: John Larkin <John@larkinrealty.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 2:45 PM To: Paul Conner think drb meets tonight on Farrell project and we support connecting to vale drive as when we built vale we connected to four sisters and have always left easement for future connections in south Burlington or made to connect. Page 1 of 1 ray From: Eric Farrell [efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:19 PM To: 'William Gilbert' Cc: ray Subject: RE: DRB Date Problem Ray, Let's plan on the 2nd Tuesday, November 20th. Please confirm. 20 We're working on a plan with the recreation path moved. Eric Eric F. Farrell efarrellCcDfarrellrealestatevt.com FARRELL REAL ESTATE Mailing: PO Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402-1335 Physical: 875 Roosevelt Highway, Suite 120, Colchester, VT 05446 P: 802-861-3000 x12 F: 802-861-3003 C: 802-343-7055 "Prosperity means a healthy, peaceful life withgood relationships and enough resources to be able to be a blessing to others." -Joel Qsteen From: William Gilbert [mailto:wagvermont@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:22 AM To: Eric Farrell Subject: DRB Date Problem Eric November 6 is election day. If this has not yet been set it would be better to have it two weeks later so that more people from Vale Drive will show up. Perhaps the BRB will also want to watch the election results. Also any progress on the recreation path? wag william gilbert 802 862.4531 wagvermont(,�comcast.net 9/18/2012 Page 1 of 3 ray From: Eric Farrell [efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 2:47 PM To: ray Cc: Danielle Fisette; 'William Gilbert' Subject: RE: Spear Meadows Hi Ray, Below is the email I sent to you on 8/29. Notwithstanding, I hereby formally request a further continuance to the next available slot on the DRB's agenda, which I believe you indicated would likely be November 61`W. Please confirm. /)v A Meanwhile, Dani will drop off another check for $50.00. Many thanks, Eric Eric F. Farrell efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com FARRELL REAL ESTATE Mailing: PO Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402-1335 Physical: 875 Roosevelt Highway, Suite 120, Colchester, VT 05446 P: 802-861-3000 x12 F: 802-861-3003 C: 802-343-7055 "Prosperity means a hcalthy, pcaccrullirc witb good rclation5bips and cnougb resourccs to be ablc to he a 61cs5ing to otbcrs." - Jocl Qstccn From: Eric Farrell Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:17 PM To: 'ray' Cc: Danielle Fisette Subject: RE: Spear Meadows Hi Ray, I apologize for driving you crazy with this, but I have another DRB meeting on 10/2 in Burlington that I must attend. Can we push the Spear Meadows meeting off to the next available DRB meeting (hopefully) in October? 9/12/2012 Page 2 of 3 Eric Eric F. Farrell efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com FARRELL REAL ESTATE Mailing: PO Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402-1335 Physical: 875 Roosevelt Highway, Suite 120, Colchester, VT 05446 P: 802-861-3000 x12 F: 802-861-3003 C: 802-343-7055 "Frosperity means a Health@ peacerulli(e wit%good relationships and enough resources to be able to be a blessing to others." -,Joel Qsteen From: ray [mailto:rbelairCa>sburl.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 9:24 AM To: Eric Farrell Subject: RE: Spear Meadows Hi Eric, The DRB continued your application to their October 2rd meeting. Please make a note of this date on your calendar. Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 802-846-4106 From: Eric Farrell [ma iIto: efarrellCcbfarrelIrealestatevt.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 3:07 PM To: ray Cc: Danielle Fisette; 'Robert H. Rushford' Subject: Spear Meadows Hi Ray, Over the past several months, we have had several discussions with our neighbors in an effort to settle our differences and come up with a development plan that is acceptable to all parties. If we can reach such an agreement, we would then like to present the plan to the Development Review Board on an informal basis to receive feedback from the Board and to determine whether the we should proceed to revise our Preliminary Plat to incorporate the agreed upon modifications. In this regard, we need more time to see if such an agreement can be reached with our neighbors, before we return to the DRB for another Preliminary Plat hearing; therefore, we hereby request 9/12/2012 Farrell Real Estate P.O. Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402 802-861-3000 fax 802-861-3003 Memo To: Ray Belair, Administrative cer From: Eric Farrell Date: 8/23/2012 Re: Spear Meadows, 1340 — 1350 Spear Street We would like to present a conceptual plan on an informal basis to the DRB, at its October 2nd meeting, that our neighbors have asked us to consider, in settlement of their opposition. If supported by the DRB, this plan would be the basis of modifications we would make to our pending Preliminary Plat application. In this regard, attached please find the following plans for your review: Five 24 x 36 sets, one 11 x 17 set and a digital cop • Rendered site plan entitled: "Spear Meadows, 50 -Unit Conceptual Plan" (Sheet No. R-101) • Site plan entitled: "Spear Meadows, 50 -Unit Conceptual Plan" (Sheet No. R-100) • Aerial depiction of a representative development • Streetscapes and typical house plans Densi This conceptual plan depicts a total of 50 dwelling, as follows: 1 existing single-family home = 1 unit • 35 new single-family homes = 35 units 7 new duplexes = 14 units Attachments 1 Page 1 of 1 ray From: Eric Farrell [efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 3:07 PM To: ray Cc: Danielle Fisette; 'Robert H. Rushford' Subject: Spear Meadows Hi Ray, Over the past several months, we have had several discussions with our neighbors in an effort to settle our differences and come up with a development plan that is acceptable to all parties. If we can reach such an agreement, we would then like to present the plan to the Development Review Board on an informal basis to receive feedback from the Board and to determine whether the we should proceed to revise our Preliminary Plat to incorporate the agreed upon modifications. In this regard, we need more time to see if such an agreement can be reached with our neighbors, before we return to the DRB for another Preliminary Plat hearing; therefore, we hereby request that our meeting before the DRB, presently scheduled for August 7th, be continued to September 18th. Dani will drop off a check in the required amount of $50.00. Many thanks, Eric Eric F. Farrell efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com FARRELL REAL ESTATE Mailing: PO Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402-1335 Physical: 875 Roosevelt Highway, Suite 120, Colchester, VT 05446 P: 802-861-3000 x12 F: 802-861-3003 C: 802-343-7055 "Prosperity means a healtbg Peacefullife with good relationships and enough resources to be able to be a blessing to others." -,Joel Qsteen 7/17/2012 Page 1 of 1 ray From: Eric Farrell [efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 1:49 PM To: Cathyann LaRose; ray Cc: 'Robert H. Rushford' Subject: Spear Meadows HiCathyann, e 111E COPY I am writing to confirm my request to have the DPB continue our Preliminary Plat public hearing to August 7, 2012. This will give us the time we need to determine whether the discussions that are currently under way between us and our neighbors can result in a revised plan that the neighbors can support. In the event that we are able to reach consensus on a revised plan, we will submit that plan to you well in advance of the new hearing date. In no event, do we want this request to default us off the current permit pathway we are on. Our rights are vested in the ordinances that were in effect as of the date our Preliminary Plat application was deemed complete and we cannot allow ourselves to be exposed to any new ordinances that may have been enacted after that date. Please advise me immediately, if you believe there is any risk of that happening, by virtue of our request or potential action by the Board, as a result of our request. Many thanks, Eric Eric F. Farrell efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com FARRELL REAL ESTATE Mailing: PO Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402-1335 Physical: 875 Roosevelt Highway, Suite 120, Colchester, VT 05446 P: 802-861-3000 x12 F: 802-861-3003 C: 802-343-7055 TrosperitrJ, means a bealtby, Peaceful life witbgood relationsbips and enougb resources to be able to be a blessing to others." -,jocl Qsteen 6/5/2012 IP3Page 1 of 1 ray From: Eric Farrell[efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 2:41 PM To: ray Cc: 'Robert H. Rushford' Subject: Spear Meadows Hi Ray, We are in discussions with our neighbors about modifications to our plan that could result in our securing their support. Therefore, I hereby request that you continue our June 5th Preliminary Plat hearing to the next available meeting date in June. Eric Eric F. Farrell efarreil@farrellrealestatevt.com FARRELL REAL ESTATE Mailing: PO Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402-1335 Physical: 875 Roosevelt Highway, Suite 120, Colchester, VT 05446 P: 802-861-3000 x12 F: 802-861-3003 C: 802-343-7055 "%rosrerity means a bcalth-y, peaceful Vc witbgood relationstiiPs and enough resources to be ab1c to be a b1cssing to oth rs."-,Joe/Qsteen 5/3/2012 PLANNING & ZONING MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM. • Cathyann LaRose, AICP RE: Agenda #7, Farrell Real Estate DATE: March 14, 2012 Attached please find the staff comments for Farrell Real Estate, seeking preliminary plat and master plan approval for a planned unit development on 25.91 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 24 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 21 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. The applications were reviewed by the Development Review Board on February 21, 2012 (draft meeting minutes also attached). These applications are likely to be heard over the course of several meetings; as such, Chairman Mark Behr has asked that Board members utilize the initial set of staff notes throughout so that members can keep their own comments for each evening of review. I have included an exact duplicate of comments from the last meeting for those members who did not keep theirs from the February meeting. Please keep these going forward, or leave them with staff after each meeting and who then will resend your own copy to you prior to each subseauent meeting. As just stated, the staff notes herein remain unchanged from the February comments. I have received a letter from Mr. William Gilbert wishing to amend the staff s comments. I am including his email to you as part of this update so that you are aware of his concerns and comments. Should the Board wish to address this concern, staff recommends doing so as part of the integrated discussion of Section 9, found on pages 22-23 of the report, when those items are addressed.. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: February 16, 2012 drb\staffcomments\2011\SD_11_51_MP_11_03_SpearSt_ Plans received: December 23, 2011 Farrell_SpearMeadows Prelim MP 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street II Preliminary Plat Application #SD-11-51 Master Plan Application #MP-11-03 Agenda #4 Meetinq date: February 21. 2012 Owner Applicant Spear Meadows, Inc Eric Farrell Gary N. and Jane G. Farrell PO Box 1335 1350 Spear Street Burlington, VT 05402 South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer Property Information Civil Engineering Associates Inc. Tax Parcel 1640-01302; Tax Parcel 1640-01340 PO Box 485 Tax Parcel 1640-01350 Shelburne, VT 05482 SEQ Zoning District- Neighborhood Residential 25.91 acres Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows PROJECT DESCRIPTION Farrell Real Estate, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking preliminary plat and master plan approval for a planned unit development on 25.91 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 24 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 21 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. The application was reviewed by the Development Review Board through a series of sketch plan meetings, beginning on November 1, 2011 and ending on January 3, 2012. Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose, Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on December 23, 2011. Plans have also been reviewed by additional staff members, including department heads. Staff has the following comments. The base density of the parcel generated by the land at 1.2 units per acre, based on 25.91 acres, is 31 units. The maximum units allowed, in accordance with Chapter 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and determined by the Neighborhood residential sub -district under the Transferred Development Right program, are 103 units. The applicant is proposing 66 new units, with one existing dwelling to be razed and one to remain, for a total of 67 units within the PUD. This is a proposed density of approximately 2.6 units per acre. A total of 36 transferred development rights would be required. The applicant has stated that they have a legal option to purchase enough development rights to build the project as proposed. Staff has previously recommended that the Board require the applicant to submit the legal documents pertaining to the options for review by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. Staff has also recommended that the development rights be purchased by the applicant prior to issuance of zoning permits for any units beyond the 31 allowed by the property's inherent density. The Board did not previously raise issues with these recommendations regarding timing of transferred development rights. However, they should determine at this stage whether they shall be submitted prior to preliminary plat approval or prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall submit legal documents pertaining to the options to purchase Transferred Development Rights (TDRs) to the City Attorney for approval, at a time determined by the Board. 2. The applicant shall submit legal documents showing clear ownership of the 36 development rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the 32nd unit. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows Pursuant to Section 15.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (hereafter referred to as the SBLDRs), the Development Review Board shall require a master plan for any application of more than ten (10) dwelling units in the Southeast Quadrant. This application may, at the applicant's request, be combined with preliminary subdivision plat review. The DRB shall review the master plan and all areas proposed for preliminary plat simultaneously and shall make separate findings of fact as to the master plan and the areas reviewed for preliminary plat. 15.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations govern Master Plan review and approval. As the master plan may be combined with the preliminary plat, many of the items required are included in the preliminary plat, and do not necessitate redundant mention in this paragraph. There are some items which are exclusively tied to the master plan process which staff will try to distinguish below. (3) Master Plan Application. The master plan shall consist of one or more maps or drawings, with all dimensions shown in feet or decimals of a foot, drawn to a scale of not more than one hundred (100) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (100) feet of frontage, showing or accompanied by the information listed below. The applicant shall submit complete preliminary site plan or preliminary plat applications consistent with the master plan application for any area or phase for which approval is sought simultaneously with the master plan. (a) Accurate and updated Sketch Plan data (b) The name of the proposed Master Plan or an identifying title (c) Name and address of the land surveyor and plat designer (d) The names of all subdivisions immediately adjacent and the names of owners of record of adjacent acreage (e) An overall plan for the property indicating the following: i. the locations and total combined area of the propert(y)(ies) proposed for subdivision and/or site plan phase, either in conjunction with the initial master plan application or in the future, specifying which area or areas are currently proposed for subdivision or development. ii. The location and total area of the propert(y)(ies) currently proposed for subdivision or development that are to be deeded as perpetually open spaces, and which areas proposed to be left open are subject to future evaluation within the parameters of the master plan. iii. the location, total area and nature of any public amenities or facilities other than buildings proposed either in conjunction with the initial master plan application or in the future, specifying which features are currently proposed for development. iv. The maximum impervious coverage proposed for the property or properties subject to the Master Plan. V. The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and/or number of dwelling units proposed for the property or properties subject to the Master Plan. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows vi. The maximum number of vehicle trip ends (VTEs) and associated parking proposed for the property or properties subject to the master plan. vii. The location and size of any existing sewers and water mains, culverts and drains on the property or serving the property. viii. The location, names and widths of existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts and parking areas and their relationship to existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts and parking areas on surrounding properties ix. Contour lines at intervals of five feet, based on USGS datum of existing grades and also of finished grades. Contour intervals closer than five feet may be required by the Development Review Board in order to properly evaluate specific aspects of the project, such as storm drainage, landscaping, etc. X. A complete survey of any tracts to be subdivided completed by a licensed land surveyor A. The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the DRB to locate readily and appraise the basic layout in the field. Unless an existing street intersection is shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall be shown. xii. A list of waivers the applicant desires from these regulations. The application was deemed complete by the Administrative Officer on December 23, 2011. D. Approval and Amendment of Master Plan. (1) Upon receipt of a complete application for master plan approval, with or without an associated preliminary site plan or preliminary plat application, the DRB shall take action to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the master plan at a duly warned public hearing. The Board is reviewing the master plan concurrent with the preliminary plat. While the staff comments and discussions may be concurrent, the Board shall issue two separate decisions. (2) In its approval of a Master Plan, the DRB shall specify the level of review and process required for subsequent applications pursuant to the approved Master Plan provided such procedure is consistent with the intent of these Regulations. The DRB may, for example, specify that final site plan only shall be required for specified portions of a project subject to a master plan, or that a section of a PUD shall be able to be amended with a final plat amendment action. Staff recommends that any items of change which would otherwise necessitate Board level review pursuant to the SBLDRs, require a final plat amendment. Although the proposed project is within its coverage limitations, the project is subject to residential design review. As such, Staff also recommends that the Board be required to approve any future proposed additions such as sheds, porches, decks, and balconies. The Board should discuss this. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows 3. The Board should discuss what land development should require future review by the Development Review Board and under what form. (3) Any application for amendment of the master plan, preliminary site plan or preliminary plat that deviates from the master plan in any one or more of the following respects, shall be considered a new application for the property and shall require sketch plan review as well as approval of an amended master plan: (a) An increase in the total FAR or number of residential dwelling units for the property subject to the master plan; (b) An increase in the total site coverage of the property subject to the master plan; (c) A change in the location, layout, capacity or number of collector roadways on the property subject to the master plan; (d) Land development proposed in any area previously identified as permanent open space in the approved master plan application; and/or (e) A change that will result in an increase in the number of PM peak hour vehicle trip ends projected for total buildout of the property subject to the master plan. This is primarily a judicial statement for which the applicant shall be bound without any special condition included herein. For simplicity and transparency, the Board should establish the total site coverage, vehicle trip ends, and land which is proposed for future development or permanent open space. 4. The proposed project is estimated to generate 49.07 pm peak vehicle trip ends (using the fitted curves for LUCs 210 and 230 respectively). Any increase in this number shall require further review by the Development Review Board. 5. The proposed development will result in site coverage of 24.7% and building site coverage of 11.5%. Any increase to this shall require further review by the Development Review Board. The applicant should submit a plan which generally labels those areas which may be considered for further future development. Units and layouts would not need to be included. The plan should also show which areas will be permanently unbuildable. The Board has expressed an interest in keeping a corridor along the wetland and in line with the open space on the adjacent property. The master plan should show this is as permanently restricted from any land development. 6. The applicant shall submit a plan which generally labels any areas considered for further future development. This plan shall also label any land which is to be permanently undeveloped. (4) Any application for amendment of the master plan that does not reduce the total area or alter the location of proposed permanent open spaces, and which does not meet any of the criteria in (3) above, and any application for preliminary plat or preliminary site plan that is found to be consistent with the findings of fact for the master plan, shall not require sketch plan review. The DRB may, at its discretion, allow applicants for preliminary plat or preliminary site plan review pursuant to a master plan to combine preliminary and final review into one application and approval action. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SoearMeadows These applications have been combined for review. (5) The DRB may in its findings of fact on the master plan, or its approval of a site plan or preliminary plat pursuant thereto, specify certain minor land development activities (such as but not limited to the addition of decks or porches to dwelling units) that will not require DRB action, and may be undertaken pursuant to issuance of a Zoning Permit. Staff has already addressed this item for review by the Board. As the project requires residential design review, the Board should review any additional land development, including those listed above, that are not already shown on the plans. (6) The City shall in its approvals maintain a record of such criteria as are applicable to the project such as residential density, total site coverage, required off-street parking, sewer capacity, and the location and status of public amenities. Staff has already addressed density and site coverage. Parking, sewer capacity, and public amenities (parks) are discussed below in this report. The subject parcels total 25.91 acres. Table 1. Dimensional Requirements SEQ Zoning District Required Proposed Min. Lot Size 12,000 SF* 3 acres** Max. Building Coverage 15% 11.8% Max. Overall Coverage 30% 25.2% ^ Min. Front Setback 20 ft.^ See below Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. 30 ft zoning compliance * 12,000 sf is the minimum lot size for single family dwellings ** the smallest parcel proposed for development is 3 acres " the front yard setback requirement for the Southeast Quadrant Zoning district is 20 feet. The Residential Design criteria for the Neighborhood Residential sub -district (SBLDR section 9.08) states that "buildings should be set back twenty-five feet from the back of the sidewalk." The guidelines further state that "a close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment." The applicant is proposing between 15- 20 foot setbacks for front units, with rear units located between 40 and 60 feet back. The Board discussed the location of units at length throughout the sketch plan review process and all members expressed favorability with respect CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows to the proposed location of buildings given the increased stream -side buffer, and instructed the applicant to proceed without changes. The Board should discuss this item again and include its reasoning for any waivers in its decision. 7. The Board should discuss the location of the proposed buildings with respect to the front setback and detail any waivers or deviations from recommended placements that they wish to grant. SUBDIVISION CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations subdivisions shall comply with the following standards and conditions: A. General Standards. In all zoning districts of the City, the DRB shall make findings of fact on a PUD, subdivision and/or Master Plan in keeping with the standards for approval of subdivisions in Article 15 and/or site plans and conditional uses in Article 14. PUD, subdivision and Master Plan applications in the Central District shall meet the standards and criteria applicable in the appropriate sub -district and shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals for the City Center. For PUD, subdivision and/or Master Plan applications within the SEQ, lO and RI -Lakeshore districts, the DRB shall also make positive findings with respect to the project's compliance with the specific criteria in this section. The general standards applicable to all PUDs, subdivisions and Master Plans are: (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. The City of South Burlington Water Department has reviewed the plans and provided comments in a consolidated memo from the Department of Public Works, dated February 17, 2012 (from Justin Rabidoux, attached). The applicant shall adhere to these comments, shall revise the plans where necessary, and shall obtain preliminary and final wastewater allocations per the recommendations included herein. 8. The applicant shall address and/or adhere to the comments of the South Burlington Water Department per the memo from the Department of Public Works dated February 17, 2012 and any additional comments. The plans shall be revised accordingly. 9. The applicant shall receive preliminary wastewater allocation prior to final plat approval. 10. The applicant shall receive final wastewater allocation prior to issuance of any zoning permits. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows (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. The City of South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent has reviewed the plans and provided comments in a memo from the Department of Public Works, dated February 17, 2012 (from Justin Rabidoux, attached). The applicant shall adhere to these comments, shall revise the plans where necessary, and shall obtain preliminary and final wastewater allocations per the recommendations included herein. 11. The applicant shall address and/or adhere to the comments of the South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent per the memo from the Department of Public Works dated February 17, 2012 and any additional comments. The plans shall be revised accordingly. (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. Access is proposed via a public street connection to Spear Street as well as to the existing public road of Vale Drive. The applicant is proposing a short, private dead-end street connection to the parcel to the north, labeled as UVM and State Agricultural College, as well as a paved public drive to the proposed public park and private community gardens. Vale Drive is currently a public street terminated in a cul-de-sac. A right-of-way exists at the end of the cul-de-sac, always intended as a secondary access to this parcel. The applicant has submitted details of the roadway (including cross -sections) as part of the preliminary plat application. The road details have been extensively reviewed by the Director of Public Works. Comments are provided in the afore -mentioned memo from the Department of Public Works. The applicant shall adhere to these comments, shall revise the plans where necessary, and shall obtain preliminary and final wastewater allocations per the recommendations included herein. Staff has already stated that the applicant should work closely with the Director of Public works to address and/or adhere to the comments per the memo from the Department of Public Works and any additional comments. Where necessary, the plans shall be revised accordingly. This should be worked out prior to preliminary plat approval. Staff has reviewed the proposed lot layout in accordance with the Regulating Plan illustrated in Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and discussed below in this report. Staff finds that the project does not meet the strict guidelines of the SEQ which call for short development blocks and limits the lengths of roadways, in order to minimize impacts on the wetlands which traverse the site from north to south and fit into the unique shape of the lot. One possibility to remedy this could include a connection from the newly proposed road to split the block in an east -west CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows fashion and provide for a connection to the east to a property there, which could support development in the future and which would be a logical planned connection. In this case of competing objectives, staff finds that the design presented achieves the best possible layout given the restrictions on the site. Staff does not advocate for an additional connection, but as it would be an option for bringing the property into more strict compliance with the guideline stated above, the Board may wish to discuss it. The proposed development is expected to generate 49.07 pm peak vehicle trip ends (using Land Use Codes 210 and 230 for the single family and condominium units, respectively). With respect to traffic management, the applicant has submitted a traffic impact study, prepared by RSG Inc, dated August, 2010. The City's Director of Public Works reviewed the study and has incorporated comments in the aforementioned memo. In summary, there do not appear to be any major issues, though the department has asked for additional clarification. Furthermore, the Board has the authority to seek a third -party, technical review of the study. The Board should discuss this. 12. The Board should review and discuss the traffic study submitted by the applicant's consultant as well as the comments made in response by the Director of Public Works. The Board should also discuss whether an additional third -party review is warranted. The applicant is proposing a dead-end street to access the park area, which is more than 700 feet in length. The South Burlington Land Development Regulations state that: (2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets may not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). This guideline is waivable. Given the unique shape of the lot, the location of the wetlands on site, and the existence of two access points, and the close proximity of the cul-de-sac to an adjacent lot with development potential, and that the dead-end road is proposed only to access a park, staff is comfortable with this request. The Board has previously discussed this request several times and expressed favorability of the proposal. (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. There are small encroachments into a Class II wetland on the site. Staff finds that the proposed development minimizes the impact to these wetlands to the greatest extent possible while still allowing for a road to access the site. Pursuant to the SBLDRs, the applicant should obtain a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) from the State of Vermont CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows prior to final plat approval. However, the State of VT no longer issues CUDs. Staff is working with the State to determine the new requirements and ensure that the spirit and intent of the regulations, including proper oversight of wetland impacts, is fully met. 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain [the equivalent of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD)] for the proposed wetlands impacts prior to final plat approval. Furthermore, staff recommends a ground delineation of the wetland buffer where it gets close to the rear of the homes proposed along the west side of the road so as to reduce impact by residents of those units. The wetland and wetland buffers shall be protected and should not in any case be used as useable lawn or other recreational areas. The applicant has submitted a plan which includes a line of shrubbery and tress along the wetland buffer. There appears to be sections of shrubbery which fills in some of the gaps between landscaping. 14. The Board shall discuss the applicant's proposal for the wetland buffer delineation. Staff also suggests additional measures of protection, including limitations on fertilizers and mowing. The following are suggested conditions: 15. There shall be no use of pesticides or non -organic fertilizers within the wetlands or associated 50 foot buffers. This shall be reflected in the association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. 16. There shall be no mowing within 50 feet of the wetlands on the property. Brush - hogging shall be allowed no more than three (3) times per year. This shall be reflected in the association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. 17. Deeds and association covenants shall especially the prohibition of use of the areas, and the use of pesticides on site. reflect all of the standards included above, wetland buffer as lawn or other recreation (5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The stated purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located (Southeast Quadrant) is as follows: A Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ) is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and well - planned residential use in the area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The natural features, visual character and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 11 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows resources in the City and worthy of protection. The design and layout of buildings and lots in a manner that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will best create neighborhoods and a related network of open spaces consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Southeast Quadrant shall be encouraged. Any uses not expressly permitted are hereby prohibited, except those which are allowed as conditional uses. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 9.02 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: "These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, and any adopted amendments to such plan, and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. In the event of a conflict between the Southeast Quadrant chapter and other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the Southeast Quadrant chapter shall control." (6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The Board discussed this objective as part of the sketch plan review. Previous plan iterations were altered so as to remove some buildings from the area which were proximate to, but not inside, the wetland corridor which bisects the site from the north to south. This corridor was widened with homes moved further from the wetland buffer. Homes are now clustered more closely and a continuous corridor is now present. Furthermore, the largest portion of the wetland and undeveloped portion of the site is immediately adjacent to a wetland/buffer area on the adjoining development to the south. (7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water. The South Burlington Fire Chief reviewed the plans and provided comments on February 17, 2012. Staff has reviewed his comments and disagrees with several of the recommendations, while finding that others, including the sprinklering of units, have no basis in the Land Development Regulations which do not legalize building codes. Staff recommends that the applicant meet with the Fire Chief and the Public Works Director together to discuss these issues and then return for continued preliminary plat proceedings. 18. The applicant shall meet with the Fire Chief to discuss the plans. Any items not agreed upon shall be reviewed by the Development Review Board for decision prior to preliminary plat approval. (8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 12 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. The road details have been extensively reviewed by the Director of Public Works. The applicant shall adhere to these comments, shall revise the plans where necessary. Staff has already commented on the need for connection to adjacent properties. The Recreation Path Committee has been reviewing the sketch plan and preliminary plat plan submittals. The Committee has requested a recreation path easement along the western boundary. The applicant should respond to this request, and the Board should determine whether one must be provided. Spear Street is within a very wide right of way for a two lane road, and there remains substantial land available within the public right of way for facilities. Constructing a path outside of the right of way in this area would require dozens of private easement agreements before a complete path could be constructed. The applicant is proposing street improvements which include a turning lane. It may be more appropriate to discuss whether the street improvements should include a recreation path or on -road bicycle lanes within the public right of way. 19. The Board should discuss the Recreation Path Committee's request for an easement along the western property boundary. If one is not warranted, the Board should discuss the road improvement plan within Spear Street and determine whether any additional provisions should be made within the road right of way. (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. Staff has already stated that the applicant should continue to work with the Director of Public Works/City Engineer regarding the road design and with respect to his written comments. The applicant is proposing a private road to access a public park. The applicant should work with the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and the City Attorney to ensure that proper public access will be secured. A basic agreement should be reached prior to final plat approval, with final legal documents signed and recorded prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the site. Discussed further below, the Board should determine when the park is to be constructed. 20. The applicant shall reach agreement with the Director of Public Works/City Engineer as to adequate public access to the park prior to final plat approval. Final legal documents shall be signed and recorded prior to issuance of the first zoning permit for a building on the property. (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Comprehensive Plan has a chapter dedicated to the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. The goal statements have guided the work of the Planning Commission and City Council in outlining the density, zoning, coverage limitations, and allowable uses in the district and its sub -districts. Staff encourages the Board to read the entirety of the Chapter (Chapter 8 Southeast Quadrant) which is attached. An excerpt of the goal statement is included herein, and the objectives may be found near the end of the chapter. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 13 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows It is a goal of this City to support a planned strategy for land conservation and neighborhood development in the Southeast Quadrant that preserves areas of ecological significance, creates a cohesive and publicly accessible open space system, and encourages neighborhood development patterns, including street systems that create walkable neighborhoods, a range of housing choices, an a strong sense of place. Each subset of these goals is included in the general review standards for PUDs as well as specific standards for the SEQ and the SEQ-NR sub -district. Though they may be addressed individually, Staff believes that the general goals are met with the proposal. At question is not whether any land development is appropriate for the parcel (this has been decided through the City zoning, and subsequent sub -zones of the SEQ, a multi -year public process ultimately approved by vote of the City Council) but whether the adherence to the specific regulations adopted thereafter meets the general goals. 14.06 General Review Standards The following general criteria and standards shag be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design. 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. Staff has addressed the proposed project's compliance with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see the section in the staff notes above. 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. Staff and the Board worked with the applicant at the sketch plan level to ensure suitable and safe pedestrian movement throughout the PUD. The plans include sidewalks on both sides of the road, safe crosswalks, and a paved recreation path. The plans also provide provisions for the adjacent neighborhood to access the recreation path, sidewalk network, and park. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 14 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home; (iii) The lot has unique site conditions such as a utility easement or unstable soils that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street, (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re -used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s); or, (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation. (c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all proposed parking areas that are both to the side of a building and between the front lot line and the building line of the building on the lot that is closest to the public street shall not exceed one-half of the total building width of all buildings on the lot that are located adjacent to the public street. Buildings separated from the front lot line by parking approved pursuant to 14.06(C)(2)(b) shall be considered adjacent to the public street. Buildings separated from the front lot line by any other parking areas shall not be considered adjacent to the public street. (d) The DRB shall require that the majority of the parking on through lots and corner lots be located between the building(s) and the side yards or between the building and the front yard adjacent to the public street with the highest average daily volume of traffic. Where the rear yard of a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, the majority of parking shall be located between the building and the side yards or between the building and the yard that is adjacent to the Interstate. The parking on site serves single family and two family residential use, or is for the park (public recreation). Therefore, parking is permissible to the front of the buildings. Nevertheless, the Board worked with the applicant through the sketch process to ensure that most parking was set back from the road and beyond the buildings. (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 heights of all buildings are within the limits of the district and characteristic of typical CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 15 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows and nearby single and two-family dwellings. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. 21. Newly installed utility services shall 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. The design of buildings is discussed in greater detail in a discussion of the specific Southeast Quadrant design standards found elsewhere in this report. 14.07 Specific 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. Access is proposed via a public street connection to Spear Street as well as to the existing public road of Vale Drive. Vale Drive is currently a public street terminated in a cul-de-sac. A right-of-way exists at the end of the cul-de-sac, always intended as a secondary access to this parcel. As is customary, the applicant will submit more details of the roadway (including cross -sections) as part of the preliminary plat application. The applicant is now proposing a short dead- end street connection to the parcel to the north, labeled as UVM and State Agricultural College. This connection would be made if any development were to be approved on the UVM parcel. The Director of Public Works has commented on the road connection to Vale Drive, a connection that was planned and approved as part of the Pinnacle subdivision and which has existed on the plans since. The abutting property owners have expressed concern about the safety of this connection. The Fire Chief and the Director of Public Works have commented on whether or not the island should remain in the cul-de-sac. Although an understanding of how the roadway functions is important to the design of this development, the area on Vale Drive around the cul-de-sac is an existing city -owned street and right of way and is not on the land CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 16 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows owned by the party listed in this application. It is not part of the land described in the PUD. Staff strongly advises that the Director of Public Works continue to work with the residents of Vale Drive, as well as the Fire Chief to address the configuration of the cul-de-sac. However, it is not for the review of this Board. 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. Staff has already stated that the utility lines must be underground 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). No dumpsters or group disposal facilities are proposed. Residential trash disposal and recycling facilities shall be treated like all others in the City. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. 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. The applicant is asking for the following waivers: 1. Section 9.08 2. Table C-2 Section 9.08 states that blocks which are not shorter than 300-500 linear feet in length must include mid -block public sidewalks or recreation path connections. The longest block between the intersection of Spear Meadow Drive and Park Street is 775'. These blocks could be broken up by recreation path or road connections. The applicant argues that new recreation paths introduced between the blocks would not make sense as they would lead to dead ends at the property lines, or would be duplicative. Staff adds that they may also terminate in a location that does not provide a safe crossing or access. Staff has reviewed the proposed lot layout in accordance with the Regulating Plan illustrated in Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Staff finds CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 17 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows that the project does not meet the strict guidelines of the SEQ which call for short development blocks and limits the lengths of roadways, in order to minimize impacts on the wetlands which traverse the site from north to south and fit into the unique shape of the lot. In this case of competing objectives, staff finds that the design presented achieves the best possible layout given the restrictions on the site. The Development Review Board previously discussed this matter and agreed. The Board should discuss this again and provide a decision. 22. The Board should discuss the applicant's request for a waiver on block length and mid -block connections. Table C-2 relates to the setback requirement for structures in the district. Staff fully supports this waiver request as the goal of the requirement is being met. The front yard setback for buildings in the SEQ is stated at 20 feet. Closer proximity of buildings is appropriate to foster a closer relationship to the street and a larger buffer from the wetland, wetland buffer, and other property lines. This is discussed at the beginning of this report and calls for the Board to review and render a decision. The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The planned character of the area is defined in the comprehensive plan, the goals of which have already been identified and discussed in this report. Again, the Board should read the Southeast Quadrant chapter of the Comprehensive Plan in order to best assess this criterion. The South Burlington Land Development Regulations, purpose of the zoning district is "to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and well -planned residential use" and that the "design and layout of buildings and lots in a matter that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will best create neighborhoods and related network of open spaces consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Southeast Quadrant shall be encouraged." Southeast Quadrant District This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district Therefore it is subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub -Districts The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. A. Height. (1) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT, or SEQ-NR sub -district shall not exceed forty-five feet (45'); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub -districts. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 18 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows (2) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-VR or SEQ-VC sub- district shall not exceed fifty feet (50'); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub -districts. The applicant has stated that the heights of buildings will remain below the height limitations of the sub -district. 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 The Board discussed the layout of the site with respect to open space corridors at length during the sketch plan review, including some revisions to the location of proposed dwelling units near the wetland and wetland buffer, and near the corridor which would continue a line of open space from the adjacent PUD. (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. Staff has already addressed this criterion with respect to the requested waiver from the block length. The average density remains below that which is permitted in the sub -district. (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. Staff has discussed the need for a plan for the future spaces as part of the master plan requirements. The applicant is proposing a 2.3 acre parcel to be deeded to the city as a neighborhood park, as well as a 1.6 acre lot to be used for community gardens. The proposed park will serve as an amenity not just to the residents of the PUD, but will also be convenient to the adjacent neighborhoods as well as open to the general public. The applicant has begun discussions with the Director of the Recreation Department, and should continue to as the application evolves. The Director and the applicant should address which facilities shall be planned for the space (ie- basketball courts, play structures, etc), as well as parking needs. The park is proposed to be accessed via a narrow cul-de-sac off of a wider road stub (labeled on the plans as `Road C'). As previously stated, the applicant should work with the Director of Public Works to determine the needs for access and turn -around to this parcel. Section 9 of the SBLDR states that "a range of parks should be distributed through the SEQ to meet a variety of needs including children's play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation." Furthermore, "parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program" and "a neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be provided within a one -quarter mile walk of every home not so served by an existing City park or other publicly -owned recreation area." The proposed park space exceeds the requirements of this section CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 19 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows Legal documents shall be worked out prior to final plat approval and recorded prior to issuance of a zoning permit. 23. The applicant shall work with the City Attorney, Planning Director, and Director of Recreation to formalize ownership of the park lands. This shall have a draft agreement prior to final plat approval and formalized and recorded prior to issuance of a zoning permit for any buildings on the property. (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. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The applicant has submitted a grading and erosion control plan as part of the phasing plan. The Stormwater Superintendent has reviewed the plans and given the size of the parcel, it will be subject to all levels of state review. 24. The proposed project should adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan should meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. (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. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged. As previously stated, there are small encroachments into a Class II wetland on the site. Staff previously recommended a ground delineation of the wetland buffer where it gets close to the rear of the homes proposed along the west side of the road so as to reduce impact by residents of those units. The wetland and wetland buffers shall be protected and should not in any case be used as useable lawn or other recreational areas. 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 20 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows 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. (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. (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. (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. E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. (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. These items have all been previously addressed in this report. (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and neighborhoods shall apply. 9.08 SEQ-NR &NRT Sub -District; Specific Standards The SEQ-NRT sub -district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 21 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 460 linear feet; see Figure 9-2 for example. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks 400 feet or longer must include mid -block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. Staff has discussed this at length elsewhere in this report (2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets may not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). Staff has discussed this at length elsewhere in this report. (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. Staff has already commented on this matter with respect to the street connection to Vale Drive. This is a requirement of the regulations, as well as part of the original intent of a Vale Drive connection. (4) 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 proposed development is a large PUD without individual home lots. This criterion applies to subdivision of land. B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards (1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the NR sub -district 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 of the SBLDR. Staff has already commented on the roadway, sidewalk, and recreation path design (2) Sidewalks. Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5') in width with an additional minimum five-foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the street. Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, and must be connected in a pattern that promotes walkability throughout the development. The DRB may in its discretion require supplemental sidewalk segments to achieve this purpose. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 22 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments12011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows This criterion is being met and are on both sides of the street. Again, the Board should discuss whether any additional pedestrian or bicycle pathways are necessary along Spear Street. (3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3) Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet wide. Street tress 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 applicant is proposing street trees in accordance with the regulations along both sides of every street. The City Arborist has reviewed the plans. (4) On -street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4). On street parking is appropriate in a small neighborhood. The roadway is of sufficient width and well -planned to accommodate such. Once the road becomes public and is taken over by the City, the City Council will have complete control to dictate either way. (5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and to slow traffic; see Figure 9-6 and Section 9.08(B)(5). The City Engineer and Director of Public Works shall more specifically comment on this issue. (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 trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety. The applicant has submitted sufficient lighting details. C. Residential Design (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). (2) Building Fagades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but facades 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. Staff has already addressed the project's compliance with the lot layout and road configuration. The applicant has also addressed the Residential Design, pursuant to Section 9.08(C) of the Regulations, including building orientation, building facades and CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 23 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows front building setbacks, placement of garages and parking, and mix of housing types. The applicant has submitted drawings which illustrate the general layout of the proposed units. The applicant has submitted two pages showing the variations in building type. (3) Front Building Setbacks. In pedestrian districts, a close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. Buildings should be set back twenty-five feet (25') from the back of sidewalk. This is discussed repeatedly elsewhere in this report. (4) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8') into the front setbacks. Porch, stoop and balcony areas within the front setback shall not be enclosed or weatherized with glazing or other solid materials. This criterion is being met (5) Placement of Garages and Parking. See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9-7. The front building line of the garage must be set behind the front building line of the house by a minimum of eight feet. The plans are in compliance with this requirement. (6) Mix of Housing Types. A mix of housing types is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. Housing types should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of identical housing types. Please see the attached memo from the applicant. This testimony will be added to the decision at a later time, but for now will be sufficient to be referenced as a secondary document. The Board discussed this item at length throughout sketch plan review meetings, and it was agreed that this criterion was met. OTHER Street names- The applicant shall submit proposed street names to the Planning Commission prior to final plat approval. 25. The applicant shall submit proposed street names to the Planning Commission prior to final plat approval. Utility cabinets- The plans do not appear to show utility cabinets. This information should be provided on the final plat plans or the applicant will be required to return to the Board for an amendment at a later date. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 24 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows Sheet revisions- 26. Sheet L001 should be revised to replace "Town" of South Burlington with "City" of South Burlington. PHASING The Board should discuss phasing for the following items: • Road completion; • Road connection to Vale Drive; • Timing for construction and completion of Park; • General phasing for the order of construction of buildings; • Improvements on Spear Street and at the Spear Street intersection; Staff recommends that the connection to Vale Drive occur before the issuance of the zoning permit for the 50th building. Staff recommends that the park be completed prior to issuance of building permits for any units above the base density of 31. Staff recommends consulting with the Recreation Path Committee and Director of Public Works for timing of completion of improvements along Spear Street. NOTICE OF CONDITIONS There are "footprint" lots proposed around several of the units. For purposes of planning and zoning, all lots will be considered one lot. 27. For purposes of planning and zoning, the lots in this subdivision shall be considered one (1) lot. The applicant will be required to record a "Notice of Condition" to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plans. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 FEBRUARY 2012 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 21 February 2012, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: M. Behr, Chair; R. Farley, B. Stuono, T. Barritt, M. Birmingham, M. Sirotkin (arrived late) Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; C. LaRose, Associate Planner; B. Bouchard, D. Young, D. Seff, B. Cimonetti, B. Gilbert, K. Donahue, E. Farrell, T. Kleh, B. Rushford, S. McIntyre, M. Buscher, D. Dickey, H. Tremblay,G. Callahan, M. Scollins, J. Gersbach 1. Other Business: No issues were raised. 2. Final Plat Application #SD-12-02 of Pizzagalli Properties, LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of a 45,000 sq. ft. medical office building, 119 Tilley Drive: Mr. Bouchard said this is lot #6 and will be a 2-story building. The only changes from preliminary plat were with regards to tree types and placements which were done in conjunction with the Cityarborist. Mr. Behr noted commentsreceived from Brian Armstrong, an abutting neighbor, voicing concerns with the potential of water getting onto the Armstrong property because of the berm. Mr. Behr reminded the Board that it was Mr. Armstrong who had requested the berm in the first place. Ms. LaRose noted that an addition was made to stipulation #4 that there can't be runoff from the berm (the language is in Justin Rabidoux's memo). Mr. Farley moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Stuono seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Final Plat Application #SD-11-52 of F & M Development, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing an existing health club, 2) subdividing a 2.67 acre parcel into two lots of 1.42 acres and 1.25 acres, 3) constructing a 49-unit multi -family dwelling, 4) constructing a 62-unit multi -family dwelling, 5) converting 5000 sq. ft. of general office use to medical office use (38 Eastwood Dr.) And 5) including the adjacent two developed properties at 20 Joy Drive and 38 Eastwood Drive into the proposed PUD. The amendment consists of: 1) converting the proposed 49-unit multi -family dwelling to a 47-unit congregate care housing facility, 2) increasing the number of multi -family dwelling DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Page 1 of 5 21 FEBRUARY 2012 units in the south building from 62 to 63 units, and 3) other minor building and site modifications, 78 & 80 Eastwood Drive: Mr. Barritt recused himself during this application. Mr. Farrell showed an overhead of the site and a rendering of the site plan approved by the DRB. He then showed the proposed plan. One building will go from 49 residential units to 47 units of congregate care with a total of 52,050 sq. ft. There will be 11.5% green space (the minimum requirement is 10%). The color scheme of the buildings has been changed. Mr. Farrell then showed the concept of the congregate care building and elevations. He also showed concepts for the south building from various angels and elevations with the new color scheme. He noted that there will now no longer be an affordability requirement. The applicant is speaking with Cathedral Square and other non -profits for management of the congregate care facility. Mr. Belair advised that the proposed facility meets the definition of congregate care. Mr. Barritt asked that the exit not have employees smoking outside the door. Mr. Behr said the intent is to minimize activity near the break in the hedgerow. Mr. Behr asked if there is a possibility for a LEAD certified building. Mr. Farrell said no. Mr. Donahuecommented on the big side of the building facing the street. He felt there is a need in the city for design review. No other issues were raised. Mr. Farley moved to close the hearing. Mr. Stuono seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Barritt rejoined the Board. 4. Master Plan Application #MP-11-03 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD- 11-51 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned unit development on 25.91 acres developed with two single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 24 single family dwellings and 3) constructing 21 two-family dwellings, 1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Behr set an hour and a half time limit for this discussion. He also noted a request from Mr. Seff to dismiss the application and ask Mr. Seff to present his case. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Page 2 of 5 21 FEBRUARY 2012 Mr. Seff said he represents several clients. Their belief is that this is a premature application for Master Plan and Preliminary Plat. It was filed on 23 December 2011, 11 days before the last sketch plan hearing, which was a continuance of a previous sketch plan hearing. That sketch plan was for 70 units. This is a 67 unit plan. Mr. Seff contended that the Master Plan and Preliminary Plat should be filed within 108 days after sketch plan application minutes are approved. He added that it was also their contention that the application was filed early to avoid the threat of interim zoning. Mr. Rushford, attorney for Mr. Farrell, said the 108 days is the outside date for filing. There is no indication in the regulations of an earliest day for filing. He added that this process has been going on for 2 years. Mr. Farrell commented t4ifis ironic for Mr. Seff to use the 108 day limit since they argued the opposite at the last hearing. Members agreed to meet in deliberative session to discuss Mr. Seff's request. Mr. Farley moved that the Board meet in deliberative session. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The deliberative session began at 8:50 p.m. and ended at 9:25 p.m. The regular meeting then resumed. Mr. Behr said the Board had asked the City Attorney for guidance in this matter, and based on that advice, has determined that the application is timely. The Board ruled not to dismiss the application. Mr. Seff asked for a written decision. Mr. Behr said he would ask the City Attorney for guidance on that. Mr. Behr noted there are 27 conditions of which 19 are "boiler plate." He asked the applicant to focus on staff comments. Mr. Farrell said the plan is unchanged from sketch plan review. He showed the first phase, which will require nQ,,TDRs. Other phases will require TDRs. After the 50' unit, the connection to Vale Drive ."will go in. Mr. Farrell then shb ' the list of all waivers for porches. Mr. Belair reminded the applicant that no structures can be within the 20-foot setback. Mr. Farrell reminded the Board of the reason for the waivers and noted that the DRB was comfortable with that at sketch review. The waivers allow for sidewalks on both sides of the street and an increase in the wetland buffer. Mr. Donahue did not see the need for a sidewalk on both sides of the street and noted it will be expensive for the city to maintain. Mr. Behr said the DRB was unanimous in wanting the sidewalk on both sides. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Page 3 of 5 21 FEBRUARY 2012 Ms. LaRose noted they are trying to get clarity on where the setback is measured from, in order to quantify the waiver. Mr. Belair cited "triggers" that would require a new site plan. These include additional traffic or an increase in the number of units. Mr. Stuono said he didn't want any porches added without DRB approval because of how close the buildings are. Mr. Birmingham expressed a similar concern. Mr. Belair said the fees for a homeowner to have to go through that process would be more costly than the porch, and this could preclude a homeowner from improving the property. He felt the Board could ask for administrative review for porches. Mr. Donahue noted that when there is a covenant, a homeowner come to the city, but Mr. Belair doesn't ask if a particular request is allowed in the development. He felt this should be mentioned. Mr. Farrell said city staff shouldn't be burdened with private covenants. He said he would think about the porch issue and try to propose something. Members questioned whether there should be independent review of the traffic study. Mr. Birmingham moved to invoke technical review of traffic. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11 Mr. Farley then moved to continue Master Plan Application #MP-11-03 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD-11-51 until 20 March 2012. Mr Stuono seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Sketch Plan Application #SD-12-01 of University Mall, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of. 1) a 704,655 sq. ft. GFA shopping Center complex with 618,846 sq. ft. of GLA, and 2) a 4,638 sq ft. GLA drive-in bank. The amendment consists of: 1) incorporating the adjacent 205 Dorset Street property into the PUD, 2) razing the existing building, 3) relocating an existing 352 sq. ft. ATM building, and 4) constructing a 5,500 sq. ft. building for retail and drive-in bank uses, 155 & 205 Dorset Street: Ms. McIntyre said they wiq, ncorporate an existing lot with a commercial building on it that now uses the mall access drive. They will demolish that building and build a new building with retail uses and move a drive-in bank to the site. They would incorporate that lot into the Mall PUD. The bank would have a one-way drive through lane with exit to the existing parking lot. Mr. Stuono questioned whether the access to the drive -through will work. He felt it was too tight and noted that the Public Works director agreed. Mr. Behr suggested a possible access drive through from the parking lot. Ms. McIntyre said that would require stacking distance, etc. Mr. Birmingham suggested bringing the entrance to the south side of the building. Ms. McIntryre said that loses more parking. She noted they are asking to increase the parking waiver to 9%. Mr. Barritt said the turn radius would be less if the building were smaller. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Page 4 of 5 21 FEBRUARY 2012 (Mr. Sirotkin left the meeting at this point.) Mr. Barritt noted this would result in a road between the building and Dorset Street with no frontage. Mr. McIntyre said there would be a 15 foot landscaped area, similar to what is in front of the vitamin shop. Ms. Tremblay said they are talking about having a telephone company in the retail building. Mr. Birmingham commented that no one parks in that area except during the Christmas buying season. Mr. Stuono said he would like to see something more imposing at that location than a one-story building. Ms. LaRose noted that a single story building with a pitched roof can look very imposing. Members preferred losing some parking in order to have a safer access to the site. They were OK with the applicant going to preliminary plat. 6. Review and Approve Minutes of 3 January and 17 January 2012: It was noted that in the minutes of 3 January,_ on p. 1, a comma should be added after the word "setback" for clarity. Mr. Behr then moved to approve the Minutes of 3 January as amended. Mr. Binningham seconded. Motion passed unanimously. In the Minutes of 17 January, members felt the next to the last paragraph on p. 2 should be deleted. Mr. Behr moved to approve the Minutes of 17 January as amended. Mr. Birmingham ` second Motion passed unanimously. w As there was rio further buOuess to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Clerk Date DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Page 5 of 5 21 FEBRUARY 2012 Page 1 of 2 Cathyann LaRose From: william gilbert [wagvermont@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 5:12 PM To: Cathyann LaRose Cc: Paul Conner Subject: Spear Meadows Staff Comment Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Cathyann I mentioned to you earlier today what appears to be an error in the Staff notes on the Spear Meadows Project. Here are the details: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 23 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING Staff Comments\2011\SD_11_51_MP_11_03_SpearStreet_Farrell_SpearMeadows [At pg. 23 and pg. 24 Staff Comment on 9.08 SEQ-NR& NRTSub-District; Specific Standards] 9.08 C is quoted inaccurately as follows: C. Residential Design (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). However, the Staff report omits the specific 35% requirement as set forth in the omitted last sentence of section 9.08 C (Emphasis Added) C. Residential Design (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). A minimum of thirty-five percent (35%) of translucent windows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. This is important as I believe that the "minimum of thirty-five (35%) of translucent windows and surfaces" sets an important standard that DRB ought to consider. I would appreciate it this could be brought to the attention of the DRB. 3/14/2012 Page 2 of 2 wagilbert william gilbert 802 862.4531 cell 802 734.1500 wagvennontra comcast.net 3/14/2012 City of South Burlington Development Review Board MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-11-03 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-11-51 Motion to Dismiss Procedural Status: Spear Meadows, Inc. filed applications on December 23, 2011 for Preliminary Plat (#SD-11-51) and Master Plan (#MP-11-03) approvals. The project as applied for is for a 67-unit development. The South Burlington Land Development Regulations (SBLDR) at § 15.02(B) require that applications for development review must be made as a PUD in certain specific situations, including, "All applications for development in the Southeast Quadrant District other than a single-family or two-family residence." Therefore the DRB must review the Application under the provisions of SBLDR Article 15. Procedural Issues: 1. -- Sketch Plan Required -- In these Dockets (#MP-11-03 and #SD-11-51) the Applicant has never made the required Sketch filing preceding the instant December 23, 2011 filing for Master Plan and Preliminary Plat. There are several specific steps set out in SBLDR Article 15 that are required of any Applicant for PUD approval. In particular, Section 15.05 requires that the Applicant file for Sketch Plan Review. See SBLDR § 1505(A), "Sketch Plan Required for PUD and Subdivision." (Exhibit 1, below.) Sketch Plan review is not an Applicant option. Indeed, Applicant made exactly this point in its recent memo to the DRB in an earlier matter: Sketch plan review is an initial screening process for "the purpose of classification and initial review" of the proposal. LDR § 15.05(A). The DRB's review during sketch plan consists of a determination as to "whether the sketch plan meets the purposes of these regulations and shall, where it deems necessary, make specific suggestions to be incorporated by the applicant in subsequent submissions." LDR § 15.05(C)(3). [August 2011 Memorandum to DRB on behalf of Farrell Real Estate, at page 3.] The DRB has no authority to proceed with Master Plan or Preliminary Plat consideration in these Dockets absent compliance with the mandatory provisions that require Sketch Plan approval and determinations under State law and SBLDR § 1505. See 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a), which requires written minutes of DRB votes "showing the vote of each member upon each question...." See also SBLDR § 15.05(C)(3) (during sketch plan review, the DRB "shall determine if the proposed application meets the purposes of the SBLDR. (Emphasis added.) The December 23, 2011 Applications for Preliminary Plat (#SD-11-51) and Master Plan (#MP-11- 03) approvals must therefore be dismissed. 2. -- Incomplete Sketch Proceedings in Prior Dockets -- The Applicant may seek to treat these new Dockets as a Preliminary Plat and Master Plan application following the incomplete previous Sketch filing made prior to November 2011, as #SD-11-36, which, on December 23, 2011, was still pending before the DRB and was then set for a continued hearing on January 3, 2012. There is no basis for such treatment. See below -- Note on SD11-36. First, the DRB was still in session on the required Sketch meeting in SD-11-36. The Applicant cannot claim that a Sketch hearing that has been continued is complete while it is still in session. (See Larkin DRB 2/9/2011). A continued meeting cannot be said to have "been held" until completed, i.e., with the mandatory recorded vote and required determinations. See 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a), and SBLDR § 15.05(C)(3), quoted above. Second, SD-11-36 is a completely different Application and was, as of December 23, 2011, a Sketch Application for a 70-unit PUD with a different configuration than the current Applications. The dockets today seek 67 units laid out differently than in SD-11-36. The parties that received notice in the fall of 2011 regarding the earlier Sketch docket are very likely different than the parties noticed for the new Dockets, as homes are bought and sold in the neighboring lands. Moreover, the fees have been paid by the Applicant and notice sent as a new Docket, and NOT as a consolidated Docket. Third, the Applicant neither objected to, nor did it appeal, the DRB's action to continue the SD-11 36 Sketch proceeding hearing. As the Applicant has argued to this Board in the past, there is no Sketch approval until the minutes of the meeting at which the approval vote took place are approved. (See the Minutes of DRB Meeting September 20, 2012 ("Mr. Rushford said they can either be timed to a signed decision or to the approval of Minutes. Since there is no decision given for a sketch plan review, the Court says timing is from the approval of the Minutes"). See also the above -cited Memorandum from Mr. Rushford. The DRB has no authority to proceed with Master Plan or Preliminary Plat consideration in the absence of compliance with the mandatory provisions that require Sketch Plan approval and determinations under 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a) and SBLDR § 15.05(C)(3). The new Applications must therefore be rejected. 3 -- Interim Zoning Applies -- The rights of the Applicant have not vested under the pre -Interim Zoning SBLDR. The current December 23, 2011 filing was intended to avoid the Interim Zoning Resolution known to the Applicant to have already passed by the City Council. However, even if the current Dockets filed on December 23, 2011 were to be treated as timely filed, the Applicant and the DRB must proceed under the provisions of the Interim Zoning (IZ) Resolution adopted by the City Council on December 19, 2011. The Vermont Supreme Court provides guidance on the issue of vesting: The application intended to trigger vesting must be "validly brought and pursued in good faith...." Smith v. Winhall Planning Comm'n, 140 Vt. 178 (1981). Under State law, the Interim Zoning proposal is given effect from issuance of a "public notice." 24 V.S.A. § 4449(d) requires only a "public notice" be given: "If a public notice for a first public hearing pursuant to subsection 4442(a) of this title is issued under this chapter by the local legislative body...." Here, the Applicant cannot meet either test: Where the Applicant has actual Notice of the Interim Zoning Resolution and participated in the consideration of that Resolution, a later effort to claim vested rights from lack of notice cannot to be given any weight. Moreover, failing to seek Sketch Plan Review on a new Docket with a different number and layout of proposed units is neither a proper nor a valid filing. It is nothing but a procedural gambit to elude the Interim Zoning requirements. Hence, the provisions of the IZ Resolution as approved will apply. The Agenda Item as noticed for the City Council Meeting stated: "6. Consider Resolution to Establish an Interim Zoning By-law and set a public hearing on the Interim By-law for Tuesday, 17 January 2012." This public notice by the City Council was then followed by the more formal December 28, 2011 official public notice of the public hearing to be held on January 17, 2012. The City Council announced the public hearing on Interim Zoning and passed the IZ resolution in public session on December 19, 2011. The Applicant had actual notice of the resolution as passed by the City Council on December 19, 2011. In fact, the Applicant actually participated in the City Council Meeting through the testimony of Mr. Gary Farrell, as set forth in the City Council Minutes. The agent for the Spear Meadows Project, Mr. Eric Farrell, was also in attendance. (See CCTV tape at 61:30.) For the reasons set out above, any attempt to claim that a pre -December 23, 2011 Sketch Plan hearing was all that was necessary to permit the vested filing of the December 23, 2011 Applications would not be valid nor in good faith. In short, the new Preliminary Plat and Master Plan applications must fail. Note on Docket SD-11-36: The DRB, at the end of the January 3, 2012 hearing, ruled that this Preliminary Plat and Master Plan Dockets (11-51 and 11-03, respectively) were not before the DRB and could not be discussed. That ruling confirms that the current Preliminary Plat Docket (as well as the accompanying Master Plan Docket) and the prior Sketch Docket SD-11-36 are distinct and different. To rule otherwise now would constitute an indefensible procedural shuffle to benefit the Applicant. More specifically, according to the Minutes of the DRB in Docket SD-11-36, the DRB concluded merely that the matter should "go forward." No findings were made and no vote was taken. During the hearing, the DRB Chair asserted that the DRB would not provide such specific findings or a vote. One DRB member even assented to going forward only on the basis of reports of off-the-record meetings in previous Dockets by some DRB members with the City Attorney. (Some of these discussions were over a year old with a different DRB membership.) (See CCTV video record of January 3, DRB hearing.) Clearly, this does not come close to meeting the requirements of 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a) and SBLDR § 15.05(C)(3). Indeed, the DRB has thus far refused to provide findings of fact on several issues raised by the Applicant in the Sketch matter and has not made any recorded -vote "determinations," which are required under 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a) and SBLDR § 15.05(C)(3). The Minutes from the January 3, 2012 state merely that "All members agreed the plan should go forward." Respectfully Submitted, this 16'h Day of February, 2012, William and Maurene Gilbert, 1400 Spear Street, South Burlington, Vermont. William A. Gilbert Maurene Gilbert Exhibit 1 15.05 Sketch Plan Review A. Sketch Plan Required for PUD and Subdivision. For the purpose of classification and initial review, any applicant for a subdivision or PUD of land shall, prior to submitting an application for subdivision approval, submit to the Administrative Officer at least ten days prior to a regularly scheduled meeting of the Development Review Board a sketch plan of the proposed PUD or subdivision, which shall include the following information: (1) Name and address of the owner of record and applicant. (2) Name of owners of record of contiguous properties. (3) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic). The preferred scale shall be not more than one hundred (100) feet to the inch, or not more than sixty (60) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (100) feet of frontage. (4) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. (5) Boundaries and area of: (a) All contiguous land belonging to owner of record, (b) The proposed subdivision, and (c) Existing zoning districts (boundaries only). ARTICLE 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective January 11, 2010 15-4 (6) Existing and proposed layout of property lines; type and location of existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and covenants. (7) Type of, location, and size of existing and proposed streets, structures, utilities, and open space. (8) Existing water courses, wetlands, floodplains, wooded areas, ledge outcrops, and other natural features. (9) Location of existing septic systems and wells. B. Site plan information. All applicable information required for a site plan pursuant to Section 14.05 of these Regulations shall be submitted at preliminary plat stage for subdivisions involving commercial or industrial uses, multi -family uses, or planned unit development. C. Sketch plan review procedures. (1) Classification. The Administrative Officer shall, prior to the meeting on the sketch plan, classify the subdivision proposal as either a Minor Subdivision or a Major Subdivision/PUD. The Administrative Officer shall also determine whether the application requires Master Plan review, and shall duly note any request by an applicant for review and approval pursuant to the PUD and/or Master Plan provisions in Article 15. (2) Meeting required. The applicant, or his duly authorized representative, shall attend the meeting of the Development Review Board on the sketch plan to discuss the application. (3) Review by DRB. The Development Review Board shall determine whether the sketch plan meets the purposes of these regulations and shall, where it deems necessary, make specific suggestions to be incorporated by the applicant in subsequent submissions. At this time, the Development Review Board may determine that a minor subdivision developer shall supply additional material normally required for a major subdivision at the warned public hearing. 4 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: February 16, 2012 drMstaffcomments\2011\SD_11_51_MP_11_03_Spearst_ Plans received: December 23, 2011 Farrell_SpearMeadows Prelim MP 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street Preliminary Plat Application #SD-11-51 Master Plan Application #MP-11-03 Agenda #4 Meeting date: Fe ruary 21, 2012 Owner Applicant Spear Meadows, Inc Eric Farrell Gary N. and Jane G. Farrell PO Box 1335 1350 Spear Street Burlington, VT 05402 South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer Property Information Civil Engineering Associates Inc. Tax Parcel 1640-01302; Tax Parcel 1640-01340 PO Box 485 Tax Parcel 1640-01350 Shelburne, VT 05482 SEQ Zoning District- Neighborhood Residential 25.91 acres Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows Farrell Real Estate, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking preliminary plat and master plan approval for a planned unit development on 25.91 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 24 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 21 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. The application was reviewed by the Development Review Board through a series of sketch plan meetings, beginning on November 1, 2011 and ending on January 3, 2012. Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose, Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on December 23, 2011. Plans have also been reviewed by additional staff members, including department heads. Staff has the following comments. The base density of the parcel generated by the land at 1.2 units per acre, based on 25.91 acres, is 31 units. The maximum units allowed, in accordance with Chapter 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and determined by the Neighborhood residential sub -district under the Transferred Development Right program, are 103 units. The applicant is proposing 66 new units, with one existing dwelling to be razed and one to remain, for a total of 67 units within the PUD. This is a proposed density of approximately 2.6 units per acre. A total of 36 transferred development rights would be required. The applicant has stated that they have a legal option to purchase enough development rights to build the project as proposed. Staff has previously recommended that the Board require the applicant to submit the legal documents pertaining to the options for review by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. Staff has also recommended that the development rights be purchased by the applicant prior to issuance of zoning permits for any units beyond the 31 allowed by the property's inherent density. The Board did not previously raise issues with these recommendations regarding timing of transferred development rights. However, they should determine at this stage whether they shall be submitted prior to preliminary plat approval or prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall submit legal documents pertaining to the options to purchase Transferred Development Rights (TDRs) to the City Attorney for approval, at a time determined by the Board. 2. The applicant shall submit legal documents showing clear ownership of the 36 development rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the 32"d unit. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows Pursuant to Section 15.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (hereafter referred to as the SBLDRs), the Development Review Board shall require a master plan for any application of more than ten (10) dwelling units in the Southeast Quadrant. This application may, at the applicant's request, be combined with preliminary subdivision plat review. The DRB shall review the master plan and all areas proposed for preliminary plat simultaneously and shall make separate findings of fact as to the master plan and the areas reviewed for preliminary plat. 15.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations govern Master Plan review and approval. As the master plan may be combined with the preliminary plat, many of the items required are included in the preliminary plat, and do not necessitate redundant mention in this paragraph. There are some items which are exclusively tied to the master plan process which staff will try to distinguish below. (3) Master Plan Application. The master plan shall consist of one or more maps or drawings, with all dimensions shown in feet or decimals of a foot, drawn to a scale of not more than one hundred (100) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (100) feet of frontage, showing or accompanied by the information listed below. The applicant shall submit complete preliminary site plan or preliminary plat applications consistent with the master plan application for any area or phase for which approval is sought simultaneously with the master plan. (a) Accurate and updated Sketch Plan data (b) The name of the proposed Master Plan or an identifying title (c) Name and address of the land surveyor and plat designer (d) The names of all subdivisions immediately adjacent and the names of owners of record of adjacent acreage (e) An overall plan for the property indicating the following: i. the locations and total combined area of the propert(y)(ies) proposed for subdivision and/or site plan phase, either in conjunction with the initial master plan application or in the future, specifying which area or areas are currently proposed for subdivision or development. ii. The location and total area of the propert(y)(ies) currently proposed for subdivision or development that are to be deeded as perpetually open spaces, and which areas proposed to be left open are subject to future evaluation within the parameters of the master plan. iii. the location, total area and nature of any public amenities or facilities other than buildings proposed either in conjunction with the initial master plan application or in the future, specifying which features are currently proposed for development. iv. The maximum impervious coverage proposed for the property or properties subject to the Master Plan. V. The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and/or number of dwelling units proposed for the property or properties subject to the Master Plan. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows vi. The maximum number of vehicle trip ends (VTEs) and associated parking proposed for the property or properties subject to the master plan. vii. The location and size of any existing sewers and water mains, culverts and drains on the property or serving the property. viii. The location, names and widths of existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts and parking areas and their relationship to existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts and parking areas on surrounding properties ix. Contour lines at intervals of five feet, based on USGS datum of existing grades and also of finished grades. Contour intervals closer than five feet may be required by the Development Review Board in order to properly evaluate specific aspects of the project, such as storm drainage, landscaping, etc. X. A complete survey of any tracts to be subdivided completed by a licensed land surveyor xi. The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the DRB to locate readily and appraise the basic layout in the field. Unless an existing street intersection is shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall be shown. xii. A list of waivers the applicant desires from these regulations. The application was deemed complete by the Administrative Officer on December 23, 2011. D. Approval and Amendment of Master Plan. (1) Upon receipt of a complete application for master plan approval, with or without an associated preliminary site plan or preliminary plat application, the DRB shall take action to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the master plan at a duly warned public hearing. The Board is reviewing the master plan concurrent with the preliminary plat. While the staff comments and discussions may be concurrent, the Board shall issue two separate decisions. (2) In its approval of a Master Plan, the DRB shall specify the level of review and process required for subsequent applications pursuant to the approved Master Plan provided such procedure is consistent with the intent of these Regulations. The DRB may, for example, specify that final site plan only shall be required for specified portions of a project subject to a master plan, or that a section of a PUD shall be able to be amended with a final plat amendment action. Staff recommends that any items of change which would otherwise necessitate Board level review pursuant to the SBLDRs, require a final plat amendment. Although the proposed project is within its coverage limitations, the project is subject to residential design review. As such, Staff also recommends that the Board be required to approve any future proposed additions such as sheds, porches, decks, and balconies. The Board should discuss this. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows 3. The Board should discuss what land development should require future review by the Development Review Board and under what form. (3) Any application for amendment of the master plan, preliminary site plan or preliminary plat that deviates from the master plan in any one or more of the following respects, shall be considered a new application for the property and shall require sketch plan review as well as approval of an amended master plan: (a) An increase in the total FAR or number of residential dwelling units for the property subject to the master plan; (b) An increase in the total site coverage of the property subject to the master plan; (c) A change in the location, layout, capacity or number of collector roadways on the property subject to the master plan; (d) Land development proposed in any area previously identified as permanent open space in the approved master plan application; and/or (e) A change that will result in an increase in the number of PM peak hour vehicle trip ends projected for total buildout of the property subject to the master plan. This is primarily a judicial statement for which the applicant shall be bound without any special condition included herein. For simplicity and transparency, the Board should establish the total site coverage, vehicle trip ends, and land which is proposed for future development or permanent open space. 4. The proposed project is estimated to generate 49.07 pm peak vehicle trip ends (using the fitted curves for LUCs 210 and 230 respectively). Any increase in this number shall require further review by the Development Review Board. 5. The proposed development will result in site coverage of 24.7% and building site coverage of 11.5%. Any increase to this shall require further review by the Development Review Board. The applicant should submit a plan which generally labels those areas which may be considered for further future development. Units and layouts would not need to be included. The plan should also show which areas will be permanently unbuildable. The Board has expressed an interest in keeping a corridor along the wetland and in line with the open space on the adjacent property. The master plan should show this is as permanently restricted from any land development. 6. The applicant shall submit a plan which generally labels any areas considered for further future development. This plan shall also label any land which is to be permanently undeveloped. (4) Any application for amendment of the master plan that does not reduce the total area or alter the location of proposed permanent open spaces, and which does not meet any of the criteria in (3) above, and any application for preliminary plat or preliminary site plan that is found to be consistent with the findings of fact for the master plan, shall not require sketch plan review. The DRB may, at its discretion, allow applicants for preliminary plat or preliminary site plan review pursuant to a master plan to combine preliminary and final review into one application and approval action. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows These applications have been combined for review. (5) The DRB may in its findings of fact on the master plan, or its approval of a site plan or preliminary plat pursuant thereto, specify certain minor land development activities (such as but not limited to the addition of decks or porches to dwelling units) that will not require DRB action, and may be undertaken pursuant to issuance of a Zoning Permit. Staff has already addressed this item for review by the Board. As the project requires residential design review, the Board should review any additional land development, including those listed above, that are not already shown on the plans. (6) The City shall in its approvals maintain a record of such criteria as are applicable to the project such as residential density, total site coverage, required off-street parking, sewer capacity, and the location and status of public amenities. Staff has already addressed density and site coverage. Parking, sewer capacity, and public amenities (parks) are discussed below in this report. The subject parcels total 25.91 acres. Table 1. Dimensional Requirements SEQ Zoning District Re uired Proposed Min. Lot Size 12,000 SF* 3 acres** Max. Building Coverage 15% 11.8% �l Max. Overall Coverage 30% 25.2% "Min. Front Setback 20 ft.A See below Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. 30 ft zoning compliance * 12,000 sf is the minimum lot size for single family dwellings ** the smallest parcel proposed for development is 3 acres ^ the front yard setback requirement for the Southeast Quadrant Zoning district is 20 feet. The Residential Design criteria for the Neighborhood Residential sub -district (SBLDR section 9.08) states that "buildings should be set back twenty-five feet from the back of the sidewalk." The guidelines further state that "a close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment." The applicant is proposing between 15- 20 foot setbacks for front units, with rear units located between 40 and 60 feet back. The Board discussed the location of units at length throughout the sketch plan review process and all members expressed favorability with respect CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows to the proposed location of buildings given the increased stream -side buffer, and instructed the applicant to proceed without changes. The Board should discuss this item again and include its reasoning for any waivers in its decision. 7. The Board should discuss the location of the proposed buildings with respect to the front setback and detail any waivers or deviations from recommended placements that they wish to grant. SUBDIVISION CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations subdivisions shall comply with the following standards and conditions: A. General Standards. In all zoning districts of the City, the DRB shall make findings of fact on a PUD, subdivision and/or Master Plan in keeping with the standards for approval of subdivisions in Article 15 and/or site plans and conditional uses in Article 14. PUD, subdivision and Master Plan applications in the Central District shall meet the standards and criteria applicable in the appropriate sub -district and shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals for the City Center. For PUD, subdivision and/or Master Plan applications within the SEQ, lO and R1-Lakeshore districts, the DRB shall also make positive findings with respect to the project's compliance with the specific criteria in this section. The general standards applicable to all PUDs, subdivisions and Master Plans are: (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. The City of South Burlington Water Department has reviewed the plans and provided comments in a consolidated memo from the Department of Public Works, dated February 17, 2012 (from Justin Rabidoux, attached). The applicant shall adhere to these comments, shall revise the plans where necessary, and shall obtain preliminary and final wastewater allocations per the recommendations included herein. 8. The applicant shall address and/or adhere to the comments of the South Burlington Water Department per the memo from the Department of Public Works dated February 17, 2012 and any additional comments. The plans shall be revised accordingly. 9. The applicant shall receive preliminary wastewater allocation prior to final plat approval. 10. The applicant shall receive final wastewater allocation prior to issuance of any zoning permits. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows (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. The City of South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent has reviewed the plans and provided comments in a memo from the Department of Public Works, dated February 17, 2012 (from Justin Rabidoux, attached). The applicant shall adhere to these comments, shall revise the plans where necessary, and shall obtain preliminary and final wastewater allocations per the recommendations included herein. 11. The applicant shall address and/or adhere to the comments of the South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent per the memo from the Department of Public Works dated February 17, 2012 and any additional comments. The plans shall be revised accordingly. (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. Access is proposed via a public street connection to Spear Street as well as to the existing public road of Vale Drive. The applicant is proposing a short, private dead-end street connection to the parcel to the north, labeled as UVM and State Agricultural College, as well as a paved public drive to the proposed public park and private community gardens. Vale Drive is currently a public street terminated in a cul-de-sac. A right-of-way exists at the end of the cul-de-sac, always intended as a secondary access to this parcel. The applicant has submitted details of the roadway (including cross -sections) as part of the preliminary plat application. The road details have been extensively reviewed by the Director of Public Works. Comments are provided in the afore -mentioned memo from the Department of Public Works. The applicant shall adhere to these comments, shall revise the plans where necessary, and shall obtain preliminary and final wastewater allocations per the recommendations included herein. Staff has already stated that the applicant should work closely with the Director of Public works to address and/or adhere to the comments per the memo from the Department of Public Works and any additional comments. Where necessary, the plans shall be revised accordingly. This should be worked out prior to preliminary plat approval. Staff has reviewed the proposed lot layout in accordance with the Regulating Plan illustrated in Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and discussed below in this report. Staff finds that the project does not meet the strict guidelines of the SEQ which call for short development blocks and limits the lengths of roadways, in order to minimize impacts on the wetlands which traverse the site from north to south and fit into the unique shape of the lot. One possibility to remedy this could include a connection from the newly proposed road to split the block in an east -west CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows fashion and provide for a connection to the east to a property there, which could support development in the future and which would be a logical planned connection. In this case of competing objectives, staff finds that the design presented achieves the best possible layout given the restrictions on the site. Staff does not advocate for an additional connection, but as it would be an option for bringing the property into more strict compliance with the guideline stated above, the Board may wish to discuss it. The proposed development is expected to generate 49.07 pm peak vehicle trip ends (using Land Use Codes 210 and 230 for the single family and condominium units, respectively). With respect to traffic management, the applicant has submitted a traffic impact study, prepared by RSG Inc, dated August, 2010. The City's Director of Public Works reviewed the study and has incorporated comments in the aforementioned memo. In summary, there do not appear to be any major issues, though the department has asked for additional clarification. Furthermore, the Board has the authority to seek a third -party, technical review of the study. The Board should discuss this. 12. The Board should review and discuss the traffic study submitted by the applicant's consultant as well as the comments made in response by the Director of Public Works. The Board should also discuss whether an additional third -party review is warranted. The applicant is proposing a dead-end street to access the park area, which is more than 700 feet in length. The South Burlington Land Development Regulations state that: (2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets may not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). This guideline is waivable. Given the unique shape of the lot, the location of the wetlands on site, and the existence of two access points, and the close proximity of the cul-de-sac to an adjacent lot with development potential, and that the dead-end road is proposed only to access a park, staff is comfortable with this request. The Board has previously discussed this request several times and expressed favorability of the proposal. (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. There are small encroachments into a Class II wetland on the site. Staff finds that the proposed development minimizes the impact to these wetlands to the greatest extent possible while still allowing for a road to access the site. Pursuant to the SBLDRs, the applicant should obtain a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) from the State of Vermont CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows prior to final plat approval. However, the State of VT no longer issues CUDs. Staff is working with the State to determine the new requirements and ensure that the spirit and intent of the regulations, including proper oversight of wetland impacts, is fully met. 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain [the equivalent of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD)] for the proposed wetlands impacts prior to final plat approval. Furthermore, staff recommends a ground delineation of the wetland buffer where it gets close to the rear of the homes proposed along the west side of the road so as to reduce impact by residents of those units. The wetland and wetland buffers shall be protected and should not in any case be used as useable lawn or other recreational areas. The applicant has submitted a plan which includes a line of shrubbery and tress along the wetland buffer. There appears to be sections of shrubbery which fills in some of the gaps between landscaping. 14. The Board shall discuss the applicant's proposal for the wetland buffer delineation. Staff also suggests additional measures of protection, including limitations on fertilizers and mowing. The following are suggested conditions: 15. There shall be no use of pesticides or non -organic fertilizers within the wetlands or associated 50 foot buffers. This shall be reflected in the association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. 16. There shall be no mowing within 50 feet of the wetlands on the property. Brush - hogging shall be allowed no more than three (3) times per year. This shall be reflected in the association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. 17. Deeds and association covenants shall especially the prohibition of use of the areas, and the use of pesticides on site. reflect all of the standards included above, wetland buffer as lawn or other recreation (5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The stated purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located (Southeast Quadrant) is as follows: A Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ) is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and well - planned residential use in the area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The natural features, visual character and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 11 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows resources in the City and worthy of protection. The design and layout of buildings and lots in a manner that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will best create neighborhoods and a related network of open spaces consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Southeast Quadrant shall be encouraged. Any uses not expressly permitted are hereby prohibited, except those which are allowed as conditional uses. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 9.02 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: "These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, and any adopted amendments to such plan, and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. In the event of a conflict between the Southeast Quadrant chapter and other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the Southeast Quadrant chapter shall control." (6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The Board discussed this objective as part of the sketch plan review. Previous plan iterations were altered so as to remove some buildings from the area which were proximate to, but not inside, the wetland corridor which bisects the site from the north to south. This corridor was widened with homes moved further from the wetland buffer. Homes are now clustered more closely and a continuous corridor is now present. Furthermore, the largest portion of the wetland and undeveloped portion of the site is immediately adjacent to a wetland/buffer area on the adjoining development to the south. (7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water. The South Burlington Fire Chief reviewed the plans and provided comments on February 17, 2012. Staff has reviewed his comments and disagrees with several of the recommendations, while finding that others, including the sprinklering of units, have no basis in the Land Development Regulations which do not legalize building codes. Staff recommends that the applicant meet with the Fire Chief and the Public Works Director together to discuss these issues and then return for continued preliminary plat proceedings. 18. The applicant shall meet with the Fire Chief to discuss the plans. Any items not agreed upon shall be reviewed by the Development Review Board for decision prior to preliminary plat approval. (8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 12 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. The road details have been extensively reviewed by the Director of Public Works. The applicant shall adhere to these comments, shall revise the plans where necessary. Staff has already commented on the need for connection to adjacent properties. The Recreation Path Committee has been reviewing the sketch plan and preliminary plat plan submittals. The Committee has requested a recreation path easement along the western boundary. The applicant should respond to this request, and the Board should determine whether one must be provided. Spear Street is within a very wide right of way for a two lane road, and there remains substantial land available within the public right of way for facilities. Constructing a path outside of the right of way in this area would require dozens of private easement agreements before a complete path could be constructed. The applicant is proposing street improvements which include a turning lane. It may be more appropriate to discuss whether the street improvements should include a recreation path or on -road bicycle lanes within the public right of way. 19. The Board should discuss the Recreation Path Committee's request for an easement along the western property boundary. If one is not warranted, the Board should discuss the road improvement plan within Spear Street and determine whether any additional provisions should be made within the road right of way. (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. Staff has already stated that the applicant should continue to work with the Director of Public Works/City Engineer regarding the road design and with respect to his written comments. The applicant is proposing a private road to access a public park. The applicant should work with the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and the City Attorney to ensure that proper public access will be secured. A basic agreement should be reached prior to final plat approval, with final legal documents signed and recorded prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the site. Discussed further below, the Board should determine when the park is to be constructed. 20. The applicant shall reach agreement with the Director of Public Works/City Engineer as to adequate public access to the park prior to final plat approval. Final legal documents shall be signed and recorded prior to issuance of the first zoning permit for a building on the property. (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Comprehensive Plan has a chapter dedicated to the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. The goal statements have guided the work of the Planning Commission and City Council in outlining the density, zoning, coverage limitations, and allowable uses in the district and its sub -districts. Staff encourages the Board to read the entirety of the Chapter (Chapter 8 Southeast Quadrant) which is attached. An excerpt of the goal statement is included herein, and the objectives may be found near the end of the chapter. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 13 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows It is a goal of this City to support a planned strategy for land conservation and neighborhood development in the Southeast Quadrant that preserves areas of ecological significance, creates a cohesive and publicly accessible open space system, and encourages neighborhood development patterns, including street systems that create walkable neighborhoods, a range of housing choices, an a strong sense of place. Each subset of these goals is included in the general review standards for PUDs as well as specific standards for the SEQ and the SEQ-NR sub -district. Though they may be addressed individually, Staff believes that the general goals are met with the proposal. At question is not whether any land development is appropriate for the parcel (this has been decided through the City zoning, and subsequent sub -zones of the SEQ, a multi -year public process ultimately approved by vote of the City Council) but whether the adherence to the specific regulations adopted thereafter meets the general goals. 14.06 General Review Standards The following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design. 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. Staff has addressed the proposed project's compliance with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see the section in the staff notes above. 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. Staff and the Board worked with the applicant at the sketch plan level to ensure suitable and safe pedestrian movement throughout the PUD. The plans include sidewalks on both sides of the road, safe crosswalks, and a paved recreation path. The plans also provide provisions for the adjacent neighborhood to access the recreation path, sidewalk network, and park. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 14 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows (2) Parking; (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home; (iii) The lot has unique site conditions such as a utility easement or unstable soils that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street, (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re -used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s); or, (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation. (c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all proposed parking areas that are both to the side of a building and between the front lot line and the building line of the building on the lot that is closest to the public street shall not exceed one-half of the total building width of all buildings on the lot that are located adjacent to the public street. Buildings separated from the front lot line by parking approved pursuant to 14.06(C)(2)(b) shall be considered adjacent to the public street. Buildings separated from the front lot line by any other parking areas shall not be considered adjacent to the public street. (d) The DRB shall require that the majority of the parking on through lots and corner lots be located between the building(s) and the side yards or between the building and the front yard adjacent to the public street with the highest average daily volume of traffic. Where the rear yard of a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, the majority of parking shall be located between the building and the side yards or between the building and the yard that is adjacent to the Interstate. The parking on site serves single family and two family residential use, or is for the park (public recreation). Therefore, parking is permissible to the front of the buildings. Nevertheless, the Board worked with the applicant through the sketch process to ensure that most parking was set back from the road and beyond the buildings. (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 heights of all buildings are within the limits of the district and characteristic of typical CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 15 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows and nearby single and two-family dwellings. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. 21. Newly installed utility services shall 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. The design of buildings is discussed in greater detail in a discussion of the specific Southeast Quadrant design standards found elsewhere in this report. 14.07 Specific 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. Access is proposed via a public street connection to Spear Street as well as to the existing public road of Vale Drive. Vale Drive is currently a public street terminated in a cul-de-sac. A right-of-way exists at the end of the cul-de-sac, always intended as a secondary access to this parcel. As is customary, the applicant will submit more details of the roadway (including cross -sections) as part of the preliminary plat application. The applicant is now proposing a short dead- end street connection to the parcel to the north, labeled as UVM and State Agricultural College. This connection would be made if any development were to be approved on the UVM parcel. The Director of Public Works has commented on the road connection to Vale Drive, a connection that was planned and approved as part of the Pinnacle subdivision and which has existed on the plans since. The abutting property owners have expressed concern about the safety of this connection. The Fire Chief and the Director of Public Works have commented on whether or not the island should remain in the cul-de-sac. Although an understanding of how the roadway functions is important to the design of this development, the area on Vale Drive around the cul-de-sac is an existing city -owned street and right of way and is not on the land CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 16 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows owned by the party listed in this application. It is not part of the land described in the PUD. Staff strongly advises that the Director of Public Works continue to work with the residents of Vale Drive, as well as the Fire Chief to address the configuration of the cul-de-sac. However, it is not for the review of this Board. 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. Staff has already stated that the utility lines must be underground 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). No dumpsters or group disposal facilities are proposed. Residential trash disposal and recycling facilities shall be treated like all others in the City. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. 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. The applicant is asking for the following waivers: 1. Section 9.08 2. Table C-2 Section 9.08 states that blocks which are not shorter than 300-500 linear feet in length must include mid -block public sidewalks or recreation path connections. The longest block between the intersection of Spear Meadow Drive and Park Street is 775'. These blocks could be broken up by recreation path or road connections. The applicant argues that new recreation paths introduced between the blocks would not make sense as they would lead to dead ends at the property lines, or would be duplicative. Staff adds that they may also terminate in a location that does not provide a safe crossing or access. Staff has reviewed the proposed lot layout in accordance with the Regulating Plan illustrated in Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Staff finds CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 17 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows that the project does not meet the strict guidelines of the SEQ which call for short development blocks and limits the lengths of roadways, in order to minimize impacts on the wetlands which traverse the site from north to south and fit into the unique shape of the lot. In this case of competing objectives, staff finds that the design presented achieves the best possible layout given the restrictions on the site. The Development Review Board previously discussed this matter and agreed. The Board should discuss this again and provide a decision. 22. The Board should discuss the applicant's request for a waiver on block length and mid -block connections. Table C-2 relates to the setback requirement for structures in the district. Staff fully supports this waiver request as the goal of the requirement is being met. The front yard setback for buildings in the SEQ is stated at 20 feet. Closer proximity of buildings is appropriate to foster a closer relationship to the street and a larger buffer from the wetland, wetland buffer, and other property lines. This is discussed at the beginning of this report and calls for the Board to review and render a decision. The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The planned character of the area is defined in the comprehensive plan, the goals of which have already been identified and discussed in this report. Again, the Board should read the Southeast Quadrant chapter of the Comprehensive Plan in order to best assess this criterion. The South Burlington Land Development Regulations, purpose of the zoning district is "to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and well -planned residential use" and that the "design and layout of buildings and lots in a matter that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will best create neighborhoods and related network of open spaces consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Southeast Quadrant shall be encouraged." Southeast Quadrant District This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district Therefore it is subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR. 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub -Districts The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. A. Height. (1) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT, or SEQ-NR sub -district shall not exceed forty-five feet (45'); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub -districts. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 18 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows (2) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-VR or SEQ-VC sub- district shall not exceed fifty feet (50'); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub -districts. The applicant has stated that the heights of buildings will remain below the height limitations of the sub -district. 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 The Board discussed the layout of the site with respect to open space corridors at length during the sketch plan review, including some revisions to the location of proposed dwelling units near the wetland and wetland buffer, and near the corridor which would continue a line of open space from the adjacent PUD. (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. Staff has already addressed this criterion with respect to the requested waiver from the block length. The average density remains below that which is permitted in the sub -district. (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. Staff has discussed the need for a plan for the future spaces as part of the master plan requirements. The applicant is proposing a 2.3 acre parcel to be deeded to the city as a neighborhood park, as well as a 1.6 acre lot to be used for community gardens. The proposed park will serve as an amenity not just to the residents of the PUD, but will also be convenient to the adjacent neighborhoods as well as open to the general public. The applicant has begun discussions with the Director of the Recreation Department, and should continue to as the application evolves. The Director and the applicant should address which facilities shall be planned for the space (ie- basketball courts, play structures, etc), as well as parking needs. The park is proposed to be accessed via a narrow cul-de-sac off of a wider road stub (labeled on the plans as `Road C'). As previously stated, the applicant should work with the Director of Public Works to determine the needs for access and turn -around to this parcel. Section 9 of the SBLDR states that "a range of parks should be distributed through the SEQ to meet a variety of needs including children's play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation." Furthermore, "parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program" and "a neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be provided within a one -quarter mile walk of every home not so served by an existing City park or other publicly -owned recreation area." The proposed park space exceeds the requirements of this section. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 19 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows Legal documents shall be worked out prior to final plat approval and recorded prior to issuance of a zoning permit. 23. The applicant shall work with the City Attorney, Planning Director, and Director of Recreation to formalize ownership of the park lands. This shall have a draft agreement prior to final plat approval and formalized and recorded prior to issuance of a zoning permit for any buildings on the property. (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. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The applicant has submitted a grading and erosion control plan as part of the phasing plan. The Stormwater Superintendent has reviewed the plans and given the size of the parcel, it will be subject to all levels of state review. 24. The proposed project should adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan should meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. (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. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged. As previously stated, there are small encroachments into a Class II wetland on the site. Staff previously recommended a ground delineation of the wetland buffer where it gets close to the rear of the homes proposed along the west side of the road so as to reduce impact by residents of those units. The wetland and wetland buffers shall be protected and should not in any case be used as useable lawn or other recreational areas. 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 20 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows 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. (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. (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. (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. E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. (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. These items have all been previously addressed in this report. (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and neighborhoods shall apply. 9.08 SEQ-NR &NRT Sub -District; Specific Standards The SEQ-NRT sub -district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 21 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 400 linear feet; see Figure 9-2 for example. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks 400 feet or longer must include mid -block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. Staff has discussed this at length elsewhere in this report (2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets may not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). Staff has discussed this at length elsewhere in this report. (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. Staff has already commented on this matter with respect to the street connection to Vale Drive. This is a requirement of the regulations, as well as part of the original intent of a Vale Drive connection. (4) 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 proposed development is a large PUD without individual home lots. This criterion applies to subdivision of land. B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards (1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the NR sub -district 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 of the SBLDR. Staff has already commented on the roadway, sidewalk, and recreation path design. (2) Sidewalks. Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5') in width with an additional minimum five-foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the street. Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, and must be connected in a pattern that promotes walkability throughout the development. The DRB may in its discretion require supplemental sidewalk segments to achieve this purpose. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 22 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows This criterion is being met and are on both sides of the street. Again, the Board should discuss whether any additional pedestrian or bicycle pathways are necessary along Spear Street. (3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3) Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet wide. Street tress 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 applicant is proposing street trees in accordance with the regulations along both sides of every street. The City Arborist has reviewed the plans. (4) On -street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4). On street parking is appropriate in a small neighborhood. The roadway is of sufficient width and well -planned to accommodate such. Once the road becomes public and is taken over by the City, the City Council will have complete control to dictate either way. (5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and to slow traffic; see Figure 9-6 and Section 9.08(B)(5). The City Engineer and Director of Public Works shall more specifically comment on this issue. (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 trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety. The applicant has submitted sufficient lighting details. C. Residential Design (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). (2) Building Facades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but facades 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. Staff has already addressed the project's compliance with the lot layout and road configuration. The applicant has also addressed the Residential Design, pursuant to Section 9.08(C) of the Regulations, including building orientation, building facades and CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 23 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows front building setbacks, placement of garages and parking, and mix of housing types. The applicant has submitted drawings which illustrate the general layout of the proposed units. The applicant has submitted two pages showing the variations in building type. (3) Front Building Setbacks. In pedestrian districts, a close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. Buildings should be set back twenty-five feet (25') from the back of sidewalk. This is discussed repeatedly elsewhere in this report. (4) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8') into the front setbacks. Porch, stoop and balcony areas within the front setback shall not be enclosed or weatherized with glazing or other solid materials. This criterion is being met. (5) Placement of Garages and Parking. See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9-7. The front building line of the garage must be set behind the front building line of the house by a minimum of eight feet. The plans are in compliance with this requirement. (6) Mix of Housing Types. A mix of housing types is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. Housing types should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of identical housing types. Please see the attached memo from the applicant. This testimony will be added to the decision at a later time, but for now will be sufficient to be referenced as a secondary document. The Board discussed this item at length throughout sketch plan review meetings, and it was agreed that this criterion was met. OTHER Street names- The applicant shall submit proposed street names to the Planning Commission prior to final plat approval. 25. The applicant shall submit proposed street names to the Planning Commission prior to final plat approval. Utility cabinets- The plans do not appear to show utility cabinets. This information should be provided on the final plat plans or the applicant will be required to return to the Board for an amendment at a later date. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 24 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD 11 51 MP 11 03 SpearStreet Farrell SpearMeadows Sheet revisions- 26. Sheet L001 should be revised to replace "Town" of South Burlington with "City" of South Burlington. PHASING The Board should discuss phasing for the following items: • Road completion; • Road connection to Vale Drive; • Timing for construction and completion of Park; • General phasing for the order of construction of buildings; • Improvements on Spear Street and at the Spear Street intersection; Staff recommends that the connection to Vale Drive occur before the issuance of the zoning permit for the 501h building. Staff recommends that the park be completed prior to issuance of building permits for any units above the base density of 31. Staff recommends consulting with the Recreation Path Committee and Director of Public Works for timing of completion of improvements along Spear Street. NOTICE OF CONDITIONS There are "footprint" lots proposed around several of the units. For purposes of planning and zoning, all lots will be considered one lot. 27. For purposes of planning and zoning, the lots in this subdivision shall be considered one (1) lot. The applicant will be required to record a "Notice of Condition" to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plans. Retewed 3/20 JDR$ i CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD In the Matter of. Master Plan Application #MP-11-03 and Preliminary Plat Application ##SD-11-51 of Farrell Real Estate for a Planned Unit Development on 25.91 Acres, Etc. THE NEIGHBORS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND MASTER PLAN APPLICATIONS Mr. William Gilbert and Ms. Maurene Gilbert of 1400 Spear Street, Dr. Thomas Kleh and Ms. Louise Kleh of 219 Meadowood Drive, Dr. Michael Scollins and Dr. Mary Scollins of 214 Meadowood Drive, Dr. Robert Skiff and Ms. Marley Skiff of 89 Springhouse Road, and the Pinnacle at Spear Homeowners Association (collectively, the "Neighbors"), all of whom are South Burlington residents and all of whom are "interested persons" within the meaning of 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b), by and through their counsel, Barr & Associates, P.C., hereby submit the following Memorandum in opposition to Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 (the "Applications"). The Neighbors state as follows: I. INTRODUCTION This Memorandum responds to several matters that are discussed in the Department of Planning and Zoning Report that was prepared on February 16, 2012 for the DRB's February 21, 2012 hearing (the "Staff Report" or the "Report"), specifically: Fire Safety (see § II, below); Window Glazing (see § III, below); Securing of TDR's (see § IV, below); and the Proposed Vale Drive Connection (see § V, below).' ' The Neighbors have made numerous written and verbal submissions to the DRB opposing the Spear Meadows project, and all prior submissions are hereby incorporated by reference. In addition, the Neighbors reserve the right to raise additional issues in future written submissions and/or verbally during DRB meetings and hearings, including with regard to matters contained within the Staff Report. II. FIRE SAFETY -- SBLDR § 15.18(A)(7) The City Fire Chief has found that the Preliminary Plan/Master Plan is defective on grounds of safety, as stated in his letter dated February 16, 2012 (quoted below). The Applicant has proposed at least 15 units too many from a fire safety standpoint. In addition, as the Chief noted, the Plan as configured "need[s] to be sized to allow for parking, set-up and operation of fire apparatus. 18' width is recommended." The DRB need only apply the SBLDR safety standards as advised by the Fire Chief and adjust the allowed project density accordingly. There is no need to establish a condition on sprinklers or to create a building code, as the Staff Report asserts (at page 11). Specifically, SBLDR § 15.18(A)(7) states in relevant part: 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.... The Applicant has not met this standard. On the contrary, the Fire Chief states in his letter that adequate fire protection cannot be provided to the project Plan as submitted. The Fire Chief makes the following points (among others): (A) Sprinklers are required for 15 units (1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 11, 13, 20, 23, 30, 36, 39, 41 and 44), and (B) the access Road driveway widths within the clusters need to be sized to allow for parking, set-up and operation of fire apparatus (an 18' width is recommended). Contrary to the Staffs view, the Comprehensive Plan and the SBLDR require the DRB to take safety into account. (See Excerpts below.) The SBLDR and Comprehensive Plan language on safety rebuts the Staffs claim that, because the SBLDR cannot be used to create a building code or create conditions that impose a building code, the DRB can ignore the Fire Chiefs views. In short, sound planning must take safety, including fire safety, into account. 2 Surprisingly, the Staff fails to alert the DRB to the following SBLDR provision that contradicts the Staff s comments. The very long and very narrow cul-de-sac parking and access pathways provided in the Spear Meadows Plan are subject to this Regulation: 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation in PUDs and Subdivisions (f) The homes built on a private roadway must be sprinklered to the satisfaction of the South Burlington Fire Chief. All proposed sprinkler systems must be reviewed and agreed upon prior to plat approval. This requirement may be waived be the DRB upon recommendation by the City of South Burlington Fire Chief. (Emphasis added.) No such waiver recommendation has been presented to the DRB, hence the buildings in question "must" be sprinklered. In sum, there is no escaping the fact that the Fire Chiefs safety concerns are the direct result of the Applicant's proposed excess density. Moreover, the fire dangers the Applicant's current proposal creates are traceable to the DRB's ill-advised (and indefensible) position that requested excess TDR density must be approved. The Neighbors continue to maintain that the City's TDR bylaw is unconstitutional, void and unenforceable. But even assuming for purposes of the fire safety discussion that the TDR bylaw is somehow valid, then logic and the law dictate that the DRB must exercise its reasonable discretion in light of the very real fire safety concerns and reduce the excess density accordingly. In sum, the DRB should weigh the safety issue and require the Applicant to submit a plan that meets the Fire Chief s safety concerns. In that connection, the Neighbors respectfully request that Fire Chief Douglas Brent be called to appear in open DRB Session so that the DRB Members may hear testimony and weigh the evidence on these critical safety issues before rendering a formal DRB decision as required on Safety issues (Criteria 7). 3 Authorities Supporting the Above Fire Safety Discussion: SBLDR § 15.18(A)(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water. City Comprehensive Plan (July 2011 draft) Authority and Purpose The authority to prepare and implement the comprehensive plan is granted to the city through the Vermont Planning and Development Act, Title 24 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated, Chapter 117. It is the purpose of the Act to "... encourage the appropriate development of all lands in this state ... in a manner which will promote the public health, safety against fire, floods, explosions and other dangers...." (Page 1-5) (emphasis added). Community Facilities and Service Strategy 43. Continue to request the input of the fire department when reviewing development projects to assess their impacts on public safety. (Page 2-6). Fire and Rescue. ... For the purposes of development review, the department uses the Vermont fire safety standards. Maintaining high standards throughout the city has contributed significantly to lowering losses of life and property due to fire.... (Page 4-15). Preparedness. In addition, the South Burlington Fire and Rescue Department and Public Works Department are regular participants in the local development review process, providing input to the Development Review Board regarding the location and access of buildings, roadways, and other safety -related issues. (Page 4-16). 1 Gl } Fire and Rescue The city's fire protection plan consists of two components: ♦ Including fire protection as a criterion in the review of new development (i.e. roads and access, building locations and materials, hydrant spacing, etc.). (Page 4-20.) South Burlington Land Development Regulations (bold emphasis added) 1.01 Purpose and Compliance The purpose of these Land Development Regulations is to implement the Comprehensive Plan of the City of South Burlington; to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community; to secure safety from fire, panic, and dangers; to provide adequate light and air; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, and other public requirements, under and pursuant to the Vermont Planning and Development Act, as amended. 3.13 General Performance and Maintenance Standards B. Hazardous Conditions Prohibited. No land or structure in any district shall be used or occupied in any manner so as to cause hazardous or objectionable conditions to exist or to in any way endanger users of the site or the surrounding area. Such hazardous or objectionable conditions include but are not limited to dangerous, injurious, noxious or otherwise objectionable biohazard, fire, explosive, or other hazard; or to create any noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odor, air pollution, heat, cold, dampness, electromagnetic or radioactive radiation, glare, toxicity or other hazardous or objectionable condition on the site or in the surrounding area. F. Conditions of Approval. The Development Review Board, in granting conditional use approval, may condition an approval to require evidence of the issuance of applicable state and/or federal permits for the handling of hazardous conditions prior to the issuance of a zoning permit, and may also impose conditions on the following: (1) Size and construction of structures, quantities of materials, storage locations, handling of materials, and hours of operation. (2) Warning systems, fire controls and other safeguards. (3) Provision for continuous monitoring and reporting. 5 (4) Other restrictions as may be necessary to protect public health and safety. 13.01 Off Street Parking and Loading G. Design Requirements for Parking Spaces, Parking Aisles, Lighting, and Landscaping. (3) Provision shall be made for access by police, fire and emergency vehicles. ARTICLE 14 SITE PLAN and CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW 14.01 General Purpose It is the purpose of this Article to regulate site development plans in order that adequate light, air, convenience of access, and safety from fire, flood, and other danger may be secured; .... ARTICLE 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation in PUDs and Subdivisions (f) The homes built on a private roadway must be sprinklered to the satisfaction of the South Burlington Fire Chief. All proposed sprinkler systems must be reviewed and agreed upon prior to plat approval. This requirement may be waived be the DRB upon recommendation by the City of South Burlington Fire Chief. SBLDR § 15.12(d)(3)(f). ARTICLE 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation in PUDs and Subdivisions E. Standards for Construction of Roadways (4) Modification of Roadway Standards. In any PUD or subdivision, the DRB may specifically authorize modification of the City's roadway standards in Table 15-1 below if it specifically finds that such modification is in furtherance of Comprehensive Plan policies and the goals for the specific zoning district in which a project is located, and that such modification is consistent with provisions for the public health, safety and welfare and the orderly development of the City. In making such a finding, the DRB shall consider the recommendation of the City Engineer, Director of Public Works ,:1 and Fire Chief with respect to the City's ability to provide public services to the proposed subdivision or PUD. G. Emergency Access. Paved access for emergency vehicles shall be provided to within one hundred (100) feet of the principal entry for multi -family dwellings, and commercial, industrial, and institutional establishments. All streets and highways shall be of sufficient width and suitable grade and shall be so located to facilitate fire protection and coordinated so as to compose a convenient system properly related to the plan. M. WINDOW GLAZING — SBLDR & 9.08(C)(1) The Neighbors request that the DRB reject the Applicant's proposed plan in part because it does not comply with the 35% glazing standard contained in SBLDR § 9.08(C). That section sets a "minimum" of thirty-five (35%) of translucent windows and surfaces oriented to the south. This is an important standard that the DRB needs to enforce. It is not a "dimensional" standard and may not be waived. The Staff Report fails to quote SBLDR § 9.08(C)(1) correctly, as it completely leaves out the minimum 35% southern glazing standard (see Staff Report at p. 22). The § 9.08(C)(1) standard sets a "minimum" but allows DRB discretion to allow southern -facing glazing above the 35% minimum standard. (Any other interpretation of § 9.08(C) would render it unconstitutionally void for vagueness.) IV. SECURING OF TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS — SBLDR & 9.13(C) The clear language of SBLDR § 9.13(C) (quoted in full below) states that the TDR's must be "secured." The Staffs position is that the Applicant should be allowed to eventually acquire TDR's if it builds more than 31 units at some time in the future. See Staff Report, at page 2. However, that is not what the SBLDR intends by "secured." The Staff Report suggests the City Attorney should merely review the Applicant's option to purchase the TDR's before final plat approval. Id. But the Applicant does not even claim to 7 have a TDR option that would be available to exercise when required. Moreover, there is no possibility that the 31 core units could be constructed prior to the current option's February 2013 expiration. In short, Applicant's option to purchase TDR's does not even remotely comply with § 9.13(C). To comply with the letter and spirit of the SBLDR, the DRB ought to ensure that the TDR seller receives the value of its TDR's promptly. If a purchase is required prior to Final Plat approval, the risk of procedural, market sales and other delays and/or an eventual court ruling against the Applicant would be borne by the Applicant. That is only fair and it also supports the TDR program and those who have value tied up in TDR's.2 Accordingly, the Neighbors respectfully request that the Applicant be required to actually own the necessary TDR's required for a permit in excess of the core density of 31 units prior to Final Plat approval. SBLDR § 9.13(C) Transfer of Development Rights and Non -Contiguous PUDs. (1) The Development Review Board may approve a PUD application that involves non- contiguous parcels, regardless of sub -district, if the following conditions are met: (a) The applicant shall demonstrate that development rights have been secured and encumbered from lands lying within the SEQ-NRP or SEQ-NRT sub -districts, or adjacent lands on the same tax parcel lying within any subdistrict, or from lands acquired by the City or State for the purpose of providing public parks in any sub -district, and EITHER that the sending parcel is sufficiently encumbered against further land subdivision and development through a purchase or other agreement acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure conformance with these Regulations; OR (b) All encumbered parcels not subject to a permanent conservation easement or restriction of similar binding effect shall be reviewed as components of the PUD and shall be subject to the provisions of this article. 2 For the record, the Neighbors have maintained at prior DRB hearings and in prior DRB filings and they continue to maintain that the City's TDR bylaw is unconstitutional and that it does not comply with many requirements of the Vermont Planning and Development Act, 24 V.S.A. § 4301 et sec.., and in particular § 4423. In addition and for the record, Opponents continue to maintain that the TDR sending parcel owners are necessary parties to these proceedings. (2) If the conditions of 9.13(C)(1) above are met, the Development Review Board may then approve the assignment (transfer) of all or a portion of the residential development density calculated for a non-contiguous encumbered parcel to another parcel to satisfy the provisions of Section 9.05 above. (Emphasis added.) V. REJECTING THE VALE DRIVE CONNECTION — SBLDR §§ 15.12(E)(4) and 15.12(J) The Neighbors request that the DRB reject the proposed Vale Drive connection on the following grounds: 1. The Official City Map Shows no Vale Drive Connection to Spear Street. The Staff continues to represent to the DRB that the Vale Drive Connection is a "requirement" of the SBLDR. See Staff Report, at 21 ("Staff has already commented on this matter with respect to the street connection to Vale Drive. This is a requirement of the regulations, as well as part of the original intent of a Vale Drive connection."). See also id. at 24 ("Staff recommends that the connection to Vale Drive occur before the issuance of the zoning permit for the 50th building."). But, as explained in detail below, such a connection is most definitely NOT required by the SBLDR. The City Planner and the Zoning Administrator have stated to the DRB that the SBLDR embody a policy requiring that the Vale Drive connection to Spear Street take place. With genuine respect due these dedicated professionals, the City Map contains no such planned connection of Vale Drive and Spear Street. The City Map shows only a proposed future connection to Swift Street (and not to Spear Street) connecting from Vale Drive across UVM land and in a different location on the would-be Spear Meadows parcel. The Applicant is proposing a very different connection of Vale Drive to Spear Street through the Spear Meadows parcel. 0 Drive. The City Map also shows a "Proposed path or trail" from Swift Street and ending at Vale In short, the City Map's Vale Drive connection to Swift Street at some future time is not a part of this proceeding. 2. The SBLDR do Not Require Connection. The SBLDR do not require a Vale Connection. On the contrary, the Regulations actually and unequivocally recommend cul-de-sacs in residential districts. The relevant provision, § 15.12(J), states in relevant part: "Cul-de-sac streets are recommended only in residential districts...." The relevant SBLDR provision actually sets a density limit of 50 units for culs-de-sac. The SBLDR control and spell out specifically the connection rules at § 15.12, "Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation in PUDs and Subdivisions." Section 15.12(J) limits to 50 units the number of units allowed on a parcel served by a cul-de-sac. Unless waived by a DRB ruling, the allowed maximum density is 50 units. If more than 50 units are allowed on the site, the DRB must then decide if it will allow or require the connection. Vale drive neighbors and all other abutting owners object strongly to the proposed connection. Many witnesses have raised issues of safety, traffic congestion, peacefulness of their neighborhood and dangers to the Vale Drive and Four Sisters neighborhoods that would flow from a connection. These dangerous conditions would be even more serious if the road ultimately connected Vale Drive to Swift Street as well as to Spear Street. Moreover, the Applicant -- through Mr. Eric Farrell -- has made clear in a DRB presentation that the Applicant does not want to connect to Vale Drive unless the DRB forces it to do so. Mr. Farrell is acting as though the Applicant is required to connect to Vale Drive, but 10 the opposite is true. In reality, the Applicant must receive a waiver from the specific 50-unit density restriction in order to connect to Vale Drive. Under the SBLDR, allowing a Vale Drive connection would be an exception (not a requirement) to the rule that would otherwise limit Spear Meadows to 50 units (an exception that the Applicant has not requested). In the absence of such a request and findings by the DRB granting a connection, the Neighbors maintain that there can be no exception to the 50-unit density rule. 3. Safety Review Must Precede the Ru1inj! on a Vale Connection. If the Applicant were to request a waiver from § 15.12(J)'s 50-unit density rule, the DRB would then need to consider all of the evidence as well as the views of the City Engineer, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief and Director of Planning & Zoning. See SBLDR §§ 15.12(E)(4) and 15.12(J) (which are set out below). To date, these elements of proof have been absent in this matter. Moreover, until the above -discussed fire safety issues are resolved, there is no certainty that more than 50 units of density is even a possibility. If it turns out that less than 50 units are allowed due to fire safety concerns (or any other reason, for that matter), then there would be no need to consider a Vale Drive connection. In sum, the Neighbors respectfully request that the DRB reject any requested waiver of the requirements of SBLDR § 15.12(J) and that the DRB reject any Vale Drive connection, thereby limiting the density of the proposed Spear Meadows development to an absolute outside maximum of 50 units (or less) on this small parcel. 11 1' SBLDR § 15.12(E)(4) Modification of Roadway Standards. In any PUD or subdivision, the DRB may specifically authorize modification of the City's roadway standards in Table 15-1 below if it specifically finds that such modification is in furtherance of Comprehensive Plan policies and the goals for the specific zoning district in which a project is located, and that such modification is consistent with provisions for the public health, safety and welfare and the orderly development of the City. In making such a finding, the DRB shall consider the recommendation of the City Engineer, Director of Public Works and Fire Chief with respect to the City's ability to provide public services to the proposed subdivision or PUD. (Emphasis added.) SBLDR § 15.12(J) Culs-de-Sac. Cul-de-sac streets are recommended only in residential districts. The length of a cul-de- sac street shall be subject to the review and approval of the Fire Chief and City Engineer. The number of dwelling units served by a cul-de-sac or by a system of streets sharing a common single access to an arterial or collector street shall not exceed fifty (50) unless additional connections to other streets are approved by the Development Review Board after consultation with the City Engineer and Director of Planning & Zoning. (Emphasis added.) 12 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above and in the Neighbors' prior written and verbal submissions, the DRB should reject Master Plan Application #MP 11-03 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-51. Dated: March 20, 2012 Stowe, Vermont Respectfully submitted, BARR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: Daniel A. Seff Attorneys for Mr. William Gilbert and Ms. Maurene Gilbert, Dr. Thomas Kleh and Ms. Louise Kleh, Dr. Michael Scollins and Dr. Mary Scollins, Dr. Robert Skiff and Ms. Marley Skiff, and the Pinnacle at Spear Homeowners Association 125 Mountain Road Stowe, Vermont 05672 Phone: (802) 253-6272 Fax: (802) 253-6055 Email: dan@barrlaw.com cc: Mr. Mark Behr, DRB Chair (by hand) (seven copies) Mr. Ray Belair, Administrative Officer (by hand) Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (by hand) Robert H. Rushford, Esq., counsel for the Applicant (by hand) 13 South Burlington Fire Department 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 802-846-4110 February 16, 2012 Mr. Ray Belair City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Spear Meadows, Date of Plans 8-6-2010 AND 12-23-2011 Dear Ray: I have again reviewed the re -worked plans for the Spear Meadows project. I have the following recommendations: 1. The cul de sac as drawn and as currently exists at the end of Vale Drive is extremely difficult for our larger firefighting apparatus to negotiate. Improvements to, or removal of, the cul de sac to accommodate our apparatus is necessary. 2. Due to the private access roads to many of the structures, any of the structures except those which directly face/front Roads A, B, and C must have an approved NFPA 13 D sprinkler system installed in each occupancy. I believe that the buildings which need to have sprinklers are; 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 11, 13, 20, 23, 30, 36, 39, 41 and 44. 3. Installation of the necessary fire alarms and carbon monoxide detectors as required for occupancies such as these. 4. Compliance with all requirements of Vermont Division of Fire Safety codes and standards. 5. Install a hydrant in the vicinity of or at the end of Road C. With that exception the number and location of fire hydrants are acceptable and should be approved and finalized by the South Burlington Water Department. Page - 2 6. Trees and plantings should be located so as not to block windows or interfere with the use of the aerial ladder for rescue and firefighting purposes. This looks like it could be an issue with some of the trees shown. 7. Trees and plantings should be located so as not to interfere with the deployment of firefighting equipment and hoselines. 8. The access road/driveway widths within the clusters need to be sized to allow for parking, set-up and operation of fire apparatus. 18' width is recommended. At this point these seem to be the major issues which present themselves. As this project moves forward additional items may surface which could be dealt with as needed with the assistance of the developer and/or the Vermont Division of Fire Safety. Should you need any further assistance on this project please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Douglas S. Brent Chief of Fire and EMS South Burlington Fire Department 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 802-846-4110 February 16, 2012 Mr. Ray Belair City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Spear Meadows, Date of Plans 8-6-2010 AND 12-23-2011 Dear Ray: I have again reviewed the re -worked plans for the Spear Meadows project. I have the following recommendations: 1. The cul de sac as drawn and as currently exists at the end of Vale Drive is extremely difficult for our larger firefighting apparatus to negotiate. Improvements to, or removal of, the cul de sac to accommodate our apparatus is necessary. 2. Due to the private access roads to many of the structures, any of the structures except those which directly face/front Roads A, B, and C must have an approved NFPA 13 D sprinkler system installed in each occupancy. I believe that the buildings which need to have sprinklers are; 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 11, 13, 20, 23, 30, 36, 39, 41 and 44. 3. Installation of the necessary fire alarms and carbon monoxide detectors as required for occupancies such as these. 4. Compliance with all requirements of Vermont Division of Fire Safety codes and standards. 5. Install a hydrant in the vicinity of or at the end of Road C. With that exception the number and location of fire hydrants are acceptable and should be approved and finalized by the South Burlington Water Department. Page - 2 6. Trees and plantings should be located so as not to block windows or interfere with the use of the aerial ladder for rescue and firefighting purposes. This looks like it could be an issue with some of the trees shown. 7. Trees and plantings should be located so as not to interfere with the deployment of firefighting equipment and hoselines. 8. The access road/driveway widths within the clusters need to be sized to allow for parking, set-up and operation of fire apparatus. 18' width is recommended. At this point these seem to be the major issues which present themselves. As this project moves forward additional items may surface which could be dealt with as needed with the assistance of the developer and/or the Vermont Division of Fire Safety. Should you need any further assistance on this project please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, -D—VJ—& 'r. DE Douglas S. Brent Chief of Fire and EMS I To: Cathyann LaRose From: Justin Rabidoux Date: February 17, 2012 Re: #SD-11-51, Preliminary Plat Application Spear Meadows — Eric Farrell Public Works staff reviewed plans for the referenced project (plans entitled "Spear Meadows, Preliminary Plan Submittal 12-23-11", prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.) and has the following comments to offer. Landscaping 1. A different cultivar of Freeman Maple is recommended. Autumn Blaze tends to include numerous structural deficiencies and is becoming overused. The cultivars Celebration and Sienna Glen exhibit better form and are recommended. 2. Recommend substituting Swamp White Oak for some or all of the Red Oaks. Swamp White Oak is better adapted to the poorly drained, clay soils on this site. 3. Specify that tree planting islands included in the Recreation Path be filled with planting mix to a depth of 2.5 feet to provide adequate soil volume to support tree growth. 4. Should specify a list of tree species to be used in Orchard Mix. 5. Planting details should include specifications for amended backfill. Stormwater 6. This project will disturb greater than 1 acre of land and create greater than I acre of impervious area. Therefore, this project will need both a construction stormwater permit (3-9020 or individual permit) and an operational stormwater permit (3-9015 or individual permit) from the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Stormwater Division. The DRB shall make obtaining these two permits a condition of approval for this project. Information submitted to ANR for issuance of these permits should also be submitted to the DPW for review, comment, and inclusion in the City's Potash Brook watershed model prior to final submission. There is currently significant streambank erosion in the tributary of Potash Brook downstream of this project. Streambank erosion is currently visible between Swift Street and the Bike Path (west of the community garden plots on the Wheelock Farm). Information included in the modeling sent to ANR will help determine if this project will exacerbate this problem. 7. The project crosses wetland in two locations and will likely need a conditional use determination from the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation 57S Dorset Street South Burlington. VT 05403 tel 802.658 7961 fax 802.658.7976 www.sburi.com Physical Address: 104 Landfill Road South Burlington wetlands division. The DRB shall make obtaining this permit a condition of approval for this project. 8. Some of the units back up to the wetland and associated buffer (e.g. units 36, 40, 42, 45, 47, 50, 52, 10, 12). Use of this buffer area is regulated under section 12.02 of the City's Land Development Regulations (LDRs). The DRB should pay particular attention to section 12.02.E(1) through 12.02.E(3) of the LDRs and my want to include a condition that this buffer area not be turned into lawn. 9. All streams must be shown on the plans. Previous comments on this plan questioned the location of a nearby mapped stream (tributary of Potash Brook) near Vale Drive. If this is a stream, section 12.01 of the South Burlington LDRs discusses appropriate uses for the stream buffer area. The DRB should pay particular attention to section 12.0l .C(2) of the LDRs. Section 12.01.C(2)(c) of the LDRs states that the creation of new lawn areas is not permitted in the stream buffer area. 10. The project engineer should provide an analysis of downstream culverts and their ability to handle any additional volumes of runoff generated by this project. When completing this analysis, the engineer may find it helpful to review a report titled "Potash Brook Culvert Assessment and Prioritization" completed by Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC for the City of South Burlington Stormwater Services division in July 2011. While this report does not look at every culvert in the watershed, it does provide information on major stream crossings. It should be noted that the culvert directly downstream of this project (18" under Spear Street) was not included in the analysis. When evaluating this culvert, the engineer is encouraged to use a format similar to that used in the above referenced report. 11. Confum that all drainage pipes in the public ROW have a minimum diameter of 15". 12. Any drainage pipe outside the public ROW that may one day be turned over to the City for maintenance must be minimum 15". The current plan specifies that the majority of drainage pipe outside the ROW shall be 12". 13. The easements around the stormwater detention basins should be labeled as "Proposed stormwater pond easement in favor of the City of South Burlington". 14. Will construction traffic utilize Vale Drive? If so, the erosion control plan should require installation of a stabilized construction entrance in this location. 15. Shrubs are proposed to block the access to one of the stormwater detention ponds. They should be relocated. 16. Prior to final review, the applicant shall provide additional information (e.g. cross sections, orifice sizing, outlet elevation, maintenance access, fence specifications, etc.) for the proposed stormwater treatment ponds. This information would be included in the information submitted to ANR. General 17. All pavement markings shall be VTrans approved Type I Pavement Marking Tape. 18. Spear Meadow Road has a three -lane profile as it approaches Spear Street. Do projected traffic volumes warrant this profile or would a two-lane cross-section be appropriate? 19. There are multiple "roundabouts" shown in the bike path. Without knowing the function of these, we recommend removing them from the plan. 20. The limits of disturbance on Spear Street need to be shown on future plan submissions. 21. There is a proposed crosswalk crossing Spear Street at the projects main entrance. No advance warning signs are shown; nor is it clear what or where this crosswalk connects to. Has the applicant performed a warrant analysis to determine if this mid -block crossing is warranted? 22. Heading south on Spear Street, a lane assignment sign for the left and thru movements is needed. 23. The locations of ADA truncated dome installations are not shown. 24. Who will own/maintain the rec path as it goes around the "Neighborhood Park"? 25. Who will own/maintain the "Neighborhood Park"? 26. Who will own/maintain the gravel parking area at the west end of "Road C"? 27. The City is investigating switching its street light inventory to LED fixtures. The DRB shall require all applicants with street lights on proposed city streets to use exclusively LED fixtures with the further requirements that all proposed LED fixtures must have a Public Service Board approved rate tariff and be part of Green Mountain Power's normal inventory. 28. The cross sections on L002 show varying ROW widths. It is highly preferable to, within one neighborhood, have a uniform ROW. This ensures consistency on both policy implementation and maintenance. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and please let me know if you have questions. Farrell Real Estate P.O. Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402 802-861-3000 fax 802-861-3003 Memo To: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer From: Eric Farrell'' Date: 12/22/2011 Re: Spear Meadows, 1340 - 1350 Spear Street I am writing to provide additional information in support of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review application we submitted today. Project Design/Development Goals and Overview We have been asked on several occasions why we are not proposing fewer, larger and more expensive single-family homes, similar to those in adjacent neighborhoods and we have attempted to answer that question clearly and consistently. It is a well known fact that South Burlington needs new housing that is within the reach of average working families. Not only are smaller homes more affordable, they represent the first line of defense in responsible home -energy management. Our goal has always been to provide a variety of smaller more compact homes designed for greener living, while maintaining outdoor spaces, both private and public, for the enjoyment of the residents and their neighbors, including community gardens, public parks and recreation path connections. The final Spear Meadows design accomplishes the 5B LDR's goal for the SEQ of fostering attractive, walk -able neighborhoods that relate to scale, connectivity, and overall building orientation. The__ innovative design and architectural concept of Spear Meadows promote pedestrian friendly neighborhood living. The design/site planning is consistent with the tenants of "Traditional Neighborhood Design". Land Ownership Oroanization As depicted on the plans, the project site is subdivided into 7 Parcels and 46 Lots. Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 are common lands surrounding individual building lots. Parcel 5 is a Community Garden Area to be owned and maintained by the Spear Meadows Homeowners Association. Parcel 6 is a section of private road, to be owned and maintained by the Spear Meadows Homeowners Association. Parcel 7 is a Neighborhood Park to be owned and operated by the City. In addition to the 7 Parcels, there are 46 individual building lots to be owned by the record owners of the buildings constructed thereon (both single family and duplexes). It is our understanding that, because this is a PUD, all of these parcels and lots would be considered a single lot for zoning purposes, wherein internal boundary lines would be ignored. SOUTHEAST QUADRANT (SEQ) Heigh All of the buildings comply with the 35 foot height limit of the district. Open Space and Resource Protection Spear Meadows includes a generous Neighborhood Park and a Community Garden area that are adjacent to open land affiliated with the Pinnacle at Spear neighborhood to the south. These areas border a Class II wetland that runs through the center of the project site, creating a contiguous open space and wildlife corridor. It is the combination of these contiguous open space elements that present a significant natural area that will enhance the quality of life in the neighborhood. These elements will be preserved in perpetuity. Fencing and landscaping is proposed along the wetlands buffer for its protection. In addition to such barriers, an Open Space Management Plan will be promulgated and administered by the Spear Meadows Homeowners' Association. Agriculture We are studying the feasibility of incorporating the concepts of 'Permaculture' at Spear Meadows as an ecological design for sustainability of human endeavor into the landscape planting plan that will integrate local food production into the proposed development. Edible plantings have been incorporated around the proposed housing units, at the perimeter of wetland buffers, around storm water features and along side of pedestrian paths. A center to this approach will be anchored with a 1.82 acre Community Garden area. The landscape plans as presented include nearly 300 fruit and nut trees including, apples, pears, plums, cherries and hazelnuts and over 600 berry bushes including raspberries, black Berries, juneberries, bush cherries, gooseberries, black currants and red currants. Opportunity also exists to incorporate 9 Page 2 edible ground covers, such as Strawberries, Creeping Thyme, Chamomile, Mint and Lemon Balm. As development plans are further defined other programs through the Homeowners' Association may be possible, such as community organized composting and rain water harvesting. The 1.82 acre Community Gardens is planned to host 36 individual garden plots, each 10 x 20 feet, a 100 x 140 foot area designated for a shared community vegetable garden, a small fruit tree orchard, and a border of raspberries, blackberries and hazelnut bushes. An area of approximately 100 by 150 feet has been left undesignated that could accommodate expansion of any one or a combination of all three major components of the Community Gardens. A larger orchard is proposed near the storm water management pond along Spear Meadow Road. Other edible plantings are integrated throughout the community. A need to provide a buffer between proposed residential units and the recreational path along the eastern boundary of the project site was accomplished through a mix of fruiting trees and shrubs. As well, a combination of fruit and nut producing plantings line other pedestrian paths, designate the border of wetland buffers and surround storm water retention areas. Harvesting, pruning and other maintenance of the edible plantings will be managed through the Homeowners' Association and may include collaboration with a tenant farmer or maintenance company with added expertise to ensure continued perseverance and care of the plantings. The planting design will provide fresh quality local food for the residents of the Spear Meadows neighborhood and provide an opportunity for them to participate in and appreciate the "work" in growing food sustainably. Public Services and Facilities We have met with officials in the City to determine the validity of the design of Spear Meadows with respect to this section. Comments have been incorporated into the current design. Cirri dntinn In formulating the plans for Spear Meadows, keeping in mind the need for safe and efficient vehicular movements while safeguarding pedestrians and alternative modes of transportation, we created a street and recreation path network that is both convenient and accessible for the residents and visitors. The infrastructure provides linkage between adjacent neighborhoods and affords easy access to the proposed City Park and future Recreation Path connections. • Page 3 Street, Sidewalk & Parkina Standards We have met with City officials to ensure we are in compliance with street regulations with respect to intersection design, on -street parking layout and design, sidewalks and lighting. Spear Meadows actually exceeds the required sidewalk standard by placing sidewalks on both sides of the street, providing improved safety for residents and visitors, as well as improved access. Although we do not strictly meet the building setback guideline, the benefit is a greater fostering of increased "front porch interaction". Also under this regulation, the proposed development exceeds the requirement for the green space planting strip. The additional width ensures the continued health and longevity of the street trees. Public Park Area Per the LDR's, at 2.25 occupants per dwelling unit and a required park area of 7.5 acres per 1,000 person population of the development, the 67 units proposed would require a park area of 1.13 acres (67 x 2.25 = 151 persons / 1,000 persons x 7.5 acres = 1.13 acres). The proposed plans depict a "Neighborhood Park" on Parcel 7 containing 2.253 acres, fully 1.12 acres more than required. The public park will be owned by the City of South Burlington and contain a full basketball court, off street parking for approximately 10 cars and a spacious passive recreation area, subject to the approval of the Recreation Board. It will be accessible by a city -owned roadway (Park Street) and an extension of the recreation path network. The proposed plans also depict a Community Garden Area on Parcel 5 for the exclusive use of residents of the Spear Meadows development. It will be located adjacent to the public park and contain approximately 1.852 acres. It will be owned and operated by the Spear Meadows Homeowners Association. Both the public park and the community garden area are contiguous to the natural area that was preserved in connection with the Pinnacle at Spear development to the south many years ago. Street Blocks and Street Connections to Adjoining Parcels The main public street is proposed at 26 feet wide, allowing for undesignated parking on one side; 18 feet at the wetland crossings and 24 feet for the Vale Drive connection. Sidewalks are proposed at 5 feet wide; and the street -side green belt area is proposed at 6.5 feet wide to accommodate generous street trees, in full compliance with the LDR's. • Page 4 Per the Land Development Regulations, Article 2, Definitions, a Block is: "A unit of land bounded by streets or by a combination of streets and public land, railroad rights -of -way waterways or any other barrier to the continuity of development." By that definition, the Spear Meadows project has six public street blocks, as follows: 1. Road A/Spear Street intersection east to wetland buffer - 450' 2. Wetland buffer east to Road A/Road B intersection - 160' 3. Road A/Road B intersection south to Road B/Road C intersection - 770' 4. Road B/Road C intersection west to wetland buffer - 170' 5. Road B/Road C intersection south to Recreation Path intersection - 375' 6. Road B/Recreation Path intersection south to Vale Drive cul-de-sac - 350' 7. Road A/Road B intersection north to UVM's land (private) - 225' Only the block length (number 3 above) does not strictly conform to the regulations. However, this road section can be halved by adding another Recreation Path link from the east side of the street to the recreation Path along the east boundary line of the PUD. This connection has not been shown, because for efficient planning purposes, such linkage is unnecessary, except to strictly meet the guideline in the LDR's. The street and Recreation Path connections to Vale Drive will link the two neighborhoods providing residents of both neighborhoods with "non -circuitous" driving routes to local destinations. The overall design of the streets, sidewalks and Recreation Path in Spear Meadows enhances the livability of the neighborhood and provides for the most efficient vehicular pattern and layout for alternative modes of transportation within the constraints of the natural features of the project site. Building Orientation and Glazing Through the use of creative design and theme/variation architecture, each and every residential unit in the development is oriented to the street, as depicted on Drawing L001. There is direct access from the sidewalk to each front door. Per the attached Memorandum and Schedules from studio b architecture, our current plan yields 29% "translucent windows and surfaces oriented to the south". The irregular shape of the parcel makes it difficult to reach the 35% guideline, while satisfying the regulation of orientating all buildings to the street. • Page 5 Front Building Setbacks The homes fronting on the street are set back 15 - 20 feet from the public ROW and some of the porches are set back 10 feet from the public ROW. In combination with a 5 foot sidewalk and 6.5 foot green belt, this juxtaposition will present an intimate local street experience and serve to foster conversation between passing pedestrians and residents. The reduced front yard setbacks also allow for greater buffering from the Class II wetlands, as recommended by the DRB at Sketch Plan Review. Placement of Garages and Parking At Spear Meadows, our goal was to avoid a row of garages facing the street. Of the 46 buildings proposed, 4 single family homes have garages that face the street. Two of these garages are to the rear of the main house and two are set back from the front facade of the house. In all other instances, the garages are located behind the buildings and do not face the street. Mix of Housing Types & Building Facades The architectural design of the proposed development intends to lend the feel of the Vermont farmhouse, with many variations of porch design, window design and door placement with smaller "farmhouse" buildings in the foreground and larger "barn" buildings located to the rear. Each building has a front porch of varied design that orients to the street. Consistency is offered through color palette and conceptual design, while variation is offered through type of unit and front porch size and type. There are 5 basic single family building models, across which there are small, medium and large floor plan alternatives resulting in different home styles ranging in size from 1,373 sf to 2,200 sf. In addition to the floor plan alternatives, there are several garage arrangements, both attached and detached, which will serve to add even more variety to the building configurations. There are 7 basic duplex building models, townhouses, flat -over -flats and carriage units (flat over a garage), within which there are several floor plan alternatives. This results indifferent building styles ranging in size from 2,736 sf to 3,400 sf (both units). Within the different building styles, there are 9 variations of individual unit floor plans ranging in size from 1,005 sf to 2,200 sf. The average size of a duplex structure is consistent in scale and massing with the existing single family and duplex structures in the surrounding neighborhoods. • Page 6 The building facades employ a common theme, while also presenting sufficient variation so as to not be monotonous. All of the individual buildings present a diverse streetscape due to varying home sizes, roof orientation, exterior fenestration and porch design and garage access. Taking all these facts into consideration, Spear Meadows likely offers more variation and mix of housing types than any other development currently permitted in South Burlington. Recreation Path Committee Recommendations The proposed plans incorporates all of the recommendations of previous Recreation Path Committee reviews, including locating the recreation path along the easterly boundary line of the project site, making various connections to the street -sidewalk network within the development and eliminating the berm along Spear Street (in front of Gary's existing home), so as to accommodate a future recreation path along the east side of Spear Street. The Recreation Path Committee recommended a bike lane along the Spear Street frontage and a 10-foot easement along the entire westerly boundary of the Community Garden Area was requested. In response to these two new requests, we have re -designed the east side of Spear Street to accommodate a bike lane. We will provide a 10-foot wide easement from the Neighborhood Park to a point on the western boundary line of the Community Garden Area, such point to be determined when and if the City acquires an easement for the future installation of a Recreation Path to connect to Spear Street. Landscaping Budget Total building costs are estimated at $12,000,000. At the rate of 3.0% times the first $250,000 in costs; 2.0% times the next $250,000 in costs; and 1.0% times the balance, the total amount of required landscape plantings is $127,500. We have proposed total landscape plantings of $255,455, plus Street Trees of $52,525, plus Park plantings of $16,760. DRB Meeting We intend to have our plans available on power -point for easier viewing by the DRB and the public and hope to be able to address any other areas of the LDR's that I may have overlooked in this memo. Our presentation will include various streetscape elevations to demonstrate and reinforce the diversity and quality of the design. Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information. Attachments • Page 7 memorandum: to: Eric Farrell Farrell Real Estate cc: studio b file TJ Boyle & Associates from: Susan Coddaire date: 1/26/2011 re: Building Orientation- South Facing Glazing architecture Based on the 12 building types for which we have designed typical elevations, the current arrangement on our Site Plan yields 29% "translucent windows and surfaces oriented to the south." Given the geometry of the parcel as well as various site plan requirements- including street orientation, wetland buffers, contiguous open space, etc.- by necessity, solar orientation has not been a driving concept in the site design. Indeed however, day -lighting, passive solar design and a high benchmark for energy -efficiency have been fundamental considerations in the architectural design for Spear Meadows. We fully support the City's initiative in addressing the issue of south -facing glazing. While the 35% directive may be a good general guideline, additional factors must be considered in order to truly maximize building performance. Among these considerations are specific climate conditions, site location, as well as technical glazing specification. While the goal of the ordinance is to provide 35% of all translucent material facing south, my opinion is that our current calculation of 29% glazing facing south in combination with other measures toward the same goal (outlined below) will meet — and probably exceed- the intent of the 35% guideline. These measures may include the following: 1) Consider similar building types on a case -by -case basis during the Construction Document design phase where site -specific adjustments can be made for each building (i.e. maximize window size on the south elevation, and minimize to the north). 2) Passive Solar Design: Specify clear glazing for all south —facing windows where there is access for winter solar heat gain. Deciduous plantings and/or overhangs for summer shading could be considered for passive solar design. All north, east and west -facing windows could be specified for LowE II glazing. Triple -glazing on all north elevations is an option, but cost/benefit may be prohibitive. 3) Design for Passive Cooling: create opportunities for cross -ventilation, and stack -effect cooling. 22 church street #304 burlington, vt 05401 www.studiobvt.com reference: Building:* H-alt No. 2 !YM H SOUTH ELEVATION: SIDE S- GLAZING: 102 TOTAL GLAZING: 411 % SOUTH: 24.8% H-alt N N 3 N MOTOR 84 415 20.3% B2 B2 4 B FRONT 73 241 30.3% P P 5 P FRONT 131 529 24.8% C1 C2 6 C FRONT 104 251 41.5% JX-alt 1X 7 1X FRONT 142 426 33.3% BX2 BX2 8 BX MOTOR 77 261 29.6% B2 132 9 B MOTOR 70 241 29.0% N N 10 N MOTOR 84 415 20.3% HX HX 11 HX SIDE 87 384 22.6% B2 B2 12 B MOTOR 70 241 29.0% CX1 CX2 13 CX REAR 32 220 14.5% A2d A2d 14 A MOTOR 64.65 239 27.0% M M 15 M MOTOR 118 414 28.5% B2 132d 16 B SIDE 72.85 241 30.2% HX HX 17 HX SIDE 87 384 22.6% H-alt H 18 H MOTOR 153 411 37.4% BX2 BX2 19 BX SIDE 73 261 28.0% J-alt 1 20 1 MOTOR 139 413 33.7% CI C2d 21 C SIDE 82 251 32.7% M M 22 M MOTOR 118 414 28.5% B2 132d 23 B MOTOR 70 241 29.0% ix-alt 1X 24 1X SIDE 149 426 34.9% B2 B2 25 B MOTOR 70 241 29.0% BX2 BX2r 26 BX REAR 47 280 16.8% J-alt 1 27 1 SIDE 126 413 30.4% C1 C1 28 C FRONT 104 251 41.5% BX2 BX1 29 BX FRONT 82 261 31.5% H-alt H 30 H SIDE 102 411 24.8% CX1 CX1 31 CX SIDE 96.4 220 43.8% P P 32 P MOTOR 66 529 12.5% A2d Al 33 A MOTOR 64.65 239 27.0% H-alt H-alt 34 H MOTOR 153 411 37.4% HX HX-alt 35 HX SIDE 87 384 22.6% CX1 CX2r 36 CX FRONT 55 220 24.9% B2 B2 37 CX SIDE 72.85 241 30.2% N N 38 N MOTOR 84 415 20.3% A2d A2d 39 A MOTOR 65 239 27.0% B2 61 40 B MOTOR 70 241 29.0% N N 41 N SIDE 130 415 31.3% CX1 CXl 42 CX SIDE 96.4 220 43.8% N N 43 N MOTOR 84 415 20.3% CI C2d 44 C SIDE 81.9 251 32.7% CXi CX2 45 CX SIDE 96 220 43.8% N N 46 N SIDE 130 415 31.3% HX HX-alt 47 HX MOTOR 151 384 39.4% B2 62r 48 B REAR 47 280 16.8% TOTAL WINDOWS ORIENTED SOUTH: 4345 15327 29% * Building variations listed in bold type represent 'Basic Building Type' from which glazing values have been derived. The building configurations are as follows: Single Family Homes 1 - existing Single -Family Home —1 unit 24 - new Single -Family Homes — 25 units Duplex Buildings • Ground Floor Flats — 6 units • Flat over a Flat — 6 units Flats over Garage — 15 units Townhouse — 15 units Phasing We propose to permit the project as one phase, which will be built out over several years depending on market conditions. We request permission to construct the first 31 units using our base density, at which time we will purchase and provide TDR's from the Leduc Farm for the remaining 36 units. We request permission to construct the first 50 units, which would take us up to the intersection of Road B (ultimately to be an extension of Vale Drive) and Road C, before being required to complete the connection to the existing Vale Drive cul-du-sac. Review by Public Works Director Prior to issuing the revised plans, the Project Engineer reviewed them with Justin Rabidoux, Public Works Director. We believe the plans, as submitted, meet all of his requirements set forth in his 9/28/10 Memo, some of which he has since modified. DRB Meetinq Please schedule us before the DRB at its convenience and let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information. Attachments • Page 2 LIST OF REQUESTED WAIVERS The Applicant hereby requests a waiver of the following Regulation(s): 1) Section 9.08 2) Table C-2 See below for specific regulations and information regarding waiver requests. 1) Section 9.08 reads as follows: 649.08 SEQ-NRT and SEQ-NR Sub -Districts; Specific Standards The SEQ-NR and SEQ-NRT sub -districts have additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A. Street, block and lot pattern. (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear feet. If it is unavoidable, blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid -block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. Figure 9-2: Typical SEQ-NR and SEQ-NRT Block Size and Lot Proportion (2) Interconnection of Streets (a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet." The revised plans depict 6 street blocks having the following lengths: 450',160', 770', 170', 375' and 350', plus one private street bock measuring 225'. These measurements are between intersecting streets, recreation path connections, or other natural barriers to development. The longest block (770') can be halved by the addition of another recreation path link. 2) The setback language in the SEQ-NR Sub -District section of the LDRs is a recommended guideline and therefore, the requirement in Table C-2 governs. We request a waiver of the setback requirement outlined in Table C-2 to accommodate additional buffering of the Class II Wetlands, per the recommendation and request of the Development Review Board at Sketch Plan Review. 1 I I SITE ENGINEER: M. and M. Scorns I I L leham Estate 1160-00214 I T, and L KM 0570-01225 1160-00219 W WIDE 25' WEBIT.COMIC.W� 24• WADE BIT, ASTRONOYIc WIDE R and M. Skiff ,o wDE BT. BIowAIX CON iR Ca�F ��aA® TNT ,RREGTFAIN / 1645-00069 WUK BIT, 5 HIDE CONC. OON� . BEC PATH - - - 1V WIDE BIT. CONC. ROAD W SIOCKUK JI- OoNc RE0. PATH CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC, - - -- -. I - _ __ _ ------------- ----------------------_-ma� _ ANE, SOUTH .�NG.IO.,N -- - _ -----_- eft �------------- v.�,-10 A Pi�le . at Spear 3 ® • I 1 - 3xp0 DRAB+ 8 11 CL N av A I 6 � ■ � /7 � "\ ex C�c® A riAa77a -- - - _ ---- " "" 1 \ ?n+ SAV +oar I 1 i SAV 1 • O206+00 20]+00 20R+Oa 21 +00 2oatoo ~ • 6�_- . . PROJECT: Ler/iin/Milot Partnership ` SPEAR r -- ---- -- - ----- -- --- 1742-00033 - -- -- - - -- --- - -- - o I I -- ' N PA- L 6 - uu UU _ --- . .:. II % , , MEADOWS _ J .4 . ; 3 SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 1 - ._• ��— WIDE T. Q�\� I Op10BlE '. •. IO' C. W. Spear Meadows, Inc. I DONc REc PATH TER POND —._. _. _. —._. ..... _. ._. _. _. 0-13 1 ARCEL.4.".'.'.'.'.'.'....!,'.•�;!�,:.: a: �.:�:i:�.'. \.• {MENT IN PARCEL -Avon of I I ------------ - - ^:..:� ...:: .'•.';i' '';:':i: n souTTi le WIDE sr. �. �. 1 I / INCTON RQAL',..i:+:�:�:::.:.::z:. RL A�fiE'0. CLASS iY. r• l ^�Y •WERN 'fL D'S B' WIDE • BR. • _.-._._.—. OONC. ROAD / IT / r PARCEL 1• }I I`.:,: ... . oOi'ie:+-30:'..': I I�STORMWATER POND/ �+.:Y...,.i :r:..•:IM,IF],fA,N:'G,;:i:(3UN1tiltd,All:::: .::...:.:::.:..:::'•.•:`.:. 1 EASEMENT IN / .'•.'i�•.'.,'�•. FAVOR OF THE 1Y souTH E CI I �. 1 I � r I I aC OR■ I BURLINCTON I I / '� , I ,; �, `;•;:;;';'•::.,:?::.:;t;'.,:`•'.':..:�':::`:':.'.::,t:.' CUT LEGEND I , R -5 / — — EXISTING CONTOUR I 5 u 14 ■DES ROAD OETEMTION / /' I — —SS GRAVITY SEVER LINE _--_ -------------------- W. and M. Gilbert '_�. PAR L 7 I • ... , r-- ---- I i — —FM— FORCE VAN! sAWur4s ---- 1640-01400 —W— WATERLINE I I I T ; SPRUCES / I 1 l NEIG BORHOOD — —OE— OVERHEAD ELECTRIC 5 6 O / i PARK - I —UE— UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC Id W" BIT. I I = —UT— UNDEROROUNO TELEPHONE PARIGNO AREA 1 ;'ky}"�:. COIIC. REF PAIN I — G — GAS LINE f3 Farrell 10' PEDESTRIA S Q — / EASEMENT �. / I —ST— STORM DRAINAGE LINE ' / / - - I] O GRAVITY SEWER CLEANOUT / / / ® LOT 1 « �,.... 7 `� Open Space m L.U. m SEWER MANHOLE 1640-0130 {; G end J. Farrell ' / / • f j Pinnacle of Spear ® ® STORM MANHOLE O NEW 2B• WIDE BIT. 1640-01350 / / I ! �� / I 1X 39 HYDRANT I / / _ _ I I / ■ ■ POLITER BASIN POWER POLE T/ Ct-L 5 EWOODS % I - 2 UNITY---, ® TRANSFORMER CABINET J I •I `� AR D � `��1 DaTa csc® MOM 4 Il I I I Roy` sm■R" Aec. MID PWi I'RR RIr R CmnImmD /\ \ U-a-U s.v/LIT. Tm ■ c / I 1 i 'r 1 \ \ PAPA CONSTPRICTED Tow © i/ / i / r I I I © ' \ �pL ROAD BIRUC1LRea / Q / / //i \ J L and D. Y� I ` \ 1640-01402 andJ. Farce 1 I ® Vo e 1.9 cres 5 47 G BpOrZynBkj \ t2.9aYa L1\ I Consuela Bailey Estate \ •' Rand T. I i • 1640-01408 • �' I ; I Tarrant C/o ' I M. Dencker 1640-01430 / '/ SITE PLAN 6 oHo Hackett I 317 Exlsnrc SMH \ \ '� I I 1 I 1640-01404 I I RIM-390.Ot n , \ I I I �I �. and I C. Franzom INV-385.4t 1640-01406 R and E. Lavigne 1640-01331 1 I I B. and T. \\ RIM-380.2EXSTING S H Ii Ii I 11i Ii I I I I r// �/ i I If 1640c1ne-INY-37s.1t ' AUG., 2010 DRA■ixc RID®■■ I I EXISTING SMH GRA HIC SCALE jRIM-3B4,St � ss�\ 1 I I I 1 INV-379.2E \ \ \ \ \ \� y \ / I I I I I 1' - 60� C1.1 \ SSA \ l l EXISTING SMHIN FEL7 R=377.St I h >eo 1 / 02250 IM I I I I fl. i to PINNACLE AT SPEARRETURN TO SE-NDER 1 NOT DELIVERAMLE AS ADDRESSED —U lIT,. l "3�s r TO: South Burlington property owners SUBJECT: Application before the Development Review Board for an abutting property The enclosed Development Review Board public notice or agenda is being sent to you because you have been identified as an abutting landowner to a proposed land development listed on the attachment. The distribution of this information to the abutting landowners is required by state law. You are encouraged to attend and participate in the public hearing as participation in the local proceeding is a prerequisite to the right to take any subsequent appeal. Should you have any questions about the proposal, or wish to view the submittals, please contact the South Burlington Department of Planning & Zoning. They can be reached at (802) 846-4106 or at City of South Burlington, Department of Planning & Zoning, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. Approved for Distribution by South Burlington Department of Planning & Zoning ;VON „ .001�m southbur in ton PLANNING & ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD The South Burlington Development Review Board will hold a public hearing in the South Burlington City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on February 21, 2012 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: Final plat application #SD-12-02 Pizzagalli Properties, LLC for a planned unit development consisting of a 45,000 sq. ft. medical office building, 119 Tilley Drive 2. Final plat application #SD-11-52 of F & M Development Company, LLC to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing an existing health club, 2) subdividing a 2.67 acre parcel into two (2) lots of 1.42 acres & 1.25 acres, 3) constructing a 49 unit multi -family dwelling, 4) constructing a 62 unit multi -family dwelling, 5) converting 5000 sq. ft. of general office use to medical office use (38 Eastwood Dr.) and 5) including the adjacent two (2) developed properties at 20 Joy Drive and 38 Eastwood Drive into the proposed PUD. The amendment consists of: 1) converting the proposed 49 unit multi -family dwelling to a 47 unit congregate care housing facility, 2) increasing the number of multi -family dwelling units in the south building from 62 units to 63 units, and 3) other minor building and site modifications, 78 & 80 Eastwood Drive. 3. Master plan application #MP-11-03 & preliminary plat application #SD-11-51 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned unit development on 25.91 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 24 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 21 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. Mark Behr, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. Participation in the local proceeding is a prerequisite to the right to take any subsequent appeal. February 2, 2012 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburt.com BARR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. RUSSELL D. BARR•• JESSE M. GOLDFINE+ ATTORNEYS AT LAW JENNIFER J. LAJOIE• 125 MOUNTAIN ROAD NEW YORK OFFICE 100 PARK AVENUE DANIEL A. SEFF•• STOWE, VERMONT 05672 SUITE 1600 ALLEN C.B. HORSLEY, OF COUNSEL# TEL: (802) 253-6272 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017 TEL: (212) 486-3910 MEMBER VT AND NY BARS FAX: (802) 253.6055 FAX: (212) 486-7688 *MEMBER VT BAR www.barriaw.com +MEMBER VT, MA AND RI BARS February 21, 2012 SCOTT L. KEYES, LAW CLERK #MEMBER VT AND MA BARS VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Mark Behr, Chair South Burlington Development Review Board City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Master Plan Application #MP-11-03 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD-11-51 of Farrell Real Estate, (S. Burl. Dev. Rev. Bd.) Dear Chairman Behr: I serve as counsel for William Gilbert and Ms. Maurene Gilbert of 1400 Spear Street (the "Gilberts"), Dr. Thomas Kleh and Ms. Louise Kleh of 219 Meadowood Drive, Dr. Michael Scollins and Dr. Mary Scollins of 214 Meadowood Drive, Dr. Robert Skiff and Ms. Marley Skiff of 89 Springhouse Road, and the Pinnacle at Spear Homeowners Association, all of whom are South Burlington residents as well as abutters and/or interested persons in the above -referenced matters (collectively, the "Spear Meadows Opposition Group"). On February 16, 2012, the Gilberts filed a Motion to Dismiss the above -referenced Applications. I am authorized to state that all members of the Spear Meadows Opposition Group hereby join in the Gilberts' Motion to Dismiss and respectfully request that the above -referenced Applications be rejected and dismissed. Thank you very much for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Daniel A. Seff cc: Mr. Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer (via email on Feb. 17th) Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via email on Feb. 17th) Mr. Kevin Donahue, President, Pinnacle at Spear Homeowners Ass'n (via email on Feb. 17th) Mr. William Gilbert and Ms. Maurene Gilbert (via email on Feb. 17th) Dr. Thomas Kleh and Ms. Louise Kleh (via email on Feb. 17th) Dr. Michael Scollins and Dr. Mary Scollins (via email on Feb. 17th) Dr. Robert Skiff and Ms. Marley Skiff (via email on Feb. 17th) Robert Rushford, Esq. (via hand delivery on Feb. 21st) (intended) City of South Burlington Development Review Board MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-11-03 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-11-51 Motion to Dismiss Procedural Status: Spear Meadows, Inc. filed applications on December 23, 2011 for Preliminary Plat (#SD-11-51) and Master Plan (#MP-11-03) approvals. The project as applied for is for a 67-unit development. The South Burlington Land Development Regulations (SBLDR) at § 15.02(B) require that applications for development review must be made as a PUD in certain specific situations, including, "All applications for development in the Southeast Quadrant District other than a single-family or two-family residence." Therefore the DRB must review the Application under the provisions of SBLDR Article 15. Procedural Issues: 1. -- Sketch Plan Required -- In these Dockets (#MP-11-03 and #SD-11-51) the Applicant has never made the required Sketch filing preceding the instant December 23, 2011 filing for Master Plan and Preliminary Plat. There are several specific steps set out in SBLDR Article 15 that are required of any Applicant for PUD approval. In particular, Section 15.05 requires that the Applicant file for Sketch Plan Review. See SBLDR § 1505(A), "Sketch Plan Required for PUD and Subdivision." (Exhibit 1, below.) Sketch Plan review is not an Applicant option. Indeed, Applicant made exactly this point in its recent memo to the DRB in an earlier matter: Sketch plan review is an initial screening process for "the purpose of classification and initial review" of the proposal. LDR § 15.05(A). The DRB's review during sketch plan consists of a determination as to "whether the sketch plan meets the purposes of these regulations and shall, where it deems necessary, make specific suggestions to be incorporated by the applicant in subsequent submissions." LDR § 15.05(C)(3). [August 2011 Memorandum to DRB on behalf of Farrell Real Estate, at page 3.] The DRB has no authority to proceed with Master Plan or Preliminary Plat consideration in these Dockets absent compliance with the mandatory provisions that require Sketch Plan approval and determinations under State law and SBLDR § 1505. See 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a), which requires written minutes of DRB votes "showing the vote of each member upon each question...." See also SBLDR § 15.05(C)(3) (during sketch plan review, the DRB "shall determine if the proposed application meets the purposes of the SBLDR. (Emphasis added.) The December 23, 2011 Applications for Preliminary Plat (#SD-11-51) and Master Plan (#MP-11- 03) approvals must therefore be dismissed. 2. -- Incomplete Sketch Proceedings in Prior Dockets -- The Applicant may seek to treat these new Dockets as a Preliminary Plat and Master Plan application following the incomplete previous Sketch filing made prior to November 2011, as #SD-11-36, which, on December 23, 2011, was still pending before the DRB and was then set for a continued hearing on January 3, 2012. There is no basis for such treatment. See below -- Note on SD11-36. First, the DRB was still in session on the required Sketch meeting in SD-11-36. The Applicant cannot claim that a Sketch hearing that has been continued is complete while it is still in session. (See Larkin DRB 2/9/2011). A continued meeting cannot be said to have "been held" until completed, i.e., with the mandatory recorded vote and required determinations. See 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a), and SBLDR § 15.05(C)(3), quoted above. Second, SDA 1-36 is a completely different Application and was, as of December 23, 2011, a Sketch Application for a 70-unit PUD with a different configuration than the current Applications. The dockets today seek 67 units laid out differently than in SDA 1-36. The parties that received notice in the fall of 2011 regarding the earlier Sketch docket are very likely different than the parties noticed for the new Dockets, as homes are bought and sold in the neighboring lands. Moreover, the fees have been paid by the Applicant and notice sent as a new Docket, and NOT as a consolidated Docket. Third, the Applicant neither objected to, nor did it appeal, the DRB's action to continue the SD-11- 36 Sketch proceeding hearing. As the Applicant has argued to this Board in the past, there is no Sketch approval until the minutes of the meeting at which the approval vote took place are approved. (See the Minutes of DRB Meeting September 20, 2012 ("Mr. Rushford said they can either be timed to a signed decision or to the approval of Minutes. Since there is no decision given for a sketch plan review, the Court says timing is from the approval of the Minutes"). See also the above -cited Memorandum from Mr. Rushford. The DRB has no authority to proceed with Master Plan or Preliminary Plat consideration in the absence of compliance with the mandatory provisions that require Sketch Plan approval and determinations under 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a) and SBLDR § 15.05(C)(3). The new Applications must therefore be rejected. 3 -- Interim Zoning Applies -- The rights of the Applicant have not vested under the pre -Interim Zoning SBLDR. The current December 23, 2011 filing was intended to avoid the Interim Zoning Resolution known to the Applicant to have already passed by the City Council. However, even if the current Dockets filed on December 23, 2011 were to be treated as timely filed, the Applicant and the DRB must proceed under the provisions of the Interim Zoning (IZ) Resolution adopted by the City Council on December 19, 2011. The Vermont Supreme Court provides guidance on the issue of vesting: The application intended to trigger vesting must be "validly brought and pursued in good faith...." Smith v. Winhall Planning Comm'n, 140 Vt. 178 (1981). Under State law, the Interim Zoning proposal is given effect from issuance of a "public notice." 24 V.S.A. § 4449(d) requires only a "public notice" be given: "If a public notice for a first public hearing pursuant to subsection 4442(a) of this title is issued under this chapter by the local legislative body...." Here, the Applicant cannot meet either test: Where the Applicant has actual Notice of the Interim Zoning Resolution and participated in the consideration of that Resolution, a later effort to claim vested rights from lack of notice cannot to be given any weight. Moreover, failing to seek Sketch Plan Review on a new Docket with a different number and layout of proposed units is neither a proper nor a valid filing. It is nothing but a procedural gambit to elude the Interim Zoning requirements. Hence, the provisions of the IZ Resolution as approved will apply. The Agenda Item as noticed for the City Council Meeting stated: "6. Consider Resolution to Establish an Interim Zoning By-law and set a public hearing on the Interim By-law for Tuesday, 17 January 2012." This public notice by the City Council was then followed by the more formal December 28, 2011 official public notice of the public hearing to be held on January 17, 2012. The City Council announced the public hearing on Interim Zoning and passed the IZ resolution in public session on December 19, 2011. The Applicant had actual notice of the resolution as passed by the City Council on December 19, 2011. In fact, the Applicant actually participated in the City Council Meeting through the testimony of Mr. Gary Farrell, as set forth in the City Council Minutes. The agent for the Spear Meadows Project, Mr. Eric Farrell, was also in attendance. (See CCTV tape at 61:30.) 2 For the reasons set out above, any attempt to claim that a pre -December 23, 2011 Sketch Plan hearing was all that was necessary to permit the vested filing of the December 23, 2011 Applications would not be valid nor in good faith. In short, the new Preliminary Plat and Master Plan applications must fail. Note on Docket SDA1-36: The DRB, at the end of the January 3, 2012 hearing, ruled that this Preliminary Plat and Master Plan Dockets (11-51 and 11-03, respectively) were not before the DRB and could not be discussed. That ruling confirms that the current Preliminary Plat Docket (as well as the accompanying Master Plan Docket) and the prior Sketch Docket SD-11-36 are distinct and different. To rule otherwise now would constitute an indefensible procedural shuffle to benefit the Applicant. More specifically, according to the Minutes of the DRB in Docket SD-11-36, the DRB concluded merely that the matter should "go forward." No findings were made and no vote was taken. During the hearing, the DRB Chair asserted that the DRB would not provide such specific findings or a vote. One DRB member even assented to going forward only on the basis of reports of off-the-record meetings in previous Dockets by some DRB members with the City Attorney. (Some of these discussions were over a year old with a different DRB membership.) (See CCTV video record of January 3, DRB hearing.) Clearly, this does not come close to meeting the requirements of 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a) and SBLDR § 15.05(C)(3). Indeed, the DRB has thus far refused to provide findings of fact on several issues raised by the Applicant in the Sketch matter and has not made any recorded -vote "determinations," which are required under 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a) and SBLDR § 15.05(C)(3). The Minutes from the January 3, 2012 state merely that "All members agreed the plan should go forward." Respectfully Submitted, this 161h Day of February, 2012, William and Maurene Gilbert, 1400 Spear Street, South Burlington, Vermont. William A. Gilbert Maurene Gilbert 3 Exhibit 1 15.05 Sketch Plan Review A. Sketch Plan Required for PUD and Subdivision. For the purpose of classification and initial review, any applicant for a subdivision or PUD of land shall, prior to submitting an application for subdivision approval, submit to the Administrative Officer at least ten days prior to a regularly scheduled meeting of the Development Review Board a sketch plan of the proposed PUD or subdivision, which shall include the following information: (1) Name and address of the owner of record and applicant. (2) Name of owners of record of contiguous properties. (3) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic). The preferred scale shall be not more than one hundred (100) feet to the inch, or not more than sixty (60) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (100) feet of frontage. (4) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. (5) Boundaries and area of: (a) All contiguous land belonging to owner of record, (b) The proposed subdivision, and (c) Existing zoning districts (boundaries only). ARTICLE 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective January 11, 2010 15-4 (6) Existing and proposed layout of property lines; type and location of existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and covenants. (7) Type of, location, and size of existing and proposed streets, structures, utilities, and open space. (8) Existing water courses, wetlands, floodplains, wooded areas, ledge outcrops, and other natural features. (9) Location of existing septic systems and wells. B. Site plan information. All applicable information required for a site plan pursuant to Section 14.05 of these Regulations shall be submitted at preliminary plat stage for subdivisions involving commercial or industrial uses, multi -family uses, or planned unit development. C. Sketch plan review procedures. (1) Classification. The Administrative Officer shall, prior to the meeting on the sketch plan, classify the subdivision proposal as either a Minor Subdivision or a Major Subdivision/PUD. The Administrative Officer shall also determine whether the application requires Master Plan review, and shall duly note any request by an applicant for review and approval pursuant to the PUD and/or Master Plan provisions in Article 15. (2) Meeting required. The applicant, or his duly authorized representative, shall attend the meeting of the Development Review Board on the sketch plan to discuss the application. (3) Review by DRB. The Development Review Board shall determine whether the sketch plan meets the purposes of these regulations and shall, where it deems necessary, make specific suggestions to be incorporated by the applicant in subsequent submissions. At this time, the Development Review Board may determine that a minor subdivision developer shall supply additional material normally required for a major subdivision at the warned public hearing. 4 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 3rd day of February, 2012, a copy of the foregoing public notice for Master Plan Application #MP-11-03 and Final Plat Application #SD-11-51, was sent by U.S. mail, postage prepaid to the owners of all properties adjoining the subject property to development, without regard to any public right-of-way, and including the description of the property and accompanying information provided by the City of South Burlington. I further certify that this notification was provided to the following parties in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4464(a) and Section 17.06(B) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: List of recipients: Attached Dated at Colchester, Vermont, this 3rd day of February, 2012. Printed Name: Eric F. Farrell Phone number and email: (802) 861-3000; efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com Signature: il�� Date: February 3, 2012 Remit to: City of South Burlington Department of Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington Sample Certificate of Service Form. Rev. 1-2012 TO: South Burlington property owners SUBJECT: Application before the Development Review Board for an abutting property The enclosed Development Review Board public notice or agenda is being sent to you because you have been identified as an abutting landowner to a proposed land development listed on the attachment. The distribution of this information to the abutting landowners is required by state law. You are encouraged to attend and participate in the public hearing as participation in the local proceeding is a prerequisite to the right to take any subsequent appeal. Should you have any questions about the proposal, or wish to view the submittals, please contact the South Burlington Department of Planning & Zoning. They can be reached at (802) 846-4106 or at City of South Burlington, Department of Planning & Zoning, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. Approved for Distribution by South Burlington Department of Planning & Zoning southburlington PLANNING & ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD The South Burlington Development Review Board will hold a public hearing in the South Burlington City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on February 21, 2012 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1. Final plat application #SD-12-02 Pizzagalli Properties, LLC for a planned unit development consisting of a 45,000 sq. ft. medical office building, 119 Tilley Drive 2. Final plat application #SD-11-52 of F & M Development Company, LLC to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing an existing health club, 2) subdividing a 2.67 acre parcel into two (2) lots of 1.42 acres & 1.25 acres, 3) constructing a 49 unit multi -family dwelling, 4) constructing a 62 unit multi -family dwelling, 5) converting 5000 sq. ft. of general office use to medical office use (38 Eastwood Dr.) and 5) including the adjacent two (2) developed properties at 20 Joy Drive and 38 Eastwood Drive into the proposed PUD. The amendment consists of: 1) converting the proposed 49 unit multi -family dwelling to a 47 unit congregate care housing facility, 2) increasing the number of multi -family dwelling units in the south building from 62 units to 63 units, and 3) other minor building and site modifications, 78 & 80 Eastwood Drive. 3. Master plan application #MP-11-03 & preliminary plat application #SD-11-51 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned unit development on 25.91 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 24 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 211 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. Mark Behr, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. Participation in the local proceeding is a prerequisite to the right to take any subsequent appeal. February 2, 2012 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com SPEAR AEADOWS - FARRELL SUBDI , ISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address Owner of Record 23 DOREY RD JENNIFER MILOT South Burlington, VT 05403 23 DOREY RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 24 DOREY RD MICHAEL & SUSAN VANKOEVERING South Burlington, VT 05403 24 DOREY RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1225 DORSET ST CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT South Burlington, VT 05403 BOX 2085 S BURLINGTON, VT 05407 1 PINNACLE DR DAVID G JR & ELIZABETH A H BAKER South Burlington, VT 05403 1 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 2 PINNACLE DR LAWRENCE R & SHIRLEY T ROBERTS South Burlington, VT 05403 P O BOX 2037 S BURLINGTON, VT 05407 4 PINNACLE DR KISHORE KHANDAVALLI South Burlington, VT 05403 4 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 5 PINNACLE DR BRETT & AISHA BROSSEAU South Burlington, VT 05403 338 BONANZA PARK COLCHESTER, VT 05446 7 PINNACLE DR MICHAEL T & MARGARET M LONERGAN South Burlington, VT 05403 7 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 8 PINNACLE DR CHARLES & PENNY PIZER South Burlington, VT 05403 8 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1 of 12 SPEAR MEADOWS - FARRELL SUBDI , ISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 10 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 11 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 12 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 14 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 15 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 16 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 18 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 19 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 20 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record PAUL & JEAN BRANA 10 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 STANLEY D CHESS 330 EAST 75TH ST NEW YORK, NY 10021 KENNETH & PHYLLIS PALM 12 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 SUSITH & JOLYN WIJETUNGA 14 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CHRISTOPHER T & SUSAN C GREGOIRE 15 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WILLIAM & CYNTHIA BAUER 16 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ROGER C YOUNG 18 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 FRED V PEET 19 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GEOFFREY KNISELY 20 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 2of12 SPEAR ,MEADOWS - FARRELL SUBDI v .ION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 22 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 23 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 24 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 26 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 27 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 28 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 29 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 31 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 35 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record KEVIN & MICHELE DONAHUE 22 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 JOSEPH F LARKIN 410 SHELBURNE RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 YU JUN & MIAO LIMIN 24 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ROBERT & ELAINE ERLANDSON 26 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MOHAMMAD N & MAHNAZ M KHORRAMI 27 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DARYL L & GABRIELLE E MEUNIER 28 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CAROL L BLATTSPIELER 29 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 PETER A & KAREN S HANDY 31 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DAVID M & PATRICIA M WARSHAW 35 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 3 of 12 SPEAK AEADOWS - FARRELL SUML ASION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 39 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 41 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 42 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 43 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 44 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 45 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 46 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 47 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 48 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record ELLIOT W & MOLLIE M GRAY 39 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DAVID R & JANET L KRUPA 41 PINNACLE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 THOMAS J & DEBRA A MILLER TRUSTEE 42 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ALEXANDER RIPPA S TRUSTEE 43 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KIRSTEN L & DANIEL J BERTGES 44 PINNACLE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KATHLEEN YANDOW RACINE TRUST 45 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ANDREW & LESLIE GRIFFITHS 46 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 TIMOTHY & CHRISTINE KEOGH 47 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ARTHUR S & LISA J ROVNER 48 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 4of12 SPEAR ,MEADOWS - FARRELL SUBDI , iSION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 49 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 50 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 51 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 52 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 53 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 54 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 55 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 56 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 57 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record MICHAEL & HEIDI GAGNON 49 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 RAHUL & APARNA NAHAR 50 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GERALD JOHNSON 51 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DENNIS & SANDRA LINDBERG 52 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LARRY N & MARIE E WOOD 53 PINNACLE DR LOT 41 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CHON I & PING Y LEI 54 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ERIC & DIANA SCHWAIGERT 55 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CEDRIC & UMA WESLEY 56 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CHARLES R & TARA K WILLETTS MILLER 57 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 5of12 SPEAR —1ADOWS — FARRELL SUBDI , - ION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 58 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 59 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 60 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 61 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 62 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 63 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 65 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 67 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 69 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record TIMOTHY & LYNNE BAECHLE 58 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LINDA D BRADLEY 59 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 JOSEPH & JENNIFER BURKE 60 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MITCHELL D & NATALIE J FLEISCHMAN 61 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CONCETTA N & MAURICE A GREGOIRE 62 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MARGOT B ROGERS 63 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 JAMES C KENNY FAMILY TRUST 214 SWIFT STREET S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 FRANCES CARR 67 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DANIEL DWIGHT & OLGA L FOSS 69 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 6of12 SPEAR ivf�ADOWS - FARRELL SUBDI , LION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 1260 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1285 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1295 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1300 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1302 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1317 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1331 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1350 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1400 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record UVM & STATE AGRUCULTURAL COLLEGE 109 S PROSPECT ST BURLINGTON, VT 05405 JOHN & HEIDI BEAN 1285 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MARK & SHIELA PHILLIPPE 1295 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KIM MCCOY-WHITTEN 1300 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GARY N FARRELL 1350 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ST CLAIR GROUP INC 15840 LAKEVIEW COURT CROSSE POINT, MI 48230 ROBERT E & ESTALEEN R LAVIGNE 1331 SPEAR STREET S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GARY N & JANE G FARRELL 1350 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WILLIAM A & MAUREEN G GILBERT 1400 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 7of12 SPEAR 1vihADOWS — FARRELL SUBDI-JION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address Owner of Record 1402 SPEAR ST LINDA & DAVID YOUNG South Burlington, VT 05403 1402 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1404 SPEAR ST RICHARD E DR TARRANT South Burlington, VT 05403 1404 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1406 SPEAR ST DOUGLAS J & CHRISTINE FRANZONI South Burlington, VT 05403 1406 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1408 SPEAR ST DIANE I MUHR South Burlington, VT 05403 1408 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1430 SPEAR ST MARGARETA D DENCKER South Burlington, VT 05403 PO BOX 1682 OLNEY, MD 20830-1682 112 SPRINGHOUSE RD BRETT GRABOWSKI P South Burlington, VT 05403 23 DOREY RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 214 MEADOWOOD DR MICHAEL J & MARY D SCOLLINS South Burlington, VT 05403 214 MEADOWOOD DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 219 MEADOWOOD DR THOMAS R & LOUISE T KLEH South Burlington, VT 05403 219 MEADOWOOD DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1 VALE DR MARC & JILL YANKOWSKI South Burlington, VT 05403 1 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 8of12 SPEAK MEADOWS - FARRELL SUBM JISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 2 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 3 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 4 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 5 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 6 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 7 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 8 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 9 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 10 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record LARKIN MILOT PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 4193 BURLINGTON, VT 05401 TERRY A & LAURA B BENNER 3 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 RUIJIA XIA 4 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WILLIAM & LORI CHAR -ASH 5 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KEITH J SAUNDERS 6 VALE DR SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WILLIAM EDWARDS 7 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GEORGE & LINDA TANG 8 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ROBERT M & TOMOKO BERMAN 9 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CHRISTOPHER D & SARA L DUBIE 10 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 9of12 SPEAR ...MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDI, .ION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 11 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 12 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 14 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 15 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 16 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 17 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 18 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 19 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 20 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record LOUIS B POLISH 11 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MITCHELL & SANDRA S KNISBACHER 12 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 FORREST L & DIANE G CHAMBERLAIN 14 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 JOHN MCGRATH PO BOX 8329 ESSEX, VT 05451-8329 STEPHEN L & ERIKA GOTLIEB 16 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MARIAM ABBOTT 17 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ROBERT J & JULIE A MCLANE 18 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WAQAR WAHEED 19 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KOKSAL & SULE TONYALI 20 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 10 of 12 SPEAR I,,1EADOWS — FARRELL SUBDI, iSION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 21 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 23 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 25 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 26 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 27 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 29 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 31 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 33 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Open Space — Pinnacle at Spear Owner of Record PETER WALCOTT 21 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KYLE N & SUSAN F CHURCH 23 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ANDREA COUTURE 47 MANSION ST # A WINOOSKI, VT 05404-2031 VICTOR V & NANCY L VETTERS 26 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 FATHIMA BARIYAJANN 27 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 JIN RONG ZHANG 792 SHELBURNE RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GARY ROUNDS 31 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LARKIN MILOT PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 4193 BURLINGTON, VT 05401 PINNACLE AT SPEAR c/o Betsy Carter Real Estate Management, Inc. 81 Ethan Allen Drive S Burlington, VT 05403 11 of 12 Physical Address SPEAR .1ADOWS - FARRELL SUBDI'� _ ION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Owner of Record PINNACLE AT SPEAR c/o KEVIN & MICHELE DONAHUE 22 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 12 of 12 zf`' Other Paper • www.otherpaper La A1 s WANTED KNITTERS AND CROCHETERS NEEDED to make scarves for Spe- cial Olympics Winter Games ath- letes: Color: Bright red (solid or with white). Yarn: Your choice; washable preferred. Pattern, needles: Your choice. Suggested size: 6" x 5' long. Deadline: Febru- ary 29, 2012. Please send or deliver scarves to Special Olympics Ver- mont, 16 Gregory Drive, Suite 2, SB. Questions? Contact Patty Pasley, plpasley@gmail.com, 825- 1893 (02/02) VOLUNTEERS NEEDED TO SUP- PORT DAFFODIL DAYS: The American Cancer Society is seek- ing volunteers for Daffodil Days, a beloved program to welcome spring and help raise funds and awareness to fight cancer and to create a world with more birth- days. Offer hope to cancer patients by volunteering to assist with event planning and development in your community. For more in- formation, 872-6344. (01/26) FOR SALE CHEST: Solid cedar chest by I excellent condition. $275 1 489-5040 (01/26) COATS: Two Brooks Brot sheep skin winter coats with cial cleaning kit. Men's coat 44. Woman's size M-L. Asking: or best offer. 399-2199 (01 / 19' DEHUMIDIFIER: LG. Used season. $125.489-5040 (01/2E DINING SET: Grey metal glass dining set with six cl and serving table. Excellent i dition. $700 or best offer. 863-' (01 / 19) ITEMS: Moving sale. Picti sofa bed, coffee table, futon, s: refrigerator, battery charger, porch chairs, pots and p; cherry side chair. Prices very 658-3659 (02/02) REFRIGERATOR: GE, side side, white, 21.8 cubic feet. CLASSIFIED, A service f©r Sputh Burhngtora re Ads from South Burlington residents for Items for Sale, Free Items, Lost Items and Vehicles For Sale will be printed for 2 weeks, free Business, Service, Real Estate for Sale or Real Estate for Rent ads cc to The Other Paper and mail to TheOther Paper, 1340 Williston Roa do not run until payment is received. Submit ads online at www.c address, email them to classifieds@otherpapersbvt.com, or faxed phone number are required for residency For details go to http://www.otherpapersbvt.coml I W: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OWNER OF RECORD a. Spear Meadows, Inc. 1350 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 b. Gary N. Farrell 1350 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 c. Gary N. and Jane G. Farrell 1350 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED a. V 747, P 653-6 b. V 677, P 402 c. V 142, P 45 APPLICANT Farrell Real Estate Eric F. Farrell PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402-1335 P: 802-861-3000 F: 802-861-3003 CONTACT PERSON Farrell Real Estate Eric F. Farrell PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402-1335 P: 802-861-3000 F: 802-861-3003 Email address: efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com PROJECT STREET ADDRESS a. 1302 Spear Street b. 1340 Spear Street c. 1350 Spear Street TAX PARCEL ID # a. 1640-01302 b. 1640-01340 c. 1640-01350 PROJECT DESCRIPTION General proiect description The Applicant desires to combine the parcels in a PUD creating 67 residential units (1 existing to remain), a public park and a private community garden area, using 36 units of density from TDR's purchased from the Leduc Farm. Existing Uses on Property The Property consists of three parcels, two with existing single family homes thereon, and one which is vacant land. The parcel sizes are as follows: a. 1302 Spear Street: 0.94 acres (single family house) b. 1340 Spear Street: 21.98 acres (vacant land) c. 1350 Spear Street: 2.99 acres (single family house) Proposed Uses 67 residential units (including one existing single family house to remain); a public park and a private community garden area. 36 units of density are to be transferred from the Leduc Farm via the TDR process. Total building square footage on property One existing single family house to remain: 6,000 SF 66 New homes: 105,660 SF (does not include garages) Proposed height of building All new buildings will be 2-story buildings at 30+/- feet, not to exceed 35 feet. Other A portion of the PUD lies within the Dorset Park Zone D View Protection Overlay district. PROPOSED EXTENSION, RELOCATION, OR MODIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL FACILITIES Extension of municipal water supply, sewer, Vale Drive and storm water management system. r � SPEAR MEADOWS - FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 S,pear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address Owner of Record 23 DOREY RD JENNIFER MILOT South Burlington, VT 05403 23 DOREY RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 24 DOREY RD MICHAEL & SUSAN VANKOEVERING South Burlington, VT 05403 24 DOREY RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1225 DORSET ST CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT South Burlington, VT 05403 BOX 2085 S BURLINGTON, VT 05407 1 PINNACLE DR DAVID G JR & ELIZABETH A H BAKER South Burlington, VT 05403 1 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 2 PINNACLE DR LAWRENCE R & SHIRLEY T ROBERTS South Burlington, VT 05403 P O BOX 2037 S BURLINGTON, VT 05407 4 PINNACLE DR KISHORE KHANDAVALLI South Burlington, VT 05403 4 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 5 PINNACLE DR BRETT & AISHA BROSSEAU South Burlington, VT 05403 338 BONANZA PARK COLCHESTER, VT 05446 7 PINNACLE DR MICHAEL T & MARGARET M LONERGAN South Burlington, VT 05403 7 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 8 PINNACLE DR CHARLES & PENNY PIZER South Burlington, VT 05403 8 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1 of 12 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 10 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 11 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 12 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 14 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 15 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 16 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 18 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 19 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 20 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record PAUL & JEAN BRANA 10 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 STANLEY D CHESS 330 EAST 75TH ST NEW YORK, NY 10021 KENNETH & PHYLLIS PALM 12 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 SUSITH & JOLYN WIJETUNGA 14 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CHRISTOPHER T & SUSAN C GREGOIRE 15 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WILLIAM & CYNTHIA BAUER 16 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ROGER C YOUNG 18 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 FRED V PEET 19 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GEOFFREY KNISELY 20 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 2of12 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 22 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 23 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 24 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 26 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 27 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 28 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 29 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 31 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 35 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record KEVIN & MICHELE DONAHUE 22 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 JOSEPH F LARKIN 410 SHELBURNE RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 YU JUN & MIAO LIMIN 24 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ROBERT & ELAINE ERLANDSON 26 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MOHAMMAD N & MAHNAZ M KHORRAMI 27 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DARYL L & GABRIELLE E MEUNIER 28 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CAROL L BLATTSPIELER 29 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 PETER A & KAREN S HANDY 31 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DAVID M & PATRICIA M WARSHAW 35 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 3of12 I � SPEAR MEADOWS - FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 39 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 41 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 42 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 43 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 44 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 45 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 46 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 47 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 48 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record ELLIOT W & MOLLIE M GRAY 39 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DAVID R & JANET L KRUPA 41 PINNACLE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 THOMAS J & DEBRA A MILLER TRUSTEE 42 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ALEXANDER RIPPA S TRUSTEE 43 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KIRSTEN L & DANIEL J BERTGES 44 PINNACLE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KATHLEEN YANDOW RACINE TRUST 45 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ANDREW & LESLIE GRIFFITHS 46 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 TIMOTHY & CHRISTINE KEOGH 47 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ARTHUR S & LISA J ROVNER 48 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 4of12 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 49 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 50 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 51 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 52 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 53 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 54 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 55 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 56 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 57 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record MICHAEL & HEIDI GAGNON 49 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 RAHUL & APARNA NAHAR 50 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GERALDJOHNSON 51 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DENNIS & SANDRA LINDBERG 52 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LARRY N & MARIE E WOOD 53 PINNACLE DR LOT 41 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CHON I & PING Y LEI 54 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ERIC & DIANA SCHWAIGERT 55 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CEDRIC & UMA WESLEY 56 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CHARLES R & TARA K WILLETTS MILLER 57 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 5of12 1 � SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 58 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 59 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 60 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 61 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 62 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 63 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 65 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 67 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 69 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record TIMOTHY & LYNNE BAECHLE 58 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LINDA D BRADLEY 59 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 JOSEPH & JENNIFER BURKE 60 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MITCHELL D & NATALIE J FLEISCHMAN 61 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CONCETTA N & MAURICE A GREGOIRE 62 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MARGOT B ROGERS 63 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 JAMES C KENNY FAMILY TRUST 214 SWIFT STREET S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 FRANCES CARR 67 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DANIEL DWIGHT & OLGA L FOSS 69 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 6of12 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 1260 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1285 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1295 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1300 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1302 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1317 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1331 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1350 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1400 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record UVM & STATE AGRUCULTURAL COLLEGE 109 S PROSPECT ST BURLINGTON, VT 05405 JOHN & HEIDI BEAN 1285 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MARK & SHIELA PHILLIPPE 1295 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KIM MCCOY-WHITTEN 1300 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GARY N FARRELL 1350 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ST CLAIR GROUP INC 15840 LAKEVIEW COURT CROSSE POINT, MI 48230 ROBERT E & ESTALEEN R LAVIGNE 1331 SPEAR STREET S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GARY N & JANE G FARRELL 1350 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WILLIAM A & MAUREEN G GILBERT 1400 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 7of12 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 1402 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1404 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1406 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1408 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1430 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 112 SPRINGHOUSE RD South Burlington, VT 05403 214 MEADOWOOD DR South Burlington, VT 05403 219 MEADOWOOD DR South Burlington, VT 05403 1 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record LINDA & DAVID YOUNG 1402 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 RICHARD E DR TARRANT 1404 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DOUGLAS J & CHRISTINE FRANZONI 1406 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DIANE I MUHR 1408 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MARGARETA D DENCKER PO BOX 1682 OLNEY, MD 20830-1682 BRETT GRABOWSKI P 23 DOREY RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MICHAEL J & MARY D SCOLLINS 214 MEADOWOOD DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 THOMAS R & LOUISE T KLEH 219 MEADOWOOD DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MARC & JILL YANKOWSKI 1 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 8of12 1 � SPEAR MEADOWS - FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 2 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 3 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 4 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 5 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 6 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 7 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 8 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 9 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 10 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record LARKIN MILOT PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 4193 BURLINGTON, VT 05401 TERRY A & LAURA B BENNER 3 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 RUIJIA XIA 4 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WILLIAM & LORI CHARASH 5 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KEITH J SAUNDERS 6 VALE DR SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WILLIAM EDWARDS 7 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GEORGE & LINDA TANG 8 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ROBERT M & TOMOKO BERMAN 9 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CHRISTOPHER D & SARA L DUBIE 10 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 9of12 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 11 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 12 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 14 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 15 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 16 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 17 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 18 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 19 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 20 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record LOUIS B POLISH 11 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MITCHELL & SANDRA S KNISBACHER 12 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 FORREST L & DIANE G CHAMBERLAIN 14 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 JOHN MCGRATH PO BOX 8329 ESSEX, VT 05451-8329 STEPHEN L & ERIKA GOTLIEB 16 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MARIAM ABBOTT 17 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ROBERT J & JULIE A MCLANE 18 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WAQAR WAHEED 19 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KOKSAL & SULE TONYALI 20 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 10 of 12 i kR MEADOWS — F. Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address Owner of Record 21 VALE DR PETER WALCOTT South Burlington, VT 05403 21 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 23 VALE DR KYLE N & SUSAN F CHURCH South Burlington, VT 05403 23 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 25 VALE DR ANDREA COUTURE South Burlington, VT 05403 47 MANSION ST # A WINOOSKI, VT 05404-2031 26 VALE DR VICTOR V & NANCY L VETTERS South Burlington, VT 05403 26 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 27 VALE DR FATHIMA BARIYAJANN South Burlington, VT 05403 27 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 29 VALE DR JIN RONG ZHANG South Burlington, VT 05403 792 SHELBURNE RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 31 VALE DR GARY ROUNDS South Burlington, VT 05403 31 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 33 VALE DR LARKIN MILOT PARTNERSHIP South Burlington, VT 05403 PO BOX 4193 BURLINGTON, VT 05401 Open Space — Pinnacle at Spear PINNACLE AT SPEAR c/o Betsy Carter Real Estate Management, Inc. 81 Ethan Allen Drive S Burlington, VT 05403 11 of 12 Physical Address I jj SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIy iSION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Owner of Record PINNACLE AT SPEAR c/o Kevin & Michele Donahue 22 Pinnacle Drive S. Burlington, VT 05403 12 of 12 Spear Meadows Preliminary Plat Cost Estimate December 22, 2011 Spear Meadows - Spear Street, South Burlington - Planting Schedule Street Trees QtY. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Edible Notes 21 AFAB ACER x freemanii'Autumn Blaze' Autumn Blaze Maple 2.5" Cal. B&B 8 BNH BETULA nigre'Heritage' Heritage River Birch 2.5" Cal. B&B TREE FORM 9 GB GINKGO biloba'Autumn Gdd' Autumn Gdd Ginkgo 2.5" Cal. B&B 25 GTH GLEDITSIA tncanthos inermis'Helka' Halka Honeylocust 2.5" Cal. B&B 6 MA MAACKIA amurensis Amur Maackia 2.5" Cal. B&B 3 PAB PLATANUS x acerifdia'Bloodgood' Bloodgood London Planetree 2.5" Cal. B&B 21 PCA PYRUS calleryana'Aristocrat' Aristocrat Flowering Pear 2.5"Cal. B&B 12 PSA PRUNUS sargentti Sargent Cherry 2.5" Ca I. B&B 8 OR QUERCUS rubre Red Oak 2.5"Cal, BE 6 UP ULMUS X'Patriot' lPatrict Elm 2.5" Cal. B&B 6 LAP ULMUS americana'Princeton' lPrinceton American Elm 2.5"Cal. B&B Trees -Qty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Notes 9 ACC1 ABIES concdor White Fir T Ht. B&B 27 ACC2 ABIES concdor White Fir 5' Ht. B&B 6 AN1 ABIES nordmanniana Nadman Fir T Ht. B&B 6 AN2 ABIES nordmanniana Nordman Fir 5' Ht. B&B 5 AFAB ACER x freeman ii 'Autumn Blaze' Autumn Blaze Maple 2" Cal. B&B 9 AR ACER rubrum 'Red Sunset' Red Sunset Maple 2" Cal. B&B 16 ASGM ACER saccharum'Green Mountain' Green Mountain Sugar Maple 2" Cal. B&B 4 AHB AESCULUS hippocastanum'Baumannii' Double White Horsechestnut 2.5" Cat B&B 41 AGAB AMALANCHIER grandifdia'Autumn Brilliance' Autumn Brilliance Servicebeny 6' Ht. B&B x CLUMP 12 ARH AMALANCHIER'Robin Hill' Robin Hill Serviceberry 2" Cal. B&B x SINGLE -STEM 9 BN BETULA nigra River Birch 10' Ht. B&B CLUMP 8 CTH CHAMAECYPARI S thyoides 'Hopki nton' Hopkinton White Cedar 5' B&B 20 CRA CORYLUS americans American Hazelnut 30" Ht. #5 Cont. x 6 CC CARPINUS caroliniana American Hornbeam 2" Cal, B&B 4 CCI CRATAEGUS crusgalli inennis'Crusader' Crusader Hawthorn 2" Cal, B&B 25 GTS GLEDITSIA tricanthos inermis'Skyline' Skyline Honeylocust 2" Cal. B&B 1 LD1 LARIX larcina American Larch 7' Ht. B&B 3 LD2 LARIX larcina American Larch 5' Ht. #10 Cont. 18 MCO MALUS'Cortland' Cortland Apple 13/4"Cal. B&B x 13 MOW MALUS'Donald Wyman' Donald Wyman Crabapple 2" Cal. B&B 25 MFI MALUS'Fuji' Fuji Apple 13/4"Cal. B&B x 15 MMC MALUS'McIntosh' McIntosh Apple 1 3/4" CaL B&B x 10 MS MALUS sargentii Sargent Crab 2" Cal, B&B 13 MSD MALUS'Snowdrift' Snowdrift Crab 2" Cal, B&B 6 NS NYSSA syivatica Black Gum 2" Cal. B&B 85 OM ORCHARD mix Fruiting Orchard Mix 3 Gel. Cont. x 2 PA1 PICEA abies Norway Spruce T Ht. B&B 5 PA2 PICEA abies Norway Spruce 5' Ht. B&B 36 PG1 PICEA glauca White Spruce 7' Ht, B&B 66 PG2 PICEA glauca White Spruce 5' Ht. B&B 1 PAB PLATANUS x acerifolia'Bloodgood' Bloodgood London Planetree 2" Cal. B&B 8 PBG PRUNUS'Blackgdd' Blackgold Cherry 11/4"Cal. #7 Cont. x 6 PEB PRUNUS'Evans Bali' Evans Bali Cherry 1 1/4" Cal. #7 Cont. x 6 PK PRUNUS'Kristin' Kristin Cherry 1 1/4" Cal. #7 Cont. x 10 PMR PRUNUS'Mount Royal' Mount Royal Plum 1 12" Cal. B&B x 3 PNS PRUNUS'North Star North Star Cherry 5 Gel. Cont. x 3 PVC PRUNUS virginiana'Canada Red' Canada Red Chokecherry 2" Cel. B&B 3 PWG PRUNUS'Whitegdd' Whitegold Cherry 11/4"Cal. #7 Cont. x 1 PCA PYRUS calleryana 'Aristocrat' Aristocrat Flowering Pear 2" Cal. B&B 10 PYB PYRUS x'Bartlett' Bartlett Pear 11/4"Cal. #7 Cont. x 9 PYA PYRUS x'D'Anjou' D'Anjou Pear 11/4"Cal. #7 Cont. x 9 PYS PYRUS x'Seckel' Seckel Pear 11/4"Cal . #7 Cont. x 1 QB QUERCUS bicolor jSwamp White Oak 2" Cal. B&B 14 OR QUERCUS rubra Red Oak 2" Cal. B&B 16 SAT SALIX alba'Tristis' Golden Weeping Willow 1 3/4" Cel. B&B 2 TC TSUGA canadensis Canadian Hemlock 6' Ht. B&B 6 TO TAXODIUM distichum Bald Cypress 2" Cal. B&B Unit MeterialRice Installed $143.00 $3,003.00 $7,507.50 $143.00 $1,144.00 $2,860.00 $175.00 $1,575.00 $3,937.50 $175.00 $4,375.00 $10,937.50 $180.00 $1,080.00 $2,700.00 $175.00 $525.00 $1,312.50 $220.00 $4,620.D0 $11,550.00 $175.00 $2,100.00 $5,250.00 $175.00 $1,400.00 $3,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $198.00 $1,188.00 $2,970.00 Street Tree Total $52,525.00 Unit Rice $150.00 $1,350.00 $3,375.00 $108.00 $2,916.00 $7,290.00 $185.00 $1,110.00 $2,775.00 $135.00 $810.00 $2,025.00 $135.00 $675.00 $1,687.50 $107.00 $963.00 $2,407.50 $144.00 $2,304.00 $5,760.00 $204.00 $816.00 $2,040.00 $75.00 $3,075.00 $7,687.50 $140.00 $1,680.00 $4,200.00 $120.00 $1,080.00 $2,700.00 $50.00 $400.00 $1,000.00 $25.00 $500.00 $1,250.00 $152.00 $912.00 $2,280.00 $133.00 $532.00 $1,330.00 $133.00 $3,325.00 $8,312.50 $90.00 $90.00 $225.00 $27.00 $81.00 $202.50 $115.00 $2,070.00 $5,175.00 $125.00 $1,625.00 $4,062.50 $115.00 $2,875.00 $7,187.50 $115.00 $1,725.00 $4,312.50 $107.00 $1,070.00 $2,675.00 $107.00 $1,391.00 $3,477.50 $165.00 $990.00 $2,475.00 $45.00 $3,825.00 $9,562.50 $135.00 $270.00 $675.00 $75.00 $375.00 $937.50 $120.00 $4,320.00 $10,800.00 $80.00 $5,280.00 $13,200.00 $160.00 $160.00 $400.00 $85.00 $680.00 $1,700.00 $85.00 $510.00 $1,275.00 $85.00 $510.00 $1,275.00 $120.00 $1,200.DO $3,000.00 $45.00 $135.00 $337.50 $107.00 $321.00 $802.50 $85.00 $255.00 $637.50 $115.00 $115.00 $287.50 $85.00 $850.00 $2,125.00 $85.00 $765.00 $1,912.50 $85.00 $765.00 $1,912.50 $180.00 $180.00 $450.00 $162.00 $2,268.00 $5,670.00 $87.00 $1,392.00 $3,480.00 $110.00 $220.00 $550.00 $133.00 $798.00 $1,995.00 (Pagel of 3) Spear Meadows Preliminary Plat Cost Estimate December 22, 2011 --h. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Notes -Qlhf, 21 AAR AMALANCHIER alnifolia'Regent' Regent Serviceberry #3 Cont. x 15 AAB ARONIA arbutifolia'Brilliantissime Red Chokebeiry 5' Ht. B&B x 15 CDC CEPHALANTHUS occidentalis Buttonbush 30" #3 Cont. 5 CA CLETHRAalnifolia Summersweet 30" #5 Cant. 34 CAH CLETHRA ahifolia'Hummingbvd Hummingbird Sur mersweet 24" Ht. #5 Cont. 32 CM CORNUS mas Carnelian Cherry 7' Ht. B&B x 3-5 Stem Clump 9 CR CORNUS recemosa Grey Dogwood 4' Ht. B&B 8 CSA CORNUS sericea'Allman's Compacts' Alkman's Compact Dogwood 3-4' Ht. #5 Cont. 4 CSI CORNUS sericea'Isanti' Isanti Dogwood 3-4' Ht. #5 Cont. 35 FNH FORSYTHIA'New Hampshire Gold' New Hampshire Gold Forsythia 3' B&B 3 HV HAMAMELISvirginiana Witchhazel 5' B&B 51 IGS I LEX glabra'Shamrock' Shamrock Inkberry 18" Ht. B&B 2 IVS(i ILEXverticillale'Southem Gentleman' Southern Gentleman Winterbery 24" HL B&B 1 IVJ ILEXverticillate'Jim Dandy' Jim Dandy Winterberry 3' B&B 8 IVR ILEXverticillala'Red Sprite' Red Sprite Winterbeny 18" Ht. #3 Cont. 24 JCHC JUNIPERUS chnensis'Hetzfi Colurmaris' Green Columnar Juniper 6' HI. B&B 2 JCS JUNIPERUS chinensis sargentii Wells' Green Sargent Juniper 24" Ht. B&B 38 PBH PRUNUS bes "Hansen's' Hansen's Bush Cherry 3 Gel. Cont. x 3' O.0 15 PCJ PRUNUS x. kerresis'Carmine Jewel' Carmine Jewl Cherry 5 Gel. Cont. x 24 PCP PRUNUSx. kemasis'Crimson Passion' Crimson Passion Cherry 5 Gel. Cont. x 13 PT PRUNUS tomentosa Nanking Cherry 3 Gel. Cont. x 7 RCA RHODODENDRON catawNense'Nba' Alba Catawba Rhododendron 36" HI. B&B 2 RPJM RHODODENDRON'P. J. W P. J. W Rhododendron W HI. B&B 18 RRE RHODODENDRON'Roseum Elegans' Roseum Ele ens Rhododendron 36" Ht. B&B 49 RHR RISES grossulada'Hinnomaki Red' Hinnarmaki Red Gooseberry 3 Gal. Cont. x 5 RBS RISES nigrurl Sorel Ben Sarek Black Current 3 Gal. Cont. x 24 RRL RIBES rubrum' Red Lake' Red Lake Currant 3 Gal Cont. x 176 BM RUBUS mix Blackberry FAx #2 Cont. x 208 RM RUBUS mix Rasberry Mix #2 Cont. x 30 SJLP SPIREAjaponica'Little Princess' Little Princess Spires 18" Ht. #3 Cont. 14 SB SYRINGA'Bloormerang' Bloemerang Lilac 15" Ht. #1 Cont. 19 SV SYRINGA vulgaris Purple Lilac 6' H I. B&B 43 TMC TAXUS x media'Cole' Cole Yew PHI. B&B 4' O C 90 TMD TAXUS x media'Densiformis' Dense Yew 24" Ht. B&B 42 THE TAXUS x media'Everlow' Evedow Yew 24" HL B&B 8 TMH TAXUS x media'Hicksii' Hicks Yew 36" Ht. B&B 46 TOE THUJA occidentalis'Emerald' Emerald Arborvitae 5'Ht. B&B 30"0. C. 221 TON THUJAoccidentalis'Nigra' jDark Green Arborvitae 5' Ht. B&B Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Notes -Qty 73 CAF CALAMAGROSTIS x acutiflora'Ked Fcerster' Karl Foerster Reed Gress #2 Card. Clump 7 DC DESCHAMPSIA caespilosa'Goldstaub' Golden Hair Gress #2 Cont. Clump 4 MSS MISCANTHUS s.'Striclus' Porcupine Grass #5 Cont. Clump 38 SS SCHIZACHYRIUM scoparium'The Blues' The Blues Little Blue Stem #2 Cant. Clump -Qty Code ScienflfiC Name Com mm Name Size Spec Notes HIM HOSTA mix Hosts Mix #2 Cont. PM Perrenial mix Perrennial Flowering Plants Mix #2 Cont. RR ROSA rugose Rugosa Rose 18" #3 Cent. WT IWALDSTEINLA temata Barren Strawberry #1 Cont. Clump Code I Scientific Name Cormron Name Sae Spec tv.te, -Qty 20 HHR HEMEROCALLIS'Happy Returns' Happy Returns Daylily 12" Ht. #2 Cont. 10 ILNW ILEX verticillata Winter Red' Winter Red Winterberry W Ht. #3 Cont. 12 JSB JUNIPERUS sabina'Broadmooe 113roadmoor Juniper 15" W. #3 Cont. 4 VCC VIBURNUM carlesii'Cayuga' jCayugaVIbumum 24" H 1. 1 #5 Cont. T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC 301 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 Unit Rice $15.00 $315.00 $787.50 $45.00 $675.00 $1,687.50 $22.00 $330.00 $825.00 $22.00 $110.00 $275.00 $23.50 $799.00 $1,997.50 $85.00 $2,720.00 $6,800.00 $20.00 $180.00 $450.00 $37.50 $300.00 $750.00 $25.00 $100.00 $250.00 $15.00 $525.00 $1.312.50 S42.00 $126.00 $315.00 $22.00 $1,122.00 $2,805.00 $27.00 $54.00 $135.00 S31.00 $31.00 $77.50 $17.00 $136,00 $340.00 $7200 $1,728.00 $4,320.00 $2000 $40.00 $100.00 S45.00 $1,710.00 $4,275.00 $65.00 $975.00 $2,437.50 $65.00 $1,560.00 $3,900.00 S45.00 $585.00 $1,462.50 S58.00 $406.00 $1,015.00 $38.00 $76.00 $190.00 $58.00 $1,044.00 $2,610.00 $30.00 $1,470.00 $3,675.00 $30.00 $150.00 $375.00 $30.00 $720.00 $1.800.00 $1200 $2,11200 $5.280.00 $15.00 $3,120.00 $7,800.00 $13.50 $405.00 $1,012.50 $18.00 $25200 $6W.00 $49.00 $931.00 $2,327.50 $54.00 $2,32200 $5,805.00 $24.50 $2,205.00 $5,512.50 $31.50 $1,323.00 $3,307.50 $45.00 $360.00 $900.00 $42.00 $1,932.00 $4,830.00 $37.00 $8,177.00 $20,442.50 UnR Rice $700 $511.00 $1,277.50 $7.00 $49.00 $122,50 $13.75 $55.00 $137,50 $7.00 $286.00 $665.00 Und Rice $12.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12 00 $0.00 $0 00 $12 00 $0.00 $0 00 $4.50 $0.00 $0.00 Unit Rice $6.00 $120.00 $300.00 $22.00 $220.00 $550.00 $15.00 $180.00 $450.00 $24.00 $96.00 $240.00 Landscape Credit Total (Not $265,455.00 Including Street Trees or Park Plantings) (Page 2 of 3) Spear Meadows Preliminary Plat Cost Estimate December 22, 2011 Park Planting Schedule Street Trees T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC 301 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 O ty, Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Edible Notes Unit Material Price Installed 2 ACC1 ABIES concdor White Fir 7' HL B&B $150.00 $300.00 $750.00 4 ACC2 ABIES concdor White Fir 5' HU B&B $108.00 $432.00 $1,080.00 7 AR ACER rubwrn 'Red Sunset' Red Sunset Maple 2" Cal. B&B $107.00 $749.00 $1,872.50 3 ARH AMALANCHIER'Robin Hill' Robin Hill Servicebeny 2" Cal. B&B x SINGLE -STEM $140.00 $420.00 $1,050.00 6 BN BETULA nigra 'Heritage Hertage River Birch 10' Ht. B&B CLUMP $125.00 $750.00 $1,875.00 6 GTH GLEDITSIAtricanthos inermis'Helka' Helka Honeylocust 2" Cal. B&B $135.00 $810.00 $2,025.00 2 LD1 LARIX larcina American Larch T Ht. B&B $90.00 $180.00 $450.00 6 LD2 LARIX larcina American Larch 5' Ht. #10 ConL $27.00 $162.00 $405.00 3 PG1 PICEA glauca White Spruce 7'Ht. B&B $135.00 $405.00 $1,012.50 5 PG2 PICEA glauca White Spruce 5' Ht. B&B $75.00 $375.00 $937.50 3 PSA PRUNUS sargentti Sargent Cherry 2" CeI. B&B $150.00 $450.00 $1,125.00 7 OR QUERCUS rubra Red Oak 2" Cal. B&B $162.00 $1,134.00 $2,835.00 3 SAT SALIX alba'Tristis' Golden Weeping Willow 1 3/4" Cal. B&B $87.00 $261.00 $652.50 Shrubs Qty. Code Sc ent fic Name Common Name Size Spec Notes Unit Price 8 COC CEPHALANTHUS occidentalis Buttonbush 30" #3 Cont. $22.00 $176.00 $440.00 5 1 CR ICORNUSracemosa lGrey Dogwood 4'Ht. B&B $20.00 $100.00 $250.00 Park Planting Total Park Planting Total $16,760.00 (Page 3 of 3) ONION f� south . . 1 U9' PLANNING & ZONING Permit Number MP - APPLICATION FOR MASTER PLAN REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the plans will result in your application being deemed incomplete, and a delay in scheduling for the Development Review Board. 1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, address, phone and fax #) QLOC%a mina k an -a l n t rd rn' a- 5� c, 2) ATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone, fax & e-mail) 4) APPLICANT'S LEGAL INTEREST IN PROPERTY (i.e. fee simple, option, etc.) 5) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone, fax and e-mail) �r; L F (I Pa bY, 1Rof l'tn-g1nn VT CryD2. ' qfn I - 2.o(I)n R I - inn 2 ZZ F5 rne-tt 5a) APPLICANT EMAIL ADDRESS: If 6rrPL1 e � MaWea, ,iiy - J C 6hA 6) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS:Q-E- 7) TAX PARCEL ID # (may be obtained online or at the Assessor's Office)JVIQ d 1 3DZ', 8) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: l 34 0J lle14 c) - o 1350 a) General project description (explain what you want aDDroval for): 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com b)Existing uses on property (please describe sizes of each separate use^if c) Proposed uses on property (please describe the size or number of units and nature of oroUosed uses) d) Maximum total number of residential units and/or square footage of uses to be developed, including e) Maximum proposed building height (if applicable) d ` n 3� f) Proposed phasing (please describe the number of toa phases and, if ap lica le at this time, he� number of units or square feet of uses to be proposed in the first phase): ' �5 �2 � }�! � �ut) t7n��S I ni C-� Dn 1 Vnri S 4-- %.lam d-PASlxurc'haS4. VL-)�N 9) MASTER PLAN UMBRELLA CRITERIA a) Total acreage of involved property(ies) 2S A [ Acres b) Total acreage of first phase for development (if known at this time) c) Total number of residential units and/or sq ft of all uses requested d) Existing impervious coverage, entire site (sq ft and %) �.� �Q d 10 13, p 1 ? S e) Maximum proposed impervious coverage, entire site (sq ft and %),1 0/ 2�C1 I SF- G f) Maximum existing building coverage, entire site (sq ft and %) = S % 3 f= (-R Master Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2010 g) Maximum proposed building coverage, entire site (sq ft and %) _ I [ . � v/0 h) Estimated number of existing PM peak hour vehicle trip ends bee- of ,� jrn o�r+�Uc�c� i) Maximum proposed number of PM peak house vehicle trip end "At'L(��' dcrV� U�1� J) Existing or proposed encumbrances on property (easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc. n f oseluc k) Proposed extension, relocation or modification of municipal facilities (sanitary, sewer water supply, streets, stormwater, etc.) — please describe briefly i , �� 10) OWNERS OF RECORD OF ALL CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES & MAILING ADDRESSES (this shall be provided on a separate attached sheet and on pre -stamped and pre - addressed envelopes. The city will add the return address). 11) ESTIMATED FINAL PROJECT COMPLETION YEAR e r 2bl 12) PLANS AND FEE Please submit plans showing the information listed in Section 15.07(C)(3) of the Land Development Regulations. Five full-sized and one reduced size copy (11xl7) of the plans must be submitted. Application fee must be included with the application. I hereby certify that all the information request as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. �^1 &4' ��� Signature of Applicant iignatu of Property Owner �p 6 A) . F r2Re L< S p c*f- W Erb &wcs, Master Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2010 Please do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION I have reviewed this application and find it to be: e COMPLETE ❑ INCOMPLETE A i is rative Officer llil�Vl� Dae The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call (802) 879-5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. Master Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2010 MAIO,, M Al all � southburlington PLANNING & ZONING Permit Number SD-- (office use only APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT REVIEW Preliminary ❑ Final PUD Being Requested? ❑ Yes ❑ No All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. 1. OWNER(S) OF RECORD (Name(s) as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) te 2. LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) S 66 /4-%"/<GtJ &V r 3. APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax#) 5 te- (u. GN I- 4. CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) S ez As :Tt1!c,N "u,ew r a. Contact email address: 'S G 11-VT1- j-t-M L44 e" 5. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: e5 6IC A-7-1-,+44i "4 E;/u' — 6. TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) L* j7 -/j 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. General Project Description (describe what you are proposing): s E t -r,�k+ L41 • s �- b. Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use): 5 (5 S An ]` )! A -5-ii L4A 50--f T' c. Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): S 1✓ 17r U t d. Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain): s E let- rr,g— tU t� e. Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine): f. Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain): YE E A-i`Th-C-+J-M Eau i g. Number of employees fexisting and proposed, note office versus non -office employees): 1lJ Ag h. Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): i. List any changes to the subdivision, such as property lines, number of units, lot mergers, etc. Subdivision Application Form_ Rev. 12-2010 8. LOT COVERAGE (ALL information MUST be provided here, even if no change is proposed) a. Size of Parcel: 2 S• 01 1 j`-e.,(Zt -S (acres /sq. ft.) — 3 13 #'9--R L s. L-5 b. Building Coverage: v Existing 45 /O square feet % Proposed %. 5-0141 square feet % c. Overall Coverage (building, parking, outside storage, etc): e Existing /. / (P b square feet % Proposed g-� E1471�10 square feet % d. Front Yard Coverage(s) (commercial projects only): Existing W— square feet % Proposed square feet % . s 6 E 4-rT, A-UH -6 9. WETLAND INFORMATION a. Are there any wetlands (Class I, II, or III) on the subject property? VIles ❑ No b. If yes, is the proposed development encroaching into any of these wetlands associated 50' buffers (describe) Al" 0 c. If yes, please submit the following with this application: 1. A site specific wetland delineation of the entire property or a written statement that the applicant is relying on the City's wetland map. 2. Response to the criteria outlined in Section 12.02(E) of the Land Development Regulations (applicant is strongly encouraged to have a wetland expert respond to these criteria) 10. AREA DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION: gsproo', DQo SQ. FT. * *Projects disturbing more than one (1) acre of land must follow the City's specifications for erosion control in Article 16 of the Land Development Regulations. Projects disturbing more than one (1) acre require a permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. 3 Subdivision Application Form. Rev. 12-2010 11. COST ESTIMATES a. Building (including interior renovations) 12 Vet 1 0 1 OAJ b. Landscaping: $ (Please submit itemized list of landscaping proposed) c. Other site improvements (please list with cost) L-4-- i .v F, X*'5 L_ L 6 WT—t A.- U . P� z � C S" Ea&4L� T L4 v es, D)v 12. ESTIMATED TRAFFIC a. P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): L _—E14:At-LT— ST-u A 4 1 13. PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: ef t +4zp NJ T 14. PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: 1 D 15. ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: D GC.45J44 06vL 2,0 113 16. OWNERS OF RECORD OF ALL CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES & MAILING ADDRESSES (this shall be provided on a separate attached sheet and on pre -stamped and pre - addressed envelopes. The city will add the return address). 17. PLANS AND FEE Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information required by the City's Land Development Regulations. Five (5) regular size copies, one reduced copy (11" x 17"), and one digital (PDF-format, on compact disk) of the plans must be submitted. A subdivision application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the application. See the City fee schedule for details. Subdivision Application Form. Rev. 12-2010 4 0 I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. sti�(, SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT IG TURE OF PROP T R Pp 2 PRINT NAME GA-RLf AJ• FFA- fie d'—�vE S A ed4--le w4 a l-6 o .T:A. C--- Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: / I have reviewed this preliminary plat application and find it to be: 4N. omplete ❑ Incomplete 'A The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call (802) 879-5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. 5 Subdivision Application Form. Rev. 12-2010 Farrell Real Estate P.O. Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402 802-861-3000 fax 802-861-3003 Memo To: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer From: Eric Farrell 942�_ Date: 12/22/2011 Re: Spear Meadows, 1340 — 1350 Spear Street Attached please find the following materials in connection with the above referenced project: • Application for Master Plan Review • Application Fee —Paid with our simultaneous Preliminary Plat Review Application List of Abutters Master Site Plan — C1.0 (11 x 17) I refer you to the complete set of plans submitted today with our Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review application. I request that the DRB review this application contemporaneously with our Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review. DRB Meeting Please schedule us before the DRB at its convenience and let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information. Attachments 1 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address Owner of Record 23 DOREY RD JENNIFER MILOT South Burlington, VT 05403 23 DOREY RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 24 DOREY RD MICHAEL & SUSAN VANKOEVERING South Burlington, VT 05403 24 DOREY RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1225 DORSET ST CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT South Burlington, VT 05403 BOX 2085 S BURLINGTON, VT 05407 1 PINNACLE DR DAVID G JR & ELIZABETH A H BAKER South Burlington, VT 05403 1 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 2 PINNACLE DR LAWRENCE R & SHIRLEY T ROBERTS South Burlington, VT 05403 P O BOX 2037 S BURLINGTON, VT 05407 4 PINNACLE DR KISHORE KHANDAVALLI South Burlington, VT 05403 4 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 5 PINNACLE DR BRETT & AISHA BROSSEAU South Burlington, VT 05403 338 BONANZA PARK COLCHESTER, VT 05446 7 PINNACLE DR MICHAEL T & MARGARET M LONERGAN South Burlington, VT 05403 7 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 8 PINNACLE DR CHARLES & PENNY PIZER South Burlington, VT 05403 8 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1 of 12 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 10 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 11 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 12 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 14 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 15 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 16 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 18 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 19 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 20 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record PAUL & JEAN BRANA 10 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 STANLEY D CHESS 330 EAST 75TH ST NEW YORK, NY 10021 KENNETH & PHYLLIS PALM 12 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 SUSITH & JOLYN WIJETUNGA 14 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CHRISTOPHER T & SUSAN C GREGOIRE 15 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WILLIAM & CYNTHIA BAUER 16 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ROGER C YOUNG 18 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 FRED V PEET 19 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GEOFFREY KNISELY 20 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 2of12 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 22 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 23 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 24 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 26 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 27 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 28 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 29 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 31 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 35 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record KEVIN & MICHELE DONAHUE 22 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 JOSEPH F LARKIN 410 SHELBURNE RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 YU JUN & MIAO LIMIN 24 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ROBERT & ELAINE ERLANDSON 26 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MOHAMMAD N & MAHNAZ M KHORRAMI 27 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DARYL L & GABRIELLE E MEUNIER 28 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CAROL L BLATTSPIELER 29 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 PETER A & KAREN S HANDY 31 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DAVID M & PATRICIA M WARSHAW 35 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 3of12 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 39 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 41 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 42 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 43 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 44 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 45 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 46 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 47 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 48 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record ELLIOT W & MOLLIE M GRAY 39 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DAVID R & JANET L KRUPA 41 PINNACLE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 THOMAS J & DEBRA A MILLER TRUSTEE 42 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ALEXANDER RIPPA S TRUSTEE 43 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KIRSTEN L & DANIEL J BERTGES 44 PINNACLE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KATHLEEN YANDOW RACINE TRUST 45 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ANDREW & LESLIE GRIFFITHS 46 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 TIMOTHY & CHRISTINE KEOGH 47 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ARTHUR S & LISA J ROVNER 48 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 4of12 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 49 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 50 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 51 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 52 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 53 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 54 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 55 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 56 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 57 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record MICHAEL & HEIDI GAGNON 49 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 RAHUL & APARNA NAHAR 50 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GERALDJOHNSON 51 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DENNIS & SANDRA LINDBERG 52 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LARRY N & MARIE E WOOD 53 PINNACLE DR LOT 41 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CHON I & PING Y LEI 54 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ERIC & DIANA SCHWAIGERT 55 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CEDRIC & UMA WESLEY 56 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CHARLES R & TARA K WILLETTS MILLER 57 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 5of12 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 58 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 59 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 60 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 61 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 62 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 63 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 65 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 67 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 69 PINNACLE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record TIMOTHY & LYNNE BAECHLE 58 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LINDA D BRADLEY 59 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 JOSEPH & JENNIFER BURKE 60 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MITCHELL D & NATALIE J FLEISCHMAN 61 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CONCETTA N & MAURICE A GREGOIRE 62 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MARGOT B ROGERS 63 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 JAMES C KENNY FAMILY TRUST 214 SWIFT STREET S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 FRANCES CARR 67 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DANIEL DWIGHT & OLGA L FOSS 69 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 6of12 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 1260 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1285 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1295 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1300 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1302 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1317 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1331 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1350 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1400 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record UVM & STATE AGRUCULTURAL COLLEGE 109 S PROSPECT ST BURLINGTON, VT 05405 JOHN & HEIDI BEAN 1285 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MARK & SHIELA PHILLIPPE 1295 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KIM MCCOY-WHITTEN 1300 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GARY N FARRELL 1350 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ST CLAIR GROUP INC 15840 LAKEVIEW COURT CROSSE POINT, MI 48230 ROBERT E & ESTALEEN R LAVIGNE 1331 SPEAR STREET S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GARY N & JANE G FARRELL 1350 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WILLIAM A & MAUREEN G GILBERT 1400 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 7of12 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 1402 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1404 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1406 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1408 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 1430 SPEAR ST South Burlington, VT 05403 112 SPRINGHOUSE RD South Burlington, VT 05403 214 MEADOWOOD DR South Burlington, VT 05403 219 MEADOWOOD DR South Burlington, VT 05403 1 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record LINDA & DAVID YOUNG 1402 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 RICHARD E DR TARRANT 1404 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DOUGLAS J & CHRISTINE FRANZONI 1406 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DIANE I MUHR 1408 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MARGARETA D DENCKER PO BOX 1682 OLNEY, MD 20830-1682 BRETT GRABOWSKI P 23 DOREY RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MICHAEL J & MARY D SCOLLINS 214 MEADOWOOD DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 THOMAS R & LOUISE T KLEH 219 MEADOWOOD DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MARC & JILL YANKOWSKI 1 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 8of12 1 � SPEAR MEADOWS - FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 2 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 3 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 4 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 5 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 6 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 7 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 8 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 9 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 10 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record LARKIN MILOT PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 4193 BURLINGTON, VT 05401 TERRY A & LAURA B BENNER 3 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 RUIJIA XIA 4 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WILLIAM & LORI CHARASH 5 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KEITH J SAUNDERS 6 VALE DR SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WILLIAM EDWARDS 7 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GEORGE & LINDA TANG 8 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ROBERT M & TOMOKO BERMAN 9 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CHRISTOPHER D & SARA L DUBIE 10 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 9of12 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 11 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 12 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 14 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 15 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 16 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 17 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 18 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 19 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 20 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner of Record LOUIS B POLISH 11 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MITCHELL & SANDRA S KNISBACHER 12 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 FORREST L & DIANE G CHAMBERLAIN 14 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 JOHN MCGRATH PO BOX 8329 ESSEX, VT 05451-8329 STEPHEN L & ERIKA GOTLIEB 16 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MARIAM ABBOTT 17 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ROBERT J & JULIE A MCLANE 18 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WAQAR WAHEED 19 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KOKSAL & SULE TONYALI 20 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 10 of 12 1 1 SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address 21 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 23 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 25 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 26 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 27 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 29 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 31 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 33 VALE DR South Burlington, VT 05403 Open Space — Pinnacle at Spear Owner of Record PETER WALCOTT 21 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KYLE N & SUSAN F CHURCH 23 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ANDREA COUTURE 47 MANSION ST # A WINOOSKI, VT 05404-2031 VICTOR V & NANCY L VETTERS 26 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 FATHIMA BARIYAJANN 27 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 JIN RONG ZHANG 792 SHELBURNE RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GARY ROUNDS 31 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LARKIN MILOT PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 4193 BURLINGTON, VT 05401 PINNACLE AT SPEAR c/o Betsy Carter Real Estate Management, Inc. 81 Ethan Allen Drive S Burlington, VT 05403 11 of 12 Physical Address i ) SPEAR MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVISION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Owner of Record PINNACLE AT SPEAR c/o Kevin & Michele Donahue 22 Pinnacle Drive S. Burlington, VT 05403 12 of 12 15.0 7 Master Plan Review and Approval A. Master Plans Established. For any application involving subdivision for which the applicant has sought Master Plan approval, or for which Master Plan approval is required, the applicant shall follow the procedures outlined in this Section. The applicant may elect to apply simultaneously for preliminary plat and/or preliminary site plan approval for a portion or portions of the affected property. B. Master Plan Optional or Required. As part of the PUD and/or subdivision review process, any applicant for land development involving ten (1o) or more contiguous acres may submit an application for Master Plan. Master plan review also shall be required as a step in the PUD or subdivision review process in the following cases: (1) Development of more than ten (lo) dwelling units in the Southeast Quadrant (2) Development involving more than ten (1o) acres in the Central District (3) Development of more than ten (1o) units in a five (5) year period in the Ri- Lakeshore District. Under 15.07 B.(i) we are required to apply for Master Plan. C. Master Plan Review Process. (1) Master Plan. An applicant meeting the criteria in (B) above shall submit a sketch plan for review by the DRB. After identification of the proposed project as requiring a master plan, and within six (6) months after the final DRB meeting on the sketch plan (or a longer period if mutually agreed by the applicant and the DRB, but not exceeding two (2) years in total), the applicant shall file an application for approval of a master plan. The plan shall conform to the layout shown on the sketch plan, incorporating recommendations made by the Development Review Board. Applicant has completed five (5) Sketch Plan Reviews by the Development Review Board and the plans proposed herein reflect the specific recommendations made by the DRB. (2) Combined with Preliminary Site Plan or Preliminary Plat Review. The Master Plan application may, at the applicant's request, be combined with preliminary site plan or preliminary subdivision plat review for a discrete portion or all of the property proposed for development. Any areas of the lands proposed for development for which master plan review is secured but preliminary site plan or preliminary plat review is not shall require preliminary site plan or plat review at a subsequent time prior to receiving final approval. The DRB shall review the master plan and all areas proposed for preliminary plat simultaneously, and shall make separate findings of fact as to the master plan and the areas reviewed for preliminary plan or plat. The findings of fact pertaining to the master plan shall be binding on the DRB and the applicant for all subsequent preliminary site plan or preliminary plat applications made pursuant to the master plan approval. Applicant hereby requests a combined review of the Master Plan with the Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the entire parcel. (g) Master Plan Application. The master plan shall consist of one or more maps or drawings, with all dimensions shown in feet or decimals of a foot, drawn to a scale of not more than one hundred (ioo) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (ioo) feet of frontage, showing or accompanied by the information listed below. The applicant shall submit complete preliminary site plan or preliminary plat applications consistent with the master plan application for any area or phase for which approval is sought simultaneously with the master plan. (a) Accurate and updated Sketch Plan data Reflected on the plans submitted for the Preliminary Subdivision Plat review. (b) The name of the proposed Master Plan or an identifying title Spear Meadows (c) Name and address of the land surveyor and plat designer Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. TJ Boyle Associates, LLC (d) The names of all subdivisions immediately adjacent and the names of owners of record of adjacent acreage See list of abutters in Preliminary Subdivision Plat Application. (e) An overall plan for the property indicating the following: i. the locations and total combined area of the propert(y)(ies) proposed for subdivision and/or site plan phase, either in conjunction with the initial master plan application or in the future, specifying which area or areas are currently proposed for subdivision or development. ii. The location and total area of the propert(y)(ies) currently proposed for subdivision or development that are to be deeded as perpetually open spaces, and which areas proposed to be left open are subject to future evaluation within the parameters of the master plan. iii. the location, total area and nature of any public amenities or facilities other than buildings proposed either in conjunction with the initial master plan application or in the future, specifying which features are currently proposed for development. iv. The maximum impervious coverage proposed for the property or properties subject to the Master Plan. As to i. through iv., please see plans submitted for Preliminary Subdivision Plat review. V. The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and/or number of dwelling units proposed for the property or properties subject to the Master Plan. One W existing, plus sixty-six (66) new, for a total of 67 units. A. The maximum number of vehicle trip ends (VTEs) and associated parking proposed for the property or properties subject to the master plan. Please see Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study prepared by RSG, Inc. dated August 2010 for vehicle trip ends and landscape Sheet No. Looi vii. The location and size of any existing sewers and water mains, culverts and drains on the property or serving the property. viii. The location, names and widths of existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts and parking areas and their relationship to existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts and parking areas on surrounding properties ix. Contour lines at intervals of five feet, based on USGS datum of existing grades and also of finished grades. Contour intervals closer than five feet may be required by the Development Review Board in order to properly evaluate specific aspects of the project, such as storm drainage, landscaping, etc. X. A complete survey of any tracts to be subdivided completed by a licensed land surveyor. As to vii. through x., please see plans submitted for Preliminary Subdivision Plat review. xi. The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the DRB to locate readily and appraise the basic layout in the field. Unless an existing street intersection is shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall be shown. Temporary markers will be placed in the field at the request of the Staff or DRB. Please refer to both the plans and the Traffic Impact Study submitted as part of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat. xii. A list of waivers the applicant desires from these regulations. See attached list of Requested Waivers. Farrell Real Estate P.O. Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402 802-861-3000 fax 802-861-3003 Memo To: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer From: Eric Farrell Date: 12/22/2011 Re: Spear Meadows, 1340 — 1350 Spear Street Attached please find the following materials in connection with the above referenced project: • Application Subdivision Plat Review/Preliminary - Southeast Quadrant • Combined Application Fee — Preliminary Plat/Master Plan - $6,026.00 • List of Abutters • Full set of Plans —5Sets at24x36 RECEIVED • Full set of Plans — 1 Set at 11 x 17 DEC 2 3 2011 • Traffic Impact Study (3 copies) City of So. Burlington • Planting Schedule (street trees, project & park) • 14.05 Application, Review, and Approval Procedure - checklist • 15.07 Master Plan Review and Approval - checklist • 15.08 Major Subdivision or PUD Approval Procedure — checklist • List of Requested Waivers • Spear Meadows Building Type Summary • Spear Meadow Modeling (re storm water) • Memo with Additional Information Density The plans depict a revised total of 67 dwelling units in 46 (was 48 at last Sketch) buildings, representing an overall density of 2.59 (was 2.70 at last Sketch) units per acre. 1 14.05 Application, Review, and Approval Procedure D. Application for Site Plan. A site plan application and five (5) sets of plans, including one copy reduced to ii" by 17", drawn to scale, shall include the following information for the Administrative Officer to deem the application complete and ready to send to the Development Review Board for its review: (i) Legal data: (a) A list of the owners of record of abutting properties, which may be generated by the Department of Planning and Zoning or by the applicant. See attached. (b) Boundaries of existing zoning and special districts on the subject property and adjacent zoning and special district boundaries. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing No. S1.o. (c) Area and boundaries of the property, building or setback lines as required in this chapter, and lines of existing streets and adjoining lots, as shown on a survey. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing No. Si.o. (d) Streams, drainage ways, and associated stream buffer areas as set forth in Article 12. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing No. C2.0. (e) Reservations, easements and areas dedicated to public use, if known, shall be shown. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (f) Lot dimensions and survey data, and section and lot numbers of the subject property. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing Nos. Si.o, SM. Si.2, Si.3, Si.4, Si.5, and Si.6. (2) General project description: (a) The title of the development, date, North arrow, scale, name and address of the owner of record and of the applicant, if other than the owner, and of the engineer, architect, landscape architect or surveyor preparing the plan shall be shown on a preliminary site plan map. Where the applicant or owner is a corporation, the Development Review Board may require the names and addresses of all officers, directors and principal stockholders of said corporation. The preferred scale shall be not less than one (1) inch equals thirty (30) feet. Shown in title blocks on all plans, summarized on Spear Meadows plan package cover sheet. (b) Such map shall show the applicant's entire property, adjacent properties, streets within two hundred (200) feet of the site, approximate location and dimensions of all existing structures, and location of all existing structures on adjacent properties and within one hundred (ioo) feet of the site boundary. At the discretion of the Administrative Officer or Development Review Board, the required area of the site plan may be increased. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (c) Such map shall show proposed structures, access points, and general internal circulation. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing C1.o. (d) Existing and proposed contours at a maximum vertical interval of two (2) feet. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing Nos. C2.0, C3.0, C3.1., C3.2, and C3.3• (3) Existing conditions: (a) Location of existing structures on the site, and showing all site conditions to remain. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing C2.0. (b) Location of watercourses, waterbodies, wetlands, floodplains, and floodplain boundaries as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency or as mapped by the City of South Burlington, watercourses, wetlands, rock outcrops, wooded areas, existing vegetation, and other significant natural features on the site. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing Nos. C2.0, C2.1, and S1.o. (c) Topographic contours and profiles as needed. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing Nos. C2.0, C3.0, C3.1, C3.2 and C3.3• (d) Existing structures and access points on adjacent properties, including those directly across a public street. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing Nos. C1.o and C1.1. (4) Development data: (a) All means of vehicular access and egress to and from the site onto public streets, and all provisions for pedestrian access and circulation. Please refer to civil engineer and landscape plans. (b) One set of preliminary plans, elevations, floor plans, and sections of proposed structures showing the proposed location, use, design and height of all structures, roads, parking areas, access points, sidewalks and other walkways, loading docks, outdoor storage areas, sewage disposal areas, landscaping, screening, site grading, and recreation areas if required. Plans shall also show any proposed division of buildings into units of separate occupancy and location of drives and access thereto. Depicted on civil engineering, landscape and architectural plans. (c) The location and layout of any off-street parking or loading areas, traffic circulation areas, pedestrian walkways, and fire lanes. Depicted on civil engineering, landscape and architectural plans. (d) Analysis of traffic impacts, if required by the traffic overlay district and/or the DRB. See attached Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study prepared by RSG, Inc. dated August 2010. (e) Lot area in square feet and acres, and lot coverage calculations including building, overall, and front yard coverage. Lot size: 25.91 acres; 1,128,640 SF Lot Coverage; Building: 11.5 Lot Coverage; Overall: 24.7 Lot Coverage; Front Yard: Not applicable. (f) The location of all proposed waterlines, valves and hydrants and sewer lines or of alternative means of water supply and sewage disposal and treatment. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (g) Cut sheets for all proposed outdoor lighting within the site Depicted on landscaping plans. (h) Preliminary grading, drainage, landscaping and buffering plan in accordance with Article 13, Supplemental Regulations. Depicted on civil engineering and landscaping plans. (i) The extent and amount of cut and fill for all disturbed areas, including before -and -after profiles and cross sections of typical development areas, parking lots and roads, and including an erosion and sedimentation control plan, and proposed locations of sediment sink/setting pond and interceptor swales. Depicted on civil engineering plans. With respect to "cut and fill" the site is balanced. 0) Proposed stormwater management system, including (as applicable) location, supporting design data and copies of computations used as a basis for the design capacities and performance of stormwater management facilities. Depicted on civil engineering plans. See also attached Spear Meadows Modeling for stormwater design and computations. (k) Detailed specifications and locations of planting, landscaping, screening, and/or buffering materials. Depicted on landscaping plans. (1) The location of all existing and proposed site improvements, including drains, culverts, retaining walls and fences. Depicted on civil engineering and landscaping plans. (m) The location of any outdoor storage for equipment and materials if any, and the location, type and design of all solid waste -related facilities, including dumpsters and recycling bins. Not applicable. (n) Location and design of all energy distribution facilities, including electrical, gas, and solar energy. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing Nos. C4.o and C4.1. (o) Lines and dimensions of all property that is offered, or to be offered, for dedication for public use, with purpose indicated thereon, and of all property that is proposed to be served by deed covenant for the common use of the property owners of the development. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing Nos. S1.1, S1.2, S1.3, S1.4, S1.5, and S1.6. (p) Estimated project construction schedule, phasing, and date of completion. Project Start Date: July 2012 Project Completion Date: December 2018 Project Phasing: As depicted on civil engineering Drawing C1.2 (q) Estimated cost of all site improvements. $2.0 Million (r) Estimated daily and peak hour traffic generation, and an estimate of traffic generation during the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. See attached Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study prepared by RSG, Inc., dated August 2010. (s) Finished grades of walls, pavements, and storm drains. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (t) Detailed plans of retaining walls, steps, ramps, paving, and drainage structures. Depicted on civil engineering and landscaping plans, more specifically landscaping plan L203. (u) Estimate of all earthwork, including the quantity of any material to be imported to or removed from the site or a statement that no material is to be removed or imported. We anticipate this will be a balanced site. (v) Location and dimensions of all proposed water supply, sanitary sewerage, stormwater system, and other utility lines and equipment, including connections to existing facilities. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (w) Detailed landscaping plan, including type, size, and location of all materials used and plans for buffer screening and fencing in conformance with Article 13, Section 13.o6, Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. Depicted on landscaping plans and attached planting schedule. (x) Locations, types, and cut sheets for all exterior lighting. Depicted on landscaping Drawing L201 and L202. (5) Other: Any other information or data that the Administrative Officer or Development Review Board shall require for a full assessment of the project pursuant to this article. Any additional information necessary will be provided at the instruction/request of the Administrative Officer or Development Review Board. 15.07 Master Plan Review and Approval A. Master Plans Established. For any application involving subdivision for which the applicant has sought Master Plan approval, or for which Master Plan approval is required, the applicant shall follow the procedures outlined in this Section. The applicant may elect to apply simultaneously for preliminary plat and/or preliminary site plan approval for a portion or portions of the affected property. B. Master Plan Optional or Required. As part of the PUD and/or subdivision review process, any applicant for land development involving ten (1o) or more contiguous acres may submit an application for Master Plan. Master plan review also shall be required as a step in the PUD or subdivision review process in the following cases: (1) Development of more than ten (io) dwelling units in the Southeast Quadrant (2) Development involving more than ten (io) acres in the Central District (3) Development of more than ten (io) units in a five (5) year period in the Ri- Lakeshore District. Under 15.07 B.(1) we are required to apply for Master Plan. C. Master Plan Review Process. (1) Master Plan. An applicant meeting the criteria in (B) above shall submit a sketch plan for review by the DRB. After identification of the proposed project as requiring a master plan, and within six (6) months after the final DRB meeting on the sketch plan (or a longer period if mutually agreed by the applicant and the DRB, but not exceeding two (2) years in total), the applicant shall file an application for approval of a master plan. The plan shall conform to the layout shown on the sketch plan, incorporating recommendations made by the Development Review Board. Applicant has completed five (5) Sketch Plan Reviews by the Development Review Board and the plans proposed herein reflect the specific recommendations made by the DRB. (2) Combined with Preliminary Site Plan or Preliminary Plat Review. The Master Plan application may, at the applicant's request, be combined with preliminary site plan or preliminary subdivision plat review for a discrete portion or all of the property proposed for development. Any areas of the lands proposed for development for which master plan review is secured but preliminary site plan or preliminary plat review is not shall require preliminary site plan or plat review at a subsequent time prior to receiving final approval. The DRB shall review the master plan and all areas proposed for preliminary plat simultaneously, and shall make separate findings of fact as to the master plan and the areas reviewed for preliminary plan or plat. The findings of fact pertaining to the master plan shall be binding on the DRB and the applicant for all subsequent preliminary site plan or preliminary plat applications made pursuant to the master plan approval. Applicant hereby requests a combined review of the Master Plan with the Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the entire parcel. (g) Master Plan Application. The master plan shall consist of one or more maps or drawings, with all dimensions shown in feet or decimals of a foot, drawn to a scale of not more than one hundred (ioo) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (loo) feet of frontage, showing or accompanied by the information listed below. The applicant shall submit complete preliminary site plan or preliminary plat applications consistent with the master plan application for any area or phase for which approval is sought simultaneously with the master plan. (a) Accurate and updated Sketch Plan data Reflected on the plans submitted for the Preliminary Subdivision Plat review. (b) The name of the proposed Master Plan or an identifying title Spear Meadows (c) Name and address of the land surveyor and plat designer Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. TJ Boyle Associates, LLC (d) The names of all subdivisions immediately adjacent and the names of owners of record of adjacent acreage See list of abutters in Preliminary Subdivision Plat Application. (e) An overall plan for the property indicating the following: i. the locations and total combined area of the propert(y)(ies) proposed for subdivision and/or site plan phase, either in conjunction with the initial master plan application or in the future, specifying which area or areas are currently proposed for subdivision or development. ii. The location and total area of the propert(y)(ies) currently proposed for subdivision or development that are to be deeded as perpetually open spaces, and which areas proposed to be left open are subject to future evaluation within the parameters of the master plan. iii. the location, total area and nature of any public amenities or facilities other than buildings proposed either in conjunction with the initial master plan application or in the future, specifying which features are currently proposed for development. iv. The maximum impervious coverage proposed for the property or properties subject to the Master Plan. As to i. through iv., please see plans submitted for Preliminary Subdivision Plat review. V. The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and/or number of dwelling units proposed for the property or properties subject to the Master Plan. One (i) existing, plus sixty-six (66) new, for a total of 67 units. vi. The maximum number of vehicle trip ends (VTEs) and associated parking proposed for the property or properties subject to the master plan. Please see Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study prepared by RSG, Inc. dated August 2010 for vehicle trip ends and landscape Sheet No. Low vii. The location and size of any existing sewers and water mains, culverts and drains on the property or serving the property. viii. The location, names and widths of existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts and parking areas and their relationship to existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts and parking areas on surrounding properties ix. Contour lines at intervals of five feet, based on USGS datum of existing grades and also of finished grades. Contour intervals closer than five feet may be required by the Development Review Board in order to properly evaluate specific aspects of the project, such as storm drainage, landscaping, etc. X. A complete survey of any tracts to be subdivided completed by a licensed land surveyor. As to vii. through x., please see plans submitted for Preliminary Subdivision Plat review. xi. The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the DRB to locate readily and appraise the basic layout in the field. Unless an existing street intersection is shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall be shown. E Temporary markers will be placed in the field at the request of the Staff or DRS. Please refer to both the plans and the Traffic Impact Study submitted as part of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat. xii. A list of waivers the applicant desires from these regulations. See attached list of Requested Waivers. 15.08 Major Subdivision or PUD Approval Procedure A. Preliminary Plat Application. After classification of the proposed subdivision as a major subdivision and within six (6) months of the meeting on the sketch plan, the applicant shall file an application for the approval of a preliminary plat with the Administrative Officer. The preliminary plat application shall consist of one or more maps or drawings, with all dimensions shown in feet or decimals of a foot, drawn to a scale of not more than one hundred (ioo) feet to the inch, or not more than sixty (6o) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (ioo) feet of frontage, showing or accompanied by the following information: (i) Items (1) through (9) in Section 15.05(A) above The information required in Items 1 through 9 of Sketch Plan Review, and quoted below, are contained on the plans submitted herewith for the Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review Application. "15.o5 Sketch Plan Review A. Sketch Plan Required for PUD and Subdivision. For the purpose of classification and initial review, any applicant for a subdivision or PUD of land shall, prior to submitting an application for subdivision approval, submit to the Administrative Officer at least ten days prior to a regularly scheduled meeting of the Development Review Board a sketch plan of the proposed PUD or subdivision, which shall include the following information: (1) Name and address of the owner of record and applicant. (2) Name of owners of record of contiguous properties. (3) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic). The preferred scale shall be not more than one hundred (ioo) feet to the inch, or not more than sixty (6o) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (m) feet of frontage. (4) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. (5) Boundaries and area of: (a) All contiguous land belonging to owner of record, (b) The proposed subdivision, and (c) Existing zoning districts (boundaries only). (6) Existing and proposed layout of property lines; type and location of existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and covenants. (7) Type of, location, and size of existing and proposed streets, structures, utilities, and open space. (8) Existing water courses, wetlands, floodplains, wooded areas, ledge outcrops, and other natural features. (9) Location of existing septic systems and wells." (2) For applications including commercial or industrial uses or multifamily dwellings, or applications made as a PUD, all information required for site plan review in Section 14.05 (D) of these Regulations. See response to Section 14.05(D) attached hereto. (3) Plans and profiles showing existing and proposed elevations along center lines of all streets within the subdivision. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (4) Plans and profiles showing location of street pavements, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, manholes, catch basins and culverts. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (5) Plans showing the location, size and invert elevations of existing and proposed sanitary sewers, storm water drains, and fire hydrants and location and size of water, gas, electricity and any other utilities or structures. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (6) Details of proposed connection with the existing sanitary sewage disposal system or adequate provision for on -site disposal of septic wastes. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (7) Preliminary designs of any bridges or culverts which may be required. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (8) The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the Development Review Board to locate readily and appraise the basic layout in the field. Unless an existing street intersection is shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall be shown. Temporary markers will be placed in the field at the request of the Staff or DRB. Pleaserefer to both the plans and the Traffic Impact study submitted as part of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat application. (9) List of waivers the applicant desires from the requirements of these regulations. See attached list of Requested Waivers. (io) Base flood elevation data for proposed development that contains at least fifty (50) units or five (5) acres, if appropriate. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing S.1.o. A complete survey of the subdivision, prepared by a licensed land surveyor, showing the location, bearing and length of every street line, lot line and boundary line, and existing and proposed restrictions on the land, including but not limited to access ways and utility easements. Where applicable, this information shall be tied to reference points previously established by the City. Depicted on civil engineering plaits. Spear Meadows Modeling Type 11 24-hr Q-10 Rainfall=3. 10 " Prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. Printed 8/10/2010 HydroCAD® 8.50 s/n 000787 ©2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Time span=0.00-300.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 15001 points x 3 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Subcatchment15S: proposed Runoff Area=9.760 ac 62.50% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.16" Tc=4.0 min CN=91 Runoff=38.56 cfs 1.761 of Subcatchment 16S: ex estimate Runoff Area=8.650 ac 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.20" Flow Length=300' Tc=16.8 min CN=78 Runoff=12.46 cfs 0.865 of Subcatchment20S: park area ex Runoff Area=136,955 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.20" Flow Length=315' Slope=0.0160 '/' Tc=12.1 min CN=78 Runoff=5.34 cfs 0.315 of Subcatchment21S: park area proposed Runoff Area=136,755 sf 19.01 % Impervious Runoff Depth=1.53" Flow Length=320' Tc=9.9 min CN=83 Runoff=7.42 cfs 0.400 of Subcatchment22S: disc area and buffer Runoff Area=106,000 sf 18.87% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.46" Flow Length=50' Slope=0.0250 '/' Tc=6.1 min CN=82 Runoff=6.32 cfs 0.296 of Subcatchment23S: disc area and buffer ex Runoff Area=106,000 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.20" Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0250 '/' Tc=8.4 min CN=78 Runoff=4.75 cfs 0.243 of Subcatchment24S: west pond trib area Runoff Area=140,000 sf 42.86% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.91" Tc=a.0 min CN=88 Runoff=11.88 cfs 0.511 of Subcatchment25S: west pond trib area ex Runoff Area=140,000 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.20" Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=20.0 min CN=78 Runoff=4.19 cfs 0.322 of Reach 26R: wetland channel estimate Avg. Depth=0.98' Max Vet=3.16 fps Inflow=24.89 cfs 2.965 of n=0.035 L=200.0' S=0.0100'/' Capacity=286.89 cfs Outflow=24.56 cfs 2.965 of Reach 27R: wetland channel estimate Avg. Depth=0.75' Max Vet=2.37 fps Inflow=13.30 cfs 0.695 of n=0.035 L=400.0' S=0.0075 '/' Capacity=248.45 cfs Outflow=12.50 cfs 0.695 of Reach 28R: wetland channel estimate Avg. Depth=0.64' Max Vet=2.18 fps Inflow=9.84 cfs 0.558 of n=0.035 L=400.0' S=0.0075 '/' Capacity=248.45 cfs Outflow=9.22 cfs 0.558 of Reach 29R: wetland channel estimate Avg. Depth=0.99' Max Vet=3.18 fps Inflow=25.18 cfs 1.745 of n=0.035 L=200.0' S=0.0100 '/' Capacity=286.89 cfs Outflow=25.03 cfs 1.745 of Pond 18P: New wet pond Peak Elev=385.33' Storage=37,010 cf Inflow=38.56 cfs 1.761 of Primary=10.72 cfs 1.738 of Secondary=1.60 cfs 0.021 of Outflow=12.32 cfs 1.760 of Pond 19P: New wet pond west Peak Elev=387.24' Storage=11,998 cf Inflow=11.88 cfs 0.511 of Outflow=1.12 cfs 0.511 of 1 SS 16S proposed O 2 SS �/ 22S "adma te 1 S disc ere and buffer ex dis area and buffer New wet pond prop � 29R 26R 27R 28R wetland chenh@@@I wetland ch nel estimate \ wetland ch;no] wetland cha eI \ estimate estimate estimate 19 New wet pon est 21 S 25S 20S perk area proposed west pond trib area ex perk area ex 24S estimate west pond trib area proposed CSubc)at Reach on Link roest pond.xls Page 1 of 2 Version: 9/06 For the area draining to*: Spear Meadows West Pond Located in drainage area for S/N: 001 WQ Volume and Modified Curve Number Calculation for Water Quality Treatment in Flo Based Practice Use this worksheet to calculate your WQv if you need to determine the Peak Q for the WQ storm (i.e. designing a grass channel, flow-splitter or other flow based practice) and you are not using any of the site design credits in section 3 of the 2002 VSWMM. Seepage 2 for "Calculating Peak WQ Discharge Rate (0.9" stonn) using the Modified Curve Number." Please note that in the case of grass channels you must include any off -site area draining to the practice as this will affect the peak discharge rate which will ultimately affect the hydraulics, and thus residence time. in unur chnnnei Water Quality Volume Calculations Line value/calculation units 1 2 acres 3 acres % (whole A) 4 inches 5 6 Qa (watershed inches, a.k.a. inches of Iwloff) 7 watershed inches 8watershed inches 9 ac. ft. 10 AT a —. cu. ft. Area draining to practice � A= 3.22 Impervious area 1 Percent Impervious Area =[(line 2/line I) " 100] - I = gg.gg , Precipitation P = 0.9 Runoff coefficient calculation - (0.05 + (0.009*I)) Rv = 0.441 WQ Volume (in watershed inches) Calculation � P * Rv) = 0.397 inimum WQ Volume 0 2 [Enterthe greater of line 6 or line 7 Q Volume Calculation =(line 8 *A)/12 = Volume Calculation - (line 9 " 43560) e WQv 1NQv W Qv = 0.397 0107Q 4642 1: Sites with low impervious cover ( -19%) but that do not employ a significant use of the stormwater design credits in Section 3 of the VSWMM are required to treat the minimum water quality volume of 0.2 watershed inches. Sites that have a significant portion of their impervious cover addressed via the stormwater credits (section 3 of the VSWMM) will be able to reduce this WQv and will only be required to treat the volume calculated on the "WQ Volume (with credit reduction)" worksheet which will be less than the 0.2 watershed inches. * Enter the name of the STP (both type and label) vdvch has been designed to Treat tl-us particular WQv (e.g. lvei Pond #2) f West pond.sis Page 2 of 2 / Version: 9/06 For the area draining to*: Spear Meadows West Pond Located in drainage area for S/N: 001 Calculating Peak WQ Peak Discharge Rate (0.9" storm) using the Modified Curve Number Because NRCS methods underestimate the peak discharge for rainfall events of less than 2", simply plugging in 0.9" of rainfall into your hydrologic model with the standard curve numbers will not produce the correct peak discharge during the WQv storm, nor will it produce a volume of runoff equivalent to that which you have calculated using the WQv formula (WQv = P*Rv*A/12). In order to calculate the peak discharge for the 0.9" storm, a modified curve number must be calculated. This modified curve number is based on the runoff (in inches) calculated using the short cut method formula (WQv = P*Rv) that is also the basis of the familiar WQv calculations provided in the 2002 VSWMM (and on the WQv calculation worksheets). Essentially, the curve number that is calculated using the methods below is the curve number that will generate the volume of runoff calculated using the WQv formula. Above, you should have calculated the WQv in watershed inches draining to the facility/practice for which you need to calculate the WQ- peak discharge. As provided in the guidance listed on the grass channel worksheet, please remember that the WQv calculation should include runoff from on -site as well as off -site area draining to the grass channel since this will have an impact on the channel hydraulics and thus the velocity and residence time. Steps: 1. Transfer infonnation from WQv calculation worksheets. Enter the Qa ( line 8 from WQv sheet) Qa = 0.397 inches Enter the area (site+off-site draining to practice) used in calculating the percent impervious (I) A = 3.2 acres 2. Use the following equation to calculate a corresponding curve number CN =1000/(10 +(5*P)+(10*Qa) - (10*(Qa^2 + (1.25*Qa*P))^0.5)) where P = 0.9 inches CN = 93.5 3. If you are using hand hydrologic runoff calculations, use the computed CN above along with your calculated time of concentration and the drainage area (A) to calculate the peak discharge (Qwq) for the water quality storm using the TR-55 Graphical Peak Discharge Method. OR 3. If you are using a computer aided hydrologic model, simply revise the curve number for your subwatershed(s) draining to the practice using the curve number calculated above; the computed curve number should be applied to the total area (A) used in the WQv calcuation. As a check, you should note that now when you run the 0.9" storm, your runoff depth should be roughly equal to Qa (WQ runoff in inches) and your total runoff volume roughly equal to your WQv (in ac. ft.). If this is not the case, make sure that the time span for your modelling run is long enough to capture the entire storm. Small variations are likely due to having to round your computed CN to a whole number. Remember that for storms larger than 2", you do not need to use the modified curve number and you should calculate your composite curve number based on the accepted values for different types of land -use (see TR-55). * Enter the name of the STP (both type and label) which has been designed to treat this particular WQv (e.g. Wet Pond A2) I Page I of 2 Copy ofsto_wga with_calcs„flow.xls Version: 9/06 For the area draining to*: I Spear Meadows Pond -Sizing Located in drainage area for S/N: 1 001 WQ Volume and Modified Curve Number Calculation for Water Quality Treatment in Flow -Based Practice Use this worksheet to calculate your WQv if you need to determine the Peak Q for the WQ storm (i.e. designing a grass channel, flow-splitter or other flow based practice) and you are not using any of the site design credits in section 3 of the 2002 VSWMM. Seepage 2 for "Calculating Peak WQ Discharge Rate (0.9" storm) using the Modified Curve Number. " Please note that in the case of grass channels you must include any off -site area draining to the practice as this will affect the peak discharge rate which will ultimately affect the hydraulics, and thus residence time. in your r_hannel. Water Quality Volume Calculations Line value/calculation units 1 acres 2 acres 3 % (whole A) 4 inches 5 5 Qa (watershed inches, a.k.a. inches of nu -toff) 7 watershed inches 8 watershed inches 9 ac. ft. 10 cu. ft. ining to practice I A- 10.55 ous area 6.60 Percent mpervious Area =((line 2/line 1) " 100] = I = 51.97 tion P = 0.9 Ooff oefficient calculation = (0.05 + (0.009"I)) Rv = 0.508 vme (in watershed inches) Calculation �PRv) = 0.547 WQ Volume0.2 greater of line 6 or line 7 WQv0.547 ume Calculation = (line 8 "A)/12 = WQv = 0 aS5 WQ Volume Calculation a (line 9 "43550) = WQv = 21146 1: Sites with low impervious cover (-19%) but that do not employ a significant use of the stormwater design credits in Section 3 of the VSWMM are required to treat the minimum water quality volume of 0.2 watershed inches. Sites that have a significant portion of their impervious cover addressed via the stormwater credits (section 3 of the VSWMM) will be able to reduce this WQv and will only be required to treat the volume calculated on the "WQ Volume (with credit reduction)" worksheet wlvch will be less than the 0.2 watershed inches. * Enter the name of the STP (both type and label) wluch has been designed to treat this particular 111Qv (e.g. Wet Pond q2) Copy ofsro_tnq✓ miB= ersles�/loeasls Page 2 of 2 Version: 9/06 For the area draining to*: Spear Meadows Pond -Sizing Located in drainage area for SIN: 1 001 Calculating Peak WQ Peak Discharge Rate (0.9" storm) using the Modified Curve Number Because NRCS methods underestimate the peak discharge for rainfall events of less than 2", simply plugging in 0.9" of rainfall into your hydrologic model with the standard curve numbers will not produce the correct peak discharge during the WQv storm, nor will it produce a volume of runoff equivalent to that which you have calculated using the WQv formula (WQv = P*Rv*A/12). In order to calculate the peak discharge for the 0.9" storm, a modified curve number must be calculated. This modified curve number is based on the runoff (in inches) calculated using the short cut method formula (WQv = P*Rv) that is also the basis of the familiar WQv calculations provided in the 2002 VSWMM (and on the WQv calculation worksheets). Essentially, the curve number that is calculated using the methods below is the curve number that will generate the volume of runoff calculated using the WQv formula. Above, you should have calculated the WQv in watershed inches draining to the facility/practice for which you need to calculate the WQ- peak discharge. As provided in the guidance listed on the grass channel worksheet, please remember that the WQv calculation should include runoff from on -site as well as off -site area draining to the grass channel since this will have an impact on the channel hydraulics and thus the velocity and residence time. Steps: 1. Transfer information from WQv calculation worksheets. Enter the Qa ( line 8 from WQv sheet ) Qa 0.547 inches Enter the area (site +off -site draining to practice) used in calculating the percent impervious (I) A 1 0-7-7 acres 2. Use the following equation to calculate a corresponding curve number CN=1000/(10 +(5*P)+(10*Qa) - (10*(Qa^2 + (1.25*Qa*P))^0.5)) where P = 0.9 inches CN ® 96.1 7-1 3. If you are using hand hydrologic runoff calculations, use the computed CN above along with your calculated time of concentration and the drainage area (A) to calculate the peak discharge (Qwq) for the water quality storm using the TR-55 Graphical Peak Discharge Method. OR 3. If you are using a computer aided hydrologic model, simply revise the curve number for your subwatershed(s) draining to the practice using the curve number calculated above; the computed curve number should be applied to the total area (A) used in the WQv calcuation. As a check, you should note that now when you run the 0.9" storm, your runoff depth should be roughly equal to Qa (WQ runoff in inches) and your total runoff volume roughly equal to your WQv (in ac. ft.). If this is not the case, snake sure that the time span for your modelling run is long enough to capture the entire storm. Small variations are likely due to having to round your computed CN to a whole number. Remember that for storms larger than 2", you do not need to use the modified curve number and you should calculate your composite curve number based on the accepted values for different types of land -use (see TR-55). * Enter the naive of the STP (both type and label) which has been designed to treat this particular WQv (e.g. Wet Pond #2) SPEAR MEADOWS BUILDING TYPE SUMMARY 713012010 page 1 BLDG TYPE: UNIT 1: UNIT 2 / GARAGE: NOTE5: A Single Family 1,860 sf 3-bedroom, 2 % bath variations: Al SF-M GAR-1 1-car attached garage A2 SF-M GAR-2 2-car attached garage A2r SF-M GAR-2r 2-car attached garage w/ perpendicular access *A2d SF-M n/a 2-car detached garage B Single Family 1,373 sf 2-bedroom, 2 % bath variations: B1 SF-S GAR-1 1-car attached garage *B2 SF-S GAR-2 2-car attached garage B2r SF-S GAR-2r 2-car attached garage w/ perpendicular access B2d SF-S n/a 2-car detached garage BX Single Family 1885 sf 3-bedroom, 2 % bath variations: BX1 SF-SX2 GAR-1X 2"d floor master suite over 1-car attached garage * BX2 SF- SX2 GAR-2X 2"d floor master suite over 2-car attached garage BX2r SF- SX2 GAR-2Xr 2"d floor master suite over 2-car attached garage w/ perpendicula7occesss C Single Family 1,738 sf 3-bedroom, 2 % bath variations: *C1 SF-L GAR-1 1-car attached garage C2 SF-L GAR-2 2-car attached garage C2r SF-L GAR-2r 2-car attached garage w/ perpendicular access C2d SF-L n/a 2-car detached garage CX Single Family Z200sf 4-bedroom, 2X both variations: *CX1 SFTH-LX GAR-1X 2"d floor master suite over 1-car attached garage CX2 SFTH-LX GAR-2X 2"d floor master suite over 2-car attached garage CX2r SFTH-LX GAR-2Xr 2"d floor master suite over 2-car attached garage w/ perpendicular access * Indicates specific Building Type variation illustrated on Sheet Al. 0 SPEAR MEADOWS BUILDING TYPE SUMMARY 713012010 BLDG TYPE: UNIT 1: UNIT 2 / GARAGE: NOTES: page 2 H Duplex (1,421 sf) (1,315 sf) 2-bedroom, 2 % bath + 2-bedroom, 2 bath variations: H *H-alt TH-S TH-S F4 F4-alt 2-car attached garage + 1 car garage below 2-car attached garage + 1 car garage below, with external porch option HX Duplex (1,885 sf) (1,005 sf) 3-bedroom, 2 % bath + 1-bedroom, 1 bath variations: *HX HX-alt SFTH-SX SFTH-SX F3 F3-alt 2-car attached garage + 1 car garage below 2-car attached garage + 1 car garage below, with external porch option J Duplex (1,738 sf) (1,315 sf) 3-bedroom, 234 bath +2-bedroom, 2 bath variations: J *J-alt TH-L TH-L F4 F4-alt 2-car attached garage + 1 car garage below 2-car attached garage + 1 car garage below, with external porch option JX Duplex (2,200 sf) (1,005 sf) 4-bedroom, 2 % bath + 1-bedroom, 1 bath variations: JX *JX-alt SFTH-LX SFTH-LX F3 F3-alt 2-car attached garage + 1 car garage below 2-car attached garage + 1 car garage below, with external porch option M Duplex (1,315 sf) (1,315 sf) 2-bedroom, 2 bath + 2-bedroom, 2 bath variations: * M F4 F4 1 car garage below + 1 car garage below N Duplex (1,520sf) (1,6005f) 2-bedroom, 2 bath +3-bedroom, 2 bath variations: *N F1 F2 2 car attached garage + 1 car garage below P Duplex (1, 700 sf) (1,700 sf) 2-bedroom, 2 % bath + 2-bedroom, 2 '2 bath variations: I *P TH-M TH-M 2-car attached garage + 2-car attached garage * Indicates specific Building Type variation illustrated on Sheet Al. A C RISIGINC. TRANSPORTATION Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study South Burlington, VT August 2010 DATA ■ ANALYSIS ■ SOLUTIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..............................................................................1 3.0 SCOPE OFSTUDY......................................................................................2 3.1 Local Highway Network, Traffic & Conditions..........................................................................................3 3.2 Other Development Volumes..................................................................................................................4 3.3 Volume Adjustment Factors....................................................................................................................6 3.4 Trip Generation........................................................................................................................................6 3.5 Trip Distribution.......................................................................................................................................7 3.6 Scenario Volume Graphics.....................................................................................................................10 4.0 CONGESTION ANALYSIS...........................................................................20 4.1 Level -of -Service Definition.....................................................................................................................20 4.2 Level -of -Service Results.........................................................................................................................20 5.0 QUEUING ANALYSIS...............................................................................22 6.0 SAFETY ANALYSIS...................................................................................23 6.1 High Crash Locations..............................................................................................................................23 6.2 Crash Histories.......................................................................................................................................24 6.3 Sight Distances.......................................................................................................................................27 7.0 DESIGN REVIEW..................................................................................... 30 7.1 Spear Street Southbound Left -Turn Lane..............................................................................................30 7.2 Spear Meadows Road Westbound Turn Lanes......................................................................................30 8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................................................................31 Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page i { LIST OF FIGURES Figure1: Proposed Site Plan.................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure2: Study Area............................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure3: Lane Configurations................................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 4: Locations of Other Developments.......................................................................................................... 5 Figure 5: Trip Distribution of AM and PM Site -Generated Traffic and Diverted Trips .......................................... 8 Figure 6: 2011 AM Peak Hour No Build.............................................................................................................. 10 Figure 7: 2011 PM Peak Hour No Build............................................................................................................... 11 Figure 8: 2016 AM Peak Hour No Build.............................................................................................................. 12 Figure 9: 2016 PM Peak Hour No Build............................................................................................................... 13 Figure 10: 2016 AM Peak Hour Build.................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 11: 2016 PM Peak Hour Build.................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 12: 2021 AM Peak Hour No Build............................................................................................................ 16 Figure 13: 2021 PM Peak Hour No Build............................................................................................................. 17 Figure 14: 2021 AM Peak Hour Build.................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 15: 2021 PM Peak Hour Build.................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 16: Reported Crashes in the Study Area (2003-2008)............................................................................. 25 Figure 17: Summary of Crash Types within Study Area (2003-2008).................................................................. 25 Figure 18: Location of Crashes by Type(2003-2008)........................................................................................... 26 Figure 19: Weather as a Factor in Study Area Crashes........................................................................................ 27 Figure 20: Contributing Factors in Study Area Crashes....................................................................................... 27 Figure 21: Sight Distance Looking North (measured 10' from edge of pavement) Reaches Spear -Swift Intersection................................................................................................................................................. 29 Figure 21: Sight Distance Looking South (measured 10' from edge of pavement) Reaches Approximately to CedarGlen Drive.........................................................................................................................................29 Figure 22: Sight Distance to the North as Measured from Site Plan................................................................... 30 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Trip Generation - Proposed Land Uses.............................................................................................. Table 2: Trip Distribution Assumptions for Site -Generated Traffic (does not include diverted trips) ............. Table 3: Level -of -Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections ........................................... Table 4: AM Peak Hour LOS Results................................................................................................................. Table 5: PM Peak Hour LOS Results................................................................................................................. Table 6: Estimated AM Peak Hour Queues..................................................................................................... Table 7: Estimated PM Peak Hour Queues..................................................................................................... 8 August 2010 Page ii .6 .7 20 21 21 22 23 C 1.0 INTRODUCTION This study evaluates the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Spear Meadows residential development located east of Spear Street between Swift Street and Nowland Farm Road in the Southeast Quadrant of South Burlington, Vermont. The development consists of 69 new residential units: ■ 25 single-family dwellings ■ 29 flats ■ 15 townhouses Two accesses to the site will be provided at Spear Street and at Nowland Farm Road via Vale Drive. The proposed development includes a southbound left -turn lane at the Spear Street access. This study considers impacts at the following intersections: ■ Spear Street -Swift Street ■ Spear Street -Spear Meadows Road (proposed) ■ Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road/Deerfield Drive ■ Nowland Farm Road -Vale Drive This traffic impact study includes the following items: ■ The project description and study scope ■ Traffic volumes in 2011, 2016, and 2021 with and without the project ■ Estimated congestion in 2011, 2016, and 2021 with and without the project ■ Estimated queue lengths in 2011, 2016, and 2021 with and without the project ■ A safety analysis of the adjacent highway network ■ A summary with conclusions and recommendations This study relies upon design standards and analysis procedures documented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual,' Trip Generation'2A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,' Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),4 Traffic Impact Evaluation: Study and Review Guide,5 and the Vermont State Design Standards.6 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 below shows the general layout of the buildings, parking and driveways. Access to the site is to be provided at Spear Street and at Nowland Farm Road via Vale Drive. The proposed development includes a southbound left -turn lane at the Spear Street access. The existing cul-de-sac at the north end of Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2000). z Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 81h Edition (Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008). 3 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 41h Edition (Washington DC: AASHTO, 2004). ° American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA), ITE, and AASHTO, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition (Washington DC: FHWA, 2003). 5 Vermont Agency of Transportation, Policy and Planning Division, Traffic Research Unit, Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (October 2008). 6 State of Vermont Agency of Transportation, Vermont State Standards (Montpelier: VTrans, 1 July 1997). Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 1 Vale Drive is to remain as a deterrent to cut -through traffic. An existing single family dwelling, located on Spear Street to the south of the proposed Spear Meadow Road, is to remain on the site. The driveway for this residence, which is currently on Spear Street, will be moved to Spear Meadow Road, thereby closing the existing curbcut on Spear Street. The development consists of 69 new residential units: ■ 25 single-family dwellings ■ 29 flats ■ 15 townhouses The proposed development is located in the Southeast Quadrant of South Burlington and as such is zoned for clustered housing at 4 units per acre. As the site acreage is 26.19 acres, this would permit a full build - out of 105 housing units on the site, compared to the 69 units proposed. Figure 1: Proposed Site Plan I . rr ,< ►�' •'r r, _--goo o ,� .�- �o 00 �. O 0000 p O � I O@A090StA49@R aml I Spear Street Access 3.0 SCOPE OF STUDY I Vale Drive Access FJ � '�M V � MMAfi IARIt SGfA1L CrA.cn r : ` w �uaoe �O Pilo ernox o•fwlwr or*a¢• •n � pcc.�ruw rz o0"ff A7 This section includes a description of existing network and traffic conditions, other development volumes, volume adjustment factors, trips generated by the proposed development, and scenario volumes within the study area. The extent of the study area includes the two access points to the project site, and the Spear Street -Swift Street and Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road intersections.' VTrans guidelines specify that a traffic study should be considered if the proposed development will generate 75 or more peak hour trips. The geographic scope of the study should also include the immediate access points and those intersections or highway segments receiving 75 or more project -generated peak hour trips. Vermont Agency of Transportation, Policy and Planning Division, Traffic Research Unit, Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (October 2008). 8 August 2010 Page 2 Figure 2 shows the location of the site east of Spear Street between Swift Street and Nowland Farm Road and the study intersections considered in the analysis. Raw turning movement volumes, adjustments, and trip generation calculations are available in Appendix A. Figure 2: Study Area R00 400 0 R00 h.t ® Study lntersecb�, 'F!'t4Tir' � an Access 0 1 at Spear Meadows Road (new) L Spear Meadows tiN(IF7t F c r Access M2 at Vale Drive (existing) i a e71 z q E s. 3.1 Local Highway Network, Traffic & Conditions Within the study area, the functional classification of Spear Street is an Urban Minor Arterial, Swift Street is a Collector, and Nowland Farm Road is a Local road. The 2009 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on Spear Street (north of Swift Street) was 4,900 vehicles/day according to VTrans route logs. Spear Street's speed limit in the study area is 35 mph and Nowland Farm Road's is 25 mph. The Spear Street -Swift Street intersection is signalized and the eastbound and westbound approaches are skewed. The cross- section of Spear Street is two 11' lanes with a 5' bike lane in the southbound direction (on the west side of the road) and a 2' paved shoulder on the east side of the road. According to the South Burlington Town Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 3 C C Highway Map, Spear Street and Nowland Farm Road are Class 2 and Class 3 Town Highways, respectively. This section of Spear Street is a popular bicycle corridor, with a marked bike lane for much of southbound Spear Street between Swift Street and Nowland Farm Road. The shared use path network also crosses Spear Street at Swift Street and at Nowland Farm Road and includes sidewalks as shown in Figure 3. Although there is not a crosswalk on Vale Drive, the shared use path crosses the southbound approach. Four Sisters Road and Vale Drive connect at the northern ends. The proposed development includes a southbound left -turn lane from Spear Street onto Spear Meadows Road. The existing cul-de-sac at the northern end of Vale Drive will remain as a traffic calming device to discourage cut -through traffic after the proposed development is constructed. Resource Systems Group analyzed the two highest peak hours of traffic at each study intersection: the weekday AM and PM peak hours. It is standard practice in Vermont to analyze traffic conditions in the base year (the year construction is estimated to be complete) and five years in the future. Given the uncertainty of current real estate market conditions, this study considers the year in which construction is expected to begin (2011); assumes full build -out in the year 2016; then analyzes five years in the future (2021). Thus, the following scenarios are evaluated for the AM and PM peak hours: ■ 2011 No Build ■ 2016 No Build ■ 2016 Build, including traffic generated by the proposed development ■ 2021 No Build ■ 2021 Build, including traffic generated by the proposed development All scenarios assume current signal phasing and timings at the Spear Street - Swift Street intersection, as collected from the signal controller with the assistance of the South Burlington Department of Public Works on 8-4-10. 3.2 Other Development Volumes Figure 3: Lane Configurations Spear Street 4i I' 1 t+ t 41 4 -—� C� 0 m �i Spear Street 4 r M crosswalk l r °_ v�� d Project Ite L E LL c 0 Z Other development volumes (ODVs) represent trips generated by anticipated developments in the study area. Trips generated by ODVs are typically included in every scenario because we assume they are already present on the road network in the analysis years. 8 August 2010 Page 4 We have spoken with the South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department and the Shelburne Town Planner to identify developments that should be included in the background traffic volumes (Figure 4). They are as follows: ■ Cider Mill Phase 1(approximately 50% built out): 149 single-family detached houses; since this project is already half -complete and trips are reflected in the existing traffic data, we calculated this ODV based on 75 units. (ITE Land Use Code #210) ■ Cider Mill Phase 2: 66 single-family detached houses; 13 carriage houses (estimated as single-family detached houses); 30 townhouses. (ITE Land Use Codes #210 & #230, respectively) ■ South Village: 330 units of mixed residential (single-family detached houses, apartments, townhouses and condominiums) estimated as a Residential Planned Unit Development; build -out schedule is for approximately 45-50 units per year, but full build -out of the 330 units is assumed for this study. (ITE Land Use Code #270) ■ Goldberg: 12 townhouses and 2 single-family detached houses. (ITE Land Use Codes #230 & #210, respectively) ■ Shelburne -O'Brien: 22 single-family detached houses. (ITE Land Use Code #210) Figure 4: Locations of Other Developments 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet r tY —�s ;lam' = r�}; , B,ly�r OJT I. { it 4. Spear ;' : j 1�.i�r•' r � '�.� 'I 1 l r' a'z' fvr Zl S' Meadows ~ q T-� l'1 R; _ lyh t a• T - ��`,' 7 { h� Y South_ Burlington};y) I 1: - . �' '�• �Np FARM RO� ' �' � ��-� � ��i� �-a,-ra 1i}i��-`y t_}(_ l ,.,�-�t�'1�.�, �t Cider Mill -- _" 4 } 1&2 ONA �/. ..LL South •'l village Goldberg Shelburne! Shelburne- i— O'Brien Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 5 3.3 Volume Adjustment Factors Resource Systems Group conducted turning movement counts at the Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road and Nowland Farm Road -Vale Drive intersections on Thursday, 22 July and Friday, 23 July 2010. For the Spear Street -Swift Street intersection, a 2009 count from the CCMPO was used. The peak hour traffic volumes from these counts are adjusted to represent the design hour volume (DHV)t in 2011, 2016, and 2021 using two adjustment factors: 1. Design hour adjustment factors are based on VTrans short term counters S6D086, located on Spear Street approximately 0.3 miles north of its intersection with Swift Street.z For all intersections, the counts revealed a higher peak hour volume than the DHV prescribed by the VTrans Methodology (that is, the calculated DHV adjustment factor was less than one). To be conservative, the volumes are analyzed without being adjusted to the lower DHV. 2. An annual adjustment factor, which represents general background traffic growth, is based on estimated growth in the area. According to the VTrans Continuous Traffic Counter Grouping Study and Regression Analysis, the annual adjustment factor from 2009 to 2011 for an urban area is 1.00. The future year annual adjustment factor is 1.01 between 2011 and 2016, and between 2016 and 2021 as well. 3.4 Trip Generation Trip generation refers to the number of new vehicle trips originating at or destined for a particular development. Trip generation rates are based on the ITE's Trip Generation3. Due to the mixed residential uses of the proposed development, different ITE Land Use Codes were considered to see which trip generation rates would most accurately and conservatively estimate the number of trips generated by Spear Meadows. The most appropriate Land Use Codes were determined to be: ■ #210 - Single -Family Detached Housing ■ #220 - Apartment • #230 - Residential Condominium/Townhouse Table 1 shows the overall trip generation for the proposed development. Table 1: Trip Generation - Proposed Land Uses ITE Code ITE Land Use Name 210 Single -Family Detached Housing 220 Apartment 230 Residential Condominium/Townhouse Weekday AM Weekday PM Size Enter Exit Enter Exit 25 units 7 20 19 11 29 units 4 14 22 12 15 units 2 9 9 4 Subtotal 12 1 44 49 27 Tota 1 56 76 The net increase in traffic due to this development is 56 trips in the AM Peak Hour and 76 trips in the PM Peak Hour. ' The DHV is the 30th highest hour of traffic for the year and is used as the design standard in Vermont. 2 Typically, continuous traffic counters, which collect data year round, are used in calculating the design hour adjustment factors. It was determined that there were no appropriate continuous traffic counters, so VTrans short term counters were used instead, as prescribed in the VTrans Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. 3 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 81h Edition (Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008). 8 August 2010 Page 6 3.5 Trip Distribution New vehicle trips are distributed onto the network according to existing traffic patterns. As shown in Figure 4 above, four of the five Other Developments are on Dorset Street, while only South Village is on Spear Street. Due to the size of these developments and the existing traffic patterns on Dorset Street, particularly at Nowland Farm Road, the impact of these developments on the study intersections is minimal. The influence of South Village is more significant because it is due south of the study area on Spear Street. Traffic generated by Spear Meadows is also distributed to reflect existing traffic patterns. Table 2 and Figure 5 summarize the trip distribution of the site -generated traffic shown in Table 1. Assumptions were made regarding internal circulation, specifically, whether drivers would choose to use the new Spear Meadows Road or Vale Drive. Using the northbound/southbound directional splits on Spear Street for the AM and PM peak hours, we determined how much of the site -generated traffic would be departing for/arriving from points north and south. We then assumed that of Spear Meadows vehicles headed to/coming from points north, 95% would use the northern Spear Street access, while 5% would use Vale Drive. For traffic to/from southern points, we assumed that 60% would use the Spear Street access and 40% would use Vale Drive. It is possible that some traffic may use the connection to Four Sisters Road as well, although this is expected to be minimal. The 2005 Spear Meadows Traft Study Report study assumes that "some existing traffic from [Vale Drive and Four Sisters Road] that is destined to the north via Spear Street will likely use the new street [Spear Meadows Road] as an alternative to using Nowland Farm Road."' We have assumed that approximately 13 AM trips and 7 PM trips will be diverted to Spear Meadows Road from the Vale Drive and Four Sisters Road neighborhoods. The existing cul-de-sac at the northern end of Vale Drive is to remain as a traffic calming element to discourage cut -through traffic. In addition, the curbing, lower speed limit, number of driveways, sidewalks, and landscaping, and general setting are expected to slow traffic enough that it will not be an attractive option for cut-throughs. The trip distribution also includes one AM exiting and one PM entering trip at Spear Meadows Road to account for the existing single-family home on the site. The existing driveway on Spear Street will be replaced by a new driveway on Spear Meadows Road. Table 1: Trip Distribution Assumptions for Site -Generated Traffic (does not include diverted trips) From north/southbound From south/northbound Spear Street Directional Split* 50% 50% AM Traffic entering Spear Meadows 50% of 12 = 6 50% of 12 = 6 Traffic exiting Spear Meadows 50% of 44 = 22 50% of 44 = 22 Spear Street Directional Split* 30% 70% PM Traffic entering Spear Meadows 30% of 49 = 15 70% of 49 = 34 Traffic exiting Spear Meadows 30% of 27 = 8 70% of 27 = 19 ' Per RSG turning movement count at Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road, July 2010. ' Page 3. Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 7 Figure 5: Trip Distribution of AM and PM Site -Generated Traffic and Diverted Trips Site -Generated Traffic Weekday AM Spear Street 0 3 0 A %L f 0 _ R 0 x 0 -r 0 x 2 r 2 v3 rI14 21 7 A R 40 0 $ a m 0 a ,.n N of O � n 8 r Proposed Project Site 5 0 7 1 J i % 0 0 n 0 � 0 0 %t 0 1 0 5 1 Spear Street 8 August 2010 Page 8 R 2 0 2 Vale Drive 5 2 0 1 R 2 £ 0 0 v 3 z (J Spear Street 0 14 0 .J 1 L F 0 0 x 0 4- 0 7 7 3 7 7 3 29 tA I 0 7 4 0 1 .7� n 1 i 0 0 m W, t P 0 14 3 Spear Street Site -Generated Traffic Weekdav PM R 2 7-0 R 4 4- 0 0 -i ♦- 0 '- 1 0 E ro c 3 z° Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 9 3.6 Scenario Volume Graphics No Build volumes represent the raw volumes' adjusted to the respective scenario year (Section 3.3), plus the Other Development Volumes (Section 3.2). Adding the site -generated traffic (Section 3.4) results in the Build volumes. Figure 6 through Figure 15 show the scenario volumes during the peak hours. Figure 6: 2011 AM Peak Hour No Build Weekdav AM Spear Street 48 111 13 d 1 L F 45 0- 73 v x 58 -► 4- 250 '^ 69 87 r r 227 325 116 253 0 i ti. 10 t o 3 v C, m O n N a cc o n t IF 669 0 posed Project Site Vale Drive 12 230 11 15 7 O r i ® .0 p 33 4-26 1 R 2 E EL 5-0 4- 1 24 y 42 LL o 4 r 21 r o 1 5r09 16 Spear Street 1 On -street bicycle travel accounts for roughly 5% oft he turning movement counts at the Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road intersection. 8 August 2010 Page 10 Figure 7: 2011 PM Peak Hour No Build Weekday PM Spear Street 74 347 78 f 48 34 v 208 ♦ a 4- 141 231 W- 131 v3 'i t r 255 244 106 644 0 ♦ 1. t F 604 0 32 577 35 � l � a IR 22 rD a 6 �► O 3 rD e t f 5 548 38 Spear Street k. 19 11 -$ k- 6 4- 9 72 -► ♦ 53 r- 30 Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 11 Figure 8: 2016 AM Peak Hour No Build Weekdav AM Spear Street 48 112 13 .r ♦ i, f 45 -0 R 74 59 ♦ ♦ 253 .4 69 88 In `t t P 229 328 117 255 0 ♦ ti t r 675 0 12 232 11 r ♦ %, 0 33 a 5 -► 5 t I 1 513 16 Spear Street 8 August 2010 Page 12 R o ` 3 'S ro y -0 M o V) v o � a R 26 1 ♦ 1 24 �► r 21 iosed Project Site Vale Drive 15 7 A? %k R 2 ♦ 43 J Figure 9: 2016 PM Peak Hour No Build Spear Stree 75 350 .r 48 210 -► 233 -% 79 34 I t r 257 246 107 650 0 i 11a t IF 610 0 F 142 Weekday PM 32 582 36 4 6 j 1 ti 10 In I 1 q. 0 22 a 6 0 3 ro 5� 553 39 Spear Street 0 19 12 .0 6 9 73 54 LL C Ir 30 M 3 o z Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 13 CI Figure 10: 2016 AM Peak Hour Build Weekday AM Spear Street 48 115 13 J 1 L 45 R 74 59 ♦ ♦ 253 71 -�6 3 `1 t r 244 349 124 264 7 ♦ L 12 239 12 0 .t ♦ % � 34 o_ 5 0 5 -� m Is t f 1 518 17 Spear Street 8 August 2010 Page 14 R 28 2 1 R 4 ♦ 1 24 ♦ 43 r 23 0 E c 3 0 z { Figure 11: 2016 PM Peak Hour Build Weekdav PM Spear Street 75 364 79 .t ♦ 4 i 48 34 v 210 i f- 142 x 242 138 v3 `1 r r-71 264 253 110 662 29 't- 16 3 0 Q) N 0 - N N 10 o g' 8 a r r 627 15 33 589 39 J ♦ i► 0 iosed Project Site Vale Drive 7 10 rD 23 -0 0— 20 19 � 10 Cr a 7 ♦ 10 73 4- 54 LL o � 3 p- 31 3 ro IFZ 5 5 567 42 Spear Street Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 15 Figure 12: 2021 AM Peak Hour No Build Weekdav AM Spear Street 49 113 13 J ♦ f 46 -0 0- 74 v 14 59 ♦ a 4- 255 $ 70 0- 89 v3 `i t r 231 331 118 258 0 t r 681 0 12 234 11 J ♦ L 0 m 34 m' o_ 5 �i 0 < 5 -y m `i t r 1 518 16 Spear Street 8 August 2010 Page 16 k- 26 1 .0 'L- 2 4- 1 24 -r ♦ 43 pr 21 0 E m LL C 3 0 z Figure 13: 2021 PM Peak Hour No Build Weekday PM Spear Street 75 353 80 AP j 49 35 v 212 ♦ 144 m 235 134 v3 `1 t r 259 248 108 656 0 l 16 t f 616 0 33 588 36 4 6 O O 22 19 12 L 6 E a 6 4- 9 74 ♦ 54 LL o a 3 r 30 m `° 1 3 t rl z 6 559 39 Spear Street Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 17 Figure 14: 2021 AM Peak Hour Build Weekday AM Spear Street 49 116 13 46 R 74 v 59 ♦ 255 7 2 �- 91 v3 t 246 352 125 266 7 10 ti t P 723 5 13 241 12 .r ♦ %, < 5 m Wi t f 1 522 17 Spear Street 8 August 2010 Page 18 R. 40 3 v -o° �o 0 Ln v o a PL- 29 ♦ 1 p- 23 iosed Project Site Vale Drive 19 9 m .1 0 2 R. 4 24 43 LL C 3 0 z Figure 15: 2021 PM Peak Hour Build Weekday PM Spear Street 75 367 80 .r ♦ L 49 - 35 v 212 144 $ 4 245 139 v3 `i r I 267 255 111 668 29 ♦ L r r 633 15 33 595 40 AP ♦ ti 0 23 —$ a 7 < 3 ro 6 6 572 42 Spear Street W— 21 19 .0 0— 10 10 74 ♦ 54 W- 32 0 Cr `m LL C C 3 z° Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 19 4,O CONGESTION ANALYSIS 4.1 Level -of -Service Definition Level -of -service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing the operating conditions as perceived by motorists driving in a traffic stream. LOS is estimated using the procedures outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. In addition to traffic volumes, key inputs include the number of lanes at each intersection and the traffic signal timing plans. The LOS results are based on the existing lane configurations and control types (signalized or unsignalized) at each study intersection. The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) defines six qualitative grades to describe the level of service at an intersection. Level -of -Service is based on the average control delay per vehicle. Table 3 shows the various LOS grades and descriptions for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Table 3: Level -of -Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections Unsignalized Signalized LOS Characteristics Total Delay (sec) Total Delay (sec) A Little or no delay 5 10.0 5 10.0 B Short delays 10.1-15.0 10.1-20.0 C Average delays 15.1-25.0 20.1-35.0 D Long delays 25.1-35.0 35.1-55.0 E Very long delays 35.1-50.0 55.1-80.0 F Extreme delays > 50.0 > 80.0 The delay thresholds for LOS at signalized and unsignalized intersections differ because of the driver's expectations of the operating efficiency for the respective traffic control conditions. According to HCM procedures, an overall LOS cannot be calculated for two-way stop -controlled intersections because not all movements experience delay. In signalized and all -way stop -controlled intersections, all movements experience delay and an overall LOS can be calculated. The Wrans policy on level of service is: ■ Overall LOS C should be maintained for state -maintained highways and other streets accessing the state's facilities • Reduced LOS may be acceptable on a case -by -case basis when considering, at minimum, current and future traffic volumes, delays, volume to capacity ratios, crash rates, and negative impacts as a result of improvement necessary to achieve LOS C. ■ LOS D should be maintained for side roads with volumes exceeding 100 vehicles/hour for a single lane approach (150 vehicles/hour for a two-lane approach) at two-way stop - controlled intersections. 4.2 Level -of -Service Results The HCM reports from Synchro (v7), a traffic analysis software package from Trafficware, were used to assess congestion at the study intersections. Table 4 and Table 5 present the LOS results during the weekday AM & PM peak hours, respectively. The volume to capacity ratio (v/c) is also shown, indicating the ratio of the hourly traffic flow rate to the capacity of the given lane group to process vehicles. A ratio of 1.0 (or higher) indicates the facility is at (or over) capacity for the study period. Detailed Synchro LOS worksheets are available in Appendix B. 8 August 2010 Page 20 Table 4: AM Peak Hour LOS Results AM Peak Hour 2011 No Build 2016 No Build 2016 Build 2021 No Build 2021 Build Signalized Intersections LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c Spear Street -Swift Street a Overall B 16 0.64 B 14 0.60 B 14 0.63 B 16 0.65 B 17 0.67 EB approach C 20 - C 21 - C 22 - C 21 - C 21 - WBapproach B 16 - B 16 - 8 16 - B 16 - B 16 - NB approach B 15 - B 11 - B 12 - B 16 - B 17 - SB approach B 16 - B 14 - B 14 - B 16 - B 16 - EB LT C 21 0.43 C 22 0.46 C 22 0.46 C 21 0.44 C 22 0.46 EB R 8 19 0.04 C 21 0.04 C 21 0.04 8 19 0.04 C 20 0.04 WBL B 14 0.29 B 15 0.22 B 16 0.23 B 14 0.30 B 14 0.29 WBTR B 16 0.53 B 16 0.32 B 16 0.32 B 16 0.54 B 16 0.53 NB L B 11 0.46 A 9 0.42 A 9 0.45 B 11 0.47 B 12 0.50 NB TR B 17 0.66 B 13 0.54 B 13 0.58 B 18 0.67 B 19 0.71 SB L B 14 0.05 B 12 0.02 B 12 0.02 B 14 0.05 B 15 0.06 SB TR B 16 0.26 B 14 0.24 B 14 0.25 B 16 0.27 B 16 0.27 AM Peak Hour 2011 No Build 2016 No Build 2016 Build 2021 No Build 2021 Build Unsignalized Intersections LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c Spear Street -Spear Meadows Road (proposed) WBL C 21 0.04 C 19 0.03 WBR B 14 0.09 B 14 0.09 SBL A 9 0.01 A 9 0.01 Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road EB LTR C 18 0.13 D 30 0.44 D 32 0.47 C 18 0.14 C 19 0.14 W B LT B 14 0.07 C 17 0.14 C 18 0.15 B 15 0.07 B 15 0.08 N8 LTR A <1 0.00 A <1 0.01 A <1 0.01 A <1 0.00 A <1 0.00 SBL A 9 0.01 A 9 0.01 A 9 0.01 A 9 0.01 A 9 0.01 Nowland Farm Road -Vale Drive EB L A <1 0.00 A <1 0.00 A <1 0.00 A <1 0.00 A <1 0.00 SB L A 9 0.02 A 9 0.02 A 9 0.03 A 9 0.02 A 9 0.03 Table 5: PM Peak Hour LOS Results PM Peak Hour 2011 No Build 2016 No Build 2016 Build 2021 No Build 2021 Build I Signalized Intersections LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c Spear Street -Swift Street Overall C 23 0.71 C 23 0.72 C 25 0.75 C 24 0.73 C 25 0.76 EB approach C 26 - C 26 - C 27 - C 27 - C 27 - WBapproach B 16 - B 16 - B 17 - B 16 - B 17 NB approach C 26 - C 26 - C 29 - C 27 - C 31 SB approach C 22 - C 22 - C 22 - C 22 - C 22 - EB LT C 30 0.72 C 31 0.73 C 31 0.74 C 32 0.74 C 32 0.74 EB R C 21 0.18 C 22 0.19 C 22 0.19 C 22 0.19 C 22 0.20 WBL B 17 0.48 B 17 0.49 B 18 0.52 B 18 0.51 B 18 0.53 WBTR B 15 0.26 B 16 0.27 B 16 0.27 B 16 0.27 B 16 0.27 NB L D 36 0.84 D 36 0.85 D 44 0.89 D 38 0.85 D 47 0.91 NB TR B 19 0.56 B 19 0.56 B 19 0.57 B 19 0.56 B 19 0.57 SB L B 14 0.22 B 14 0.22 8 14 0.22 B 14 0.22 B 14 0.23 SB TR C 24 0.72 C 23 0.71 C 24 0.73 C 23 0.71 C 24 0.73 PM Peak Hour 2011 No Build 2016 No Build 2016 Build 2021 No Build 2021 Build Unsignalized Intersections LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c Spear Street -Spear Meadows Road (proposed) WBL D 29 0.05 D 29 0.05 WBR B 13 0.03 B 13 0.03 SB L A 9 0.03 A 9 0.03 Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road EB LTR E 37 0.22 E 38 0.22 E 41 0.25 E 39 0.23 E 42 0.26 W B LT D 30 0.26 D 30 0.27 D 32 0.30 D 31 0.28 D 33 0.31 NB LTR A <1 0.01 A <1 0.01 A <1 0.01 A <1 0.01 A <1 0.01 SB L A 9 0.04 A 9 0.04 A 9 0.04 A 9 0.04 A 9 0.04 Nowland Farm Road -Vale Drive A <1 0 A <1 0 A <1 0 A <1 0 A <1 0 EBL A 1 0.01 A 1 0.01 A 2 0.01 A 1 0.01 A 2 0.01 SB L A 9 0.01 A 9 0.01 A 9 0.02 A 9 0.01 A 9 0.02 Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 21 I As shown, the study intersections are expected to operate at generally consistent and acceptable LOS in all scenarios. The stop -controlled minor road approaches at the Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road intersection operate at LOS E and D under existing conditions and are projected to continue to operate at these levels with and without Spear Meadows. The amount of site -generated traffic using this intersection is minimal. LOS at the Spear Street -Swift Street intersection continues to be B in all scenarios in the AM peak hour and C in all scenarios in the PM peak hour. The northbound left -turn lane operates at LOS D during the PM peak hour. 5.0 QUEUING ANALYSIS In addition to the congestion analysis, estimated queues were also evaluated using Synchro. 501h and 95th percentile queues at the study intersections (an approximation of the average and maximum queues) are presented in Table 6 and Table 7. Queues for all lanes at the signalized Spear Street -Swift Street intersection are shown, while 50th percentile queues for crossing movements are calculated for unsignalized intersections. Storage bay lengths are shown where applicable. Detailed Synchro queuing worksheets are available in Appendix B. Table 6: Estimated AM Peak Hour Queues AM 2011 No Build AM 2016 No Build AM 2016 Build AM 2021 No Build AM 2021 Build Queue(ft) Queue(ft) Queue (it) Queue(ft) Queue (it) Signalized Intersections 50`h 95`h soth 95m 50`h 95`h 50`h 95th 50m 95`h 4 Spear Street -Swift Street EB LT 26 88 14 69 14 70 27 90 27 94 EB R 0 32 0 31 0 32 0 32 0 33 WBL 15 60 8 35 8 36 16 62 16 66 WB TR 60 191 27 92 27 95 62 197 62 208 NBL 43 92 26 91 28 97 44 95 48 100 NB TR 89 241 48 215 52 232 92 248 100 265 SB L 2 30 1 7 1 7 2 11 2 10 SS TR 32 76 23 76 24 78 1 33 78 34 78 Unsi nalized Intersections Spear Street -Spear Meadows Road (proposed) WBL 2 WBR 8 SB L Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road EBLTR 11 Si 57 17 1i WB LT 6 IJ 14 6 J NB LTR 0 1 1 0 0 SB Ll 1 11 1 1 ZNowland Farm Road -Vale Drive EB L 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 2 2 2 tt overc a pacity-queues maybe longer 8 August 2010 Page 22 Storage Bay Length (it) 75 125 100 80 50 50 125 I Table 7: Estimated PM Peak Hour Queues PM 20ll No Build PM 2016 No Build PM 2016 Build PM 2021 No Build PM 2021 Build Queue(ft) Queue(ft) Queue(ft) Queue(ft) Queue(ft) Signalized Intersections 5oth 95th 501h 95th 50th 95th 501h 951h 501h 95th Spear Street -Swift Street EB LT 94 191 95 191 96 191 97 194 98 194 EB R 4 59 5 60 5 62 6 62 6 63 WBL 34 82 35 82 37 85 35 84 37 86 WB TR 42 99 42 99 43 99 43 100 44 100 NB 62 #179 62 #183 65 #196 63 #186 66 #201 NB TR 108 203 110 206 114 213 111 207 116 214 SO 17 42 17 43 17 43 17 43 18 43 SB TR 144 259 147 263 154 274 1 149 265 157 276 Unsignalized Intersections Spear Street -Spear Meadows Road (proposed) WBL 4 4 WBR 3 3 SB L 2 2 Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road EB LTR 20 20 23 21 24 W B LT 26 26 30 27 32 NB LTR 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 3 3 3 3 3 Nowland Farm Road -Vale dive EBL 1 1 1 1 1 SBL 1 1 2 1 2 #overcapacity -queues maybe longer Storage Bay length (ft) 75 125 100 80 50 50 125 50 150 During the AM peak hour scenarios, the westbound through -right lane of the Spear Street -Swift Street intersection has an average queue length of approximately 2-3 vehicles. About 5% of the time, this lane experiences queues of 4-8 vehicles. The northbound through -right lane has an average queue of 2-4 vehicles and a maximum/951h percentile queue of about 10 vehicles. The eastbound approach at the Spear Street -Deer Field Drive-Nowland Farm Road intersection experiences average queues of approximately 2-3 vehicles. During the PM scenarios, the eastbound approach at the Spear Street -Swift Street intersection has an average queue of approximately 4 vehicles, and about 5% of the time experiences queues of about 8 vehicles. The northbound lanes have 95th percentile queues of approximately 8-10 vehicles. The southbound through -right lane has an average queue of about six vehicles and a maximum queue (about 5% of the time) of 10-11 vehicles. 6.0 SAFETY ANALYSIS 6.1 High Crash Locations In order to be classified as a High Crash Location (HCL), an intersection or road section (0.3 mile section) must meet the following two conditions: 1. It must have at least 5 crashes over a 5-year period. 2. The Actual Crash Rate must exceed the Critical Crash Rate. Based on the most current crash data available from VTrans (2003-2007), the 0.3 mile section of Spear Street that includes the Swift Street intersection is a HCL. Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 23 I 6.2 Crash Histories Crash histories were collected from VTrans for the most recent five year period available (January 2003- December 2008). VTrans maintains a statewide database of all reported crashes along all state highways and federal aid road segments.' This database was used in analyzing the crash history along Spear Street between Swift Street and Nowland Farm Road. A reportable crash is a collision with at least one of the following results caused by the event: ■ property damage exceeding $1,000 ■ personal injury • fatality There were 62 crashes in the study area between 2003 and 2008; of these, nine involved injuries and there were no fatalities. Figure 16 shows the number of reported crashes by location between 2003 and 2008. Figure 17 shows that of these crashes, 57% were rear -end collisions and 20% involved a single vehicle. Rear end crashes are typically higher where vehicle speeds are changing, or significantly different from one vehicle to another, and are common at intersections. The locations of the crashes by type are shown in Figure 18. The majority of the single vehicle crashes occurred in the northern part of the study area in the vicinity of the Spear Street intersection with Swift Street. Rear -end crashes appear to be concentrated on Spear Street between Cedar Glen Drive and Swift Street. Nearly half of the broadside crashes took place near the Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road intersection. ' This data is exempt from Discovery or Admission under 23 U.S.C. 409. 8 August 2010 Page 24 Figure 16: Reported Crashes in the Study Area (2003-2008) Crashes and MCIs: 2003.2007 � 0 250 500 1,000 Ncmbcr of crashes • O Fee • 1 2 3-4 Q 5.8 • 9 - 12 0 1013 16 FT S 4�CL Sections .v T F � O O O O W A sT� rt D" Spear Meadows 1 CE Dqq GIfNO � DORFY RD g o r A yy N A O OVERLOOK DffRFIEEDOq AVOW'.. DFA ARD$ _ / Figure 17: Summary of Crash Types within Study Area (2003-2008) Si Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 25 Figure 18: Location of Crashes by Type (2003-2008) Crashes and HCLs: 2003-2007 0 250 500 1,000 A Fe Crash Type Rear End / Single Vehicle Crash Broadside I �1 Involving Left -Turn o O Sideswipe HCL Sections A W Spear Meadows .N DR/ 1 A DR Inclement weather does not appear to be a significant factor as 82% of the crashes occurred when the weather was clear or cloudy (Figure 19). Inattention/distracted was a factor in 44% of the crashes, as well as following too closely (21%) and failure to yield right of way (16%) (Figure 20). 8 August 2010 Page 26 Figure 19: Weather as a Factor in Study Area Crashes Sleet or Hail Fog, Smog,'—ko __— 2% Not Figure 20: Contributing Factors in Study Area Crashes 30 25 20 1 _ti _ 3 3 2 1 1 0 T Inattention Followedtoo Failed to Unknown Maclean Drivingtoo Failure to Other Swervingor Distracted Disregarded Visibility closely yield right of improper fast for keepin improper avoiding trafficsigns obstructed way turn conditions proper lane action or run ning offroad 6.3 Sight Distances Stopping sight distance is the distance required for a vehicle, traveling at the design speed, to stop before reaching a stationary object in its path, such as a stopped vehicle. Intersection (or corner) sight distance Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 27 is the distance required for drivers to stop or adjust their speed, as appropriate, to avoid having to slow down a potentially conflicting vehicle leaving an intersection. The provision of adequate stopping sight distance is critical for safe operations. The 2004 Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (a.k.a. "The Green Book") states that, "[i]f the available sight distance for an entering or crossing vehicle is at least equal to the appropriate stopping sight distance for the major road, then drivers have sufficient sight distance to anticipate and avoid collisions."' The Green Book goes on to state that, "intersection sight distances that exceed stopping sight distances are desirable along the major road:'2 In the field, the available stopping sight distance is measured from a point 3.5 feet above the road surface of the major road approach lanes to a point 2.0 feet above the road surface at the stop bar of the minor street approach.3 The available intersection sight distance is measured from a point 3.5 feet above the road surface at a point on the minor road approach 14.5 feet from the edge of the major road's traveled way to a point 3.5 feet above the road surface of the major road approach lanes.4 The minimum stopping sight distances are calculated based on factors such as design speed, response times, and grades as reported in The Green Books The minimum intersection sight distance from a stop -controlled minor road onto a 35 mph major road is 390'.6 There is currently a large hedge where Spear Meadows Road is proposed which prevents precise measurement of sight distances. What measurements were made in the field (approximately 10' from the edge of pavement) indicated that the sight distances exceed this distance (Figure 21 and Figure 22). A question had been raised regarding a tree approximately 50' north of the proposed intersection and whether it would interfere with the sight distance for westbound vehicles turning left. Measuring the sight distance from the site plan suggests that the tree will not obstruct the sight distance (Figure 23). The sight distance should be re-evaluated when the hedge is removed and measurements can be made more precisely. ' American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition (Washington D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004), pg. 651. 2 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition (Washington D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004), pg. 651. 3 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition (Washington D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004), pg. 127. 4 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition (Washington D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004), pg. 653,657, 659. 'American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition (Washington D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004), pg. 659. 6 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition (Washington D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004), pg. 661. 8 August 2010 Page 28 Figure 21: Sight Distance Looking North (measured 10' from edge of pavement) Reaches Spear -Swift Intersection Figure 22: Sight Distance Looking South (measured 10' from edge of pavement) Reaches Approximately to Cedar Glen Drive Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 29 F Figure 23: Sight Distance to the North as Measured from Site Plan OF EXISTING PAVEMENT EXISTING+ HOUSE AND MINIMUM OF 1 FT. CLEAN t GARAC TO BE REMOVED T WITH EMULSION PRIOR I t EXISTING DRIVE IG (SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET) TO BE REMOVED )VE EXISTING 12" CMP 'ERT L I RELOCATI AND REPLACE WITH — -�_ RESTORE EXISTING J EXISTING 15' HDPE STORM LINE 5' OFF NEW EDGE OF DRIVEWAYS AFTER _ MAILBOX :MENT) I INSTALLATION OF RELOCATE NEW 15 HDPEL EW STORM LINE EXISTING INV. 302.0' GMP POLE I EDGE OF £MENT RE O NE NG NEW 15" MDP INV.384.2 ITE /8.LLOW MARS(_ 1 � EXISTING EDGE 1 OF PAVEMENT 1 TO REMAIN 7.0 DESIGN REVIEW I O \ \ Point 14.S' from traveled way Tree does not RELOCAVI EXISTING appear to interfere GMP POSE with sight distance '-_ * _ J -- 390' --- --� -- O ® O 1 REMOVE EXISTING / D TT D 4" L WHITE LINE 4- WHITE PAVEMENT MARKINGS EXISTING EDGE J AS REWIRED OF PAVEMENT 1 PEDESTRIAN ADVANCE LINE PEDESTRIANS EXISTING HEDGE TO BE 1 WARNING CROSSING SIGN CROSSING SIGNS REMOVED AS NECCESARY MUTCD STANDARD) (PER MUTCD) FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 1D' VADE PEDESTRIAN 1PER ` 8" YELLC CROSS WALK LINES SPEAR STREET TURN LANE PARTIAL SITE PLAN i"-40' 7.1 Spear Street Southbound left -Turn Lane In Figure 23 above, the southbound left -turn lane is designed with 190' of taper and 125' for storage and additional deceleration. These dimensions are consistent with the VTrans Guideline for Determining Storage, Taper and Deceleration Lengths for Left & Right -Turn Lanes at Intersections. In addition to the VTrans methodology, NCHRP Report 457 provides guidance on determining the adequacy of storage and deceleration bay lengths and suggests that a storage bay length of 25' and a deceleration bay length of 90' is adequate.' The NCHRP Report also describes a taper length of 120' that is within the range of 100-180' suggested by the AASHTO Green Book.2 Therefore, the southbound left - turn lane is adequately designed. 7.2 Spear Meadows Road Westbound Turn Lanes The westbound left- and right -turn lanes at the Spear Meadows Road access on Spear Street are 50' long. Although the amount of traffic using these lanes is not expected to be large, the two lane approach 'National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 457 Evaluating Intersection Improvements: An Engineering Study Guide (Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001), pg. 24. ' American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition (Washington D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004), pg. 718. 8 August 2010 Page 30 facilitates the best operation, allows plenty of room for truck and snow plow turns, and eases the need for large (undesirable) curb radii. 8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ■ In the congestion and queuing analyses, traffic operations remain generally acceptable and relatively consistent with existing conditions both with and without Spear Meadows. Thus the proposed Spear Meadows development will not cause undue adverse traffic or safety conditions on the local roadway network. ■ Highlights of the traffic analysis include: - The stop -controlled minor road approaches at the Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road intersection operate at LOS E (Deer Field Drive) and D (Nowland Farm Road) under existing conditions and are projected to continue to operate at these levels with and without Spear Meadows. - Overall LOS at the Spear Street -Swift Street intersection continues to be B in all scenarios in the AM peak hour and C in all scenarios in the PM peak hour. - During the PM peak hour at Spear Street -Swift Street the northbound left -turn lane operates at LOS D with maximum queues (95 percentile, or those experienced 5% of the peak hour) sometimes exceeding the turn pocket capacity. ■ Cut -through traffic is expected to be minimal provided that the development's roads are designed to discourage such traffic. ■ The additional southbound left turn lane at the proposed project entrance is suitably designed, and will remove left turning vehicles from through traffic, thus reducing the potential for rear end type collisions which are common in this stretch of Spear Street. ■ The 0.3 mile segment of Spear Street that includes the Swift Street intersection is rated a High Crash Location by VTrans and is ranked 521of 653 such locations in Vermont. The proposed site entrance is not within this section of roadway. ■ The sight distance at Spear Meadows Road should be re-evaluated when the hedge is removed and measurements can be made more precisely. Measurements made from the site plans suggest that the tree approximately 50' north of the proposed intersection will not obstruct the sight distance. Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 31 APPENDIX A Raw Volumes Adjustments Trip Generation 08/08/10 09:35 AM Synchro Node PM Raw Count Data DHV & Annual Adjustments (1) to 2011 1 Spear St/Swift St L 48 124 236 78 DHV ATR/CTC S6D086 SBudingtonSpear St03—NofSwlft DHV Calculations South Burlington, VT T 208 141 226 328 DHV Poll Group Urban ATR/CTC Year 2009 7/30/2009 R 228 34 98 74 1823 Annl Grwth ATR/CTC ID 56D086 S BuH,n`ton Spear St 0.3 mi Nof S,dt ATR/CTC AADT 4,900 484 299 560 480 5th Thursday Enter 1823 Annl Grwth Poll Group Urban 1 20D9-2009 Growth 1.00 CCMPO Exit 384 451 308 680 1823 TM Count Year 2009 Corr. AADT 4,900 0.4% 1.7% 0.5% 0.4% %Trucks DHV Adjustment 0.65 DHV (Equation) n/a Peds 4 1 1 1 PHF 2009-2011 Growth 0.96 Calulcated Adjustment DHV (K-Factor) 510 1 3:45 PM - 4:45 PM Peak Peak Hour 1 0.92 Total Adjustment f f Corr. Count 788 EB WB NB SB 2 Spear St/NowlandFarm Rd L 22 27 5 34 DHVATR/CTC S6D086 so-iington:SpearSt0.3miNor Swift DHV Calculations South Burlington, VT T 6 9 504 538 DHV Poll Group Urban ATR/CTC Year 2009 7/22/2010 R 3 18 34 32 1232 Annl Grwth ATR/CTC ID S6D086 S Burlington: Spear St0.3 mi Nof Swat ATR/CTC AADT 4,900 4th Thursday Enter 31 54 543 604 1232 AnnlGrwth Poll Group Urban 2009-2010 Growth 0.98 RSG Exit 74 46 544 568 1232 TM Count Year 2010 i Corr. AADT 4,802 %Trucks 0.0% 1.9% 1.7% 1.01A DHV Adjustment, 0.44 DHV (Equation) n/a Peds 4 1 1 18 PHF 2010-2011 Growth 0 98 Calulcated Adjustment DHV (K-Factor) 500 Peak HourF 4.45 PM - 5:45 PM Peak 1 0.93 Total Adjustment Corr. countl 1,148 EB WB NB SB 3 Nowland Farm Rd/Vale Dr L 11 0 0 6 DHV ATR/CTC i S6023 Hardwick: VT15 -0.1 mi N of Granite 5t South Burlington, VT T 67 50 0 0 DHV Poll Group !Rural Primary and Secondary 7/22/2010 R 0 6 0 4 144 Annl Grwth ATR/CTC ID`a P6C007 Hardwick: Vr15 700ft W pf VT14 4th Thursday Enter 78 56 0 10 144 Annl Grwth Poll Group iP60007 RSG Exit 73 54 17 0 1" TM Count Year - 0 %Trucks 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% DHVAdjustment J01 j Peds 0 0 0 13 PHF 2010-2011 Growth Peak Hour 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM Peak 1 0.88 Total Adjustment r r Page 1 of 6 V Adjusted Raw Counts ODVs 2011 Cider Mill Phase 1 Enter Exit PM 1 51 30 81 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L 48 124 236 78 L T 208 141 226 328 T R 228 34 98 74 1823 R 0 Enter 484 299 560 480 1823 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 384 451 308 680 1823 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB_ SB EB WB NB SB L 22 27 5 34 L 0 1 T 6 9 504 538 T 0 0 R 3 18 34 32 1232 R 0 1 2 Enter 31 54 543 604 1232 Enter 0 1 1 1 2 Exit 74 46 544 568 1232 Exit 1 0 0 0 2 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L 11 0 0 6 L T 67 50 0 0 T 1 1 1 R 0 6 0 4 144 R 2 Enter 78 56 0 30 144 Enter 1 1 0 0 2 Exit 73 54 17 0 144 Exit 1 1 0 0 2 Travellinethroueh Nowland/Dorset SB exiting intersection NB entering ntersection 30 12 per CCMPO TM counts 4% are EBR 6% are NBL resulting vol at Nowland/Vale 1 exit EB 1 enter WB PM ODVs Cider Mill Phase 2 Enter Exit PM 69 39 7 107 Trip distribution based on AM EB WB NB SB L T R 1 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB _ WB NB _ SB L 0 1 T 0 0 R 0 1 3 Enter 0 1 1 1 3 Exit 2 0 0 0 3 EB WB NB SB L T 2 1 R 1 3 Enter 2 1 0 0 3 Exit 2 1 0 0 3 Travelline throueh Nowland/Dorset SB exiting intersection NB entering intersection 41 16 per CCMPO TM counts 4% are EBR 6% are NBL resulting vol at Nowland/Vale 2 exit EB 1 enter WB Page 2 of 6 CCMF SBOR83 PM peak hot `/ PM ODVs ODVs South Village _ Goldberg Enter Exit Enter Exit PM 1 157 85 242 PM 9 5 14 AM & PM peak hour directional splits from Figure 13 in the Dorset Street Corridor Study, as well as CCMPO turning movement counts on Dorset Stn EB WB NB ---19 SB L---------- 7 T 18 19 1 R, 3 8 73 Enter 3 7 44 19 73 Exit 8 19 18 29 73 EB WB NB SB L 2 0 T 44 39 R 0 3 89 Enter 0 2 48 39 89 Exit 3 0 44 41 89 EB WB NB SB L 0 :. T 3 2 R 0 1 5 Enter 3 2 0 0 5 Exit 3 2 0 0 5 Trnvolli— th--h Nnwlanrl/Cnoar NB entering intersection �LxLftng intersection 41 48 EB WB _ NB SB RI 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB 5B L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB_ 5B L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 Travallin¢ thrnuph Nnwland/DM Pt SB exiting intersection NB entering intersection 5 2 per CCMPO TM counts 4% are EBR 6% are NBL resulting vol at Nowland/Vale 0 exit EB 0 enter WB WB EB (Allen) (S. Village) NB (Spear) SB (Spear) 'O TM count L 116 0 172 0 -Spear-Allen T 0 0 558 197 jr May 2004 R 37 0 0 114 1194 Enter 153 0 730 311 1194 Exit 0 286 674 234 1194 Page 3 of 6 resul V ODVs Shelburne -O'Brien Enter Exit PM 1 17 10 27 No Build 2011 Trip Generation Enter Exit PM F 49 27 76 EB WB NB 5B EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB _ LF _ __ —� L 48 131 255 78 L 5 7 T! T 208 141 244 347 T 7 14 I R 0 R 231 34 106 74 1896 R 9 3 46 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Enter 487 306 604 499 1896 Enter 9 5 17 14 46 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 392 470 326 709 1896 Exit 3 7 7 29 46 Spear Meadows Roadl WBL WEIR NBR SBL 8 16 15 29 EB WB NB _ _SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L L 22 30 5 35 L 1 1 4 T T 6 9 548 577 T 1 0 14 7 R j 0 R 3 19 38 321 1325 R 2 3 0 33 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Enter 31 58 592 644 1325 Enter 1 3 17 11 33 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 80 47 589 610 1325 Exit 8 1 16 9 33 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L L 11 0 0 6 L 7 4 T T 72 53 0 0 T RI 0 R 0 6 0 4 153 R 4 2 17 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Enter 84 59 0 10 153 Enter 7 4 0 6 17 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 78 58 17 0 153 Exit 4 2 11 0 17 Travelling through Nowland/Dorset Assumptions NB entering 60% of veh to/from south use Spear and remaining 40% 58 exiting intersection intersection use Vale Drive 10 4 95%of veh to/from north use Spear and remaining 5% per CCMPO TM counts 4% are EBR 6% are NBL EB WB N8 58 1. Directional NB enter SB enter NB exit SB exit based on Sr Ling vol at Nowland/Vale 0 exit EB 0 enter WB LEO 0 0 distribution 25 25 14 14 T 604 644Spear enter enter R 0 0 2. Internal Meado from 5 from N exit to N exit to S Assumed distribution w Rd 15 23 13 8 Vale Dr 10 1 1 5 Diverted trips to Spear Meadows from Vale and Four Sisters neighborhoods 4 3 1 entering PM trip to the existing SF home on the site is included at Spear Meadows Road Page 4 of 6 Build 2011 EB WB NB SS L 48 136 262 78 T 208 141 251 361 R 240 34 109 74 1942 Enter 496 311 622 513 1942 Exit 395 477 333 737 1942 EB W8 NB SB L 31 5 39 T[73 7102 584 1 R3 20 42 32 1359 Enter 33 61 609 655 1359 Exit 88 48 605 618 1359 EB WB INS SB L 19 0 0 10 T 72 53 0 0 R 0 10 0 7 171 Enter 91 63 0 16 171 Exit 82 60 29 0 171 )ear St N-5 directional split (see ODVs) Annual Adjustment Adjusted Raw Counts 2016 2016 1.01 2011 to 2016 EB WB NB SB L 48 1238 79 T 230 14242 228 331 R 230 34 99 75 1841 Enter 489 302 566 485 1841 Exit 398 456 311 687 1841 EB WB NB SB L[ 22 27 5 34 T 6 9 509 543 3 R 3 18 34 32 1244 Enter 31 S5 548 610 1244 Exit 75 46 549 574 1244 EB WB NB SB L 11 0 0 6 T 68 51 0 0 R 0 6 0 4 145 Enter 79 57 0 10 145 Exit 74 S5 17 0 145 Spear Meadows Road Page 5 of 6 No Build 2016 —� EB WB NB SB L 48 132 257 79 T 210 142 246 350 1 R 233 34 107 75 1914 Enter 492 309 610 504 1914 Exit 396 474 329 715 1914 EB WB NB 5B L 22 30 5 36 T 6 9 553 582 1 R 3 19 39 32 1338 Enter 32 58 598 650 1338 Exit 81 47 594 615 1338 EB WB NB 5B L 12 0 0 6 T 73 54 0 0 1 R 0 6 0 4 155 Enter 85 60 0 10 155 Exit 79 58 18 0 155 EB WB N8 513 L 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 610 650 R 0 0 0 0 Build 2016 EB WB NB SB L 48 138 264 79 T 210 142 253 364 1 R 242 34 110 75 1960 Enter 501 314 627 518 1960 Exit 399 481 336 744 1960 EB W8 NB SB L 23 31 5 39 T 7 10 567 589 1 R 3 20 42 33 1371 Enter 33 62 615 662 1371 Exit 88 48 610 624 1371 EB WB NB SB L 19 0 0 10 T 73 54 0 0 1 R 0 10 0 7 172 Enter 92 64 0 16 172 Exit 83 61 29 0 172 EB WB NB 58 L 0 8 0 29 T 0 0 627 662 R 0 16 15 0 Annual Adjustment 2021 1.01 2016to 2021 EB WB NB SB L 49 134 259 80 T 212 144 248 353 R 235 35 108 75 1933 Enter 496 312 616 508 1933 Exit 399 479 332 722 1933 EB WB NB SB L 22 30 6 36 T 6 9 559 588 R 3 19 39 33 1350 Enter 32 59 603 656 1350 Exit 81 48 600 621 1350 EB WB NB 5B L 12 0 0 6 T 74 54 0 0 R 0 6 0 4 156 Enter 85 61 0 10 156 Exit 80 59 18 0 156 EB WB NB SB L 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 616 656 R 0 0 0 0 PM Build -2021 EB WB NB SB L 49 139 267 80 T 212 144 255 367 R 245 35 11175 1979 Enter 506 317 633 523 1979 Exit 403 486 339 751 1979 EB WB NB SB L 23 32 6 40 T 7 10 572 595 R 3 21 42 33 1383 Enter 33 62 620 668 1383 Exit 89 48 616 630 1383 EB WB NB SB L 19 0 0 10 T 74 54 0 0 R 0 10 0 7 174 Enter 93 64 0 16 174 Exit 84 61 29 0 174 EB WB NB 5B L 0 8 0 29 T 0 0 633 668 R 0 16 15 0 Page 6 of 6 O8/08/10 09:32 AM Synchro Node AM Raw Count Data DHV & Annual Adjustments (1) to — --- , — 2011 EB WB NB SB 1 Spear St/Swift St L 45 79 206 13 DHV ATR/CTC DHV Calculations S6D086 ; _.,, e; saa. s:.. n,; c.:a South Burlington, VT T 58 250 295 101 DHV Poll Group Urban ATR/CTC Year 2009 7/30/2009 R 64 73 105 48 1337 Annl Grwth ATR/CTC ID 56D096 s;o _ r, r ....... ATR/CTC AADT 4,900 167 402 606 162 5th Thursday Enter 1337 Annl Grwth Poll Group Urban 2009-2009 Growth 1.00 CCMPO Exit 176 504 413 244 1337 TM Count Year 2009 Corr. AADT 4,900 4.2% 1.5% 1.2% 3.7% %Trucks DHV Adjustment 0.65 DHV (Equation) n/a Peds 2 2 2 0 PHF 2009-2011 Growth 0.96 DHV(K-Factor) 510 6:45 AM - 7:45 AM Peak Peak Hour 0.85 Total Adjustment so Corr. Count 788 2 Spear St/Nowland Farm Rd South Burlington, VT 7/23/2010 4th Thursday RSG L T R Enter Exit %Trucks Peds Peak Hour EB WB NB SB 33 18 1 11 5 1 446 205 4 25 14 12 774 774 774 PHF 1 0.88 1 DHV ATR/CTC DHV Poll Group Annl Grwth ATR/CTC ID Annl Grwth Poll Group TM Count Year DHV Adjustment 2010 2011 Growth Total Adjustment DHV Calculations S61D086 s— sr1—s:"J, Urban S61D086 Urban 2010 0.44 0.98 ATR/CTC Year ATR/CTC AADT 2009-2010 Growth Corr. AADT DHV (Equation) DHV (K Factor) Corr. Counti 2009 4,900 0.98 4,802 n/a S00 1,148 42 44 460 228 30 13 504 227 2.4% 2.3% 0.7% 5.3% 2 0 0 14 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM Peak 3 Nowland Farm Rd/Vale Dr South Burlington, VT 7/23/2010 4th Thursday RSG EB WB NB SB L 1 0 0 7 T 22 39 0 0 R 0 2 0 14 84 Enter 22 41 0 21 84 Exit 29 53 2 0 84 %Trucks 4.5% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1 0 0 0 10 ! PHF Peak Hourl 7:15 AM - 8:15 AM Peak DHV ATR/CTC S6C723 - a - — , __-c1=.%<fs-1—s: DHV Poll Group Rural Primary and Secondary Annl Grwth ATR/CTC ID P60007 H,, dw,ck VT 15 700rt w or VT 14 Annl Grwth Poll Group P6C007 TM Count Year 2010 DHV Adjustment #DIV/0! 2010-2011 Growth Total Page 1 of 6 Adjusted Raw Counts 2011 EB WB NB SB L 45 79 206 13 T 58 250 295 101 1 R 64 73 10510.1 1337 Enter 167 402 606 162 1337 Exit 176 504 413 244 1337 EB WB NB 58 L 33 18 1 11 T 5 1 446 205 1 R 4 25 14 12 775 Enter 42 44 461 228 775 Exit 30 14 504 227 775 EB WB NB SB L 1 0 0 7 T 22 39 0 0 R 0 2 0 14 85 Enter 23 41 0 21 85 Exit 29 53 3 0 85 fT ODVs Cider Mill Phase 1 Enter Exit 15 46 1 62 EB WB NB SB L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB L 0 T 0 R 0 1 Enter 0 1 0 0 1 Exit 0 0 0 0 1 EB WB NB 5B L T 1 R 1 1 Enter 0 1 0 0 1 Exit 0 1 0 0 1 T,—.1li— Nvnnoh Nnwla nrl/nnrmt NB entering SB exiting intersection intersection 4 35 ODVs Cider Mill Phase 2 Enter Exit 20 65 85 Assumed directional splits for AM peak: Dorse EB WB NB---- SB_ L T RF 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB L 0 T 0 R 1 1 Enter 0 1 0 0 1 Exit 0 0 1 0 1 EB WB NB SB L T 1 RF I 1 Enter 0 1 0 0 1 Exit 0 1 0 0 1 T--I ina thrnuoh Nnwlanri/nn-pt SB exiting intersection NB entering intersection 5 49 per CCMPO TM counts 4% are EBR 2% are NBL per CCMPO TM counts 4% are EBR 2% are NBL resulting vol at Nowland/Vale 0 exit EB 1 enter WB resulting vol at Nowland/Vale 0 exit EB 1 enter WB CCMP SBOR83- AM peak hot Page 2 of 6 Y ODVs South Village ODVs Goldberg Enter Exit Enter Exit 53 188 1 241 4 16 1 21 xset Street: 75% NB, 25% SB (per Figure 13 of Dorset Street Corridor Study; Spear Street: 70% NB, 30% SB (per RSG's July 2010 TM counts at Spear-Nowland Farn EB WB NB SB L 8 21 T 30 10 R 5 11 86 Enter 5 8 63 10 86 Exit 11 21 30 23 86 EB WB NB SB L 2 0 T 63 25 R 0 2 92 Enter 0 2 65 25 92 Exit 2 0 63 28 92 EB WB NB SB L 0 T 2 2 R 1 4 Enter 2 2 0 1 4 Exit 2 2 0 0 4 Travelling through Nowland/Spear SB exiting intersection NB entering intersection 28 1 65 EB WB NB SB L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 per CCMPO TM counts resulting vol at NowlandNale EB (Allen) WS NB (Spear) SB (Spear 0 TM count L 169 0 66 0 Spear -Allen T 0 0 327 534 hour May 21 R 124 0 0 218 1438 Enter 293 0 393 752 1438 Exit 0 284 496 658 1438 Travelling throu h Nowland/Dorset SB exiting intersection NB entering intersection 1 12 4% are EBR 2% are NBL 0 exit EB 0 enter WB Page 3 of 6 result `/ ODVs Shelburne Enter Exit 6 19 1 25 EB WB NB SB L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB_ _ NB SB L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 Travallinp thr—ph Nnwland/flnrcat SB exiting intersection NB entering intersection 2 14 per CCMPO TM counts 4% are EBR 2% are NBL ing vol at Nowland/Vale 0 exit EB 0 enter WB AM No Build 2011 Trip Generation Enter Exit 12 44 56 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L 45 87 227 13 L 2 14 T 58 250 325 111 T 21 3 R 69 73 116 48 1423 R 2 7 49 Enter 172 410 669 172 1423 Enter 2 2 43 3 49 Exit 187 525 443 267 1423 Exit 7 14 21 7 49 Spear Meadows Road WBL WBR NBR SBL 8 40 5 7 EB WB NB SB L 33 21 1 11 T 5 1 509 230 R 4 26 16 12 869 Enter 42 48 526 253 869 Exit 32 14 568 255 869 EB WB NB SB L 0 2 1 1 T 0 0 5 R 2 1 0 19 Enter 1 4 5 8 19 Exit 2 0 7 9 19 EB WB NB 513 EB WB NB SB L 1 0 0 7 L 1 2 T 24 42 0 0 T R 0 2 0 15 91 R 2 5 10 Enter 25 44 0 22 91 Enter 1 2 0 7 10 Exit 31 57 3 0 91 Exit 2 5 4 0 10 Assumptions 60% of veh to/from south use Spear and remaining 40% use Vale Drive 95% of veh to/from north use Spear and remaining 5% EB WB NB SB 1. Directional NB enter SB enter NB exit SB exit based on Spe L 0 0 0 0 distribution 9 4 31 13 T 0 0 669 253 R 0 0 0 0 Spear I enter enter exit to N exit to 5 Assumed Meado 5 4 29 8 Vale DrI 3 0 2 5 Diverted trips to Spear Meadows from Vale and Four Sisters neighborhoods 3 10 1 exiting AM trip from the existing SF home on the site is included at Spear Meadows Road Page 4 of 6 AM Annual Build Adjustment Adjusted Raw Counts No Build Build 2011 2016 2016 2016 —� 2016 1.01 2011 to 2016 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB 89 242 13 L[ 45 80 T 58 250 346 114 T 59 2553 298 102 T 59 53 328 1 Z T 59 503 349 115 R 70 73 123 48 1472 R 65 74 106 48 1350 R 69 74 117 48 1436 R 71 74 124 48 1485 Enter 173 412 711 175 1472 Enter 169 406 612 164 1350 Enter 173 414 675 174 1436 Enter 175 416 717 177 1485 Exit 194 540 464 274 1472 Exit 178 509 417 246 1350 Exit 189 530 448 270 1436 Exit 196 S45 468 276 1485 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LI 23 1 12 L[ 33 18 1 LI 33 21 11 212 2127 2129 R 43 28 17 888 R 4 25 14 783 R 5 26 16 12 877 R 5 28 178 895 Enter 43 52 531 261 888 Enter 42 44 466 230 783 Enter 43 48 530 255 877 Enter 43 53 536 264 895 Exit 34 15 575 265 888 Exit 30 14 509 229 783 Exit 32 14 573 258 877 Exit 34 15 580 267 895 EB WB NB SB EB WB NO 58 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB T 24 42 0 0 T 22 9 0 0 1 T 24 43 0 0 T 24 43 0 0 R 0 4 0 19 101 R 0 2 0 14 86 R 0 2 0 15 92 R 0 4 0 19 102 Enter 26 47 0 28 101 Enter 23 41 0 21 86 Enter 25 45 0 22 92 Enter 26 47 0 29 102 Exit 33 61 7 0 101 Exit 29 54 3 0 86 Exit 31 57 3 0 92 Exit 33 62 7 0 102 Spear St N-S directional split (see OC Spear Meadows Road Page 5 of 6 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L 0 0 0 0 L 0 8 0 7 T 0 0 675 255 T 0 0 717 264 R 0 0 0 0 R 0 40 5 0 AM Annual Adjustment No Build Build 2021 2021 2021 1.01 2016to 2021 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L 8923113 L 46 91 246 13 T255 331 113 759 T 59 255 352 116 R74 118 49 1450 R 72 74 125 49 1499 Enter 175 418 681 176 1450 Enter 177 420 723 178 1499 Exit 190 535 452 272 1450 Exit 198 550 473 279 1499 Ow EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L 34 21 1 11 L 34 23 1 12 T 5 1 518 234 T 5 1 522 241 R 5 26 16 12 885 R 5 29 17 13 903 Enter 43 49 535 258 885 Enter 44 53 540 266 903 Exit 33 14 578 260 885 € Exit 34 15 585 269 903 EB WB NB 58 EB WB NB SB L 1 0 0 7 L 2 0 0 9 T 24 43 0 0 T 24 43 0 0 R 0 2 0 15 93 R 0 4 0 19 103 Enter 25 45 0 22 93 Enter 27 47 0 29 103 Exit 31 58 3 0 93 Exit 34 63 7 0 103 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L 0 0 0 0 L 0 8 0 7 T 0 0 681 258 T 0 0 723 266 R 0 0 0 0 R 0 40 5 0 Page 6 of 6 APPENDIX B Synchro LOS and Queuing Worksheets SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2011 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline ■-- t i Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 103 69 87 323 227 441 13 159 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.18 0.26 0.55 0.47 0.59 0.04 0.39 Control Delay 25.7 8.5 15.7 18.3 14.7 16.4 9.8 16.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 25.7 8.5 15.7 18.3 14.7 16.4 9.8 16.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 26 0 15 60 43 89 2 32 Queue Length 95th (ft) 88 32 60 191 92 241 10 76 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 413 542 339 971 485 1363 334 1356 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.25 0.13 0.26 0.33 0.47 0.32 0.04 0.12 Intersection Summary 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2011 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r T T I T Volume (vph) 45 58 69 87 250 73 227 325 116 13 111 48 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fri: 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 At Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1859 1615 1805 1836 1805 1825 1805 1814 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.44 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1353 1615 817 1836 1006 1825 839 1814 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 45 58 69 87 250 73 227 325 116 13 111 48 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 57 0 13 0 0 18 0 0 24 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 103 12 87 310 0 227 423 0 13 135 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.9 9.9 18.0 18.0 24.0 19.7 16.4 15.9 Effective Green, g (s) 9.9 9.9 18.0 18.0 24.0 19.7 16.4 15.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.32 0.32 0.43 0.35 0.29 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 238 284 299 588 491 640 253 513 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.17 c0.04 c0.23 0.00 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.16 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.04 0.29 0.53 0.46 0.66 0.05 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 20.6 19.2 14.0 15.6 10.9 15.4 14.2 15.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.3 2.0 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 21.1 19.2 14.2 16.0 11.2 17.4 14.3 15.7 Level of Service C B B B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 20.4 15.6 15.3 15.6 Approach LOS C B B B Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 16.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.2 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.1 % ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2011 NB 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street Baseline -.4 -♦ -,* f t-,N t 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 ot r 4� I 1� Volume (veh/h) 33 5 4 21 1 26 1 509 16 11 230 12 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 33 5 4 21 1 26 1 509 16 11 230 12 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 790 785 236 778 783 517 242 525 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 790 785 236 778 783 517 242 525 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 89 98 100 93 100 95 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 292 323 808 308 324 562 1336 1052 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 42 48 526 11 242 Volume Left 33 21 1 11 0 Volume Right 4 26 16 0 12 cSH 315 674 1336 1052 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 6 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 18.2 14.4 0.0 8.5 0.0 Lane LOS C B A A Approach Delay (s) 18.2 14.4 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2011 NB 3: Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations +' T Y Volume (veh/h) 1 24 42 2 7 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 24 42 2 7 15 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 44 69 43 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 44 69 43 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1577 940 1033 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 25 44 22 Volume Left 1 0 7 Volume Right 0 2 15 cSH 1577 1700 1002 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.03 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.3 0.0 8.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.3 0.0 8.7 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2011 NB 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline f- t T �' �► Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations I r 11� + Volume (veh/h) 0 0 669 0 0 253 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 669 0 0 253 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 922 669 669 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 922 669 669 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 302 461 931 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 0 0 669 253 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 81 70 46 169 230 403 8 162 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.17 0.15 0.31 0.40 0.40 0.02 0.34 Control Delay 22.1 8.2 14.8 14.3 12.1 12.5 8.8 14.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 22.1 8.2 14.8 14.3 12.1 12.5 8.8 14.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 14 0 8 27 26 48 1 23 Queue Length 95th (ft) 69 31 35 92 91 215 7 76 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 518 642 299 1155 578 1488 437 1465 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.16 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.40 0.27 0.02 0.11 Intersection Summary 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline t -� � Ir t 4N T � 1 � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +1 r T+ ►j T+ ►j T+ Volume (vph) 45 36 70 46 131 38 230 330 73 8 114 48 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1849 1615 1805 1836 1805 1848 1805 1816 Flt Permitted 0.74 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.53 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1399 1615 706 1836 998 1848 998 1816 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 45 36 70 46 131 38 230 330 73 8 114 48 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 61 0 14 0 0 10 0 0 23 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 81 9 46 155 0 230 393 0 8 139 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.7 6.7 13.9 13.9 25.4 20.8 17.2 16.7 Effective Green, g (s) 6.7 6.7 13.9 13.9 25.4 20.8 17.2 16.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.26 0.26 0.48 0.39 0.32 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 176 203 209 480 546 723 330 570 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.08 c0.04 c0.21 0.00 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm c0.06 0.01 0.05 0.16 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.04 0.22 0.32 0.42 0.54 0.02 0.24 Uniform Delay, dl 21.6 20.4 15.2 15.9 8.5 12.5 12.2 13.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 22.3 20.5 15.4 16.0 8.7 13.0 12.2 13.6 Level of Service C C B B A B B B Approach Delay (s) 21.4 15.9 11.4 13.6 Approach LOS C B B B Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 13.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 53.2 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 NB 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street Baseline ---4 -• --* 'r *-- 4\ T Iv. 1 A/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4T+ *t r 4 Vii T Volume (veh/h) 86 13 12 21 15 26 17 511 16 11 231 180 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 86 13 12 21 15 26 17 511 16 11 231 180 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 916 904 321 824 986 519 411 527 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 916 904 321 824 986 519 411 527 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 62 95 98 92 94 95 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 227 272 724 273 243 561 1159 1050 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 111 62 544 11 411 Volume Left 86 21 17 11 0 Volume Right 12 26 16 0 180 cSH 251 449 1159 1050 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.44 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.24 Queue Length 95th (ft) 53 12 1 1 0 Control Delay (s) 30.3 17.1 0.4 8.5 0.0 Lane LOS D C A A Approach Delay (s) 30.3 17.1 0.4 0.2 Approach LOS D C Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 NB 3: Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline .14 --► ■--- 4-1 `► 4/ Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations +' T Y Volume (veh/h) 1 24 43 2 7 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 24 43 2 7 15 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 45 70 44 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 45 70 44 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1576 939 1032 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 25 45 22 Volume Left 1 0 7 Volume Right 0 2 15 cSH 1576 1700 1000 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.03 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.3 0.0 8.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.3 0.0 8.7 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 NB 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations I r 1� + Volume (veh/h) 0 0 633 0 0 423 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 633 0 0 423 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1056 633 633 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1056 633 633 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 252 483 960 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 0 0 633 423 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.25 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 B 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline I �* Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 81 72 47 169 246 429 8 165 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.17 0.16 0.30 0.42 0.43 0.02 0.35 Control Delay 22.4 8.2 15.1 14.6 12.5 12.7 8.8 15.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 22.4 8.2 15.1 14.6 12.5 12.7 8.8 15.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 14 0 8 27 28 52 1 24 Queue Length 95th (ft) 70 32 36 95 97 232 7 78 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity(vph) 523 649 301 1150 580 1480 430 1457 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.11 0.16 0.15 0.42 0.29 0.02 0.11 Intersection Summary 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 B 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +1 r 1 T+ T Volume (vph) 45 36 72 47 131 38 246 352 77 8 117 48 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1849 1615 1805 1836 1805 1849 1805 1817 Flt Permitted 0.74 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.51 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1399 1615 706 1836 998 1849 972 1817 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 45 36 72 47 131 38 246 352 77 8 117 48 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 63 0 14 0 0 10 0 0 22 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 81 9 47 155 0 246 419 0 8 143 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.7 6.7 13.9 13.9 25.6 21.0 17.4 16.9 Effective Green, g (s) 6.7 6.7 13.9 13.9 25.6 21.0 17.4 16.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.26 0.26 0.48 0.39 0.33 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 176 203 208 478 548 727 325 575 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.08 c0.04 c0.23 0.00 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm c0.06 0.01 0.05 0.18 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.04 0.23 0.32 0.45 0.58 0.02 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 21.7 20.5 15.3 16.0 8.6 12.7 12.2 13.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 22.4 20.6 15.6 16.1 8.8 13.4 12.2 13.6 Level of Service C C B B A B B B Approach Delay (s) 21.5 16.0 11.7 13.6 Approach LOS C B B B Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 14.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 53.4 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 B 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 +t jf 4 1 T. Volume (veh/h) 87 14 12 22 17 28 17 516 17 12 236 183 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 87 14 12 22 17 28 17 516 17 12 236 183 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 932 918 328 838 1002 524 419 533 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 932 918 328 838 1002 524 419 533 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 60 95 98 92 93 95 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 219 266 718 267 238 557 1151 1045 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 113 67 550 12 419 Volume Left 87 22 17 12 0 Volume Right 12 28 17 0 183 cSH 242 437 1151 1045 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.47 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.25 Queue Length 95th (ft) 57 13 1 1 0 Control Delay (s) 32.2 17.6 0.4 8.5 0.0 Lane LOS D C A A Approach Delay (s) 32.2 17.6 0.4 0.2 Approach LOS D C Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 B 3: Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline 'A —► ~ �► Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations +' T Y Volume (veh/h) 2 24 43 4 9 19 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 24 43 4 9 19 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 47 73 45 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 47 73 45 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1573 935 1031 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 26 47 28 Volume Left 2 0 9 Volume Right 0 4 19 cSH 1573 1700 998 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.03 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 8.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 8.7 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 B 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline 'r *-- Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r T I + Volume (veh/h) 8 40 675 5 7 431 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 40 675 5 7 431 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1122 678 680 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1122 678 680 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 96 91 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 228 456 922 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 S8 2 Volume Total 8 40 680 7 431 Volume Left 8 0 0 7 0 Volume Right 0 40 5 0 0 cSH 228 456 1700 922 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.09 0.40 0.01 0.25 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 7 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 21.4 13.7 0.0 8.9 0.0 Lane LOS C B A Approach Delay (s) 14.9 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 B 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 105 72 91 329 246 477 13 165 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.20 0.26 0.52 0.52 0.65 0.04 0.40 Control Delay 28.1 8.7 16.2 18.0 16.2 18.3 9.7 17.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 28.1 8.7 16.2 18.0 16.2 18.3 9.7 17.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 0 16 62 48 100 2 34 Queue Length 95th (ft) 94 33 66 208 100 265 10 78 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 389 517 354 917 470 1288 302 1281 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.27 0.14 0.26 0.36 0.52 0.37 0.04 0.13 Intersection Summary 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 B 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline -' -0. --t 'r *- *-- *� T �► 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +T r 1 T I 1� Volume (vph) 46 59 72 91 255 74 246 352 125 13 116 49 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 Fit Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1859 1615 1805 1836 1805 1825 1805 1815 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.38 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1347 1615 809 1836 1008 1825 726 1815 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 46 59 72 91 255 74 246 352 125 13 116 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 60 0 13 0 0 18 0 0 24 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 105 12 91 316 0 246 459 0 13 141 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.7 9.7 18.8 18.8 24.6 20.3 17.0 16.5 Effective Green, g (s) 9.7 9.7 18.8 18.8 24.6 20.3 17.0 16.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.43 0.35 0.30 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 227 272 318 599 490 643 224 520 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.17 c0.04 c0.25 0.00 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.18 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.04 0.29 0.53 0.50 0.71 0.06 0.27 Uniform Delay, dl 21.6 20.1 14.1 15.8 11.6 16.1 14.5 15.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.3 3.1 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 22.1 20.1 14.3 16.2 11.9 19.3 14.6 16.0 Level of Service C C B B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 21.3 15.8 16.8 15.9 Approach LOS C B B B Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 16.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 57.6 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 B 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street Baseline ---* --P� ---* 4�- 4.- T �► 1 -� Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 +' if +T+ I k Volume (veh/h) 34 5 5 23 1 29 1 522 17 12 241 13 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 34 5 5 23 1 29 1 522 17 12 241 13 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 819 812 248 805 810 530 254 539 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 819 812 248 805 810 530 254 539 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 88 98 99 92 100 95 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 278 311 796 295 312 552 1323 1040 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 44 53 540 12 254 Volume Left 34 23 1 12 0 Volume Right 5 29 17 0 13 cSH 304 653 1323 1040 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 13 7 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 18.8 14.8 0.0 8.5 0.0 Lane LOS C B A A Approach Delay (s) 18.8 14.8 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 B 3: Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline ' � Al \11 4/ Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations #' 1� Y Volume (veh/h) 2 24 43 4 9 19 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 24 43 4 9 19 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 47 73 45 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 47 73 45 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1573 935 1031 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SIB 1 Volume Total 26 47 28 Volume Left 2 0 9 Volume Right 0 4 19 cSH 1573 1700 998 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.03 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 8.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 8.7 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 B 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r T I } Volume (veh/h) 8 40 717 5 7 264 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 40 717 5 7 264 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 998 720 722 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 998 720 722 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 97 91 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 271 432 889 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 8 40 722 7 264 Volume Left 8 0 0 7 0 Volume Right 0 40 5 0 0 cSH 271 432 1700 889 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.09 0.42 0.01 0.16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 8 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 18.7 14.2 0.0 9.1 0.0 Lane LOS C B A Approach Delay (s) 14.9 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 105 70 89 329 231 449 13 162 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.18 0.26 0.56 0.48 0.60 0.04 0.39 Control Delay 26.0 8.4 15.9 18.6 14.9 16.6 9.8 16.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.0 8.4 15.9 18.6 14.9 16.6 9.8 16.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 0 16 62 44 92 2 33 Queue Length 95th (ft) 90 32 62 197 95 248 11 78 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 410 540 340 966 484 1356 329 1349 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.13 0.26 0.34 0.48 0.33 0.04 0.12 Intersection Summary 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline ---* -* -,* f- *-- *-- 4\ t �► 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r ►j T+ T I T Volume (vph) 46 59 70 89 255 74 231 331 118 13 113 49 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 At Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1859 1615 1805 1836 1805 1825 1805 1814 Fit Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.43 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1347 1615 818 1836 1006 1825 816 1814 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 46 59 70 89 255 74 231 331 118 13 113 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 58 0 13 0 0 18 0 0 24 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 105 12 89 316 0 231 431 0 13 138 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 10.0 18.1 18.1 24.2 19.9 16.6 16.1 Effective Green, g (s) 10.0 10.0 18.1 18.1 24.2 19.9 16.6 16.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.32 0.32 0.43 0.35 0.29 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 238 286 299 588 492 643 248 517 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.17 c0.04 c0.24 0.00 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.17 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.04 0.30 0.54 0.47 0.67 0.05 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 20.8 19.3 14.1 15.8 11.0 15.5 14.2 15.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.3 2.2 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 21.2 19.3 14.3 16.2 11.3 17.7 14.3 15.7 Level of Service C B B B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 20.5 15.8 15.5 15.6 Approach LOS C B B B Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 16.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 NB 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street Baseline --,* --I. --* 'e- *-- 4- t /,* 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41, *' r 4 11 1� Volume (veh/h) 34 5 5 21 1 26 1 518 16 11 234 12 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 34 5 5 21 1 26 1 518 16 11 234 12 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 804 798 240 792 796 526 246 534 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 804 798 240 792 796 526 246 534 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 88 98 99 93 100 95 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 286 318 804 301 319 556 1332 1044 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 44 48 535 11 246 Volume Left 34 21 1 11 0 Volume Right 5 26 16 0 12 cSH 313 659 1332 1044 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 12 6 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 18.4 14.6 0.0 8.5 0.0 Lane LOS C B A A Approach Delay (s) 18.4 14.6 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 NB 3: Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline 'A � � 4.. \*. I/ Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations +' T Y Volume (veh/h) 1 24 43 2 7 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 24 43 2 7 15 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 45 70 44 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 45 70 44 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1576 939 1032 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 25 45 22 Volume Left 1 0 7 Volume Right 0 2 15 cSH 1576 1700 1000 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.03 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.3 0.0 8.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.3 0.0 8.7 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 NB 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline 'r 4-- Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r T. + Volume (veh/h) 0 0 675 0 0 255 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 675 0 0 255 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 930 675 675 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 930 675 675 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 299 457 926 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 0 0 675 255 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2011 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 256 231 131 175 255 350 78 421 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.45 0.45 0.28 0.84 0.55 0.21 0.77 Control Delay 35.7 7.9 21.4 15.6 43.9 21.7 12.6 30.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 35.7 7.9 21.4 15.6 43.9 21.7 12.6 30.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 94 4 34 42 62 108 17 144 Queue Length 95th (ft) 191 59 82 99 #179 203 42 259 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 546 656 290 895 303 864 378 883 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.47 0.35 0.45 0.20 0.84 0.41 0.21 0.48 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2011 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline --* � --,v f 4- '1- AN T �► 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r T+ T I T Volume (vph) 48 208 231 131 141 34 255 244 106 78 347 74 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1882 1579 1769 1801 1786 1784 1804 1841 Flt Permitted 0.89 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.46 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1695 1579 632 1801 568 1784 875 1841 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 208 231 131 141 34 255 244 106 78 347 74 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 172 0 11 0 0 21 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 256 59 131 164 0 255 329 0 78 411 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.6 13.6 22.6 22.6 25.6 21.4 23.2 20.2 Effective Green, g (s) 13.6 13.6 22.6 22.6 25.6 21.4 23.2 20.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.35 0.35 0.39 0.33 0.36 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 355 330 272 626 302 587 355 572 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.09 c0.05 0.18 0.01 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.04 0.15 c0.28 0.07 vlc Ratio 0.72 0.18 0.48 0.26 0.84 0.56 0.22 0.72 Uniform Delay, d1 23.9 21.1 16.3 15.2 17.7 17.9 14.1 19.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 18.3 0.7 0.1 3.6 Delay (s) 29.9 21.2 16.8 15.3 35.9 18.7 14.3 23.5 Level of Service C C B B D B B C Approach Delay (s) 25.8 15.9 25.9 22.0 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 23.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8l8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2011 NB 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street Baseline -1, - ---* #,- *-- -,N T /P. "P. 1 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 f` r + T Volume (veh/h) 22 6 3 30 9 19 5 548 38 35 577 32 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 6 3 30 9 19 5 548 38 35 577 32 Pedestrians 4 1 1 18 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 2 Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1276 1264 598 1232 1261 586 613 587 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1276 1264 598 1232 1261 586 613 587 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 83 96 99 79 94 96 99 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 127 163 504 143 163 502 963 992 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 31 58 591 35 609 Volume Left 22 30 5 35 0 Volume Right 3 19 38 0 32 cSH 143 220 963 992 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.26 0.01 0.04 0.36 Queue Length 95th (ft) 20 26 0 3 0 Control Delay (s) 36.9 29.5 0.1 8.8 0.0 Lane LOS E D A A Approach Delay (s) 36.9 29.5 0.1 0.5 Approach LOS E D Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8l8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2011 NB 3: Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations +' T. Y Volume (veh/h) 11 72 53 6 6 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 72 53 6 6 4 Pedestrians 13 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 72 163 69 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 72 163 69 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.4 p0 queue free % 99 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1518 795 962 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 83 59 10 Volume Left 11 0 6 Volume Right 0 6 4 cSH 1518 1700 854 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.03 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 Control Delay (s) 1.0 0.0 9.3 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.0 0.0 9.3 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2011 NB 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline 'r *-- t r' �► l Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations I r & t Volume (veh/h) 0 0 604 0 0 644 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 604 0 0 644 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked 0.96 vC, conflicting volume 1248 604 604 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1239 604 604 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 189 502 984 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 0 0 604 644 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.38 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline --■ -i r- *-- t �* Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 258 233 132 176 257 353 79 425 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.46 0.46 0.29 0.84 0.55 0.21 0.76 Control Delay 36.1 8.1 21.8 15.7 44.0 21.6 12.6 29.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.1 8.1 21.8 15.7 44.0 21.6 12.6 29.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 95 5 35 42 62 110 17 147 Queue Length 95th (ft) 191 60 82 99 #183 206 43 263 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 538 649 284 881 305 852 380 870 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.36 0.46 0.20 0.84 0.41 0.21 0.49 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +1 r 1 T+ T. Volume (vph) 48 210 233 132 142 34 257 246 107 79 350 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Fit Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1882 1579 1769 1801 1786 1784 1804 1841 Fit Permitted 0.89 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.46 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1695 1579 622 1801 568 1784 871 1841 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 210 233 132 142 34 257 246 107 79 350 75 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 172 0 11 0 0 21 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 258 61 132 165 0 257 332 0 79 415 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.6 13.6 22.6 22.6 26.1 21.9 23.7 20.7 Effective Green, g (s) 13.6 13.6 22.6 22.6 26.1 21.9 23.7 20.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.33 0.36 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 352 328 267 621 304 596 358 582 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.09 c0.05 0.19 0.01 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.04 0.15 c0.28 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.19 0.49 0.27 0.85 0.56 0.22 0.71 Uniform Delay, d1 24.3 21.4 16.7 15.5 17.7 17.8 14.0 19.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.6 0.1 0.5 0.1 18.3 0.6 0.1 3.4 Delay (s) 30.9 21.5 17.2 15.5 36.0 18.5 14.2 23.2 Level of Service C C B B D B B C Approach Delay (s) 26.4 16.3 25.9 21.8 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 NB 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4 r 44� Vii 1� Volume (veh/h) 22 6 3 30 9 19 5 553 39 36 582 32 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 6 3 30 9 19 5 553 39 36 582 32 Pedestrians 4 1 1 18 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 2 Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1288 1277 603 1244 1274 592 618 593 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1288 1277 603 1244 1274 592 618 593 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 82 96 99 79 94 96 99 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 124 160 501 140 160 499 959 987 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 31 58 597 36 614 Volume Left 22 30 5 36 0 Volume Right 3 19 39 0 32 cSH 140 215 959 987 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.27 0.01 0.04 0.36 Queue Length 95th (ft) 20 26 0 3 0 Control Delay (s) 37.8 30.2 0.1 8.8 0.0 Lane LOS E D A A Approach Delay (s) 37.8 30.2 0.1 0.5 Approach LOS E D Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 NB 3: Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations #' T Y Volume (veh/h) 12 73 54 6 6 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 12 73 54 6 6 4 Pedestrians 13 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 73 167 70 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 73 167 70 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.4 p0 queue free % 99 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1517 790 960 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 85 60 10 Volume Left 12 0 6 Volume Right 0 6 4 cSH 1517 1700 850 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.04 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 Control Delay (s) 1.1 0.0 9.3 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.1 0.0 9.3 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 NB 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline f 4�_ T 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r T Volume (veh/h) 0 0 610 0 0 650 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 610 0 0 650 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked 0.96 vC, conflicting volume 1260 610 610 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1250 610 610 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 185 498 979 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 0 0 610 650 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.38 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 B 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 258 242 138 176 264 363 79 439 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.47 0.49 0.29 0.89 0.56 0.21 0.77 Control Delay 36.5 8.2 22.7 15.8 51.1 21.8 12.6 30.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.5 8.2 22.7 15.8 51.1 21.8 12.6 30.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 96 5 37 43 65 114 17 154 Queue Length 95th (ft) 191 62 85 99 #196 213 43 274 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 534 651 282 874 298 845 376 863 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.37 0.49 0.20 0.89 0.43 0.21 0.51 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 B 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r 1F T I T Volume (vph) 48 210 242 138 142 34 264 253 110 79 364 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1882 1579 1769 1801 1786 1784 1804 1843 At Permitted 0.89 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.45 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1695 1579 620 1801 542 1784 847 1843 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 210 242 138 142 34 264 253 110 79 364 75 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 178 0 11 0 0 20 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 258 64 138 165 0 264 343 0 79 429 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.7 13.7 22.7 22.7 26.6 22.4 24.2 21.2 Effective Green, g (s) 13.7 13.7 22.7 22.7 26.6 22.4 24.2 21.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.34 0.34 0.40 0.34 0.37 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 351 327 265 618 297 605 354 591 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.09 c0.06 0.19 0.01 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.04 0.16 c0.30 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.19 0.52 0.27 0.89 0.57 0.22 0.73 Uniform Delay, d1 24.5 21.6 17.3 15.7 18.3 17.9 14.0 19.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.7 0.1 0.9 0.1 25.3 0.7 0.1 3.8 Delay (s) 31.2 21.7 18.2 15.8 43.5 18.6 14.1 23.6 Level of Service C C B B D B B C Approach Delay (s) 26.6 16.8 29.1 22.2 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 24.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.1 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 B 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street Baseline --* --1, --* 4e *-- 4�, 4� T /&� "D. ♦ 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4 r *T+ 11 T Volume (veh/h) 23 7 3 31 10 20 5 567 42 39 589 33 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 23 7 3 31 10 20 5 567 42 39 589 33 Pedestrians 4 1 1 18 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 2 Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1318 1308 610 1274 1303 607 626 610 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1318 1308 610 1274 1303 607 626 610 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 80 95 99 77 93 96 99 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 117 153 496 133 153 488 952 973 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 33 61 614 39 622 Volume Left 23 31 5 39 0 Volume Right 3 20 42 0 33 cSH 133 205 952 973 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.25 0.30 0.01 0.04 0.37 Queue Length 95th (ft) 23 30 0 3 0 Control Delay (s) 40.9 32.3 0.1 8.9 0.0 Lane LOS E D A A Approach Delay (s) 40.9 32.3 0.1 0.5 Approach LOS E D Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 B 3: Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations .' T Y Volume (veh/h) 19 73 54 10 10 7 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 19 73 54 10 10 7 Pedestrians 13 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 77 183 72 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 77 183 72 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.4 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1512 770 958 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 92 64 17 Volume Left 19 0 10 Volume Right 0 10 7 cSH 1512 1700 838 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.04 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 2 Control Delay (s) 1.6 0.0 9.4 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.6 0.0 9.4 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 B 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline Ir T 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r T I + Volume (veh/h) 8 16 627 15 29 662 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 16 627 15 29 662 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked 0.96 vC, conflicting volume 1354 634 642 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1348 634 642 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 95 97 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 156 482 952 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NS 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 8 16 642 29 662 Volume Left 8 0 0 29 0 Volume Right 0 16 15 0 0 cSH 156 482 1700 952 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.03 0.38 0.03 0.39 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 3 0 2 0 Control Delay (s) 29.3 12.7 0.0 8.9 0.0 Lane LOS D B A Approach Delay (s) 18.3 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 B 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 261 245 139 179 267 366 80 442 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.47 0.50 0.29 0.90 0.56 0.21 0.77 Control Delay 36.9 8.4 23.1 15.8 53.9 21.9 12.7 30.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.9 8.4 23.1 15.8 53.9 21.9 12.7 30.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 98 6 37 44 66 116 18 157 Queue Length 95th (ft) 194 63 86 100 #201 214 43 276 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 531 650 280 872 296 842 374 860 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 0.38 0.50 0.21 0.90 0.43 0.21 0.51 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 B 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline --* -* ­'* 'r 4- 4\ t '► 1 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 1F T I T Volume (vph) 49 212 245 139 144 35 267 255 111 80 367 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1882 1579 1769 1801 1786 1784 1804 1843 Flt Permitted 0.89 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.44 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1692 1579 613 1801 536 1784 839 1843 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 49 212 245 139 144 35 267 255 111 80 367 75 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 178 0 12 0 0 20 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 261 67 139 167 0 267 346 0 80 432 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 1 % 1 % 1 % 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.8 13.8 22.8 22.8 26.7 22.5 24.3 21.3 Effective Green, g (s) 13.8 13.8 22.8 22.8 26.7 22.5 24.3 21.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.34 0.34 0.40 0.34 0.37 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 352 329 263 619 295 605 351 592 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.09 c0.06 0.19 0.01 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.04 0.16 c0.31 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.20 0.53 0.27 0.91 0.57 0.23 0.73 Uniform Delay, dl 24.6 21.7 17.5 15.7 18.6 17.9 14.0 20.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.2 0.1 0.9 0.1 28.6 0.8 0.1 4.0 Delay (s) 31.8 21.8 18.4 15.8 47.1 18.8 14.2 23.9 Level of Service C C B B D B B C Approach Delay (s) 26.9 16.9 30.7 22.4 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 25.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.3 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 B 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44� 4 r 4 T Volume (veh/h) 23 7 3 32 10 21 6 572 42 40 595 33 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 23 7 3 32 10 21 6 572 42 40 595 33 Pedestrians 4 1 1 18 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (f /s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 2 Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1334 1322 616 1288 1318 612 632 615 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1334 1322 616 1288 1318 612 632 615 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 80 95 99 75 93 96 99 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 113 150 492 129 149 485 948 969 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 33 63 620 40 628 Volume Left 23 32 6 40 0 Volume Right 3 21 42 0 33 cSH 129 201 948 969 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.26 0.31 0.01 0.04 0.37 Queue Length 95th (ft) 24 32 0 3 0 Control Delay (s) 42.3 33.3 0.2 8.9 0.0 Lane LOS E D A A Approach Delay (s) 42.3 33.3 0.2 0.5 Approach LOS E D Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 B 3: Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations +' T Y Volume (veh/h) 19 74 54 10 10 7 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 19 74 54 10 10 7 Pedestrians 13 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 77 184 72 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 77 184 72 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.4 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1512 769 958 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 93 64 17 Volume Left 19 0 10 Volume Right 0 10 7 cSH 1512 1700 837 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.04 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 2 Control Delay (s) 1.6 0.0 9.4 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.6 0.0 9.4 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 B 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline 'r j Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r T I t Volume (veh/h) 8 16 627 15 29 662 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 16 627 15 29 662 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked 0.96 vC, conflicting volume 1354 634 642 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1348 634 642 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 95 97 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 156 482 952 Direction,Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 8 16 642 29 662 Volume Left 8 0 0 29 0 Volume Right 0 16 15 0 0 cSH 156 482 1700 952 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.03 0.38 0.03 0.39 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 3 0 2 0 Control Delay (s) 29.3 12.7 0.0 8.9 0.0 Lane LOS D B A Approach Delay (s) 18.2 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 261 235 134 179 259 356 80 428 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.46 0.48 0.29 0.85 0.56 0.21 0.76 Control Delay 36.6 8.3 22.2 15.6 45.8 21.7 12.7 30.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.6 8.3 22.2 15.6 45.8 21.7 12.7 30.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 97 6 35 43 63 111 17 149 Queue Length 95th (ft) 194 62 84 100 #186 207 43 265 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 535 647 282 879 303 848 378 867 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 0.36 0.48 0.20 0.85 0.42 0.21 0.49 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +T r T+ T. I T Volume (vph) 49 212 235 134 144 35 259 248 108 80 353 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1882 1579 1769 1801 1786 1784 1804 1842 Flt Permitted 0.89 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.45 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1692 1579 614 1801 563 1784 863 1842 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 49 212 235 134 144 35 259 248 108 80 353 75 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 171 0 12 0 0 21 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 261 64 134 167 0 259 335 0 80 418 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 1 % 1 % 1 % 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.7 13.7 22.7 22.7 26.3 22.1 23.9 20.9 Effective Green, g (s) 13.7 13.7 22.7 22.7 26.3 22.1 23.9 20.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.34 0.34 0.40 0.34 0.36 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 352 329 264 621 303 599 356 585 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.09 c0.05 0.19 0.01 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.04 0.15 c0.29 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.19 0.51 0.27 0.85 0.56 0.22 0.71 Uniform Delay, dl 24.4 21.5 17.0 15.6 17.9 17.9 14.1 19.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.2 0.1 0.6 0.1 19.6 0.6 0.1 3.4 Delay (s) 31.6 21.6 17.5 15.6 37.5 18.5 14.2 23.3 Level of Service C C B B D B B C Approach Delay (s) 26.8 16.4 26.5 21.8 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.8 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 NB 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street Baseline -,* --. --* 4,- *-- k- 4N t 1 41 T EBR WBL WBT WEIR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations +T+ 4 r 4 1 T Volume (veh/h) 22 6 3 30 9 19 6 559 39 36 588 33 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 6 3 30 9 19 6 559 39 36 588 33 Pedestrians 4 1 1 18 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 2 Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1303 1292 610 1258 1288 598 625 599 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1303 1292 610 1258 1288 598 625 599 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 82 96 99 78 94 96 99 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 121 157 496 137 156 495 953 982 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 31 58 604 36 621 Volume Left 22 30 6 36 0 Volume Right 3 19 39 0 33 cSH 137 210 953 982 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.23 0.28 0.01 0.04 0.37 Queue Length 95th (ft) 21 27 0 3 0 Control Delay (s) 38.8 30.9 0.2 8.8 0.0 Lane LOS E D A A Approach Delay (s) 38.8 30.9 0.2 0.5 Approach LOS E D Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 NB 3: Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations *' T Y Volume (veh/h) 12 74 54 6 6 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 12 74 54 6 6 4 Pedestrians 13 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 73 168 70 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 73 168 70 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.4 p0 queue free % 99 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1517 789 960 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SIB 1 Volume Total 86 60 10 Volume Left 12 0 6 Volume Right 0 6 4 cSH 1517 1700 850 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.04 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 Control Delay (s) 1.1 0.0 9.3 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.1 0.0 9.3 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 NB 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline f- *-- t �' �► j Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations ►j r T. + Volume (veh/h) 0 0 610 0 0 650 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 610 0 0 650 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked 0.96 vC, conflicting volume 1260 610 610 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1251 610 610 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 185 498 979 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SIB 1 Volume Total 0 0 610 650 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.38 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 91 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD In the Matter of: Master Plan Application #MP-11-03 and Preliminary Plat Application ##SD-11-51 of Farrell Real Estate for a Planned Unit Development on 25.91 Acres, Etc. THE NEIGHBORS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND MASTER PLAN APPLICATIONS Mr. William Gilbert and Ms. Maurene Gilbert of 1400 Spear Street, Dr. Thomas Kleh and Ms. Louise Kleh of 219 Meadowood Drive, Dr. Michael Scollins and Dr. Mary Scollins of 214 Meadowood Drive, Dr. Robert Skiff and Ms. Marley Skiff of 89 Springhouse Road, and the Pinnacle at Spear Homeowners Association (collectively, the "Neighbors"), all of whom are South Burlington residents and all of whom are "interested persons" within the meaning of 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b), by and through their counsel, Barr & Associates, P.C., hereby submit the following Memorandum in opposition to Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 (the "Applications"). The Neighbors state as follows: I. INTRODUCTION This Memorandum responds to several matters that are discussed in the Department of Planning and Zoning Report that was prepared on February 16, 2012 for the DRB's February 21, 2012 hearing (the "Staff Report" or the "Report"), specifically: Fire Safety (see § II, below); Window Glazing (see § III, below); Securing of TDR's (see § IV, below); and the Proposed Vale Drive Connection see § V, below).' ' The Neighbors have made numerous written and verbal submissions to the DRB opposing the Spear Meadows project, and all prior submissions are hereby incorporated by reference. In addition, the Neighbors reserve the right to raise additional issues in future written submissions and/or verbally during DRB meetings and hearings, including with regard to matters contained within the Staff Report. M IL FIRE SAFETY -- SBLDR § 15.18(A)(7) The City Fire Chief has found that the Preliminary Plan/Master Plan is defective on grounds of safety, as stated in his letter dated February 16, 2012 (quoted below). The Applicant has proposed at least 15 units too many from a fire safety standpoint. In addition, as the Chief noted, the Plan as configured "need[s] to be sized to allow for parking, set-up and operation of fire apparatus. 18' width is recommended." The DRB need only apply the SBLDR safety standards as advised by the Fire Chief and adjust the allowed project density accordingly. There is no need to establish a condition on sprinklers or to create a building code, as the Staff Report asserts (at page 11). Specifically, SBLDR § 15.18(A)(7) states in relevant part: 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.... The Applicant has not met this standard. On the contrary, the Fire Chief states in his letter that adequate fire protection cannot be provided to the project Plan as submitted. The Fire Chief makes the following points (among others): (A) Sprinklers are required for 15 units (1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 11, 13, 20, 23, 30, 36, 39, 41 and 44), and (B) the access Road driveway widths within the clusters need to be sized to allow for parking, set-up and operation of fire apparatus (an 18' width is recommended). Contrary to the Staff s view, the Comprehensive Plan and the SBLDR require the DRB to take safety into account. See Excerpts below.) The SBLDR and Comprehensive Plan language on safety rebuts the Staffs claim that, because the SBLDR cannot be used to create a building code or create conditions that impose a building code, the DRB can ignore the Fire Chief s views. In short, sound planning must take safety, including fire safety, into account. 2 Surprisingly, the Staff fails to alert the DRB to the following SBLDR provision that contradicts the Staff s comments. The very long and very narrow cul-de-sac parking and access pathways provided in the Spear Meadows Plan are subject to this Regulation: 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation in PUDs and Subdivisions (f) The homes built on a private roadway must be sprinklered to the satisfaction of the South Burlington Fire Chief. All proposed sprinkler systems must be reviewed and agreed upon prior to plat approval. This requirement may be waived be the DRB upon recommendation by the City of South Burlington Fire Chief. (Emphasis added.) No such waiver recommendation has been presented to the DRB, hence the buildings in question "must" be sprinklered. In sum, there is no escaping the fact that the Fire Chiefs safety concerns are the direct result of the Applicant's proposed excess density. Moreover, the fire dangers the Applicant's current proposal creates are traceable to the DRB's ill-advised (and indefensible) position that requested excess TDR density must be approved. The Neighbors continue to maintain that the City's TDR bylaw is unconstitutional, void and unenforceable. But even assuming for purposes of the fire safety discussion that the TDR bylaw is somehow valid, then logic and the law dictate that the DRB must exercise its reasonable discretion in light of the very real fire safety concerns and reduce the excess density accordingly. In sum, the DRB should weigh the safety issue and require the Applicant to submit a plan that meets the Fire Chiefs safety concerns. In that connection, the Neighbors respectfully request that Fire Chief Douglas Brent be called to appear in open DRB Session so that the DRB Members may hear testimony and weigh the evidence on these critical safety issues before rendering a formal DRB decision as required on Safety issues (Criteria 7). 3 Authorities Supporting the Above Fire Safety Discussion: SBLDR § 15.18(A)(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water. City Comprehensive Plan (July 2011 draft) Authority and Purpose The authority to prepare and implement the comprehensive plan is granted to the city through the Vermont Planning and Development Act, Title 24 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated, Chapter 117. It is the purpose of the Act to "... encourage the appropriate development of all lands in this state ... in a manner which will promote the public health, safety against fire, floods, explosions and other dangers...." (Page 1-5) (emphasis added). Community Facilities and Service Strategy 43. Continue to request the input of the fire department when reviewing development projects to assess their impacts on public safety. (Page 2-6). Fire and Rescue. ... For the purposes of development review, the department uses the Vermont fire safety standards. Maintaining high standards throughout the city has contributed significantly to lowering losses of life and property due to fire.... (Page 4-15). Preparedness. In addition, the South Burlington Fire and Rescue Department and Public Works Department are regular participants in the local development review process, providing input to the Development Review Board regarding the location and access of buildings, roadways, and other safety -related issues. (Page 4-16). 4 Fire and Rescue The city's fire protection plan consists of two components: ♦ Including fire protection as a criterion in the review of new development (i.e. roads and access, building locations and materials, hydrant spacing, etc.). (Page 4-20.) South Burlington Land Development Regulations (bold emphasis added) 1.01 Purpose and Compliance The purpose of these Land Development Regulations is to implement the Comprehensive Plan of the City of South Burlington; to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community; to secure safety from fire, panic, and dangers; to provide adequate light and air; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, and other public requirements, under and pursuant to the Vermont Planning and Development Act, as amended. 3.13 General Performance and Maintenance Standards B. Hazardous Conditions Prohibited. No land or structure in any district shall be used or occupied in any manner so as to cause hazardous or objectionable conditions to exist or to in any way endanger users of the site or the surrounding area. Such hazardous or objectionable conditions include but are not limited to dangerous, injurious, noxious or otherwise objectionable biohazard, fire, explosive, or other hazard; or to create any noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odor, air pollution, heat, cold, dampness, electromagnetic or radioactive radiation, glare, toxicity or other hazardous or objectionable condition on the site or in the surrounding area. F. Conditions of Approval. The Development Review Board, in granting conditional use approval, may condition an approval to require evidence of the issuance of applicable state and/or federal permits for the handling of hazardous conditions prior to the issuance of a zoning permit, and may also impose conditions on the following: (1) Size and construction of structures, quantities of materials, storage locations, handling of materials, and hours of operation. (2) Warning systems, fire controls and other safeguards. (3) Provision for continuous monitoring and reporting. 5 (4) Other restrictions as may be necessary to protect public health and safety. 13.01 Off Street Parking and Loading G. Design Requirements for Parking Spaces, Parking Aisles, Lighting, and Landscaping. (3) Provision shall be made for access by police, fire and emergency vehicles. ARTICLE 14 SITE PLAN and CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW 14.01 General Purpose It is the purpose of this Article to regulate site development plans in order that adequate light, air, convenience of access, and safety from fire, flood, and other danger may be secured; .... ARTICLE 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation in PUDs and Subdivisions (f) The homes built on a private roadway must be sprinklered to the satisfaction of the South Burlington Fire Chief. All proposed sprinkler systems must be reviewed and agreed upon prior to plat approval. This requirement may be waived be the DRB upon recommendation by the City of South Burlington Fire Chief. SBLDR § 15.12(d)(3)(f). ARTICLE 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation in PUDs and Subdivisions E. Standards for Construction of Roadways (4) Modification of Roadway Standards. In any PUD or subdivision, the DRB may specifically authorize modification of the City's roadway standards in Table 15-1 below if it specifically finds that such modification is in furtherance of Comprehensive Plan policies and the goals for the specific zoning district in which a project is located, and that such modification is consistent with provisions for the public health, safety and welfare and the orderly development of the City. In making such a finding, the DRIB shall consider the recommendation of the City Engineer, Director of Public Works 0 and Fire Chief with respect to the City's ability to provide public services to the proposed subdivision or PUD. G. Emergency Access. Paved access for emergency vehicles shall be provided to within one hundred (100) feet of the principal entry for multi -family dwellings, and commercial, industrial, and institutional establishments. All streets and highways shall be of sufficient width and suitable grade and shall be so located to facilitate fire protection and coordinated so as to compose a convenient system properly related to the plan. III. WINDOW GLAZING — SBLDR & 9.08(C)(1) The Neighbors request that the DRB reject the Applicant's proposed plan in part because it does not comply with the 35% glazing standard contained in SBLDR § 9.08(C). That section sets a "minimum" of thirty-five (35%) of translucent windows and surfaces oriented to the south. This is an important standard that the DRB needs to enforce. It is not a "dimensional" standard and may not be waived. The Staff Report fails to quote SBLDR § 9.08(C)(1) correctly, as it completely leaves out the minimum 35% southern glazing standard see Staff Report at p. 22). The § 9.08(C)(1) standard sets a "minimum" but allows DRB discretion to allow southern -facing glazing above the 35% minimum standard. (Any other interpretation of § 9.08(C) would render it unconstitutionally void for vagueness.) IV. SECURING OF TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS — SBLDR & 9.13(C) The clear language of SBLDR § 9.13(C) (quoted in full below) states that the TDR's must be "secured." The Staff s position is that the Applicant should be allowed to eventually acquire TDR's if it builds more than 31 units at some time in the future. See Staff Report, at page 2. However, that is not what the SBLDR intends by "secured." The Staff Report suggests the City Attorney should merely review the Applicant's option to purchase the TDR's before final plat approval. Id. But the Applicant does not even claim to 7 have a TDR option that would be available to exercise when required. Moreover, there is no possibility that the 31 core units could be constructed prior to the current option's February 2013 expiration. In short, Applicant's option to purchase TDR's does not even remotely comply with § 9.13(C). To comply with the letter and spirit of the SBLDR, the DRB ought to ensure that the TDR seller receives the value of its TDR's promptly. If a purchase is required prior to Final Plat approval, the risk of procedural, market sales and other delays and/or an eventual court ruling against the Applicant would be borne by the Applicant. That is only fair and it also supports the TDR program and those who have value tied up in TDR's.2 Accordingly, the Neighbors respectfully request that the Applicant be required to actually own the necessary TDR's required for a permit in excess of the core density of 31 units prior to Final Plat approval. SBLDR § 9.13(C) Transfer of Development Rights and Non -Contiguous PUDs. (1) The Development Review Board may approve a PUD application that involves non- contiguous parcels, regardless of sub -district, if the following conditions are met: (a) The applicant shall demonstrate that development rights have been secured and encumbered from lands lying within the SEQ-NRP or SEQ-NRT sub -districts, or adjacent lands on the same tax parcel lying within any subdistrict, or from lands acquired by the City or State for the purpose of providing public parks in any sub -district, and EITHER that the sending parcel is sufficiently encumbered against further land subdivision and development through a purchase or other agreement acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure conformance with these Regulations; OR (b) All encumbered parcels not subject to a permanent conservation easement or restriction of similar binding effect shall be reviewed as components of the PUD and shall be subject to the provisions of this article. 2 For the record, the Neighbors have maintained at prior DRB hearings and in prior DRB filings and they continue to maintain that the City's TDR bylaw is unconstitutional and that it does not comply with many requirements of the Vermont Planning and Development Act, 24 V.S.A. § 4301 et sec ., and in particular § 4423. In addition and for the record, Opponents continue to maintain that the TDR sending parcel owners are necessary parties to these proceedings. N. (2) If the conditions of 9.13(C)(1) above are met, the Development Review Board may then approve the assignment (transfer) of all or a portion of the residential development density calculated for a non-contiguous encumbered parcel to another parcel to satisfy the provisions of Section 9.05 above. (Emphasis added.) V. REJECTING THE VALE DRIVE CONNECTION — SBLDR §§ 15.12(E)(4) and 15.12(J) The Neighbors request that the DRB reject the proposed Vale Drive connection on the following grounds: 1. The Official City Mai) Shows no Vale Drive Connection to Spear Street. The Staff continues to represent to the DRB that the Vale Drive Connection is a "requirement" of the SBLDR. See Staff Report, at 21 ("Staff has already commented on this matter with respect to the street connection to Vale Drive. This is a requirement of the regulations, as well as part of the original intent of a Vale Drive connection."). See also id. at 24 ("Staff recommends that the connection to Vale Drive occur before the issuance of the zoning permit for the 50th building."). But, as explained in detail below, such a connection is most definitely NOT required by the SBLDR. The City Planner and the Zoning Administrator have stated to the DRB that the SBLDR embody a policy requiring that the Vale Drive connection to Spear Street take place. With genuine respect due these dedicated professionals, the City Map contains no such planned connection of Vale Drive and Spear Street. The City Map shows only a proposed future connection to Swift Street (and not to Spear Street) connecting from Vale Drive across UVM land and in a different location on the would-be Spear Meadows parcel. The Applicant is proposing a very different connection of Vale Drive to Spear Street through the Spear Meadows parcel. 0 Drive. The City Map also shows a "Proposed path or trail" from Swift Street and ending at Vale In short, the City Map's Vale Drive connection to Swift Street at some future time is not a part of this proceeding. 2. The SBLDR do Not Require Connection. The SBLDR do not require a Vale Connection. On the contrary, the Regulations actually and unequivocally recommend cul-de-sacs in residential districts. The relevant provision, § 15.12(J), states in relevant part: "Cul-de-sac streets are recommended only in residential districts...." The relevant SBLDR provision actually sets a density limit of 50 units for culs-de-sac. The SBLDR control and spell out specifically the connection rules at § 15.12, "Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation in PUDs and Subdivisions." Section 15.12(J) limits to 50 units the number of units allowed on a parcel served by a cul-de-sac. Unless waived by a DRB ruling, the allowed maximum density is 50 units. If more than 50 units are allowed on the site, the DRB must then decide if it will allow or require the connection. Vale drive neighbors and all other abutting owners object strongly to the proposed connection. Many witnesses have raised issues of safety, traffic congestion, peacefulness of their neighborhood and dangers to the Vale Drive and Four Sisters neighborhoods that would flow from a connection. These dangerous conditions would be even more serious if the road ultimately connected Vale Drive to Swift Street as well as to Spear Street. Moreover, the Applicant -- through Mr. Eric Farrell -- has made clear in a DRB presentation that the Applicant does not want to connect to Vale Drive unless the DRB forces it to do so. Mr. Farrell is acting as though the Applicant is required to connect to Vale Drive, but 10 the opposite is true. In reality, the Applicant must receive a waiver from the specific 50-unit density restriction in order to connect to Vale Drive. Under the SBLDR, allowing a Vale Drive connection would be an exception (not a requirement) to the rule that would otherwise limit Spear Meadows to 50 units (an exception that the Applicant has not requested). In the absence of such a request and findings by the DRB granting a connection, the Neighbors maintain that there can be no exception to the 50-unit density rule. 3. Safety Review Must Precede the Ruling on a Vale Connection. If the Applicant were to request a waiver from § 15.12(J)'s 50-unit density rule, the DRB would then need to consider all of the evidence as well as the views of the City Engineer, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief and Director of Planning & Zoning. See SBLDR §§ 15.12(E)(4) and 15.12(J) (which are set out below). To date, these elements of proof have been absent in this matter. Moreover, until the above -discussed fire safety issues are resolved, there is no certainty that more than 50 units of density is even a possibility. If it turns out that less than 50 units are allowed due to fire safety concerns (or any other reason, for that matter), then there would be no need to consider a Vale Drive connection. In sum, the Neighbors respectfully request that the DRB reject any requested waiver of the requirements of SBLDR § 15.12(J) and that the DRB reject any Vale Drive connection, thereby limiting the density of the proposed Spear Meadows development to an absolute outside maximum of 50 units (or less) on this small parcel. 11 SBLDR § 15.12(E)(4) Modification of Roadway Standards. In any PUD or subdivision, the DRB may specifically authorize modification of the City's roadway standards in Table 15-1 below if it specifically finds that such modification is in furtherance of Comprehensive Plan policies and the goals for the specific zoning district in which a project is located, and that such modification is consistent with provisions for the public health, safety and welfare and the orderly development of the City. In making such a finding, the DRB shall consider the recommendation of the City Engineer, Director of Public Works and Fire Chief with respect to the City's ability to provide public services to the proposed subdivision or PUD. (Emphasis added.) SBLDR § 15.12(J) Culs-de-Sac. Cul-de-sac streets are recommended only in residential districts. The length of a cul-de- sac street shall be subject to the review and approval of the Fire Chief and City Engineer. The number of dwelling units served by a cul-de-sac or by a system of streets sharing a common single access to an arterial or collector street shall not exceed fifty (50) unless additional connections to other streets are approved by the Development Review Board after consultation with the City Engineer and Director of Planning & Zoning. (Emphasis added.) 12 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above and in the Neighbors' prior written and verbal submissions, the DRB should reject Master Plan Application #MP 11-03 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-51. Dated: March 20, 2012 Stowe, Vermont Respectfully submitted, BARR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: Daniel A. Seff Attorneys for Mr. William Gilbert and Ms. Maurene Gilbert, Dr. Thomas Kleh and Ms. Louise Kleh, Dr. Michael Scollins and Dr. Mary Scollins, Dr. Robert Skiff and Ms. Marley Skiff, and the Pinnacle at Spear Homeowners Association 125 Mountain Road Stowe, Vermont 05672 Phone: (802) 253-6272 Fax: (802) 253-6055 Email: dan@barrlaw.com cc: Mr. Mark Behr, DRB Chair (by hand) (seven copies) Mr. Ray Belair, Administrative Officer (by hand) Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (by hand) Robert H. Rushford, Esq., counsel for the Applicant (by hand) 13 South Burlington Fire Department 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 802-846-4110 February 16, 2012 Mr. Ray Belair City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Spear Meadows, Date of Plans 8-6-2010 AND 12-23-2011 Dear Ray: I have again reviewed the re -worked plans for the Spear Meadows project. I have the following recommendations: 1. The cul de sac as drawn and as currently exists at the end of Vale Drive is extremely difficult for our larger firefighting apparatus to negotiate. Improvements to, or removal of, the cul de sac to accommodate our apparatus is necessary. 2. Due to the private access roads to many of the structures, any of the structures except those which directly face/front Roads A, B, and C must have an approved NFPA 13 D sprinkler system installed in each occupancy. I believe that the buildings which need to have sprinklers are; 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 11, 13, 20, 23, 30, 36, 39, 41 and 44. 3. Installation of the necessary fire alarms and carbon monoxide detectors as required for occupancies such as these. 4. Compliance with all requirements of Vermont Division of Fire Safety codes and standards. 5. Install a hydrant in the vicinity of or at the end of Road C. With that exception the number and location of fire hydrants are acceptable and should be approved and finalized by the South Burlington Water Department. r� I Page - 2 6. Trees and plantings should be located so as not to block windows or interfere with the use of the aerial ladder for rescue and firefighting purposes. This looks like it could be an issue with some of the trees shown. 7. Trees and plantings should be located so as not to interfere with the deployment of firefighting equipment and hoselines. 8. The access road/driveway widths within the clusters need to be sized to allow for parking, set-up and operation of fire apparatus. 18' width is recommended. At this point these seem to be the major issues which present themselves. As this project moves forward additional items may surface which could be dealt with as needed with the assistance of the developer and/or the Vermont Division of Fire Safety. Should you need any further assistance on this project please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Douglas S. Brent Chief of Fire and EMS CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD In the Matter of. Master Plan Application #MP-11-03 and Preliminary Plat Application ##SD-11-51 of Farrell Real Estate for a Planned Unit Development on 25.91 Acres, Etc. THE NEIGHBORS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND MASTER PLAN APPLICATIONS Mr. William Gilbert and Ms. Maurene Gilbert of 1400 Spear Street, Dr. Thomas Kleh and Ms. Louise Kleh of 219 Meadowood Drive, Dr. Michael Scollins and Dr. Mary Scollins of 214 Meadowood Drive, Dr. Robert Skiff and Ms. Marley Skiff of 89 Springhouse Road, and the Pinnacle at Spear Homeowners Association (collectively, the "Neighbors"), all of whom are South Burlington residents and all of whom are "interested persons" within the meaning of 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b), by and through their counsel, Barr & Associates, P.C., hereby submit the following Memorandum in opposition to Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 (the "Applications"). The Neighbors state as follows: I. INTRODUCTION This Memorandum responds to several matters that are discussed in the Department of Planning and Zoning Report that was prepared on February 16, 2012 for the DRB's February 21, 2012 hearing (the "Staff Report" or the "Report"), specifically: Fire Safety see § II, below); Window Glazing (see § III, below); Securing of TDR's (see § IV, below); and the Proposed Vale Drive Connection see § V, below).' The Neighbors have made numerous written and verbal submissions to the DRB opposing the Spear Meadows project, and all prior submissions are hereby incorporated by reference. In addition, the Neighbors reserve the right to raise additional issues in future written submissions and/or verbally during DRB meetings and hearings, including with regard to matters contained within the Staff Report. 1 II. FIRE SAFETY -- SBLDR § 15.18(A)(7) The City Fire Chief has found that the Preliminary Plan/Master Plan is defective on grounds of safety, as stated in his letter dated February 16, 2012 (quoted below). The Applicant has proposed at least 15 units too many from a fire safety standpoint. In addition, as the Chief noted, the Plan as configured "need[s] to be sized to allow for parking, set-up and operation of fire apparatus. 18' width is recommended." The DRB need only apply the SBLDR safety standards as advised by the Fire Chief and adjust the allowed project density accordingly. There is no need to establish a condition on sprinklers or to create a building code, as the Staff Report asserts (at page 11). Specifically, SBLDR § 15.18(A)(7) states in relevant part: 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.... The Applicant has not met this standard. On the contrary, the Fire Chief states in his letter that adequate fire protection cannot be provided to the project Plan as submitted. The Fire Chief makes the following points (among others): (A) Sprinklers are required for 15 units (1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 11, 13, 20, 23, 30, 36, 39, 41 and 44), and (B) the access Road driveway widths within the clusters need to be sized to allow for parking, set-up and operation of fire apparatus (an 18' width is recommended). Contrary to the Staff s view, the Comprehensive Plan and the SBLDR require the DRB to take safety into account. (See Excerpts below.) The SBLDR and Comprehensive Plan language on safety rebuts the Staffs claim that, because the SBLDR cannot be used to create a building code or create conditions that impose a building code, the DRB can ignore the Fire Chief s views. In short, sound planning must take safety, including fire safety, into account. 2 Surprisingly, the Staff fails to alert the DRB to the following SBLDR provision that contradicts the Staff s comments. The very long and very narrow cul-de-sac parking and access pathways provided in the Spear Meadows Plan are subject to this Regulation: 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation in PUDs and Subdivisions (f) The homes built on a private roadway must be sprinklered to the satisfaction of the South Burlington Fire Chief. All proposed sprinkler systems must be reviewed and agreed upon prior to plat approval. This requirement may be waived be the DRB upon recommendation by the City of South Burlington Fire Chief. (Emphasis added.) No such waiver recommendation has been presented to the DRB, hence the buildings in question "must" be sprinklered. In sum, there is no escaping the fact that the Fire Chief s safety concerns are the direct result of the Applicant's proposed excess density. Moreover, the fire dangers the Applicant's current proposal creates are traceable to the DRB's ill-advised (and indefensible) position that requested excess TDR density must be approved. The Neighbors continue to maintain that the City's TDR bylaw is unconstitutional, void and unenforceable. But even assuming for purposes of the fire safety discussion that the TDR bylaw is somehow valid, then logic and the law dictate that the DRB must exercise its reasonable discretion in light of the very real fire safety concerns and reduce the excess density accordingly. In sum, the DRB should weigh the safety issue and require the Applicant to submit a plan that meets the Fire Chiefs safety concerns. In that connection, the Neighbors respectfully request that Fire Chief Douglas Brent be called to appear in open DRB Session so that the DRB Members may hear testimony and weigh the evidence on these critical safety issues before rendering a formal DRB decision as required on Safety issues (Criteria 7). 3 Authorities Supporting the Above Fire Safety Discussion: SBLDR § 15.18(A)(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water. City Comprehensive Plan (July 2011 draft) Authority and Purpose The authority to prepare and implement the comprehensive plan is granted to the city through the Vermont Planning and Development Act, Title 24 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated, Chapter 117. It is the purpose of the Act to "... encourage the appropriate development of all lands in this state ... in a manner which will promote the public health, safety against fire, floods, explosions and other dangers...." (Page 1-5) (emphasis added). Community Facilities and Service Strategy 43. Continue to request the input of the fire department when reviewing development projects to assess their impacts on public safety. (Page 2-6). Fire and Rescue. ... For the purposes of development review, the department uses the Vermont fire safety standards. Maintaining high standards throughout the city has contributed significantly to lowering losses of life and property due to fire.... (Page 4-15). Preparedness. In addition, the South Burlington Fire and Rescue Department and Public Works Department are regular participants in the local development review process, providing input to the Development Review Board regarding the location and access of buildings, roadways, and other safety -related issues. (Page 4-16). El Fire and Rescue The city's fire protection plan consists of two components: ♦ Including fire protection as a criterion in the review of new development (i.e. roads and access, building locations and materials, hydrant spacing, etc.). (Page 4-20.) South Burlington Land Development Regulations (bold emphasis added) 1.01 Purpose and Compliance The purpose of these Land Development Regulations is to implement the Comprehensive Plan of the City of South Burlington; to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community; to secure safety from fire, panic, and dangers; to provide adequate light and air; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, and other public requirements, under and pursuant to the Vermont Planning and Development Act, as amended. 3.13 General Performance and Maintenance Standards B. Hazardous Conditions Prohibited. No land or structure in any district shall be used or occupied in any manner so as to cause hazardous or objectionable conditions to exist or to in any way endanger users of the site or the surrounding area. Such hazardous or objectionable conditions include but are not limited to dangerous, injurious, noxious or otherwise objectionable biohazard, fire, explosive, or other hazard; or to create any noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odor, air pollution, heat, cold, dampness, electromagnetic or radioactive radiation, glare, toxicity or other hazardous or objectionable condition on the site or in the surrounding area. F. Conditions of Approval. The Development Review Board, in granting conditional use approval, may condition an approval to require evidence of the issuance of applicable state and/or federal permits for the handling of hazardous conditions prior to the issuance of a zoning permit, and may also impose conditions on the following: (1) Size and construction of structures, quantities of materials, storage locations, handling of materials, and hours of operation. (2) Warning systems, fire controls and other safeguards. (3) Provision for continuous monitoring and reporting. 01 (4) Other restrictions as may be necessary to protect public health and safety. 13.01 Off Street Parking and Loading G. Design Requirements for Parking Spaces, Parking Aisles, Lighting, and Landscaping. (3) Provision shall be made for access by police, fire and emergency vehicles. ARTICLE 14 SITE PLAN and CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW 14.01 General Purpose It is the purpose of this Article to regulate site development plans in order that adequate light, air, convenience of access, and safety from fire, flood, and other danger may be secured; .... ARTICLE 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation in PUDs and Subdivisions (f) The homes built on a private roadway must be sprinklered to the satisfaction of the South Burlington Fire Chief. All proposed sprinkler systems must be reviewed and agreed upon prior to plat approval. This requirement may be waived be the DRB upon recommendation by the City of South Burlington Fire Chief. SBLDR § 15.12(d)(3)(f). ARTICLE 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation in PUDs and Subdivisions E. Standards for Construction of Roadways (4) Modification of Roadway Standards. In any PUD or subdivision, the DRB may specifically authorize modification of the City's roadway standards in Table 15-1 below if it specifically finds that such modification is in furtherance of Comprehensive Plan policies and the goals for the specific zoning district in which a project is located, and that such modification is consistent with provisions for the public health, safety and welfare and the orderly development of the City. In making such a finding, the DRB shall consider the recommendation of the City Engineer, Director of Public Works Ci and Fire Chief with respect to the City's ability to provide public services to the proposed subdivision or PUD. G. Emergency Access. Paved access for emergency vehicles shall be provided to within one hundred (100) feet of the principal entry for multi -family dwellings, and commercial, industrial, and institutional establishments. All streets and highways shall be of sufficient width and suitable grade and shall be so located to facilitate fire protection and coordinated so as to compose a convenient system properly related to the plan. III. WINDOW GLAZING — SBLDR & 9.08(C)(1) The Neighbors request that the DRB reject the Applicant's proposed plan in part because it does not comply with the 35% glazing standard contained in SBLDR § 9.08(C). That section sets a "minimum" of thirty-five (35%) of translucent windows and surfaces oriented to the south. This is an important standard that the DRB needs to enforce. It is not a "dimensional" standard and may not be waived. The Staff Report fails to quote SBLDR § 9.08(C)(1) correctly, as it completely leaves out the minimum 35% southern glazing standard (see Staff Report at p. 22). The § 9.08(C)(1) standard sets a "minimum" but allows DRB discretion to allow southern -facing glazing above the 35% minimum standard. (Any other interpretation of § 9.08(C) would render it unconstitutionally void for vagueness.) IV. SECURING OF TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS — SBLDR & 9.13(C) The clear language of SBLDR § 9.13(C) (quoted in full below) states that the TDR's must be "secured." The Staffs position is that the Applicant should be allowed to eventually acquire TDR's if it builds more than 31 units at some time in the future. See Staff Report, at page 2. However, that is not what the SBLDR intends by "secured." The Staff Report suggests the City Attorney should merely review the Applicant's option to purchase the TDR's before final plat approval. Id. But the Applicant does not even claim to 7 have a TDR option that would be available to exercise when required. Moreover, there is no possibility that the 31 core units could be constructed prior to the current option's February 2013 expiration. In short, Applicant's option to purchase TDR's does not even remotely comply with § 9.13(C). To comply with the letter and spirit of the SBLDR, the DRB ought to ensure that the TDR seller receives the value of its TDR's promptly. If a purchase is required prior to Final Plat approval, the risk of procedural, market sales and other delays and/or an eventual court ruling against the Applicant would be borne by the Applicant. That is only fair and it also supports the TDR program and those who have value tied up in TDR's.z Accordingly, the Neighbors respectfully request that the Applicant be required to actually own the necessary TDR's required for a permit in excess of the core density of 31 units prior to Final Plat approval. SBLDR § 913(C) Transfer of Development Rights and Non -Contiguous PUDs. (1) The Development Review Board may approve a PUD application that involves non- contiguous parcels, regardless of sub -district, if the following conditions are met: (a) The applicant shall demonstrate that development rights have been secured and encumbered from lands lying within the SEQ-NRP or SEQ-NRT sub -districts, or adjacent lands on the same tax parcel lying within any subdistrict, or from lands acquired by the City or State for the purpose of providing public parks in any sub -district, and EITHER that the sending parcel is sufficiently encumbered against further land subdivision and development through a purchase or other agreement acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure conformance with these Regulations; OR (b) All encumbered parcels not subject to a permanent conservation easement or restriction of similar binding effect shall be reviewed as components of the PUD and shall be subject to the provisions of this article. 2 For the record, the Neighbors have maintained at prior DRB hearings and in prior DRB filings and they continue to maintain that the City's TDR bylaw is unconstitutional and that it does not comply with many requirements of the Vermont Planning and Development Act, 24 V.S.A. § 4301 et sue, and in particular § 4423. In addition and for the record, Opponents continue to maintain that the TDR sending parcel owners are necessary parties to these proceedings. (2) If the conditions of 9.13(C)(1) above are met, the Development Review Board may then approve the assignment (transfer) of all or a portion of the residential development density calculated for a non-contiguous encumbered parcel to another parcel to satisfy the provisions of Section 9.05 above. (Emphasis added.) V. REJECTING THE VALE DRIVE CONNECTION — SBLDR §§ 15.12(E)(4) and 15.12(J) The Neighbors request that the DRB reject the proposed Vale Drive connection on the following grounds: 1. The Official City Map Shows no Vale Drive Connection to Spear Street. The Staff continues to represent to the DRB that the Vale Drive Connection is a "requirement" of the SBLDR. See Staff Report, at 21 ("Staff has already commented on this matter with respect to the street connection to Vale Drive. This is a requirement of the regulations, as well as part of the original intent of a Vale Drive connection."). See also id. at 24 ("Staff recommends that the connection to Vale Drive occur before the issuance of the zoning permit for the 50th building."). But, as explained in detail below, such a connection is most definitely NOT required by the SBLDR. The City Planner and the Zoning Administrator have stated to the DRB that the SBLDR embody a policy requiring that the Vale Drive connection to Spear Street take place. With genuine respect due these dedicated professionals, the City Map contains no such planned connection of Vale Drive and Spear Street. The City Map shows only a proposed future connection to Swift Street (and not to Spear Street) connecting from Vale Drive across UVM land and in a different location on the would-be Spear Meadows parcel. The Applicant is proposing a very different connection of Vale Drive to Spear Street through the Spear Meadows parcel. Drive. The City Map also shows a "Proposed path or trail" from Swift Street and ending at Vale In short, the City Map's Vale Drive connection to Swift Street at some future time is not a part of this proceeding. 2. The SBLDR do Not Require Connection. The SBLDR do not require a Vale Connection. On the contrary, the Regulations actually and unequivocally recommend cul-de-sacs in residential districts. The relevant provision, § 15.12(J), states in relevant part: "Cul-de-sac streets are recommended only in residential districts...." The relevant SBLDR provision actually sets a density limit of 50 units for culs-de-sac. The SBLDR control and spell out specifically the connection rules at § 15.12, "Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation in PUDs and Subdivisions." Section 15.12(J) limits to 50 units the number of units allowed on a parcel served by a cul-de-sac. Unless waived by a DRB ruling, the allowed maximum density is 50 units. If more than 50 units are allowed on the site, the DRB must then decide if it will allow or require the connection. Vale drive neighbors and all other abutting owners object strongly to the proposed connection. Many witnesses have raised issues of safety, traffic congestion, peacefulness of their neighborhood and dangers to the Vale Drive and Four Sisters neighborhoods that would flow from a connection. These dangerous conditions would be even more serious if the road ultimately connected Vale Drive to Swift Street as well as to Spear Street. Moreover, the Applicant -- through Mr. Eric Farrell -- has made clear in a DRB presentation that the Applicant does not want to connect to Vale Drive unless the DRB forces it to do so. Mr. Farrell is acting as though the Applicant is required to connect to Vale Drive, but 10 the opposite is true. In reality, the Applicant must receive a waiver from the specific 50-unit density restriction in order to connect to Vale Drive. Under the SBLDR, allowing a Vale Drive connection would be an exception (not a requirement) to the rule that would otherwise limit Spear Meadows to 50 units (an exception that the Applicant has not requested). In the absence of such a request and findings by the DRB granting a connection, the Neighbors maintain that there can be no exception to the 50-unit density rule. 3. Safety Review Must Precede the Ruling on a Vale Connection. If the Applicant were to request a waiver from § 15.12(J)'s 50-unit density rule, the DRB would then need to consider all of the evidence as well as the views of the City Engineer, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief and Director of Planning & Zoning. See SBLDR §§ 15.12(E)(4) and 15.12(J) (which are set out below). To date, these elements of proof have been absent in this matter. Moreover, until the above -discussed fire safety issues are resolved, there is no certainty that more than 50 units of density is even a possibility. If it turns out that less than 50 units are allowed due to fire safety concerns (or any other reason, for that matter), then there would be no need to consider a Vale Drive connection. In sum, the Neighbors respectfully request that the DRB reject any requested waiver of the requirements of SBLDR § 15.12(J) and that the DRB reject any Vale Drive connection, thereby limiting the density of the proposed Spear Meadows development to an absolute outside maximum of 50 units (or less) on this small parcel. 11 SBLDR § 15.12(E)(4) Modification of Roadway Standards. In any PUD or subdivision, the DRB may specifically authorize modification of the City's roadway standards in Table 15-1 below if it specifically finds that such modification is in furtherance of Comprehensive Plan policies and the goals for the specific zoning district in which a project is located, and that such modification is consistent with provisions for the public health, safety and welfare and the orderly development of the City. In making such a finding, the DRB shall consider the recommendation of the City Engineer, Director of Public Works and Fire Chief with respect to the City's ability to provide public services to the proposed subdivision or PUD. (Emphasis added.) SBLDR § 15.12(J) Culs-de-Sac. Cul-de-sac streets are recommended only in residential districts. The length of a cul-de- sac street shall be subject to the review and approval of the Fire Chief and City Engineer. The number of dwelling units served by a cul-de-sac or by a system of streets sharing a common single access to an arterial or collector street shall not exceed fifty (50) unless additional connections to other streets are approved by the Development Review Board after consultation with the City Engineer and Director of Planning & Zoning. (Emphasis added.) 12 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above and in the Neighbors' prior written and verbal submissions, the DRB should reject Master Plan Application #MP 11-03 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-51. Dated: March 20, 2012 Stowe, Vermont Respectfully submitted, BARR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: Daniel A. Seff Attorneys for Mr. William Gilbert and Ms. Maurene Gilbert, Dr. Thomas Kleh and Ms. Louise Kleh, Dr. Michael Scollins and Dr. Mary Scollins, Dr. Robert Skiff and Ms. Marley Skiff, and the Pinnacle at Spear Homeowners Association 125 Mountain Road Stowe, Vermont 05672 Phone: (802) 253-6272 Fax: (802) 253-6055 Email: dan@barrlaw.com cc: Mr. Mark Behr, DRB Chair (by hand) (seven copies) Mr. Ray Belair, Administrative Officer (by hand) Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (by hand) Robert H. Rushford, Esq., counsel for the Applicant (by hand) 13 South Burlington Fire Department 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 802-846-4110 February 16, 2012 Mr. Ray Belair City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Spear Meadows, Date of Plans 8-6-2010 AND 12-23-2011 Dear Ray: I have again reviewed the re -worked plans for the Spear Meadows project. I have the following recommendations: 1. The cul de sac as drawn and as currently exists at the end of Vale Drive is extremely difficult for our larger firefighting apparatus to negotiate. Improvements to, or removal of, the cul de sac to accommodate our apparatus is necessary. 2. Due to the private access roads to many of the structures, any of the structures except those which directly face/front Roads A, B, and C must have an approved NFPA 13 D sprinkler system installed in each occupancy. I believe that the buildings which need to have sprinklers are; 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 1 l , 13, 20, 23, 30, 36, 39, 41 and 44. 3. Installation of the necessary fire alarms and carbon monoxide detectors as required for occupancies such as these. 4. Compliance with all requirements of Vermont Division of Fire Safety codes and standards. 5. Install a hydrant in the vicinity of or at the end of Road C. With that exception the number and location of fire hydrants are acceptable and should be approved and finalized by the South Burlington Water Department. Page - 2 6. Trees and plantings should be located so as not to block windows or interfere with the use of the aerial ladder for rescue and firefighting purposes. This looks like it could be an issue with some of the trees shown. 7. Trees and plantings should be located so as not to interfere with the deployment of firefighting equipment and hoselines. 8. The access road/driveway widths within the clusters need to be sized to allow for parking, set-up and operation of fire apparatus. 18' width is recommended. At this point these seem to be the major issues which present themselves. As this project moves forward additional items may surface which could be dealt with as needed with the assistance of the developer and/or the Vermont Division of Fire Safety. Should you need any further assistance on this project please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, l7oz�glai cS'. [�A M �' Douglas S. Brent Chief of Fire and EMS