Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH 4 - Supplemental - 1302 1340 1350 1404 1406 Spear StreetGENERAL NOTES: 1. Utilities shown do not purport to constitute or represent all utilities located upon or adjacent to the surveyed premises. Existing utility bcations are approximate only. The Contractor shall field verify all utility conflicts. All discrepancies shall be reported to the Engineer. The Contractor shall contact Dig Safe (888-344-7233) prior to any construction. 2. All existing utilities not incorporated into the final design shall be removed or abandoned as indicated on the plans or directed by the Engineer. 3. The Contractor shall maintain as-buift plans (with ties) for all underground utilities. Those plans shall be submitted to the Owner at the completion of the project. 4. The Contractor shall repair/restore all disturbed areas (on or oft the site) as a direct or Indirect result of the construction. 5. All grassed areas shall be maintained until full vegetation is established. 6. Maintain all trees outside of construction limits. 7. The Contractor shall be responsible for all work necessary for complete and operable facilities and utilities. 8. IF the building is to be sprinklered, backftow prevention shall be provided in accordance with AW WA M14. The Site Contractor shall construct the waterline to two feet above the finished floor. See mechanical plans for riser detail. 9. The Contractor shall submit strop drawings for all hems and materials incorporated into the site work. Work shelf not begin on any item until shop drawing approval is granted. 10. In addition to the requirements set in these plans and specifications, the Contractor shall complete the work in accordance with all permit conditions and any local Public Works Standards. 11. The tolerance for finish grades for all pavement, walkways and lawn areas shall be 0.1 faet. 12. Any dewatering necessary for the completion of the sitework shall be considered as pert of the contract and shall be the Contractors responsibility. 13. The Contractor shall coordinate all work within City Road R.O.W. with City authorities. 14. The Contractor shall install the electrical, cable and telephone services in accordance with the utility companies requirements. 15. Existing pavement and tree stumps to be removed shall be disposed of at an approved oR- site location. All pavement cuts shall be made with a pavement saw. 16. If there are any conflicts or inconsistencies with the plans or specifications, the Contractor shall contact the Engineer for verification before work continues on the item in question. CWD NOTES 1. All water installation work and water distribution material must comply with the "CWD Specifications'. 2. Installation details for this project must comply the above referenced CWD Specifications. Conflicts are to be referred to the Engineer for clarification. 3. All domestic services and fire sprinkler systems that are connected to the public water system shall be protected with a backnow prevention assembly, and an appropriate thermal expansion system in compliance with the Ordinance for the Control of Cross Connections Within the Water Svstem of the City of South Burlington, henceforth the'bactdlow Ordinance.' Please contact the South Burlington Water Department for more information on bag ldlow protection devices. 4. CWD Specifications stale that no water lines shall be installed after November 15 or before April 1 without prior approval of the Superintendent. The Superintendent may restrict work before November 15 and after April 1 during adverse weather ccrWitions. S. Mechanical joint restraints with twist o8 nuts shall be EBAA or Sigma, or a Department approved equal gnp ring. 6. No underground utility shall be installed within four feet from the water main on either side, from the top of the main to the finish grade, with the exception of storm sewer and sanitary sewer as stated in the above referenced Specifications. 7. Separations between the water main and service line and nearby sanitary and storm sewer lines shall comply with the VT WSR requirements and the above referenced Specifications. 8. Prior to any building construction, the building contractor should contact the South Burlington Water Department to discuss City of South Burlington requirements for meter sizing, meter settings, and backfiow protections. 9. The South Burlington Water Department shall be notified prior to backflling to inspect all pints, fittings, main line taps, appurtenances, water line crossings, and testing. M and M Books - 1 neo-oxm♦ I T. and L IOah l neo-aorta R "- W spiss- T i pg 'I M Hog J��Ta • , �J: all II� aween•r I 1 1 / 5 6 1 O 4 / LOT 1 �:`.. Q and ,1 Pianist/ APPLICANT: ERIC FARRELL FARRELL REAL ESTATE P.O. BOX 1335 BURLINGTON, VT 05402 OWNERS: SPEAR MEADOWS, INC 1350 SPEAR STREET S. BURLINGTON, VT 05403 R. 00171111rilr*t WME �i L y}Jr- PARCE7 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK I O an eopep- / re.o-msso CEL 5 J j MUNITY X, / Q // 1 1 / 1 111 All'IL s4o-m/a4 1 1 G. and J. FNree \ ♦� /�i�i �� I I I 1e�01a! jHDwet■r /�` -�J R r t II Sir / >.eam4a I lea -moo / ■ild Q 14wwtl Rend E L,srbr� PLC:\ 1 I I I I I( >wo-ma' I I I� 7 I / ,sa-mAI I '� I t■IkT.C1,111113 IF ,sa-meal =100' W. tl hit. "s W400 an RECEIVED SPEAR MEADOWS DEC Z 3 2011 PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL 12-23-11 City of So•eudington SITE ENGINEER: CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. 10 MANSFIELD VIER' LANE SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 602-864-2323 FAX: 802-804-2271 NEB: www-cea-A.com WETLANDS CONSULTANT: GILMAN and BRIGGS ENVIRONMENTAL 1 CONTI CIRCLE, SUITE 5 BARRE, VT 05641 SITE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: T.J. BOYLE ASSOCIATES 301 COLLEGE STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05401 TRAFFIC CONSULTANT: RESOURCE SYSTEM GROUP 100 DORSET ST. S. BURLINGTON, VT 05403 !�i INDEX OF SHEETS: SITE: C1.0 MASTER SITE PLAN CIA SITE PLAN C2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN C2.1 EXISTING SOILS PLAN C3.0-C3.3 ROAD PLAN and PROFILE C3.4 TURN LANE AND CUL-DE-SAC IMPROVEMENTS C4.0-C4.1 UTILITY PLAN C4.2 WATER EXTENSION PLAN and PROFILE C5.0 EROSION CONTROL PLAN C5.1 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS C5.2 EROSION CONTROL NARRATIVE C8.0 SEWER and SITE DETAILS C8.1 SEWER PUMP STATION DETAIL C8.2 WATER and STORM DETAILS C8.3 ROAD and SITE DETAILS C8.4 SITE DETAILS C8.5 POND SECTION At STORM DETAILS C7.0 SPECIFICATIONS C7.1 SPECIFICATIONS C7.2 SPECIFICATIONS C7.3 SPECIFICATIONS C7.4 SPECIFICATIONS SURVEY: S1.0 PLAT of SURVEY - lands of Spear Meadows It SIA PLAT of SUBDIVISION - OVERALL PRD 51.2 PLAT of SURVEY - PARCEL I 51.3 PLAT of SURVEY - PARCEL 2 & 8 SIA PLAT of SURVEY - PARCEL 3 51.5 PLAT of SURVEY - PARCEL 4 S1.8 PLAT of SURVEY - PARCEL 5 & 7 LANDSCAPING: L001 CONCEPT PLAN L002 RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSS -SECTIONS L003 LIGHTING PLAN LIDO OVERALL LANDSCAPE and LIGHTING PLAN LIO1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L102 LANDSCAPE PLAN L103 LANDSCAPE PLAN L104 LANDSCAPE PLAN L200 LANDSCAPE DETAII 1201 LIGHTING DETAILS L202 LIGHTING DETAILS L203 SITE DETAILS ARCHITECTURAL: A.1 BLDG TYPE A 2d A.2 BLDG TYPE B 2 A.3 BLDG TYPE BX 2 A.4 BLDG TYPE C 1 A.5 BLDG TYPE CX 1 A.8 BLDG TYPE H alt A.7 BLDG TYPE HX A.8 BLDG TYPE J alt A.9 BLDG TYPE JX alt A.10 BLDG TYPE M A.11 BLDG TYPE N A.12 BLDG TYPE P STREET ELEVATIONS I I I I , 1 \ MEAI]OWOOI]S DRIVE I i I I I I I I I I I IL .d It aodit 11e0-OOS14 Chi 7 9 'e �D V Isao-mseo o0 5 / J. Keby Q F6fid I \ 2 I � I � \ I I I I , , FYeloetl I � I I I CO11611e1e B•ley Edde I C/o L HedaR .I o / LOT 1 Q Iud J. Ferrol / I T. ° IIQSt+o I 116 W. ■d K inert 1610-M400 GRAPHIC SCALE I. IN FEET > I I-h = I00 I1. - - I SITE ENGINEER: \ \ C I / \ I \ \ CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. IOAIANSFIEID VIEW LANE, SWIHBURUNGT0N. VT 05103 \ 60266�— FA1C BOt e64PPT1 Bib: xww.cesNwlD / / I 057o-0 zze�t• / _ __-__t-!-T_______________ '�-"-I PAR �J 1 QI NEI- Y CEL ji2y mu I �t^C\ / II ILwdQ IDI I G. and F—fi-M J. \.. / I I Isw-0IAOe R wd T. 1640-MaD I I I lsso-ol atT i \/- ` I I I 161p—M1W end C. F�•FLcoN J I I I I L.Vo '\ \�C 1 I I I/ i �' I R and E � \ I I I V II I \\ I I Is�o-olml 1 \\ I I FL end T Q , 1 Q / I lO / 1 U ' I 1 I 1 I PY111ele go—X, \ �� �\ I I�NACLI DRIVE � / 1 I 1 DRA- noFACL SAV PROJF.CI': SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERVONT IIIM EIOSTING CONTOUR - -S GRAVITY SEWER LINE -FM FORCE MAIN — — W — WATER LINE —OE— OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UT UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE G GAS UHE -- ST STORM DRAINAGE LINE OC.O. GRAVITY SEWER CLEANOUT ® SEWER MANHOLE ® ® STORM MANHOLE HYDRANT • s SHUT-OFF ® ® CATCH BASIN n, POWER POLE ....., ... EDGE OF WOODS ® TRANSFORMER CABINET DATE — IBEVISIDN t-T-10 8A1/AIL R8V196D ROAU�'. YI NCI'. PATE Y BIDG TTPE -)atl 6AY/1CL REYD PLl PEN HLVD:B GY11Et.T9 l-PS-11 9AP/Aft R0totT0) BLD T k B _ REnsED ButLOlrvc aN s_ _ MASTER SITE PLAN AUG., 2010 =,00 C1.o Prey �o 02250 I SITE ENGINEER: M. and Mllins OOS ao I I I. lehem Estate I I T. and L. Kleh 0570-01225 F R and M. Skiff I 1160-00219 WE 20' wnE MT. / 24' WOE •T.I car- Asrrronoy`c 1645-00089 26' WIDE MT. ME OONG x E�«!R� � �dW SMN RM PAIN / .-.10' wtce BIT. 1W WADE WT. tO I1 R M GONG ROAD W K------- CON REc PATH ODNG REC. PAIN O - CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. ---------- ---- - - - - - T C�t� __________ _____-____-__-________-�' _-_-�- ___AT _____-- i O8dM 8889 FAIL 8026N-88)1 wab. www.oes-v[vpn / OMANSFIPID BIIRIINGiON ® Open .Space R r � , Q � I � z+<+0 � Pinnacle at Spear I j O I L ACL 1 <E aF mcm i 1 • Q ---21 SAV 1 Q a I ' 'I _ •. _ } _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ __ F _ 1+2�� ' ' \ �� 71 jz APPROveD '`, •`o ® l i 205+ -' 2e+oo 00 206+00 207+00 2 +� � � I 3AV zos.o z1 o_ _ .--�- ` ,e zo++oD - ---- -- -- �- 205+ - -- ozDs.; r - ---------_—' - ----- -- --- ---------- e -- - + " Bon/Milot Partnership \ RoaecT. SPEAR a 000u uoo vUry rDD+ R ` 2D+OD o 'as0o no _ 4 B ®-- -- - - -- -- ® -- --- j -- - 3 . I �/ 1742-00033 MEADOWS I .. I Q � I � it � �.�.: 3� ` \ SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT - - WIDE WT.yt� � --"".- `� CURB � I • •+b �; : �� \ -...i'— Q����, -. . ORMWATER POND —.-.-. _.-=�r-_..-.-.-. .-.-.-.�""`.- 1_- I o' WE arc �i- EASEUENT IN •''P�a+ Meadows, Ina I 1 caNG REC. PATH ...+. � s...::( FAVOR OF PARCEL _ -13 ARC£L4�.- .,�.. Z.. �•,t THE CITY SOUTH 1 - - - `�.: I _ e WE INT. p ` eu RUNcroN I 41N • •1•~ / t k0.�•ASS`d.•. ..T,,. ` s.WOE` '•.1✓ WYE'fL DIII. AN DS m OROAD •I r PAR CEL 1 I / I I--STORMWATER POND/ T�� :;:.,;�'.,r•:�.::.::•.:-:.. T r EASEMENT IN ♦~ • N , �:i T.y.�,� }-:1YIL�lAN'af�;f'fiUN�i.YKfAN'.::'�':.:.(.:.�:..::::. (.:::.::(.:: I OH 9A� FAVOR OF / I tEN T I I...... I I � THE CITY SOUTH/ 1 I ��-�...............:................... — 1 1 IgMjT� I BURUNGTON LEGEND I /r')`•`, EXISTING STING CONTOUR II } 1 / x 1 I 3� DEnn11a------------------- I r PARf�EL 7 — : � : � EIInPOBFD W. and M. �iJOf l — —55— GRAVITY SEWFA LINE i l SPRU(ks-_-_____-_-- 1640-01400 I W FORCE MAIN �EJJ I _ r i 6 l ll SPRUCES / 1 NEIG 1/BORHOOD I — —OE— OVERHEAD ELECTRIC /'V ` / I � -J PARK I UE— UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC t / / ORAYLL i ;< l 10 1a[ !R I UT— UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE 1 6. Farrell / ) / IRMga MEA ,y :;- caxG RE1: PAM a I c GAS LINE10' PEDESTRI / '1640-0130 / % I i / EASEMENT L' Sr STORM DRAINAGE LINE LOT 1 n� � SEVER M ® OC.O.GRAVITY SEWER CU:ANOUT G. and Farrell i • " '"' / / 1 i Pinnacle at Spear ® ® STORM MANHOLE 28' WIDE BIT- 1640-01350 / • {•., i 1 I /. / GONG ROM w/ / / �` j j,C T'(i SHUTHYDRANT 1 I I I / CONCAEiE W / / - CATCH BASIN � 5 ` I , v. EDGE OF `� / / / � I � -- I � � �U / � ..w .�� .., GE OF WOODS TRANSFORMER CABINET I / If /// /> J � i "� ``�` � \ ARD��y �� M-so-ls s+v/al Hansen RDAns, sp. mnrAuc, 1-10-1i MV/A M'D PLAN PER REY6R cOMMENTs PAMENINT • �� Fig / / / / / 1 I I i \ ' \ BDDaD+c NmmEEs \ L and D. Yob{ V / / 1640-014012— a/Td d. Farce 1 / / / - CONSTRUCTED 10 MA 1 \ me 142, cres 45-47 / � t2.9 acres / G. Sporzynaki , \ . ,',t t I R. and T. i t • 1640-01408 1 I Consuela Bailey Estate \ , , 1 • 1 M. Dencker r - - I SITE PLAN c/o L Hackett \ ,',' I , I Tarrant I I /% 1640-01430 / // 1640-01317 I EXISTING SMH \ \ �� 1 I I 1640-01404 I I I 1 RIM-390.0t INV=3E5.4t '\ \ \ I t i I /I u7. and C. Franzoni IR and E. Lavigne \ \ \ Spy\\ \ , I I I I III 1640-01406 1 I 1640-01331 I I I \\ \\ �� EXISTING H I 1 1 I I B. and T. CimmOnetti , `F�\ \ \� RIM=350.2 t i I I I I I I I /i DATB ..v..lNalR I I 1640-01393 \\ _INy=375.1t I I I // I EXISTING SMH \ `•� \ I I I I I I I / , AUG., 2010 I I I If INV-339..z2* \ \ \ \�`\ \ I / I I I 1 I / GR HIC SCALE RaLE tI ii I „ " ' , ,t 1 -60' C1.1 \ \ Sg\ \ I I EXISTING SMH 37I i 1f INch --�+ 0 1tt. / 02250 \ \ I I RIM=7.St IV 1160-00214 I. leham Estate SrrE ENGINEER: I I T. and L. Kleh 0570-01225 R. and M. Skiff I 1160-00219 1645-00089 _.--_39]------- 7:_ ' i �-597- -- - -Jss- - - - - 1 � � �QiZeR�y�Ce CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. __ — — —. — ..— _ t 10 MANSFIEfD VIEWLWE, SOUTH BURl1NGi0N. VTOW \ — — — \ — — _. — —396— __ _396 _ ✓ '\ \�_ 9 ---.-- __----395—_.— `�i... --393 An P8O ac e p r — ---. ----396_-----__}9P—� =—` / 602-fieI2313 FA%: 802-861-22F1 xvD: www.cee-N.com \ \\ \ \ — J _-- —_395— �� \ --_ _8g�. _-----.----394-- `399— _392\_--_—_J93—._--J94`��—_. ----394— ,_—}94 ___---------- e` —_J9"�%//'\ I/ nM11N �OF —_—_-- —394---__—392 �\ J `a.— /// /- ACL RrS� A Y 393�` — .-3 --J93— _ _93�—__— �`// I y Ong— J80_�-------`� _ 392 —_ ---- —\ �'— /— �\\\�— •392--- /�1'�\\ / �228 g1 / SAV +01 p - , - SAV _ LarJ�k�/MkA Partnership PlzclaNc:T of _ \ \ \I \ \ ) j / . w 1742-00033 � ' _� �`-\, \ ; ,, /'- _ _ : SPEAR y �•_ , \ �` ,/-392— / // MEADOWS m �o t - - a 59' Q� O \\- -- - \\\ / i SPEAR STREET SOUTHERMONT TON \ \J - - - - - - - -Spear MeadoWlnc. / _ — — — -- — V121LANDS ---- � WETLANDS DELJNEATED BY WILLIAM D. COUNTRYMAN e> \ / l / SPRUCES / "391� \ y .J}p ' �- ' {�-�\ / /sPRuces �__ /- I � __ \\ LEGEND / _ 1,F 390 — � ' EXISTING CONTOUR / (` I // I " _ ]98 „ /' ' / • i % W. and M. Gilbert SPRUGE f_ kSIRUCEl ' 1640-01400 \\\ �391---~--_ --SS— GRAVITY SEVER UNE \ \ / — —FM— FORCE MAIN / \ ----�\ — —W— WATER UNE _ y \ — — OVERHEAD ELECTRIC \ ( N I I /to' / I\\ \\\ _........ UE— UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC \ / + (?L- Farrell ^ , UT UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE 1640 -61302 G - GAS UNE , / \ 'I I ,'\ I / / / \ '--_ Open Space / ------ —ST STORM DRAINAGE UNE / \ I '� G. and J. Farrell ' - ` f 1 I \\ ) '--/ •� _ \\ Pinnacle at Spear oGo. cRAVITr SEWER aEANouT 1640-01350 I - 3a3 \ ® m SEWER MANHOLE , • tJy I _ _ -.- __. — \ ® STORM MANHOLE �\ /� \ • \ 1 Ix HYDRANT / II I 1 ! �\ \ I \ I • ~{1, / / i'�-\\ \ --j -� • ,\ / / \\\ / ® ® CATCH BASIN I •• \ I I \ \\ v. POWER POLE • J EDGE OF WOODS I I �` r L1 J I I \ D1TS MCI' REVIs1VY L and D. Y*,mV \ \ - {� 1640-01402 \ C/ @.1¢2, ages 4�-47 tt �2.al�eGres--� � Q �ry� i \ 16porzy 08R end T. 1 , /' IConsuela Bailey Estate \ `� \ /' /'i I,•M. Denckerc/o LHackett — - '/� I 1 I Tarrant I I i =-- -_I /� I 1640-01430 �/ 1 I I 1640-01404 I I \\\✓// / EXISTING 1640-01317 EXISTING SMH e - / 1 I 1 / I 1 RIM-390.0t ^ \ I I ICJ. and C. Fran I I INV-385.4f \` 1 II - /.' CONDITIONS ITIONS 1640-01406 R and E Lavigne PLAN 1640-01331 1 B. and T. Cimmonetti I 1640-01393 - - I EXISTING SMH RIM-384.5t I I INv=379.2t \ � \\ � I I, I - I 11 I / f I AUG, 2010 GRAPHIC--�CAJ ua rs1 I I I / PRO). NO. f % qsG 02250 I I ! I •'ra••a1.e I I ••� I .•'••L• i . I / M and M. Scone ,.• I L Wwn Estate 1.6.0. -00214 . • • • T and L Kish 0570-01225 LL g • 1160-00219 __ _ - - --_ ll/^�'.pp__ .. - _ w ^� -\\_� -' ir•aR•••l1al. _ r.ur_it u.�.u.. PrHrq ----- • --� '� p�t lSpCeOo _.� \ _- _ ��• �n.y•�NL•�� __\ - __--__ a. __ �.�„\`•...yf••• -. --_�..-�-�--__---�---___.)-\ �_- -Pimp d�' \ .. _ \` ...? u.�urf _ -'".ate _ • __--- _ n•un� _ _� '°^ice a l-_. .w_--___-- '�` - e••• �°'---_ �ar•ur.nnYu ri.•rn•�n••��-� PU P•.• 1 , , ; 1742-OG033 -�y ......... ...................��•• \a i J /,-�eB Urivereltyof .... I.... • / (/ /' / \ __ �� .............• Vermont - - - - - - - - - '•' :\\ �:� •:• / 1640-01260 ••.•• .I �,�`••S/%' \� /`ra^ \\ it _--_.- \ �'� _ �. / : • �.-'�.� •••�,�sa°-�.-+•�' ••••••••• -`.• _ ••�•,... \ '\ �C "" + / ._\ Lh-- -epaar MeadOM0..i1G • •t r�-�'-w.���_ .�!/.'•: \� �.,\ ._ •.L.-ire � /{-��_... ----- 1 ...►• � � ."�w"�.'-' iz /. . �\ 1\ ••``� \\ � \-�„\ �\- - - r� as -- -\ --:� ---��..�'..;.�•'!! -.- .--..._---__: __..,• ......1 T• t ' CV YeR W. and M. OMml aaz,-V�i��� •,••••••r.n■.uu.•.•u•.• �T. .•�• 1640-014-00 ft- ` 9 ( # J Cx and J. Ferrel i/' \- f ��- ••• pear /, `I`/f (/ / %j / /' I I \\ '/ — • I I / I �{-I --Y, �.tn••' • I �\ � � ♦ \ \\ r � \\\�_� ��_;�J L a11dD .1'pU1Q I I Nadcatt �.• \ R \I Z9:agdJEM/ / // ��� •�.•.•.•�•..n••.••iill\ice_-- / / RYIdL r I I at64om4ryoe� I . • • �.• I Conc/o EaleyHack [slate \��� \ v r I I Twmrd I \ 1 40 01430 \\ \ / ... •' c/o L Hackett :, - / I I I I I I \ 1640-01430 / ............ ••.• • • I 1640 01317 I ` \ - iJ�/` I i I 1a40-01404 'R and C. Fxaniti�L- I I R and E. L.avIgb ,per\ I , I I I 164G-01405 � � \ "N�. \ I I :.I 1640-01331 I EL and T. Cr19IWiwi 1840-01393 •` I \ I I L I• Ij Soil Legend Sym. Map Unit Name Cv Covington Silty Clay GeC Georgia Stony Loam, 8 To 15 % Slopes Lh Livingston Clay VeB Vergennes Clay, 2 To 6 % Slopes Total Prime Ag Soil = 223.22 ac. - Total Class If Wetlands and Associated 50' Bu fer = ?4.99 ac. . Existing Developed Area /NW Lot Comer) = 31.03 ac. Total Prime AU Soil Impact = 317.20 ac. or 74.0% I \ I DRIVE E--- -I ,((l 0 1 I I i l \ •� .A.. .ram I Q` � : : � I : I : j\� •S SITE ENGINEER: f CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. 10 MANSFIEID VIEWIANE, SOWHOL -INGTOµ VT 05403 aWdaF W FAX M-09•— x w.w, -W— ACL SAV —R— SAV PROJECT: SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT EXISTING SOILS PLAN AUG., 2010 80' C2.1 11- aD 02250 / 'rw V I zm < m II O `L �N e / ( I -_. SITE ENGINEER: \ �_f €• -___ D Agricultural pry `4�zzf o�� Do < � r Coll - /iwAACT \ r-�ry'�rn�`� 16 v.7 z r \ < A N-a 40-01260 Z= NOTEs \\ G7O-j i C: \ o-_pZ _ / / / i. from .11 All proposed trees and plantings shall be 4vJ// Z �\\v�'-•Ivv "'•••111 CZ7 3 C ; m ~ E ; / / / placed na druunCnwote mans and sewer force 3-- 0 \ �AEfn n / 3s 38S_� 1 f'- �� ` z� zo m ` �F,go;8 @ mains. 386 % \\_ -1_ + <r,, .� / ,_ '384 /DNA ON m I / / 2. Street signs, traffic signs & pavement CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC, markingsshall be coordinated with the Cityceek.mm Street epartment. 8Dz01MI28zs0VFM 802 � UM BU2271 wea 1T05a- 9+ �< A m nlunry �. • Y' O 1ST 3 \ I + < a v m I din m ACL yti� t1A o V A t Jg VI8 N 394e /i �� / { �Am c1lscAr.D A �� A. \ 6• 9 / I \\ r /\V // ! A oain SAV -eZ I u-NID l 1 Y SAV rMO A`` I '' /\\ i TST4 / " GP ` 9 I I/ i E \ + • qqo , Z �� ` I t +. / rmot \ Y • X O PROJECT: �l 3g1 3s'.o,- S ZS 3'p2 3qR 8 \ III e e C �E / I I Z �-L / / / / �' ( r;VLn ' < z SPEAR O 93 0 < A ( / <„ lei I I \ T z o�� m o - v 3gT R I w f '��381I b 1 , N= 1� g MEADOWS bb S•/ I y E zic sl. Ql I iQg I� « �F�7Qzgm. /•r \ 102,E JOl 3g?'0 �~ \\ I+!aLr)p•11lNx \\ 1 / i / / O �\ \ \\` \ x. < « + A Ir m.�, r,00, mI 1 / / uN1o> J / ° \ \ � m I SPEAR STREET - - 1 2 �I / / «� F SOUTH BURLINGTON osm <�'3 Az J �� LI \�103x00 \ m // 111+rE < ml^ �// / �zwm VERMONT Z' :*, z < s \ o� + gm� `�i•\ y �9n-ID �+ IOU 61 zzm 4 �/ c"v`rIt \- �� m�a� I • \ \ + mz \ 1 -- c�j / \jam W r°i «a: i y m 11 z - ---i•• 9£ �a,wa ET \;-0 I L2w V< R \ .� l+ / fiGGE uom +m -0 \Q�� u-z�z r• \\ a w N D i \ c 17 �N 0 \\ an 0 \ Z�� °\ II ` ptxme' Z m my io' rniIn CA, Do on nix -- PARTIAL SITE FLAN Q) m a0y u0y I u 1n=417' 'f71 \ LOW POINT ELEV = 388.81 HIGH POINT ELEV = 390.80 HIGH POINT STA = 103+50 LOW POINT STA - 101+28.50 GRAPHIC SCALE PVI STA = 103+50 PA STA - 101+28.50 PM ELEV = 390.93 PVl ELEV - 388.71 _ -2.00 NEW HYDRANT `.--'-...—..- A.A.D. O n K = 25.00 & VALVE (TYP.) KO= 20.00 0 IN FELT 1 loch = 40 14 + 10 DAYTIN 9 372 0( o � I I / nmozwo m VOo - - - II g„zwn gym 1I 1 m 0 Ap N 0 OO1 A Ni{k� � fTC*41 INF q LOW POINT ELEV = 386.62 LOW POINT STA - 107+82.33 I'm STA = 107+84 PV1 ELEV = 386.59 40. 00' VC. N to A.D. 3.00 + N + 0 O K=3.33 p O 10.0000' V O N Q N n u ^m H 0 t0 O M o a- "1 GO NEW HYDRANT _ 396 -- ~ Qi "� N_d m ° + - N 396 & ALVE (TYP.) a F- ' of _ O O N ^ ^ N w + OR + Lo M r 394 394 W JO 3 DO M n� w N^ 100 392 -�- M m to n DOm to o 390 moo II 388 - -____. __..._..__ _._—._ ._....._—........_ .-. --._._.. _........... .. _ w- 386 - ----._ - o '� ---__. _.._.......�. _ 386 ..�. 15" DPE S=0.0 _ 2�T; -_ 15 HDPE _ _ ---- GRADE 15" HDPE 384 — 384 382 T --_— _ _— _ -- o - 382 - _ -__ d. ai I m -.= INSTALL ID _ Vitro- so �----- - Min aDl — - (2) 18" HDPE 380 1NSULA II 00 n �i II 10 O Z M O H7 M M 9: 378 376 S 1; AN- -- - z z - M n _. f- n A'1DCi K M > Z Z Z =...... Z - U Z O� M - - 374 —._.._...-_._._. ____.___ _ ..—..____.._ _- _-._--..- —...__ ..._ _--___..._.-..._ _____ 3.__. ____ -.._ Z_ Z. z 3; Z - Z - - - - —.__-Z j EV Z ZZ .-.�ch.i ^g mpWp Pa NCe Na ^� ^� N� m� m� Na NW N"� !?� Opl Im')m Cmjm m n Mm '03 n m M� mon !hce R. M th MM mn mM M� (m'l lmj m 100+00 101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00 108+00 PROFILE 1"=40' HORIZ. 1"=4' VERT. 192 390 388 8 6 4 Note: All work to be performed in accordance with the Specifications and Details for the Installation of Water lines and Appurtenances for all Water Systems Owned by the Champlain Water District, the City of South Burlington, Colchester Fire District #1 and the Village of Jericho. Details should be modified to the above reference specifications. LEGEND - - - --- - -- EXISTING CONTOUR DEsiwo 338 PAroo>ED PROPOSED CONTOUR — —SS— GRAVITY SEWER UNE — —FM FORCE MAIN — — W — WATER LINE — —OE— OVERHEAD ELECTRIC — —UE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC — —UT— UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE — — G — GAS UNE — — ST — STORM DRAINAGE LINE OC.O. GRAVITY SEWER CIEANOUT ® (Z SEWER MANHOLE ® ® STORM MANHOLE i! HYDRANT 0 0 SHUT-OFF ® ® CATCH BASIN w POWER POLE EDGE OF WOODS ®v TRANSFORMER CABINET DATR cesc�D RevlsloN l-90.10 R1T/ACL RUBY, lmR8P1 SO1D�C, BIDEII �, R6C. ROAD PLAN and PROFILE DATE DRAMG Ni11(BBR AUG., 2010 AS AS SHOWN C3.0 PROI. NO. 02250 FM i NEW CB 9 NEW CB /17 NEW CB /57 NEW CB /156 NEW CB /58 RIM=389.77 NEW CB /15 RIM 39 .�3 RIM-392.73 NEW CB /66 RIM=388.25 RIM=390.I I INV. IN=385.8i NEW CB NEW CB I/52 NEW CB #55 RIM=394.0 INV. 388.25.3 RIM=394.: INV. IN=384.65 INV. IN=385.11 INV. IN=385.35 RIM=396.4 3 RIM=38B.5 RIM=387.4 INV. IN-383.8 INV. OUT:390.0 INV. OUT-3 I INV. OUT=385.3 INV. OUT=385.78 INV. IN=386. RIM=391.5 INV. OUT=121 INV. OUT=385.06 2' N7DE CURTAIN INV. IN=383.5 INV. IN=383.35 INV. IN=383.8 INV. OUT-383. NEW CB /60 NEW CB /13 NEW CB #64 INV. OUT-38 INV. OUT=383.55 INV. OUT=383.3 INV. OUT-383.7 26' WIDE BIT. RIM=394.0 RIM=389.05 5' WADE CONIC RIM=395.6 DRAIN W/72' NEW CB #54 10' DE BIT. CONC. ROAD W/ INV. IN-385.2 INV. IN-384.51 SIDEWALK INV. OUT=39 .6 PERF. PE 2' WIDE CURTAIN NV. OUT=385.15 IN OUT-384 RIM=391.5 DRAIN W/12- CON . REC. PATH NC E CU INV. IN=384.05 PERF. HD INV. OUT=384.0 --- -- _ - - - -- J95.5 \ 96.8 Gam` - -GAR. _. 3 9 GAR. - \ , __ - 391.R \ - a - •4' 395.0 _ - 398.0 �+ ` 396. 39 - 96 397. 4 13 394:0 - - 395. 3&335 -39 395 15T F1R \ 3.7 3 15 16 17 ® 18 NEW CB #69 RIM=392.0 NEW CB #67 NEW CB #68 INV. IN-387.0 RIM=396.8 RIM-397.0 INV. OUT-386.45 INV. IN=386.55 INV. OUT=393.0 NEW CB W20 NEW CB NEW CB 1{70 RIM=391. 5 RIM=39: NEW C8 /65 INV. OUT=386.5 RIM=392.9 INV. 151 .84 1\rINV. IN= RIM-392.9 1 WIDE BIT. INV. IN=387.6 INV,'GU g,7g11NV. OU' INV. IN=386.0 INC. REC. PA INV. 0�lL-3fl7,S5 1 - - 17 GA GAR. ���G � - - - - -- - 9 -- GAR - R.&O GAR, 398.5 3gy,y 393 39s.o 31 RM CEI:#2 INV. INV. OUT-383.20 NEW CB #i- RIM=386.26 9.s •-rYO.rte 206+0 - \ 207+00 _ 208+00 INV. IN 38305 1 I 7 12� p0 \ "�•_-_- n k - O\ \ _ 209+0 eV. OUT-38 :Q 204i \ 12' . 0 202+tA-- 3g1 2 w \ \\ 39 t 0 /'� 393.0 vJ U N r yB'o 411 -rt Qi 4.3 7�// 394.•2 93.7 395.3 3 395.4 w CEI i / Y +'+392:8 > . V r- 1 3g3,0 ♦ 392.5 3i9 .] I` \ � 3 •9 3 / 392.0 M \ T FLR. 9 / � 394.0 12- HOPE / - ]9 9 \ 39 372�90. 397- - 15T �ei.2 Q DETENTION \ o e 3g4.6`� 392 9 ]} b 41 394.6 39 7 NEW CB /18 39_5.7 GAR. 4 n 1 BA�IN \ \ 1 1 4 4 8 \ - - a.7 39a.7 INS=392.1 5.98 5 395.8 3 Q - - 3 V. oUTs 31.0 391.0 39; - J91. 393.3I L _ 5 . 85- s9o.o 389--NEW OB77 .NEW'C� ��rr77i_._.-. UTLET STRUCTURE 4 3 '-�•- �' E11�CB 16 RIM-393.0 RIM=391.b� NENB p73 °�� RIM=386.0 \ + .r HIV= N903485.26 INV. IN-385.95 INV. IIN- 885.4 NIVaINi386�s/ RIM=NEW � 575 RIEM 393.2 W 4 INV IN= \ _ ��� •- NNIgW�CB 4 INV. OUT-385.9 INV. IN-387.0 INV. OUT-382.3 \ 1 - _ - NtW OB /61 - 9.05 _ IN19t1T=385:21- ----\ INV. OUT=386.1 INV. OUT=386.95 INV. OUT33B6.55 u -$!= 'IAE� RIM=388.0 INV. IN=384-.66� ORMWATER ?�,0ND -•- - = T.-.-.-. RIM-386-8� NEW CB INV. IN=384.251NV. OUT-^C _ - EASEMEIVt,IN 1 \\ �r ��h"/18 DPEOU INVFES. IN=384.0- -39pM-38685 _ INY.OUT�383.2---�A�_ VE� f KNVOR OF\ INV.-382.8 I 3pG NV. OUT=383.9 INV. IN-383.6 NEW CB /62 HDPE OUTLE4 ( _ NEW5C8 #6 INV. OUT-383.55 RIM=392.0THE CITY SOUTH 7 S \ tar WIDE; BIT. 1 RM�366.86 - / BURLINGTON \ IN 'Q \ \ t 1 INV. OUT-M&l_ NEW CB - I .7 / A T(�LJ ,ch �rT 33. E;�,_�. _�5-- ARTIAL SITE' A , IN PEE, MA CHLOE �, 9� / I -,�2_lg'17pPE`LIJI�ER NV = 15' HDPE OUTLET -1 = t man - 40 It 402 400 398 396 394 392 390 388 386 382 380 378 376 374 200+00 LOW POINT ELEV = 386.50 LOW POINT STA 201+50 PVI STA 201+50 PVr ELEV 40.._..._. 201+00 GH POINT ELEV = 393.08 LOW POINT ELEV = 391.6, HIGH POINT STA = 208+30 LOW POINT STA = 209+91 oN PVI STA 208+30 PM STA - 209+98 + PVI ELEV = 393.2050.0000' PVI ELEV - 391.5ao - - - - VC _ A.O.--.1.00 - _ _�. _.� N = K=._20-00 0_--- NCN, y MDT _ Q Q Q W 4 - .. N. 00 IA �n mCD > yw ---z r - _- - XISTING -_-- Cr PT -FINISF ED Li CRADE Ij m �, a ; GRAD 11 W _ ..... -U. PT---..--- A Do _ ------ -.._ z & W - ._._1.00R -. - N M _ 1 _ .. �I��II■III�I �.'711 �i�■- ... ■III I till � .t: � tt �iiii�■ ■ICI ._!!®��■iiiilr"III��� NIMM 1��I ■III I 1�11 � Cl�irl��■IIIII�1111����� �ii1�� 9VIi1.m.91li1 -i: R t3r�i�i_ 1��7 202+00 203+00 204+00 205+00 PROFIL[06+00 1"=40' HORIZ. 1"=4' VERT. SITE ENGINEER: -0 CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. 10MAN91E/DVIEWLW SOUTH BURUN'GTON. VT 05403 BOPBfi+PJ13 FA%: BMbB,-1PT1 xeb:.rw.cea-N.can BRAIm � ACL c.C® W pT28 A SAV +o APPROv88 ttE� Aa1YL SAV PROJECT: SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 11 Note: 397•0 All work to be performed in :y accordance with the Specifications and Details for the Installation of Water lines and Appurtenances for all Water 39 Systems Owned by the Champlain 39 _ Water District, the City of South Burlington, Colchester Fire District RIM-39t.26 ' IN =_ #1 and the Village of Jericho. 91 Details should be modified to the WIDE BIT. above reference specifications. CONC. ROAD - CONIC 1M CU 10' WADE BIT. J CONIC. REC. PATH= LEGEND -._ -_ EXISTING CONTOUR - - 336 PROPOSED CONTOUR [AEINO PWGP9® -W - -SS- D,,SEVER LINE- -TM- FORRCCEEMAIN - - W - WATER LINE - -OE- OVERHEAD ELECTRIC - -UE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC - - UT UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE --- - G - GAS LINE . ..... -ST- STORM DRAINAGE LINE 408 Or 0 GRAVITY SEWER CLEANWT m SEWER MANHOLE ® ® STORM MANHOLE HYDRANT yj U • • SHUT-OFF U L_� ® ® CATCH BASIN '¢. POWER POLE L LLJ .w.-.-.-ti-.-. EDGE OF WOODS TRANSFORMER CABINET fn wn CBHCEED xEvlslon - -.. -_ L.L.I It -woe MP/- Itk V19R0 ROADE. 9IDERALE, REC. PnTFI,.- k PRO RPV•D PLAN � NTE RPV'D PARCEL E R01D 1-�-11 BAP/ACL RP.MOM BUG 7 k 9 T I 11 UV/AQ_.. RFVI.SED_BN1DQlG NOYBERB ROAD PLAN and PROFILE ern 1 - m R U O 0� m m o'. AUG., 2010 DRAFlVG n'IIANI:H m^ ro� mg mh mrl t7� PT mO ,W',1 r7n mg m� m^ rlH m � AS SHOWN C3.1 207+00 208+00 209+00 210+00 02250 NEW CB 069 1 SITE ENGINEER: NEW CB RIM.392.0 2' WIDE CURTAIN NEW CB 7 /�8 INV. IN.387.0 1 I RIM•397.0 DRAIN W/12' INV. OUT•39.3 INV. OUT.388.95 / RIM.396.8 NEW CB w20 NEW CB p21 NEW CB /r79 NEW CB #80 PERF. HOPE INV. IN.388.55 NEW CB D RIM.391. 5 RIM.392.22 RIM.398.0�RIM-396.1 5' WIDE 26' WIDE BIT. 24WIDE BIT. NEW CB (165 INV. OUT•388.5 RIM.392.9 INV. IN. 8.84 INV. IN.3B7.25 INV. IN.388.1INV. IN•387.5 CONC. CONC. ROAD W/ CONC. ROAD W/ 10' MADE BIT. RIM.392.9 1 'WIDE BITINV. IN•387.6 INV..OU 88.79 INV. OUT•387.2 INV. OUT.388.INV. OUT.3B7.45 SIDEWALK CONCRETE CURB CONCRETE CURB INV. IN•388.0 C C. REC. PA ENV. WT�3B7 _ N CONC. REC. PATH INV -- -- iC-_ -- _-- - _X- -_x - -- -- - f A3 \ A - --- - - -- --- ., - - ------ - - - - -- - - - - - - - - _ NEW CB /26 ` ` -�� \` - - - - - - 0 CIVIL I MANSFIELD WEW LAW, SOUTH 6UwNGTOW, yr 04M NIMe N94.01 08 - 398 _ , � BOi-aN t329 FAX, 90E-0ai2Yr1 wwD: w»w ow w.som GAR. _ OAR. 7.e _ _.. 3 - 3g8.0 ,- 96 - - -- - `\ INV. OUT.38 03 , 3g) - __ _ _ _. B.0 o 639@.0 z - - - -�I I DAAWN 396 Gp7,0 3 , 214+0 _ Al 398.5 3pg'S YARD DRAIN 4YT I ceecsm n } n _ s iA 395 - - - -. 94 ' / O •' �� INV. J920 I SAV +f A22s �o .5 9 -_ _ 94-- Des x_ - - „r• �-\ APPROn �>B.I, - - -19- I 4 a 5 - _ - ---� ----- aO/ - // I so\itcT / Y SPEAR INV. IN.388.39 / 208+00 209+0 o N 3 - - - -/ 21 1 00- i Oq9 3g7 I INV. OU% . W 1p ;�/yF�'EES g \ e �B TSS--SS- )1 L. MEADOWS NEW CB-'- .... .... . .. llP.7NV.�391.5 RIM.391. 1 \ \ \1 age\ \ _ , / n ��� gyp - " INV. IN.3871 ` ... ` . \ SPEAR STREET 0900 INV. OUT- 3 .75 ` • w g5 0 }^� ` G. :o NEW CB /24 . ' \\ - SOUTH BURLINGTON RIM.391.81 W �\ ` / _ • 55hh��"" INV, IN.387. W „ \\ VERMONT 3 '4 1 S. '1' % INV. OUT. A + a - 3 "16_ .5 // „ ` .1 ` „ \ - - I / Note: CAR. GAR. I 9E. o 395.3 395.4 L� 1 GAR ee y0 // . W + �`^` / I All work to it performed in I Lw 1 396.5 1 G ',0/ • .I+ - - I accordance with the I .� G 1 �� I I I Specifications and Details for the / ( 9a.0 I / 397• .7�,.-71 fUl�\ - j " " (+ I In stallation Appurtenances Water lines and lL 94'? 39 �� �/ NEW CB 7B ' +�" ystemne for all Water GAR, 1 9 RIM.392.4 w \ I Systems Owned by the Champlain 303.7 �' _ ._'' NEW CB 9 INV. IN•388.2 . ` + ` +� - - I I Water District, the City re South i GAR. to Burlington, Colchester Fire District 5 4 R .-RIFA.391.28 - RIM.398.0 INV. OUT.388.15 W 395.8 3 I _ _ --• _I /NEW CB y22 INV. IN.3B8.8 / 0 1 and the Village of Jericho. 391.0 ]g°., J, �_.' �, �„ RIM.392.22 INV. O-388.5.ss . . . .i . PARTIAL SITE PLAN - - � Details should be modified to the _ 391. 3 FEW INV. IN.387.4 tin _ ico WIDE IT. RIM•393.2 "GR iC SCALE above reference specifications. �3 NEW CB SN CONC. ROAD NEW CB /78 INV. IN.388.1 INV. OUT.3B7.35 W .. .... .. . NOTES: -•. 1 ��=40' y28. / NEW CB N74 INV. OUT.388.03 - - IN•386)� RIM.394. RIM.393.2 .L _CONCRETE CURB RIM.392.2 ..V�AII',pi orgd 1roes and laminas shall ba placed a minimum of 5' awo OUT.3881 INV. IN.387.0 INV. IN.388.8 'i 0' WIDE BIT. INV. IN.387.85 + ` " ° ' i% " " " drorn ;oU'undM ynd rooter mains and sewer force mama Y _.......... INV. OUT.388.95 INV. OUT.385.55 INV. OUT.387. - . _ �"`/ '�, �'. a!a ' + CONIC. REC. PATH A 389 / ]:,Street', aigbq;'traf8e • ii{Ini'8 Bawwnsnt markings shall be coordinated with I'A►� � 91/W . .` . ' • �. irr4'c1ty.6tngt DfLPEftm`m1.',\ I lath - aD ft. LEGEND LL... • . .' .' . . . • • • • • .: -_ - EXISTING NpCaNTOUR MATCHLINE SHEET C3.3 PROPOSED CONTOUR HIGH POINT ELEV . 392.69 HIGH POINT ELEV • 393.05 LOW POINT ELEV . 394.26 � EwwolwD RICH POINT STA • 211+28 LOW POINT ELEV . 2+30. HIGH POINT STA . 214+34.22 LOW POINT STA . 215+34.15 - -SS- GRAVITY SEWER UNE PVI STA . 392.82 LOW POINT STA . 212+30.J1 PH STA . 214+25 PVI STA . 215+34.15 PVI ELEV . 392.62 PVI STA . 212}36 - -FM- FORCE MAIN v - 391.62 PVI ELEV . 394.18 209+98 A.D. -2.00 PVI ELEV • 391.72 o PVI ELEV . 393.25 40 PfO' VC - - W WATER UNE 209+98 K . 25.00 A.D.. 2.89 6G.OD00' VC ~K . 20.78� y A.O. - �� - 40.0000' VC. K • 17.31 p }1 K • 20.00 -OE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC 391.5jp N GD ' V 50.0000' VC 8 '� In - -UE- UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC 2.00 - Q - .__ al ...--. _ -- N 402 - -UT UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE .00 --- - - G CAS UNE .�L _ __ N __. ^ .__ _ _ t - N -ST- STORM DRAINAGE UNE dN s 4 n N H _. -_-_ �' TIAM_N.- 13 n _--_ _.. __... ___...._. 46G 0C.01 GRAVTY SEWER CLEANd1T a+ N ti Ln ^LJ ^ w + N T N O LJ ® SEWER MANHOLE IN 6 - _ m - 98 �.._.. --- n Fi rnw ern rn w -- -- _ ® � STORM MANHOLE _ _....._..... ANT 10 rn C, II SHUT-OFF to U _ _ • W _ _ 3 _ _ _ - � CA CH BASIN W - 3 .. Z - -- _. - _ --. (394 w POWER POLE _ .� EDGE or wopps TRANSFORMER CABINET --- 1392 - Pr ;*DFI-- ATE HDPE S=Q.004_FT. 1324- we Ir- 10 fi.1V/AI'L N9VItlED ROADS, 91DEeAlY RLC / -- - --- --._ 1 9D 11 &V/ACL �RD F1�BLD H1'D AATVEn OF UNE - - ^- - - 389 o-e-u sLT/AQ G ..,.,....A,..._ .�. �..^. ...._ �9YD B°IDyRIN - 386 ............._. ...._.._.---.._. yea .._._.._. _...... _.... N ..-.. OD . in c 384 - N ^ F H 382 382 382 380 Z ___. Z - > > - n - _ _- _ __ __._ 380 ROAD PLAN 71 Mr- a - - ZZ -- . z - __. _ - - 378 and PROFILE H II 376 Q 374 IN ♦'Ep ^" Pm °�O �•' m$ �� •"'H 4 IR P� mar n� N �N NN N ^'$ U,L1'k DHARIN4 trUMREIt PN P^ P P� N iT� P� �wj O v 'r a� nY nN nm .0 AUG., 2010 mh OTC m� m�i m �9 nT� nM �Y �Y 94 nn rPnch rP,an nMrn 210+00 211+00 212+00 213+00 214 L++00 I�Yii 215+00 216+00 217+00 AS SHOWN C3.2 PROFILE 911111 1"=40' HORIZ. 1"=4' VERT. 02250 \ -- T I 1 '--' >. z / \ P O 1 I Q / GR�PH C CA ((IN FEET I/ ! D 1 / \ 40/ / T 1 N, / fL .'N11N, NOTES: v `�+ / 1. All proposed trees and plantings shall be placed a minimum of 5' a oy from all underground water mans and sewer force mains. i I 2. Street I \ gntraffic signs &pavement markings shall be coordina with L the Citsiy Street Department. — -- R? I h «zm\ II WmN'� DmA I rnC R" I .\ mN Z Ikl la I �D DAi «cF Dr I �N wm 391. N C6 s h D a imam O m pR t E 06 > Am f7� // Zv 11 01 kl k E nm.�m j/ /' \ E E v' m to w mz 1 t «$F 1 E> 4 W WJ OI ' '� / �v ., / !•;k: t l« k m N z z zl r ( 'o ^/ / E f/ E.,'.k'. F:•'E •J'.f f �E II N'IS 1 I iE k ErE:;: E; :. :;: •e•.1 i f E 6 o \ c1 / f f t; :'i::: E;:•E::'�:1 E N Z «gym I `�\ I / 4 a..« •.E •; . •y.r e pp w£ mrp w / \/ C=NW O / I 1) , I E • E.. , f • t.. f:: :�•1•:4E,i E E E N OU N 1 / / ` / I f f. •'f:;.4;.•F. j•If �.f E 1t mOwIDNN I 1 / I E E�: l.; •'. E:;.E.: f.::.tll { f E E11 JA DTI I E .'E• .t :.F: :'f :'. 4' rj •. t.f E f /� I II ,i I f t:: •E: •;«'::e::'.�k E 1 X \ I I E F: •; e•::t; :.F. .:e �l. k el o_Ng U 1 �.•: e; .': t..;{. e b.: F: J; r::f /4 I / / = I F.••'.f•': E': .fm Ems•• R..•i'.E•': EI f E fNJi Z2A2 \ 9 -.i / R \ ( �k. t .gym,: •: J:::y;: 4 I «cg \\ / (\f\q.. .:�t.. k..4.;:. .f .E.;F4..E•:'..4E.r•k'::!f. jI':.EE•. ; •T.,. f;ESWf\ EEfE EE fE f wO� =w+�0 IAL SITE PLAN) k E p0N HOSE CONNECTIONS FORCOMMUNITY GTARDENS A o "rTr^ LOW POINT ELEV = 390.76 LOW POINT STA = 302+91.89 PVI STA = 302+90 PM ELEV = 390.63 A.D. = 2.76 K = 14.49 HIGH POINT ELEV - 392.59 HIGH POINT STA = 301+44.91 PM STA - 301+50 PM ELEV - 392.74 A.D. _ -2.51 K 19.91 -1/'Q Ise- ��n•r Y MA� n LOW POINT ELEV = 391.43 + LOW POINT STA - 300+17.67 O PVI STA = 300+16 ro PVI ELEV = 391.40 A.D. = 3.00 K-3.33 390 388 386 384 382 380 378 305+00 304+00 303+00 302+00 301+00 300+00 3M00 PROFILE 1"=40' HORIZ 1"=4' VERT. SITE ENGINEER: 212 C r�im�zbi� c�gn�m� a CIVIL ENGV ASSOCIATES. INC. 4�N VIEW LANE tOM•WSFIELDWEWUNE, SOUMBURUNG70N, VT Q5403 AN S A I < � O W 902.eeI2323 FAX' e029 4271 web: www.0etr40— DRARN Z W <=R 0 ACL GF II N`u4 Mom A A " a,00 F ce SAV APPROVED 22B }off pia G = Z SAV 1 PROJECT: I1 jil �11+ � SPEAR �zm b N MEADOWS ab I 1 < < SPEAR STREET g N SOUTH BURLINGTON Nz- VERMONT ��-rn f Note: zw II �� All work to be performed in accordance with the �IIAorJ Specifications and Details for the Installation of Water lines and Appurtenances for all Water Systems Owned by the Champlain 2«m Water District, the City of South z I * Burlington, Colchester Fire District #1 and the Village of Jericho. w�"o'ffi Details should be modified to the aeN o above reference specifications.- 0 __ m 2 g 1"m LEGEND -- - 336 -- -- EXISTING CONTOUR 33R PROPOSED CONTOUR Qp�3 Z! ZZ Z 0=� ——SSA GRAVITY SEWER LINE 1 � � mm — —FM FORCE MAIN 1 y0 N — — W — WATER LINE O — —OE— OVERHEAD ELECTRIC — —UE— UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC iv\ — —UT— UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE — — G — GAS LINE — —ST— STORM DRAINAGE LINE 0C.O. GRAVITY SEWER CLEANOUT ® 0 SEWER MANHOLE ® 0 STORM MANHOLE HYDRANT • • SHUT-OFF ® ® CATCH BASIN w POWER POE rv-.•vrv-v�-�.... EDGE OF WOODS ® TRANSFORMER CABINET DATB CRSCRRD REVISION 12-80-10 SAV/ACL EVIeDD ROADe, SmE11ALR, 1¢C. ,.. TBI�G. ._k w@TER FROF't REVD PLAN PER RFV611 C➢MMG'T5 1-ZA-lI SAY/ACL REV'D GRAVEL G AHFA 12-22-11 _ SAV/ACL I RENO D BLDG 7 A a ROAD PLAN and PROFILE DATE DRA 11 --re AUG., 2010 AS SHOWN C3.3 PROM. NO. 02250 `/ Ile .4 A o NOTES: — I 1. All proposed tree. and plantings shall be placed o minimum of 5' away from di underground water mains and sewer force mains. 2. Street .Igns, traffic signs h pavement marking. shall be coordinated 1 1 1 n H1 I �; It \ Og �1\�" •)_ /��—�� 1 with tha as City Street Department. Hj ' N .SgB•�g \ \- J ilk d �— vN� 1 / a'B ' yryyryyry6 Ior.Av a V Fi i I 38ra / J�' 39SPEAR S If IL �J — 49. \ 180' 180' 1 120' B8.5' 30' 180' 2' \ SPEAR STREET TURN LANE • ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE EITHER PARTIAL SITE PLAN THERMOPLASTIC OR PAVEMENT MARKING TAPE 1"=40' IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 708.10 : 708.12 AS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR REMOVE EXISTING BASE MATERIAL --------- TOP COURSE BITUMINOUS / SAW CUT PAVEMENT, CONCRETE PAVEMENT CLEAN AND COAT WITH EMULSION PRIOR TO BASE COURSE BITUMINOUS PAVING CONCRETE PAVEMENT EXISTING BITUMINOUS BIT, — — PAVEMENT C. PATH MIN. g oa;CRSHD��.RAVEL ° o0 oov o 000000 00o voo ov o00 00o vo 00 _------�%%% EXISTING BASE MATERIAL ° NEW CB26 � CRU HE GAVEL -,COARSE INV. IN=38&OB 3 INV. OUT-389.03 9; Yq[tb DRAIN n I ! E OF EXISTING I 394.5 EDGE DGEMENT �`'�� NV-392.0 / TRANSITION FROM NEW FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT 0, to EXISTING FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT a rz9 y N.T.S. 94.01 S \, 2 Xg -TSS\\ /FES PE \ \ ` ` \\ \I L o lirlbi INV-391.5 NEW HYDRANT/ / o - BLOWOFF \\ \ �1` 396 1 I CUL—DE—SAC IMPROVEMENTS GRAPHIC SCALE PARTIAL SITE PLAN — 1 "=40' — u RI FEET ) 1 ,oh = 40 It SITE ENGINEER: C CIVIL ENGINEHIN G ASSOCIATES. INC, IOMANSFIELOVIEWLANE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT OW 801-ae -M3 FAX' e02-ee4--1 web: www.ceaH.com DRAIN 0 ACL y4T4�tR A y -ECID:n 4 SAVAPPRDVED $ �zze rG� SAV PROJECT: SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT LEGEND ....... _. ...........sue_ _... .....-. EXISTING CONTOUR ERX'slo 336 RtaP09D PROPOSED CONTOUR — —SS— GRAVITY SEWER LINE — —FM FORCE MAIN — —W — WATER UNE — —�— OVERHEAD ELECTRIC — —UE— UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC — —UT— UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE -_..... --_ G — GAS UNE — —ST STORM DRAINAGE UNE 0C.O. GRAVITY SEWER CLEANOUT ® ® SEWER MANHOLE ® ® STORM MANHOLE x,( HYDRANT a 0 SHUT—OFF ® ® CATCH BASIN •n, POWER POLE EDGE OF WOODS ® TRANSFORMER CABINET DATE =cm 1 REV 7. TURN LANE and CUL-DE-SAC IMPROVEMENTS DATE. BRATDNG NBMBER AUG., 2010 BCALE AS SHOWN C3.4 02250 / / D / L p� m Z �_ ( n" AAZW22N D \ 2 •� Rl * m <�; UVIW � and State -- � �, m m v, x >-,Agricultural College r (no m'R 1640-01260 m 0 C __1 0 —� O rD-- R. a — — Z 2 O9 Z 0 00 1 ' O all + / 0 n > (A Z / Z 0 z irn nn pp m z z D tO n . i ,rm d N ; p—rn z 7401 @ \ e If. 00Z O u m to M O ' Ni_ �` -FMB op -40 AD�� 000 / c +I (A m\ m 1 F e T 0 A� �o M 3 / ; O Z f l �', ;0if p L. N CDi.4! \\ NUG C'XI C' Z�1 O b L 0 C0 CD Z V I 3 J / \ I v A m< w 0 \\\ Zn.Z013� D 0m X � n � 1 ITT — F -ti g z m y_. O r h � 1 GRAPHIC SCALE L IN FEAT ) 1 iacb - - St MATCHLINE SHEET l 1_0 I x �i � n A Z_ Ca D 1 SITE ENGINEER: 1 NOTES: f 1. All proposed trees and plantings shall be placed a minimum of 5'away from all 1 underground water mains and sewer force 2. Street signs, traffc signs & pavement CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. markings shall be coordinated with the City 10MANSFIELDWEWI4NE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, Vf 05403 Street Department. Sal--- FAX e02dBa2211 web: www.cee N.corn ACDRAeN L � � � CHBCEID SAV APPROVED R A /5226 a: 9 �OI,yAL w`' SAV PROJECT: SPEAR i MEADOWS 1 O08 z o� mm nm y 1115 SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT Note: All work to be performed in accordance with the Specifications and Details for the Installation of Water lines and Appurtenances for all Water Systems Owned by the Champlain Water District, the City of South Burlington, Colchester Fire District #1 and the Village of Jericho. Details should be modified to the above reference specifications. LEGEND EEISnNG CONTOUR O 336---. ---- PROPOSED CONTOUR bI0 1 FA511N0 RtOPOIID 55- GRAVITY SEWER LINE 0 n N —FM FORCE MAIN _ 1 Z Z 0) - - W WATER UNE E f� C'in —OE— OVERHEAD ELECTRIC ' To M o rn — — UE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC fit D CD — UT UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE -1 — G GAS LINE W I m\ — —ST STORM DRAINAGE LINE OaO GRAVITY SEWER CLEANOUT © ® SEWER MANHOLE STORM MANHOLE HYDRANT _ 41 0 ® SHUT-OFF CATCH BASIN i POWER POLE m _ 1 � �,- •��- .. EDGE of woods ® TRANSFORMER CABINET I; DATE CRECImD IfEVlsi N i 12-90 1E GV/AC1, NEVISED ROADS ALE, REC -_-. PATA & BNG TYPES & LT6ITDS - ---` 1 I—— EA'/A. U PLN• PHR REVm11 COMMEbybS I.. �.( ( F� ADDED ACCESS RD TO DEf. BASIN _ �� �$5� �• i "L V 1 ' 12-22-I1 EA'/'C' DREVISIEDBUB.BINC NUMBERS l o m rq O ====rn I f 1 >o ry 0 � ' z s m UTILITY —-- --- -� PLAN E _ DATE DIUBING NUMBER AUG., 2010 r; 1< NGA E N =� C4.0 O PROJ. N0. - j 1 02250 I I CONIC. ;R I - --- PARCEL 2 — E- .U. _ ! — . 0 EL + TER POND T IN SOUTH N ON I D n Z NOTES: 1. All proposed trees and plantings shall be placed a minimum of 5' away from all underground water mains and sewer force main.. 2. Street signs, traffic signs & pavement markings shall be coordinated with the City Street Department. r� L __j % COPPER TYPE K WATER SERVICE TO COMMUNITY GARDENS PARKING AREA 10' PEDESTRIAN` -',' EASEMENT VAULT FOR A WATER METER AND SHUT-OFF I VALVE I HOSE CONNECTION I FOR COMMUNITY GARDENS 1 I ' /J L I ' � I 5 DE 26'WIDE BIT. 24' WIDE BIT. SrrE ENGINEER: C.CONC. ROAD W/ CONC. ROAD W/ 10' WADE BIT. A"WoALK L5w CONCRETE CURB CONCRETE CURB CONC. REC. PATH C - - -- -- -- ----'7t'-- x-- -x- - -x 0---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- - - - I' —� �� • `\ \ �`\`\ CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. 1OWWSFIELD VIEWLANE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 X D \�, a BBt-0b-29]3 FAG: B02dB1 tt)t web xww.�e Kcom ACL D.I. \ \ + tarEe N� WATER MAIN y /� APPROVBD / �� SAV PROJECT: SPEAR NEW HYDRANT/ BLOWOFF t \ MEADOWS k: . - c SPEAR STREET 31 N I SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT t • / 4z Q Note: 3 O • . ` I / All work to be performed in 1 C accordance with the / Specifications and Details for the - V Installation of Water lines and / Appurtenances for all Water '�--�- Systems Owned by the Champlain Water District, the City of South 26' WIDE BIT. Q ' . W • . r iBurlington, Colchester Fire District CONIC. ROAD W/` �. N1 and the Village of Jericho. CONCRETE CURB ` + ` ` ` `�' �'•''• Details should be modified to the �'''••'•� above reference specifications. ,/-10' WADE BIT. . • + CONC. REC. PATH r . O ��.��PARCIELr 4..�..�.��._ W'.4:. .. W:W LEGEND %� —sw E%ISTNG CONTOUR W W�•. W....'. ... APRED. CL.ASS�`. f;;.:• -sae- PROPOSED CONTOUR w. +WETL�CN D5 .RpPogD -18' WADE BIT. — s + .r .r .r .'.4.' .�' o• —SS— AUNTY SEWER UNE CONC. ROAD W W — —N— FORCE MAIN W + + W — —W— WA TER LINE o.'+�',u•.W'`'•'•...,.•:•''.:.'..,.',....,...',....,••.',•..',•..'...'•.'..',....',....',...',:.',:.','...'.�..',•..',,.•....',....'. '.'. ..�.�. •'.••.�,••.',. — —OE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC + W W'•'+. -•+��`,W ."•ti.�.�•�"' :':\ —UE— UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC —UT— UNDERGROUND H .•a:�i, , DER TELEPHONE _ C — — GAS UN E —ST— STORM DRAINAGE LINE y`•.::. : OC.O. GRAVITY SEWER ClEANOUT I,r ♦ �.. ,•..', ••.', ••.'. ••.•; ••.',•. SEWER MANHOLE _ `� +� W �'••:' •:' •:':' ••.' ••.•' :•'•• :•''•:''• •.'•.:'••.'•'••.'• �'•:' ® ® STORM MANHOLE HYDRANT • • SHUT—OFF `. �1 �� _ �. •..', •,: , : •..', :', : •.: , ■ ■ CATCH BASIN _ POWER POLE EDGE O WOODS TRANSFORMER CABINET SIBN • —J\/ - i .• �� ,. .•.', .; • ;•.', .:' DATE CHNCKED YRVI �'• � /ArPATH Al RODADTYPES, TPES, AWt, RI�9PARSEL 7 l ffi Il N /1CL HeV•D PRR HaVDiw CDYYEN"19 -\ a 4 .. REVI9KD PARKIN ANIJ IE P2 Il 51V/ACL RK —ED BLDG I A B .' BUILDOa NUMBERS NEIGFYBORHOOD PARK 1 10'WIDE BIT. CO / CONIC. REC. PATH / L UTILITY 1 GRAPHIC SCALE /T PLAN i n IN FEET) / \ I i ch — 40 ft. 1 i D1T. E L 5 / AUG., 2010 NU N ITY > ��' 1t 1' - 40' PRO. No. Z� 102250 C4.1 No Text I I I I 7/ YWE RR. r10' � iL 0011C. NON w/ / OGNC. REG PAIR — � I INSTALL STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION (TYP.) - y}.....- SITE ENGINEER: STALL EROSION NTROL MATTING �TWEEN CURB ' D SIDEWALK P.) 6. wbE 20• WIDE ■T. a.' MADE ■T. C1VIl ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. CONC. CONC. Rwn N/ CONC. BOAC w/ O .WE Rai. yDEwALR CONCAf'lE Q1Rb CgIC REG PATH 70 MANSFIELDVIEW LANE, SOUTH &1NLINGTON, Vf 05109 — S 96 ACL 9J ___ / � CHecBID SAV SAV �eTJ , \ __ _ -�� — ' 392— — i PROJECT: SPEAR MEADOWS 0000 00o g't'A \\ SPEAR STREET INSTALCSTQ9M DRAIN SOUTH BURLINGTON l.o INLET PROTECr1ONVERMONT � (TYR) -Igo- CON!" . �- - INSTALL SILT FE Of WE 9L _ • •� T, OMM REO. PATH ARCf L. + ' ;, Aea i• /• +!+ J: y>,fi'•`•'•' :� z.-.' ':. `'.t.. .MAPBt•?FCLASS'It`�. �'..�...� . ,,��•• 0. •y� •.r. AN •Je 'WETL DS t CCNC. 9z `, PARCEL 7 (A? NEIGHBORHOOD � I '-J PARK - 10' ROE 11 I LEGEND 0 HTORM DRMN INLET PROTecnaN — SILT FENCE !•+_ '..; --. - EROSION CONTROL +• _ -/ \ I MATTING J� '-'- 'EL 5 /� Hr CA80 RAV o' /< UNI\ _ J .a % D_. R.C. j=9_TT6@_A GRADING v /.O RAP•D P PAR R6VR11 GOMMRTB ` ARD \ �_ • - ��/ACC REM°V8D HLDG R A e RMSRD BUDDING NDMHHRH I � � EROSION CONTROL I ----- ' --� I � ,PLAN I I 390 — = ` OATH DRAmRc RDMRRR GRA HIC SCALE I AUG., 2010 5— C5.0 a Pam, ,•.so' 02250 4 1 CENTER BAGS OF SECOND LAYER OVER JOINTS BETWEEN BAGS OF FIRST LAYER SANDBAGS FILLED WITH J PLAN X" TO V STONE D- �IIII���S� TOGETHER •. O SURFACE CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTION N.T.S. 2' EXISTING (MIN.) Z GRADE TO 2'-0" SE SEE GRADING -- __ - - --- pp G SEE GR IN PLAN - FLAN_- TO BE USED PRIMARILY WHERE SLOPE EXCEEDS 5% L STONE FILL STABILIZATION TYPE I, 1'-0" THICK MIN. FABRIC TYPE II, 2'-0" THICK MIN. STONE LINED DITCH N.T.S. 4' EMERGENCY SPILLWAY N.T.S. EXISTING _ GROUND I -_-_-__---_- - cIi'1T �1 ifs Ir EROSION CONTROL MATTING IN TOPSOIL DITCHES N/PROFlLE GRADES - EXCEEDING 5S STAPLE AS PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. GRASS LINED DITCH N.T.S. OF.SXIEW4LC ►A GRAVEZ FRLED SA9ABUS ARE STACWZD 7 dfik/ 619W A PLAN VIE11 crave #AZT SPXLNNY .SIEI WUX "Aym 84M SECTION A - A NOTES' Y. PUCE CURB TYPE SE7A'MENT AIRR/ERS ON GIEMLY SLGr'A1U' STREET SEGVVV75 N7XRE W47ER CW P W AND ALLOW SEL&Vff TO SEPA/d17F FRAM REAOIT. 2 S4NO64GS OF ERNER BURLAP OR NVWV GYDTEXI FAW4 ARE FXLEO N77H GYNH4. LAYERED AND PACAED T,G'/DLY. J LTAI£ ONE mwmc av EV 7w RN' ROW 70 PRONDE A SPXLWAY FOR OVERFZ.OW. 4. 1M5PECT 84RRAERS ANO REMOYE- 5ED01MEAR ATER EACR S70RN EYEUF. SED/MENT AAO 6*4m MU5T REMOPED FROM 777E 71&YELED NAY e/A/EDNMEZ Y. CURB INLET SEDIMENT BARRIER (SANDBAG) N.T.S. MATCH DITCH CULVERT & END SECTION SECTION Y A�' A A -A TYPE II STONE FILL A TYPE II STONE o FILL (1'-O" MIN. THICKNESS) CULVERT END SECTION A STABILZATION FABRIC CONTINUE STONE MBAR 50OX OR FILL IF REQUIRED APPROVED EQUAL END SECTION DETAIL N.T.S. MIRAR AD OR EQU PLAN FABRIC TYPE AL SECTION '77NCKbW * N17N ANCN/NERY ON SOVY SOX PROWDES ROM24ETMNc IM Naff UNDUE COM/PAC77ON. STRAW ANCHORING Atl7E - 1. ROUGHEN SLOPE WT7N BULLDOZER 2 BRO40C4i7 SEW AND FERR[LZER. J. SPREAD STRAW AkkCN J• (7) M".. (2 112 TONS PER ACRE) A PUNCH STRAW MULCH TNTO SLOPE BY RUNAWK BULLDOZER UP AND DONN SLOPE: STRAW ANCHORING N.T.S. I t2'r�fifi%iL'e :•: i' `fin L%•S.ZE:i:is'.*'I� li �IIwWNMingvu�n�H n .R:_r nsl�'� n: � 1 ( n�l� r1STONE CHECK DAM STRUCTURE C6.4 N.T.S. TEMPORARY SEEDING & MULCH OR NETTING SILT FENCE OR HAY BALES INSTALLED ON DOWNGRADIENT SIDE TEMPORARY STOCKPILE DETAIL N.T.S. �2• CRUSHED STONE NOTE: PROMDE APPROPRIATE TRANSITION BETWEEN STABIUZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AND PUBLIC R.O.W.. PLAN g 15' MIN. Z CRUSHED STONE \` EXISTING GRADE CROSS-SECTION STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE N.T.S ANTS SYrDULD BE ORE. 4ER7KAllY ooNlvsLL7PE 1 •� f80116f1UC V161f TYPICAL...SLOPE SOILSTABILEZATION NOTES' 1. %OP£ SURFACE SN4LL BE FRET OF ROCKS, CLL10.; SACAT AND GRASS: ANTS/ EY.INKE75 S "4 .11 OOOO SOY . CT. 2. A RY POtYWENT SEEDAC BEFORE PLAOMc &ANKE7S J. LAY BLWWEM LOOWY AAO STAKE OR STAPLE" 70 M4WTAW &REL'T LYJNTACT NTTH 7HE SOX DO NOT STRETCH. EROSION BLANKET & TURF REINFORC. MAT INSTALLATION N.T.S. SITE ENGINEER: �Ef^ CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC 10 MANSFIELD VIEW LAVE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 eo2a .3 Fax: RD, - , w.a..« -V,— ORA11!V ACL O„' F V, CBEL'EED � x 4 SAV R 05225 "PROVED �SiEt SAV PROJECT: SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT BER&ON POSTS 1' SET POSTS AND 2. STAPLE THE WIRE --- --- EXCAVATE A 4"XB" MESH FENCING TO ANGLE 10' TRENCH, SET POST WARE POSTS. UPSLOPE FOR DOWNSLOPE. FENCING EROSION STABILITY AND SELF CLEANING ° CONTROL 6.,2 MI". - - ' DETAILS 3. ATTACH FILTER FABRIC 4. STAPLE THE WARE TO THE WIRE FENCING MESH FENCING TO FILTER AND EXTEND IT TO END POSTS, FABRIC THE TRENCH, COMPAC E BACKFILL DATE D-ED NUNDEE AUG., 2010 AS SHOWN C5.1 SILT FENCE CONSTRUCTION DETAIL PR07. NO, N.T.S. 02250 EROSION CONTROL NARRATIVE: NOTE: THIS NARRATIVE REPRESENTS ONLY A SUMMARY OF THE EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT. OTHER REQUIREMENTS WILL APPLY, INCLUDING (BUT NOT LIMITED TO) THOSE FOUND IN THE SPECIFICATIONS, WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL DISCHARGE PERMIT ISSUED FOR THIS PROJECT, AND IN THE EPA NPDES GENERAL PERMIT FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGES FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES (1-21-05). REQUIREMENTS FOR POSTING, PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS, AND CO-PERMITEE STATUS ARE CONTAINED WITHIN THESE DOCUMENTS. SILT FENCE AND CONSTRUCTION LIMIT FENCING ARE TO BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY SOIL DISTURBANCE TO AREAS UPSLOPE OF THESE MEASURES. STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES ARE TO BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY MATERIAL HAULING TO OR FROM THE SITE. INITIAL SITE WORK WILL CONSIST OF INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN ROADWAY AREAS FOLLOWED BY CONSTRUCTION OF A STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ROAD IN THOSE AREAS. TOPSOIL IS TO BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO UTILITY WORK AND CUT/FILL WORK. INSTALLATION OF FABRIC AND STONE IS TO CLOSELY FOLLOW COMPLETION OF THE ROAD SUBGRADE WORK. CONSTRUCTION OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREAS WILL BEGIN ONCE ACCESS IS AVAILABLE FROM THE CONSTRUCTION ROADS. INSTALLATION OF THESE COMPONENTS EARLY IN THE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE WILL ALLOW DRAINAGE FROM THE EAST END OF THE WORK SITE TO BE DIRECTED INTO THE DETENTION PONDS AS AN ADDITIONAL TREATMENT MEASURE PRIOR TO DISCHARGE. ANY SEDIMENT COLLECTED IN THE PONDS IS TO BE REMOVED AT THE END OF CONSTRUCTION. FILL OPERATIONS MAY BEGIN IN CONJUNCTION WITH POND EXCAVATION WORK. FILLING AND STABILIZATION (MATH TOPSOIL, SEED, AND MULCH) OF EACH FILL AREA IS TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE BEGINNING FILL OPERATIONS IN ANOTHER AREA. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT DISCHARGE, THE FOLLOWING EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES ARE TO BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT SITE WORK. EMPHASIS WALL BE ON MINIMIZING THE TIME SOILS ARE LEFT EXPOSED DURING WORK, AND PROVIDING TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT STABILIZATION WITHIN 48 HOURS OF SOIL DISTURBANCE WITHIN A (OVEN AREA AND PRIOR TO FORECASTED RAIN OR MELT EVENTS. NO MORE THAN 5 ACRES OF UNPROTECTED SOIL IS TO BE EXPOSED AT ANY LIVEN TIME. ANY SOIL VISIBLY TRACKED ONTO ADJACENT ROADS MUST BE REMOVED BY SWEEPING AT THE END OF EACH CONSTRUCTION DAY AND AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT TRACKED SOILS FROM BEING CARRIED FROM THE PROJECT AREA BY PASSING TRAFFIC. THE STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES MUST BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT ACTIVE SITE WORK, TO PROTECT AGAINST SEDIMENT MOVEMENT BY VEHICLE TRACKING. A LENGTH OF AT LEAST 50 FEET OF CLEAN STONE IS TO BE MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES. SILT FENCE IS TO BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO NEW EARTH DISTURBANCE IN UPSLOPE AREAS AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE LENGTH OF THE PROJECT, UNTIL STRONG UPSLOPE VEGETATION HAS BEEN ESTABUSHED (>75X COVER). DISTURBANCE BEYOND THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS, TO BE DESIGNATED BY CONSTRUCTION FENCE, IS PROHIBITED. THE EXCEPTION BEING SMALL AREAS OF UTILITY TRENCHING DISTURBANCE THAT SHALL BE DONE IN A TIMELY FASHION AND STABILIZED AT THE END OF EACH CONSTRUCTION DAY ALL DISTURBED AREAS NOT STABILIZED WITH STONE ARE TO BE TEMPORARILY STABILIZED WITH HEAVY HAY MULCH, STONE, OR TARPS AS SOON AS PRACTICAL, BUT NO MORE THAN 48 HOURS AFTER CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IN A (OVEN AREA HAS TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED. MULCH MUST BE ANCHORED BY TRACKING, NETTING, OR OTHER METHODS PRIOR TO ANY FORECAST RAIN OR MELT EVENTS. POLYACRYUMIDE (PAM) BLOCKS ARE TO BE INSTALLED IN THE DETENTION POND INLETS AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE LENGTH OF THE PROJECT, TO ENHANCE SETTUNG OF ANY SEDIMENT CARRIED TO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. CHECK DAMS ARE TO BE SPACED TO PROVIDE NO MORE THAN 1.5' TO 2.0' OF VERTICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHECK DAMS. TYPE A STABILIZATION TO BE EROSION CONTROL MATTING AND TYPE B STABILIZATION TO BE TRACKED MULCH (SEE SHEET C3.0 FOR SPECFCATIONS). NEW EARTH DISTURBANCE IS TO BE INITIALLY LIMITED TO THE AREAS DEPICTED FOR INSTALLATION OF STORM SYSTEM COMPONENTS, THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD AND THE STAGING AREA. AREAS WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE DISTURBANCE FOR INSTALLATION OF THESE COMPONENTS ARE TO BE AVOIDED UNTIL THE ABOVE NOTED AREAS ARE COMPLETE. AN ON -SITE COORDINATOR (OSC) SHALL BE DESIGNATED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION IN WRITING TO THE WATER QUALITY DIVISION (WOO) OF THE VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION. INSPECTIONS WEEKLY INSPECTIONS BY THE ON -SITE -COORDINATOR (OSC) ARE REQUIRED DURING PERIODS OF ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION. INSPECTION IS REQUIRED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF ANY RAIN EVENT PRODUCING MEASURABLE DISCHARGE FROM THE SITE (REGARDLESS OF WHETHER CONSTRUCTION IS ACTIVELY UNDERWAY). ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS BY THE ENGINEER ARE ALSO REQUIRED EVERY 14 DAYS DURING ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION. MONITORING SAMPLES MUST BE COLLECTED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF ANY RAIN EVENT PRODUCING MEASURABLE DISCHARE FROM THE SITE, AND TESTED FOR TURBIDITY. SAMPLE SITES ARE LISTED BELOW AND DESIGNATED ON THE SITE PLAN. SAMPLE SITE ONE IS TO BE COLLECTED AT THE CULVERT OULET, LOCATED NORTH OF THE PROJECT SITE, ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF SPEAR STREET. SAMPLE SITE TWO IS TO BE COLLECTED AT THE JUNCTION OF THE OUTLET OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA #1 AND THE OUTLET OF THE ROAD CULVERT LOCATED AT THE NORTH END OF THE SITE. SAMPLE SITE THREE IS TO BE COLLECTED AT THE JUNCTION OF THE OUTLET OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA /2 AND THE OUTLET OF THE ROAD CULVERT LOCATED AT THE SOUTH END CE THE SITE. SAMPLE SITE FOUR SERVES A REFERENCE SAMPLE AND IS TO BE COLLECTED AT AN APPROPRIATE, FEASIBLE LOCATION UPSTREAM OF THE PROJECT SITE. POND DISCHARGES ABOVE 10 N.T.U. SHALL BE NOTED, AND REPORTED TO THE WATER QUALITY DIVISION WITHIN 7 DAYS. POSSIBLE ON -SITE SOURCES OF SEDIMENT ARE TO BE INVESTIGATED IMMEDIATELY AND REPORTED TO THE SITE ENGINEER. APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE MEASURES SHALL BE TAKEN IMMEDIATELY TO CONTROL DISCHARGE OF SEDIMENT FROM THESE AREAS. DEWATERING DISCHARGE FROM DEWATERING OPERATIONS IS TO BE DIRECTED ONTO POLYACRYUMIDE BLOCKS LOCATED WITHIN AN APROPRIATELY SIZED SEDIMENT BASIN. DISCHARGE FROM THE SEDIMENT BASIN IS TO BE TESTED AND DEWATERING IMMEDIATELY CEASED IF THE TURBIDITY OF THE DISCHARGE EXCEEDS 10 N.T.U. WINTER CONSTRUCTION THE WINTER CONSTRUCTION PERIOD EXTENDS FROM OCTOBER 15TH TO MAY 15TH. SITE WORK DURING THE WINTER PERIOD IS SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE NOT INCORPORATED INTO THESE PLANS. ADDITIONAL MEASURES REQUIRED DURING THE WINTER PERIOD INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, INCREASEED INSPECTION FREQUENCY AND DAILY COVER OF EXPOSED SOILS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY SITE DISTURBANCE PLANNED DURING THE WINTER CONSTRUCTION PERIOD PRIOR TO EPTEMBER 7TH. INFORMATION DESCRIBING THIS WORKMUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE WATER QUALITY DIVISION (WQD) BY SEPTEMBER 15TH. SOIL DISTURBANCE WITHIN THE WINTER PERIOD MAY OCCUR ONLY WITH PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE WOO. SITE ENGINEER: C CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC, io MANSRElDWEWIAA'E, SUTHBURUNGTON, VT04M B➢2A°42= FM H02 22>1 web: � DNAVN n ACL SAV PROJECT SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT w ON EROSION CONTROL NARRATIVE OATk DNA�DIG NDI®B AUG., 2010 ONE C5.2 -3. ND. 02250 TOPSOIL, SEED & III -. _... -.�. ..... A..... .... pOoo°o oc o °peco°o opO0000 oOo op NOTES: 1. Typical trench for water, sewer, and drainage pipe. - Oo oco pOo°o 0000 oo ool o°000 °0000000c0000°000co 000 ooQo 2. Compaction of backfill and bedding shall be a ova minimum of 90% (95% under roadway surfaces) of maximum dry density determined in the N 3 standard proctor test (ASTM D698). APPROVED BACKFILL X .. THOROUGHLY COMPACTED 3. Bedding material shall not be placed on frozen 0 o IN 8" LIFTS subgrade. 2" OF RIGID INSULATION 4. Approved backfill shall not contain and stones TO BE INSTALLED WHEREVER more than 6" in largest dimension, 2 maximum MINIMUM COVER CANNOT diameter within 2' of the outside of the pipe, o BE MAINTAINED & ALSO or any frozen, or organic material. tJ 2' APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER in io 5. Trenches sholl be completely dewatered prior to PIPE placing of pipe bedding material and kept dewatered during installation of pipe and backfill. 6" oo°oc o000 0 ° 6. The sides of trenches 4' or more in depth entered 000°o°o THOROUGHLY COMPACTED by personnel shall be sheeted or sloped to the0o �-BEDDING MATERIAL angle of repose as defined by O.S. H.A, standards. 6. o0000000 00 7. Bedding material for wastewater lines shall consist of 3/4` crushed stone. UNDISTURBED SOIL OR ROCK For water lines bedding material shall be sand. Submit a sample to the Engineer for approval. TYPICAL TRENCH DETAIL S. In trenches with unstable materials, trench bottom shall first be stabilized by pplacement of N.T.S. filter fabric then crushed stone (3 maximum). maximum). EX. BIT. PAVE (BOTH SIDES) ALL JOINTS SHALL BE THOROUGHLY CLEANED AND COATED WITH EMULSIFIED ASPHALT PRIOR TO PAVING MATCH EX. PAVEMENT MIN. (MIN. 1 1/2' TYPE III 2" TYPE B) NOTES: -- - NEW BIT CONC. PAVEMENT 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AT LEAST ONE— WAY TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES DURING WORK WITHIN p ' p ]0 � (tie 0� 0O O 00(31 00 MATCH EX. SUBBASE O O O 00 O O 00K (18" MIN. CRUSHED OOO O OO O 02 E R.O.W. OF TRAFFIC DURING AND TIR.O.W. K WITHIN O O O ) O O O 0UNIFORM THE HIGHAYSHHALL BEON OVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUAL OF I I — — I TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT WORK WITHIN THE R.O.W. �7— WITHOUT APPROPRIATE CONSTRUCTION SIGNING IN PLACE. 3. ALL BACKFILL SHALL BE MADE IN SIX (6") LIFTS _ D + 2' TRENCH _ EXCAVATION MIN. SEE TYPICAL AND COMPACTED TO NOT LESS THAN 95X MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY ACCORDING TO ASTM -_ TRENCH DETAIL 0698. 4. REPLACE EXISTING ROAD STRIPING AS NECESSARY. REPLACEMENT OF EXIST. PAVEMENT NITS TOPSOIL, RAKE, SEED & MULCH (MOUND 6") APPROVED BACKFILL w/6` MIN. SAND BEDDING V 4" PVC Tv. FM TRENCH SECTION N.T.S. MANHOLE WALL MANHOLE OPENING ABOVE !'-0" MIN. iADIUS PLAN LEBARON FRAME & COVER �LC266 TYPE C OR EQUAL ADJUST TO MEET FINISH GRADE. MANHOLE WALL OPENING ABOVE �E EXISTING LINE — 2'-0" MIN. RADIUS LINE ' I `REMOVE EXISTING SEWER MAIN IC}-TI AS REQUIRED AND INSTALL NEW MANHOLE, REPAIR SEWER MAIN PLAN AND SEAL LINE AT MANHOLE WITH GROUT AND REFORM INVERT IN MANHOLE. SITE ENGINEER: f CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. 10MAN91ELD YEW LANE, SOUDIBURUNGTON, VT05403 eozaal-zzza AVC eoz.ear-zzn »eo- w,wv cee.n.c°m ACL cw"D A ¢ * A SAV a 'f�IBTEp nerHovED �p41L SAV PROJECT SPEAR FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADE MEADOWS - SET FRAME ON FULL MORTAR BED & SEAL JOINT PRECAST RISER SECTIONS FFOR ADJUSTMENT. (BRICKS SPEAR STREET SHALL NOT BE USED) N SOUTH BURLINGTON = 24' POLYPROPYLENE MANHOLE VERMONT o U STEPS O 8" O.C. EXISTING 8" WATERTIGHT JOINTS USING SEWER MAIN MASTIC OR RUBBER GASKET CORE MANHOLE AND USE F PSX PRESS SEAL GASKET <w CD 48• COAT EXTERIOR OF ENTIRE (OR APPROVED EQUAL) FOR WATERTIGHT CONSTRUCTION MANHOLEWITH A WATERTIGHT SEALANT (2 COATS) CAST IN PLACE FLEXIBLE MH 6 a 1" RISE SLEEVES OR APPROVED EQUAL (TYP, ALL PIPES) PROPOSED 8" SDR 35 oCMW/— SEWER CONNECTION p0°EXISTING k---j CONCRETEREMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE SHELF AND INVERT SHELF AND FORM NEW INVERT UNDISTURBED 12" MIN. ELEVATION SOIL OR ROCK CONNECTION TO EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE CLASS B CONCRETE 6" MIN. CRUSHED STONE BEDDING N.T.S. SHELF AND INVERT ELEVATION Malik 1. SEWER MANHOLES SHALL BE PURCHASED WITH SHELVES AND INVERTS ALREADY FLOW 4" 22 1/2 OR IN PLACE. 45 ELBOW 2. EXTERIOR JOINTS SHALL BE SEALED ONLY AFTER SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF LEAKAGE TEST. 3. INTERIOR JOINTS SHALL NOT BE GROUTED. 45' WYE 4. IF DEPTH OF MANHOLE IS 7' OR LESS FROM RIM TO CENTERUNE INVERT, THEN A FLAT TOP SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE CONE SECTION. TYPICAL SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 4" MIN. SDR 35 PVC SEWER SERVICE. CONTINUE TO BUILDING O MIN. SLOPE = 1/4" PER FT. TEMP. N.T.S. END TO BE PLUGGED WITH 4' PVC SEWER WATERTIGHT PLUG AND MARKED MAIN W/ 4"0 PVC PIPE EXTENDING FROM SEWER TO 2' MIN. ABOVE FINISH GRADE. CRASS / \PAVEMENT 1111 iff— PLUGADED w/ CSOR 35 OUNTER SUNK SCREW CAST IRON VALVE CLEANOUT BOX BOX TOP SECTION INDEPENDENT w/COVER MARKED OF PIPE "SEWER" 'K CLEANOUT TO BE INSTALLED UPSTREAM OF BEND(S) IN BUILDING SEWER(S) WHEN 4" SDR 35 PVC CHANGE IN PIPE DIRECTION EXCEEDS 45' WYE 45- (USE LONG SWEEP FITTINGS WHEN EXCEEDING 45') FLOW 4" SCR 35 PVC CONCRETE CRADLE w/ 3 MIL POLYETHYLENE PLACED BETWEEN PIPE & CONCRETE TYPICAL CLEANOUT DETAIL N.T.S. PLAN 4' MIN. SDR 35 PVC DISTANCE TO VARY SEWER SERVICE WITH DEPTH OF SEWER SEWER MAIN 2' MIN. LTEMPORARY PLUG SLOPE 1/4"/FT. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ELEVATION SEWER SERVICE CONNECTION NTS • CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE 3 LOCATION TIES TO END OF LATERAL TO BE INCLUDED ON "AS -BUILT" DRAWINGS. (IF CONSTRUCTION IS NOT CONCURRENT WTH LATERAL) SEE TYPICAL TRENCH FOR BEDDING AND BACKFILL REGUIREMENTS. DATE CIIxCXEO HeYlHION 11-9D-10 tiAV/ACL REVISED SF.IIER YANHDIE NOTES...... SEWER and SITE DETAILS DATE U1GxING NllxHF.H AUG., 2010 scALe AS SHOWN C6.0 aRa. rvo. 02250 CAUTION THIS IS A CONFINED SPACE. DO NOT ENTER WITHOUT FOLLOWING OSHA CONFINED CAST IN PLACE LOCK JOINT SPACE ACCESS REGULATIONS. FLEXIBLE MANHOLE SLEEVES OR APPROVED EQUAL (TYP.) ALUMINUM DIAMOND PLATE FLUSH 8" SDR 35 PVC 4" UNI-FLANGE AT ALL MOUNTED ACCESS DOUBLE FROM MH #1 PLAIN END PIPE DOOR 2'-6" x 4'-0" (MIN.) 96" I.D. CONCRETE 4" SWING CHECK VALVE CAST IRON FRAME AND WET WELL 60" I.D. CONCRETE 4" GATE VALVE COVER NEENAH R-6460-C VALVE PIT CASTIRON FRAME AND OR APPROVED EQUAL COVER NEENAH R-6460-C 4" DRESSER ALUMINUM HATCH WITH OR APPROVED EQUAL POLYPROPYLENE _ _ __ STYLE COUPLINGS 24" x 36" OPENING MANHOLE STEPS (TYP.) O 12" O.C. (TYP.) 4" D.I. ° 96.. I.D. 4d d PRECAST CONCRETE 4" D.I. OR SCH 80 PVC TANK 4' D.I. Sl, CAST IN PLACE LOCK JOINT 4" DISCHARGE PIPE EMERGENCY FLEXIBLE MANHOLE SLEEVES STORAGE TANK OR APPROVED EQUAL (TYP.) 4" ELBOW d EMERGENCY CONNECTION 4 ° 4° D.I. CONDUIT FOR LEVEL ° ROV PROVIDE DUAL ALTERNATING GATE VALVE SENSOR PROBE CABLE SUMP NON -CLOG SEWAGE AND PUMP CABLE PUMPS &CONTROLS NEMA 4 JUNCTION BOX PUMP STATION & VALVE PIT PLAN & 2000 GAL. EMERGENCY STORAGE I. = V-0" ALUMINUM DIAMOND PLATE FLUSH MOUNTED ACCESS DOUBLE DOOR 2'-6" x 4'-0" (MIN.) LEVEL SENSOR CONDUIT TO CONTROL PANEL CAST IRON FRAME AND SAFETY CABLE COVER NEENAH R-6460-C OR APPROVED EQUAL TO PRECAST CONCRETE BE CAST IN COVER NEMA 4 JUNCTION BOX SAFETY CABLE (JUNCTION BOX SHALL BE 7 LOCATED TO BE ACCESSIBLE 4" MUSHROOM VENT ALUMINUM HATCH WITH 24" x 36" OPENING WITHOUT ENTERING THE WET WE RIM 387.5 RIM 387.5 FINISH GRADE 109.0 GRADE TO DRAIN AWAY A -1 T I III ..L -1_ I. a PUMP STATION -� I — =I I 36" • RISER 96" LD 2000 GAL, PRECAST CONCRETE COAT EXTERIOR OF PUMP TANK STATION AND VALVE PIT WITH A WATERTIGHT SEALANT INFLUENT PIPE INV.-379.8 (SEE PLAN) CONCRETE FILL ---,__,POLYPROPYLENE SLOPE TOWARDS OUTLETMANHOLE STEPS ® 12" O.0 �(TYP.) 8" SDR 35 PVC l INV.-379.1 PUMP nz. 4" MIN. d ° EXTENDED MONOLITHIC SE 000000 d °e "o"o o-o o oo .o o 0000000U 00000000000000o00000 0C 0 0C O O O O O U0000000 O� 12" MIN. OR AS REQUIRED BY PUMP MANUFACTURER SITE ENGINEER: NOTES: 1. EXCAVATIONS FOUR FEET OR MORE IN DEPTH ENTERED BY PERSONNEL f SHALL BE SHEETED OR SLOPED TO THE ANGLE OF REPOSE AS DEFINED BY OSHA STANDARDS. ALL EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE NTH OSHA STANDARDS. 2. PROTECTION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, FOUNDATIONS, ROADS AND SIGNIFICANT TREES SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. CIVIL ENGINEERINGS ASSOCIATES, INC. 10MWFIELDVIEWLANE, SOUINBURLINGTON, Vr 05403 3. ALL SURFACE DRAINAGE SHOULD BE DIVERTED AROUND THE WET WELL AND VALVE PIT. soass4-zaza FAx: eozafi+-zzn wee: www.ceeccac ➢xn"x 4. ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO THE PUMP STATION SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. ACL 'l6 OFAVEA,. 5. UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THE PLANS, ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE RESTORED TO AT LEAST THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS. ct 11 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL FITTINGS, COUPLINGS AND SAV 9fQ/srEP4o APPURTENANCES TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE AND OPERABLE SYSTEM. APPeOVE➢ / 7. SHORING, BRACING OR DEWATERING SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBIUTY OF SAV � THE CONTRACTOR AND INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT BID. PROJECT: B. ALL INSTALLATIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURERS REQUIREMENTS. ALARM SYSYTEM; L 2 1/2" x 2 1/2' x 1/4" SPEAR THE CONTROL PANEL COVER TOP OF TUBING WELDS & QCWILL BE IITY'S D WITH THE TOLE PRIMED ANDAPAIPARTS TED) MEADOWS SCADA SYSTEM METER NEMA 4 DUPLEX CONTROL PANEL COVER TO BE SPEAR STREET LOCKABLE L 2 1/2' x 2 1/2" x 1/4" I STRUCTURAL TUBING SOUTH BURLINGTON NEMA 4 JUNCTION BOX -THE CONTRACTOR MAY (VENTED) I VERMONT SUBMIT AN ALTERNATIVE CONTROL PANEL MOUNTING BRACKET FOR APPROVAL DISCONNECT SWITCH & I METER MOUNTED 12" x 12" x 1/4" PLATE ON (2) P.T. 4x4x8 I w/ 4 1/2" ANCHOR BOLTS w/3/4" P.T. PLYWOOD HOLE BUSHING & COUPLING (SEALED) . 4 - — —� TO SENSOR — — FLOATS 4-, TO PUMPS CONDUIT TO POWER SUPPLY AS REQUIRED CONTROL PANEL DETAIL N.T.S. ° I I=ll=1=I I I=1 I I—III=III=I L�=1L7-1 I1- III —I I L—i 11-1 11-1 11-I 1 1-11— 5'-0" INSICI DI METER $.S. B I CKET S.S. UPPER SLIDE S.S. VALVE HANDLE EXTENTIONS RAIL SUPPORTS a _.----;� S.S. PIPE SUPPORTS S.S. PIPE SUPPORTS _— EMERGENCY CONNECTION 3" PT QUICK S.S SLIDE RAIL CONNECT/DISCONNECT COUPUNG. FEMALE E DIALIETER FOR PUMP REMOVAL CONNECTION NEEDS TO BE CAM AND GROOVE FEMALE. 4" D.I. DISCHARGE PIPE DATE cNecxE➢ xEns4ox IE-a1-10 ..._......... 6AV/ACL aEV1�0 P9 Pn'x ELEV. * 66 cox'rxe� eA14ay.nTT.0 sc4pA, s n PIPE SUPPORTS 4" D.I. 00 O0 CONCRETE FILLET PUMP STATION 0 O DESIGN DATA ° STYLE COUPLING$ `I o 0 0 0 o O O O O O o O SLOPE TO DRAIN 000 O�O�On0�0 A 00O0�0�0�0�0�0 4" BACKWATER- Design Daily Flow: --- _ VALVE I SPEAR MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT " 4GATE VALVE - WATERTIGHT JOINT USING 1" MIN. 88 Unite x 270 gallons/day/lot WIDTH FLEXIBLE GASKET (TYP.) 4" CHECK VALVE + Infiltration (300 gpd x 8° x 220OFT.5280'miles)- / / = 13,860 gpd - --- S.S. LIFTING CHAIN OR CABLE Total Design Flow - 14,860 GIRD SEWER Average Daily Flow: Minimum Pumping Requirements: PUMP STATION O 14.060 gpd/1,440 min./day = 10.32 gpm 3' minimum diameter solids Peak now: 2.5 fps minimum velocity = 100 gpm DETAIL 0000 10.32 gpm x 4.0 = 41.3 gpm 5 minutes minimum pump run time At 100 gpm the total dynamic head requirements 00000 oc 0 0 0 0 O tY o 0 O O OO O O b NI EDO Required Storage: emergency 9 P 4 hours of emer enc storage based upon the Force main - 4" L-1075' TDH O 100 gpm: 00 O O O O 0OOO O OHO O��O�O O O 0 O O 16 hour bow rate. rage = 4 hours/ 1gal. 3715 gallon St rage Elevation = 386 ft. - 377 ft. 9 ft. ➢Are: ➢xmm�c NnxsF.x gene or provide an on site generator. Friction 1075 x .8'/100' � 10' TDH 20 ft. AUG., 2010 Emergency storage pump station 384-379-5' Emergency Storage Tank 384-379-5' Run cycle = 386 gallons / (100 gpm - 20 gpm) = 4.2 minutes 6cua Emergency volume 10' x 376 gal./ft. - 3760 gollon Retention time in wet well - 376 gallons / 110.8 gpm = 34.8 min. AS SHOWN C6.1 PUMP STATION & VALVE PIT SECTION PUC paucity 100Ngpm ® 20' TDH PEOI. N0. 1" = i'-0" 02250 PLUG HYDRANT DRAIN COARSE ORAVEL PEASTONE TO 1 CY VOLUME 6" MIN. THRUST BLOCK HYDRANT FLAG (VERIFY -CITY AND TYPE WITH NDte. ADJUSTABLE IRON CURB BOX W/UD MARKED °WATER' BITUMINOUS CONCRETE CITY OF SOUTH BURUNTON All work to be performed in accordance with 1" MAX PAVEMENT the Specifications and Details for the Installation of Water lines and Appurtenances FINISH GRADE AWWA HYDRANT, VALVE for all Water Systems Owned by the Champlain AND Water District, the City South Burlington, 1z'MAX.= of APPURTENANCES AS PER SPECS and the Village of Jericho. Details should be modified to the above reference specifications. PRECAST CGNCRETE� ./MONOLITHIC BASE ADJUSTABLE IRON ,j i f /LID VALVE BOX WTER° N MARKED °WA •1 FINISH GRADE INSTALL A GOOSE WATER MAIN NECK LOOP CURB STOP MUELLER B 25209 (or CAMBRIDGE BRASS) U Z CORPORATION STOP REDUCING MUELLER H-26008 4'x8'x16" SOLID CONCRETE BLOCK o ANCHOR TEE 3//4' TYPE 'K" 6" D.I. THRUST BLOCK Ca PER SERVICE OR AS SHOWN ON PLAN UNDISTURBED SOIL WATER SERVICE CONNEC11QH ANCHOR COUPLING OR SPOOL PIECE S / UNDISTURBED WITH MEGA -LUG GLANDS J/ SOIL 6' M.J. RESILIENT 3/4° CRUSHED STONE FOR NOTES: WEDGE GATE VALVE VALVE SUPPORT 1. ALL BRANCH PIPING AND FITTINGS SHALL BE MECHANICAL JOINT. 2. HYDRANTS SHALL BE LABELED "ND FOR NONDRAINING ON THE BONNET FACING THE ROADWAY. 3. ALL FITTINGS ARE TO HAVE MEGA -LUG RETAINER GLANDS. 4. PRIOR TO POURING THRUST BLOCKS ALL FITTING ARE TO BE WRAPPED WITH 4 MIL. POLYETHYLENE. TYPICAL HYDRANT INSTALLATION N.T.S. WATER MINIMU BETWEI SEWER STORMWI AS ! WATER LEBARON LF248 24" X 24" SITE ENGINEER: C.I. GRATE w/4 FLANGED FRAME (OR APPROVED EQUAL) BURIED DATE vAID MINIMUM ONEFULL eBuRI G ARuOFILF RAME ON ��- MORTAR BED AST RISER SECTIONS ADJUSTMENT. (BRICKS CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. IN., NOT BE USED , r' f UNMSIURBED UNDSTURBFD RTIGHT JOINT USING 1" sal VALVE/OEAD END REDUCER sax /0A4WSffflDVIEW LANE, SOUTH BURl1NGiCk1, VI (KM0.1 WIDTH FLEXIBLE GASKET xrANOTE EXTERIOR JOINTS AND PPLACEE 3 MIL (MISKIL)2lOLES ./NON SHRINK BEINEEN ALL CONCRETE T) �sND�M r-MDRAWN IN -PUCE ToPREVENT BOND. ACLBLE MH SLEEVESSAV 0 PIPE(SEE PLANS) ONMSTURBEDROY® UNDISTURBED BD', 22 T/2'•L SAV sat OR 11 xT1 BEND 18" SUMP PROJECT: 6" MIN. CRUSHED GRAVEL MINIMUM AREA OF BEARING SIRFACE Di CONC. THRUST BLOCKS *PRECAST MANHOLE STRUCTURES SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM SPEC. C478 (LATEST EDITION). TYPICAL CATCH BASIN N.T.S. I" 1MRSMOM®OMM®i`i M �®���®®�®��®��f�EEii<.C{�{�f��i:' rc�}'t•!1?lili THRUST BLOCK DETAILS 2 WET N.TS NOTES: q I. TAPPING SLEEVES AND VALVES ON CWD TRANSMISSION MNHS ARE TO MEET THE CHAMPLAN WATER i DISTRICT 'STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR TAPPING SLEEVES AND TAPPING tl tl VALUES' DATED NOVEMBER, 1992.I ALL OTHER TAPPING SLEEVES AND VALVES ARE TO MEET APPROPRIATE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS ----� TAPS SHALL BE PREFORMED BY FINISH PRE -APPROVED FIRMS ONLY. IT - 3. ALL FINGS THAT ARE TO HAVE CONCRETE POURED AROUND THEM ARE TO BE MAPPED WITH 4 .1. TAPPINI POLYETIRWEHE PRIOR TO CONCRETE PLACEMENT. SLEEVE EXISTING 24"-7 WATER MAIN 1 1. PROVIDE A MINIMUM 18- VERTICAL SEPARATION BETWEEN THE WATER UNE AND THE SEWER UNE. IF THIS SEPARATION CANNOT BE MAINTAINED, CONTACT THE DESIGN ENGINEER FOR DESIGN REVISIONS. ALL REVISIONS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (WATER SUPPLY DIVISION). 2. MAINTAIN 10• MINIMUM SEPARATION (HORIZONTAL) BETWEEN THE SEWER UNE AND WATER UNE. 3. PROVIDE ADEQUATE STRUCTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE SEWER/WATER UNE AT ALL CROSSINGS TO PREVENT SETTLEMENT OR ANY DAMAGE. WATER/SEWER CROSSING DETAIL WATER/STORMWATER N.T.S. CROSSING DETAIL N.T.S FOR THE FOLLOWING CATCH BASIN LOCATIONS, EXTEND VENTLINE TO APPROVED LOCATION (—(CB 1A 1B 5 D ^°-' _ AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER HIGH STRENGTH UT NON -SHRINK GRO CONCRETE CURB NEW CURB SHALL REST ON TOP OF BASIN COVER -ADJUST HEIGHT OF CURB AS REQUIRED PRECAST CONCRETE 24x24 W/MONOUTHIC BASE 48' UNLESS OTHER' SHOWN ON PLAN WATERTIGHT JOINT USING 1" MIN. WIDTH FLEXIBLE GASKET (SEAL EXTERIOR JOINTS AND LIFTHOLES W/NON SHRINK GROUT) 1 , AN i6), USE A 4 FRAME AND WITH A 3' FLANGE. FLANGE TO BE SET DIRECTLY ON STRUCTURE -LEBARON LF248-2 24' x 24' C.I. GRATE W/3 FLANGED FRAME (OR APPROVED EQUAL) SET FRAME ON FULL MORTAR BED BITUMINOUS CONC. PAVEMENT (1/4°/FT. SLOPE MIN.) =M MAX. PRECAST RISER SECTIONS FOR ADJUSTMENT. (BRICKS SHALL NOT BE USED) I FLEXIBLE MH SLEEVES 0 PIPE (SEE PLANS) SUMP F6" MIN, CRUSHED GRAVEL * PRECAST MANHOLE STRUCTURES SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM SPEC. C478 (LATEST EDITION). TYPICAL CATCH BASIN O CURB N.T.S. RE TYP. 48"0 I.D. PRECAST — CONCRETE MANHOLE COAT EXTERIOR OF ENTIRE MANHOLE MATH A WATERTIGHT SEALANT ALUMINUM — MANHOLE STEPS O 12" O.C. ADJUSTABLE IRON VALVE BOX —ADJUSTABLE COVER MARKED *WATER' TAPPING VALVE MECH' JOINT WITH "MEGA -LUG" RETAINER GLAND OR APPROVED EQUAI. 3/4' CORPORATION IN FIRST LENGTH OF PPE FOR TESTING CONCRETE THRUST BL0 K 1 `3/4" CRUSHED STONE 1L BEDDING (MIN. 12' THICK) (SIZE DETER INED 4 MIL POLYETHYLENE BY SOIL CONDITIONS) BETWEEN FITTINGS AND CONCRETE TAPPING SLEEVE & VALVE DETAIL NTS SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURUNGTON VERMONT Note: All work to be performed in accordance with the Specifications and Details for the Installation of Water lines and Appurtenances for all Water Systems Owned by the Champlain Water District, the City of South Burlington, Colchester Fire District #1 and the Village of Jericho. Details should be modified to the above reference specifications. -LEBARON FRAME & COVER #LC266 OR EQUAL. ADJUST TO MEET FINISH GRADE 1Q 1" CORPDRA11ON DIRECT TAP INTO DUCTILE IRON PIPE FINISH GRAD `�ir , / O2 O3 (2) 1" BRASS GATE VALVES AIR RELEASE VALVE �--ADJUST TO GRADE w/PRECAST RISER SECTIONS (BRICKS SHALL ® 0 ADAPT FROM 3/16" ORIFICE OUTLET TO 1" GALV. PIPE 1" TO 2" REDUCER DATE a0-I NOT BE USED) © ELBOW (90) O7 2" X 2" TEE WATERTIGHT JOINTS USING MASTIC OR RUBBER GASKET 8 O Q9 2" x 4" LONG SPOOL 2" RUBBER EXPANSION PLUG - ® GALV. PIPE SUPPORTS - 12' O.C. - HILT) TO M.H. O1 2- GALV. RISER 6 ® RETURN BEND w/ RODENT SCREEN MAINTAIN POSITIVE GRADE -� OO CAST -IN -PLACE RUBBER GASKET 2 FOR WATERTIGHT CONNECTION Q 1 (TYP. FOR ALL PIPES) 4" PVC MANHOLE DRAIN TO WATER LINE DAYLIGHT OR TO STORM DRAIN i °a°go 6" MIN. CRUSHED N07E.' STONE BEDDING AOJUS ABLE 1, ALL PIPE AND FITTINGS TO BE GALVANIZED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PIPE PPORT 2. MAXIMUM RISER COURSE HEIGHT 12" AIR RELEASE MANHOLE NTS REVT9ION 1D Cg= VALVL YAULT II Pie BBVRW cOMMim WATER and STORM DETAILS DATE DNA— nuuneR AUG., 2010 R�AER AS SHOWN c6.2 PROD. NO. 02250 BASE COURSE BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT COURSE BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT [WEARING SEE PLAN 13' TRAVEL WAY 13' TRAVEL WAY 7' or AS SHOWN 10' REC PATH 1' (SEE PLANS) (SEE PLANS) _. ON PLANS) 5' SIDEWALK SEE PLANS I SEE PLANS I -- 2% SIDEWALK or REC. PATH 1 z-� • pppO°OOp OOO°pOO°ppOpp Op0 o 0 0 0 0 op OO°pO °pO pO pO ° ,o 0 00 00 000 000000 00°000000°0000000 CONCRETE CURB .I �• 1 (" (SEE CURB DETAIL) I CRUSHED GRAVEL FINE 0 00 CRUSHED GRAVEL - COARSE STABILIZATION FABRIC I 00 GAS ELECTRICAL CONDUIT (TYP) -SEE PLANS /O - STORM (TYP) -SEE PLANS WATER (TYP) - SEE PLANS — / SEWER (TYP) - SEE PLANS J TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION 2 s —1-0 4" BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT: 1 1/2• TYPE III FINISH COURSE 2 1/2" TYPE II BASE COURSE 4' BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT: CONCRETE CURB 1 1/2" TYPE III FINISH COURSE "` --' 000000 -- - o°00000000 2 1/2' TYPE II BASE COURSE I 1' MIN.1 TOP COURSE BITUMINOUS °o°o°o°00000 6" CRUSHED GRAVEL -FIN o°000°oo A0T SPEC. 7oa o5 0o0 0000 0000 CONCRETE PAVEMENT CONCRETE OR BRICK KARCVERPLANS) 1/2" R. 6" - CRUSHED GRAVEL -COARSE SEE PLANS —�� 3 BASE COURSE BITUMINOUS+I L12' A SPEC. 704.05 ,� •-- op° --.,. a �1 CONCRETE PAVEMENT 7. ,'.. - g" SHD-G rCRUSHED�GRAVFI. -.. W� �'• : �—COMPACTED SUBGRADE�� _ °o°o°o°o°o°o 6" t2" CRUSNED.GRAVEL —COARSE 4" TOPSOIL _ '- - t6 °o°o°o°o°ogo STABWZATION FABRIC MIRAFI - - ILLS: fl hA J�� f o°o°o°o 50OX OR APPROVED EQUAL �COMPACTED SUBGRADE� I ' o °� `:E :...:. °°O°O° 0000 6' CRUSHED GRAVEL TYPICAL ROAD SECTION STABIUZAT ON FABRIC MIRAFI SUB -BASE MATERIAL SOOX OR APPROVED EQUAL. N.T.S. 10' UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS CONCRTYPE II BITUMINOUS CONCRETE SIDEWALK A o 0 o "o o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 000000oo0000000o0000 000000000000000000000 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o 6• 10" GRAVEL SUBBAS. 6• STABILIZATION FABRIC MIRAFI - UNDISTURBED SOIL OR APPROVED 50OX OR APPROVED EQUAL COMPACTED GRANULAR FILL BITUMINOUS CONCRETE RECREATIONAL PATH DETAIL N.T.S. 5' SIDEWALK WDTH OR AS SHOWN ON PLANS 5" CONCRETE SIDEWALK (REVISE TO B" AT CURB CUTS) 0000 0000000°o 0 o°o°o°000 o°o o°o°o°o°o 0 o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o °o o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o 6• B• GRAVEL SUBBASE 6. STABILIZATION FABRIC MIRAFI UNDISTURBED SOIL OR APPROVED 50OX OR APPROVED EQUAL COMPACTED GRANULAR FILL NOTES: 1. EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED EVERY 10' AND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF PREFORMED JOINT FILLER (1/4 CORK OR BITUMINOUS TYPE) 2. BETWEEN EXPANSION JOINTS THE SIDEWALK SHALL BE DIVIDED AT INTERVALS OF FIVE FEET BY DUMMY JOINTS. TYPICAL CONCRETE SIDEWALK DETAIL N.T.S. TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT ROADWAY SECTION w/CURB N.T.S. TOP OF CURB (SEE PLAN END TRANSITION FOR TYPE OF CURB) SLOPE BEGIN TRANSITION FACE OF SLOPE CURB 7T— II FINISHED GRADE OF ROAD PAVEMENT TRANSITION CURB N I.S. 6' 1 16' DRIVE CURB CUT (TYP) - TO BE FIELD LOCATED 6' BEGIN TRANSITION REINFORCE CONCRETE CURBING SLOPE AT DRIVEWAY CUTS SEE CONCRETE CURB DETAIL SEE ROAD T 1/2" CURB REVEAL SECTION DETAIL AT CURB CUTS SEE TRANSITION CURB DETAIL DRIVE CURB CUT DETAIL N.T.S. 1. CURBING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN 10' SECTIONS WTH 1/6" JOINT BETWEEN SECTIONS. 2. CURBING EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED EVERY 20' AND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIAL CONFORMING TO AASHTO DESIGNATION M-153 (1/2- SPONGE RUBBER OR CORK). 3. ASPHALT TREATED FELT TO BE USED BETWEEN SIDEWALK AND CONCRETE CURB TOP. CONCRETE CURB w/SIDEWALK DETAIL N.I.S. SITE ENGINEER: C CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. 10M4NSRELD NEWUWE, SOUMBURUNGTON, VT 06W3 BOS-BM=3 FAK B0E884PT)1 xab: www. ceaM.°pn DRAIIN ACL oe-d cmc® SAV APPmm SAV PROJECT SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT REVI.- 1-6-11 ml/� REV'D PLW PER R!t'D. Ir.— TOP COURSE BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT -- _ ----- 1/2• R. 6" 1/4" R. BASE COURSE BITUMINOUS I^'1� CONCRETE PAVEMENT r T00007. 0 0„0„l. I.0„0„0„0„ o 18 Toot CRU�H�D GR�L BASE°• ° ° ° ° ° ° °.. ROAD and SITE :•.:::............. CRUSHED GRAVEL MATERIAL .:: DETAILS -�� i. CURBING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN 10' SECTIONS WTH 1/6• JOINT BETWEEN SECTIONS. 2. CURBING EXPANSION JOINT'S SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED EVERY 20, AND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIAL CONFORMING TO AASHTO DESIGNATION M-153 (1/2" unrx nRn.ly, +, Enlr SPONGE RUBBER OR CORK). AUG., 2010 CONCRETE CURB DETAIL N.T.S. _ AS SHOWN C 6.3 R.' : 02250 HANDICAP RAMP NOTES+ SffE ENGINEER: OENEBAL NOTES: 4. LEVEL LANDINGS AT THE BOTTOM OF PERPENDICULAR RAMPS 10. SIGNS, POLES, PLANTERS, MAILBOXES, ETC. SHALL NOT BE LOCATED 15. SIDEWALKS THAT ARE LESS THAN 5' WIDE REQUIRE 5' WIDE BY 5' LONG 1. THE DIMENSIONS AND GRADES SHOWN ON THIS STANDARD WILL BE SHALL BE WHOLLY CONTAINED WITHIN MARKED CROSSWALKS. WHERE THEY WILL INTERFERE WITH THE USE OF SIDEWALK RAMPS. PASSING AREAS (NO GREATER THAN 2.0% CROSS SLOPE) AT INTERVALS r, 1. utilities shown do not purpodroconstianeorre resent allutilu/es rocared ADHERED TO IN THE DESIGN AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK NOT TO EXCEED 200 FEET. upon or edycerarorne sanreyed premPos. E,nsnnq unl�locations appmximere Dory. Tha Corrbacror shah nekJ red/v Ir ary n/cis. i o�sc iss sere RAMPS . WHERE SIDEWALKS RUN ADJACENT TO ROADWAYS ON STEEP 5. DUMMY JOINTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT TRANSITIONS (GRADE CHANGES) 11, WHERE POSSIBLE, SIDEWALK RAMPS SHOULD NOT BE LOCATED WHERE seen ,eadrorneeglnaar. Tire conl,�ctor shall mct sere(see-3sa->Pta°3TpnorrohehZIsnucnon. (5% OR GREATER) GRADES, RAW GRADES WILL BE AS FLAT AS POSSIBLE. AT TOPS AND BOTTOMS OF RAMPS AND FLARES, USERS MUST CROSS DROP INLET GRATES, MANHOLE COVERS OR OTHER 16, ERR = EDGE OF PAVEMENT 2 areaisnngunnaasnorrncorpo,aradimomenne/dasi nsnenbe •adorahandonadasrrwiceredonthat sor�rectedbyme ( ON LOW SIDE OF DRIVES AND INTERSECTING SIDE STREETS, RAMPS ACCESS LIDS. IF THIS CANNOT BE AVOIDED THEN GRATE DESIGN AND SHALL SLOPE TOWARDS DRIVE OR SIDE STREET Q 2%) 6. VERTICAL DROP-OFF EDGES TO RAMPS WILL NOT BE BUILT UNLESS Errg,near. THE RAMP ABUTS AN AREA WHICH WILL NOT BE USED BY PEDESTRIANS. PLACEMENT SHALL CONFORM TO A➢A REQUIREMENTS. 17. THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK CURB RAMP STANDARDS DEPICTED HERE MAY CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC, a The Conaaomr shell mainm;n as-buiu plans (with n:s)"' an and�p r%ut,inas. Tnosepenssnennasabmmedromaownaa�n� Comp/etlono/thep NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR ALL LOCATIONS. FIELD CONDITIONS 2. NOMINAL RAMP DIMENSIONS AT INDIVIDUAL LOCATIONS MAY REQUIRE SPECIFIC DESIGNS, 10M4NSNERDVIEWUNE, SOUTHBORUNGTON, VI05403 �ecc RAMP WIDTH - 5'-0' MINIMUM 12, CURB DRAINAGE SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED SO AS TO PRECLUDE THE 7. NO VERTICAL 'LIP' OR 'CURB REVEAL' WILL BE PROVIDED WHERE DESIGNS MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SHEET e°xse..zaza rnx: eoz.ee,zzn vee: w..,v.�as-K.�o,.� 4. The coraacror,hjll uIres ell dismmedareaslonoroff the sue)asadr,actorir�di,ecr,acano/Inaeonstrucrron. FLOW OF WATER PAST THE SIDEWALK RAMP. RAMP SLOPE - 8.3% MAXIMUM THE RAMP ADJOINS THE ROADWAY. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE ON ALTERATION PROJECTS AND s. lingrassed areas shall be'Mot8ineduntil WIImgeranon1,established . G.&Wre*in FLARE SLOPE - 10% MAXIMUM WHEN STRUCTURALLY PRACTICABLE ON NEW CONSTRUCTION RAMP CROSS SLOPE - 2.0% MAXIMUM 13. WHEREVER FEASIBLE, TWO SIDEWALK PAWS ARE RECOMMENDED IN PROJECTS AS REQUIRED BY THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES 8. AT MARKED CROSSWALKS, THE FULL WIDTH OF THE RAMP OR LANDING ACL ,av '� a all hens oursaeof.-tucnooumus, z The conbecrorshall be asponslaaro,.11-n,necaasawforcomp/ere 3. A LEVEL LANDING (NO GREATER THAN 2.0% SLOPE IN ANY SHALL BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE PAVEMENT MARKINGS. PREFERENCE TO A SINGLE RAMP, ACT ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES. cesc�n y�� a 6 + a and opereele lacnities arM animas. 8. The Conhao°x DIRECTION) SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE TOP OF SIDEWALK 14. JOINTS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT SAV �� '`'o,a1c�`� shall submit shop dme dgsfor all Items and matadals mcorp,:.d ivro me sire work. Work shah nor bagm on an, mom unnl drop die dw approrers granted RAMPS TO ALLOW FOR STOPPING AND MANEUVERING OF WHEELCHAIRS. 9. WHERE POSSIBLE, RAMP FLARES SHOULD BE LOCATED 18. IN ADDITION, ALL WORK MUST BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIDEWALK SPECIFICATIONS, HOWEVER EXPANSION JOINTS WITHIN CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTONS PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT STANDARDS. OUTSIDE THE DIRECT LINE OF TRAVEL MOST LIKELY TO BE FOLLOWED -R-D Y. In addition ro me rep is set /n these plans and specifications, cwnplef, THE SIDEWALK RAMP AREA WILL BE AVOIDED WHEREVER POSSIBLE, BY THE VISUALLY IMPAIRED. SAV the Convector shall m: w In acconlance with ell parmn oondmons add the City of South Budotlib a Public Works StentlaAs. 10. The fo/emnce /or finish grades for an paremem. warkways and lawn areas shall be 0.1 Net. PROJECT: ". Any dawaadeg°epa,aa"for the `n°�the ,the �%sel'ba -idered as pad of the contract e SIDEWALK SPEAR respons/bilny. z. a/a ,nngv Ne,, .%.a dgodaawnhinMeoensm,pnanmmn„hallos ad/ushrd to Nniah Yreda RAMP MEADOWS 13. The ConPacror shall install the gas, @1a td al ar / tabphone services /n eccoroancre wan me urn les regalremanra utility ompan 14. Existing pavement and hee stumps ro be removed shell be disposed o/ W w appm ed on -sue locenon. al paVamam cur, shah be mad: wuh a pavema°`saw_ 6' MIN. 6' MIN. 8' MAX. 8' MAX. SINGLE WALK -STRAIGHT RAMP CURB RAMP APPROACH TO PARALLEL Is. RAMP ri SPEAR STREET it than, are any coon/cts or Inconamsencias with the speciucetions, the ContracrorshencontecttheEngipne formfificauon It d. work 000nnues no the uem In question. 24' LEVEL ROADWAY 24� w ROADWAY EXAMPLE 2 SIDEWALK AND CURB MIN, LANDING SURFACE SOUTH BURLINGTON SEPARATED BY GRASS STRIP SURFACE VERMONT DEWALK ADJACENT �J 5,0% MAX. MAX. �f5.0% O CURB 8.3% MAX. ADJACENT 8.3% MAX. ADJACENT DETECTABLE WARNING TO RAMP TO RAMP u " DETECTABLE WARNING DETECTABLE WARNING CURB RAMP A -A SECTION B-B "LANDINGQ `IB BSECTION VSIDEWALK `-CURB TRANSITION • • • • • • • A A GRASS 8.3% 7'-0' MIN, STRIP MAX. CURB CURB 24' CURB MIN. SECTION C-C TYPICAL HANDICAP RAMP - TYPE 1 N.T.S. BROOM FINISHADJACENT EXAMPLE 1, PAIRED I / D L SURFACES FULL WIDTH DETECTABLE RAMPS . 24' 6' MIN. CORNER. SIDEWALK CURB 4'-0' MIN. r 8' MAX. SIDEWALK (TYP.) OF RAMP WARNING DETAILS CURB RAW R P 8 MIN,] PLANTER OR 4'-0' MIN. ::::TRANSVERSABLE OTHER NOW ➢ETECTABLEROADWAY 2q• WARNING I SURFACE rw PERPENDICULAR OBSTACLE A- a e I I RAMP IN URBAN RWIDE OF DETECTABLE WARNING PLACEMENT r DIRECTION OF - -- SETTING 2.OY. MAX. 8.3/ MAX, 5.0 %MAX. SIDEWALK DETECTABLE ADJACENT TO RAMP 50% MINIMUM TO SQUARE PATTERN, PARALLEL ALIGNMENT C, WARNING SECTION A -A 65% MAXIMUM OF B BASE DIAMETER � J ADJACENT SURFACE nmstan CURB RAMP RAMP •s FLARE CURB TRANSITION CURB RAID CURB TRANSITION (TYP) DETECTABLE MIN. 7'-0' MIN, OF RAMP / LEVEL LANDING (SEE 0.2'�z DETECTABLE WARNING NOTE p 5) 0.9' M�ZO.65' so - - o stv�en RLVI91t0 CR039aA1Y TO f.R�OR 9Y tsee - WARNING MINN... X. �- CURB 1,4' MA 10.0% MAX.-milDETECTABLE SHOWN ON PLANS i SECTION B-B SECTION C-C WARNING DETAILSAS o E EXAMPLE 2, DETECTABLE WARNING NOTES: BASE SINGLE RAMP SPACING ON CORNER RADIUS.A EXAMPLE 31 N TANGENT 1, DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACES SHALL BE PAID FOR - _ - SECTION AS SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT. U 4'-0' MIN. 2. CONCRETE ADJACENT TO ALL DETECTABLE WARNINGS SHALL HAVE A BROOM FINISH. SITE d 4' X 4' LANDING MAX - 2% CROSS SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION 3. THE COLOR OF THE DETECTABLE WARNING SHALL PROVIDE A VISUAL CONTRAST TO THE SURROUNDING SURFACE AND SHALL DETAILS m SEE NOTE 4 BE AS SPECIFIED IN THE DOCUMENTS. 2-a^ 4. TRUNCATED DOMES SHALL BE ALIGNED ON A SQUARE GRID 8.33% IN THE PREDOMINANT DIRECTION OF PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL. C 20/C I I 5. FOR SURFACE APPLIED TRUNCATED DOME PRODUCTS, A MAXIMUM 0.25' C 1 VERTICAL CHANGE IN LEVEL IS ALLOWED. FOR CHANGES IN LEVEL BETWEEN 24f4: r I 0.25' AND 0,50', A BEVEL WITH A MAXIMUM 1,2 SLOPE IS REQUIRED. CHANGES LWHITE- CURB -- IN LEVEL GREATER THAN 0.50' MUST BE TREATED AS A RAMP nNre DIUIIINC NIIYBRR 34A TAPE CURB RAMP DETECTABLE J 8,3% MAXIMUM SLOPE. 6 OF SGUITH NGTON FOR A LIST OF E SEE THE CMANUACT CROSSWALK DETAIL WARINIINGCTABLE MIN WARNING WARNINGS MANUITY DETECTABLE FACTURERS WARNINGS TO BE INSTALLED AUG, 2010 N.T.S. WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, s ua TYPICAL HANDICAP RAMP - TYPE 2 AS SHOWN C6.4 N DETECTABLE WARNING DETAILS PRm. N.T.S. no. 02250 LEBARON FRAME R COVER LC266 TYPE C OR EGUAL ADJUST TO MEET FINISH GRADE. SITE ENGINEER: C CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. /OMANSFIELDWEWIANE, SOUIHBURUNGTON, VT M402 mxeeass:s rac Rozaunn »m. ,nw.cwKcam DRF- SAVE ACL CSEC® A d SAV �szz6 EtFP 1PPROVED SAV _1—SET FRAME ON FULL PROJECT: MORTAR BED a SEAL JOINT STANDARD (H-20) RATED SPEAR OVERLAPPED CONE SECTION OR 4Y FILTER FABRIC TRAFFIC COVER LOW PRECAST RISER SECTIONS DRAINAREA - 62.7 S0. INCH DUTY) FOR SHALLOW FOR ADJUSTMENT. (BRICKS MANHOLES SHALL NOT BE USED) MEADOWS REC PATH 24, II I CAST IRON GRATE RATED POLYPROPYLENE MANHOLE F� 12' —�{ HINGED GRATE STEPS O 8" O.C. WATERTIGHT JOINTS USING iv ADAPTORS AVAILABLE 4" MASTIC OR RUBBER GASKET 0 48" UNLESS OTHERWISE SPEAR STREET CRUSHED STONE EXISTING w m`JI SHOWN ON PLAN COAT EXTERIOR OF ENTIRE GRADE MANHOLE WITH A SOUTH BURLINGTON ¢ WATERTIGHT SEALANT (2 COATS) + VERMONT CRUSHED ROCK i N i MIN I 8. SCREENED TO 6" MINUS OR CLEAN GRAVEL z 0 PIPE N a ? < (SEE PLANS) $" INLINE DRAIN FILTER FABRIC GROUNDWATER J 'v MIRAFI 14ONS FLOW �i m e" (OR EQUAL) �./w� SUM GASKE TED FLEXIBLE Z WATERTIGHT CONNECTION �^ 12" MIN. PERFORATED PIPE < 2" MIN, CAST IRON GRATE UNDISTURBED SOIL OR ROCK y 6' MIN. CRUSHED PRECAST CONCRETE OR STONE BEDDING POURED IN PLACE BASE STONE DRAIN INTERCEPTOR SECTION N.T.S. TYPICAL STORM MANHOLE ADAPTOR N.T.S. ANTI -VORTEX TRASH RACK — SHOP FABRICATED AND SET ON COVER, ASPHALT COATED CORRUGATED GALV. METAL SEE ADJACENT PRECAST CONCRETE w/MONOUTHIC BASE jl- DRAIN LINE T BE TIED INTO CATCH BASIN 1/4" 0 ROD O 6" O.C. 12' o 1/1 ANGLE PLAN KE1ER w/24' 012 TEREDOINT USING i"48" 0 LEXIBLE GASKET 90' ELBOW DRAIN BASIN AND INUNE DRAIN BY NYLOPLAST USA, INC. OR APPROVED EQUAL INLINE DRAIN SECTION 1 4 15" 0 HOPE PONO OUST REVERSE_SLOPE SEE ADJACENT 24" SUMP \—SEAL ./HYDRAULIC CEMENT 6" MIN. CRUSHED GRAVEL MORTAR, OR CAST -IN -PLACE FLEXIBLE MIA SLEEVES `PRECAST MANHOLE STRUCTURES SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM SPEC. C478 (LATEST EDITION). NOTE: TRASH RACK ON POND01 OUTLET ONLY. CO RIM AND GRATE SET ON POND 02 k SECTION POND 03 OUTLET STRUCTURES TYPICAL POND OUTLET N.T.s. HINGED GRATE COVER FOR EASY ACCESS 4.3' W T YARD DRAIN DETAILS N.T.S. DATR CNRCEED REVISION !-Ep-10 SAY/ACI. REVISED IE" WET POND CROSS SECTIONS and STORM DETAILS DME URAEIN'(. NUNNRP DEC., 2005 AS SHOWN C6"5 PH . NO. 02250 SECTION D1040 - PROJECT COORDINATION PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 MEETINGS & PROJECT ACCESS A. The Owner shall be notified five (5) day. prim to commencement of Work by the Contractor. B. The Contractor will coordinate with the Owner to arrange on on -site pre -construction meeting prior to commencemant of any work. Job superintendent. and subcontractors shall be Included In this meeting. C. The Contractor will coordinate all phoses of the Work, so as not to Interfere with the normal work procedures In the area. D. The Contractor Shell conduct his work in Such a manner as to not Intwfwe with or endanger work or traffic In msos ad cwt to the Own- the Contractor anonge hisept as cnimsl cted oon op eration. as to provide access for emergency vehlclea antl equipment to the work alter at all time.. 1.02 LABOR A. The Contractor and subcontractor will employ mechanics skilled In their ...pective trades. B. All labor will be performed In a neat and workmanlike manner. 1.03 PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY A. The Contract- Mall be mmanalble fen Initiating, maintaining, and Supervising all O.S.H.A. safety precautions In connection with the Work. B. Fire Protection: The Contractor @hail take all necessary precautions to prevent fires adjacent to the Work and 'shall provide adequate facnitlm for extingulMing fires. The Contract- Moll also prevent fires In project related buo ildings and shell prevent the spread of N fires to areas tside the limits f the Walk. C. Safety Precautions: Prior to commencement of Work, the Contractor shall be familiar with all safety regulations and Practices applicable with cw3tmctlw operations. No additional payments will be mode far equipment and Procedures necessitated by these safety precautions. 1.04 INSURANCE A. Certificates of Insurance acceptable to the Owner Moll be filed with the Owner prim to the commencement of the Work. 1.05 CORRECTION OF WORK A. The Contractor shill promptly correct all Work rejected by the Owner ere defective m as failing to conform to the Contract Documents. The Contractor .hall bear all cost of correcting Such rejected Work. 1.06 WEATHER CONDITIONS A. No Work shall be done when. In the opinion of the Owner, the weather le unsuitable. No concret& Borth ba.kfR. embankment, or paving shall be placed upon frozen material. If there is delay or Interruption In the Work due to mother condition., the necessary precaution. must be taken to bond new Work to old. B. Protection Aq'In at Water and Storm: The Contractor hall take all precautions to prevent damage to the Work by storms or by water entering the site of the Work directly or through the ground. In co.. of damage by Moron ar water, the Contractor, at his own expense. Mall make repair. or Erplirc� __to or rmulid Such parts of the Walk o. the q y require In order that the finished work may be completed ere required by the Drawings and Spsolficotlon.. 1.07 DISPOSAL OF DEBRIS A. All debris and excess material., other than that which la auth-:zed to be-sed, become the property of the Contractor and shell be promptly removed form the property. The Contractor shall receive title to ail debris and/or xce- materiel. The Owner will not be responsible for any lose - damage to debris or .-tees material owned by the Contractor. 1.08 PROJECT LAYOUT - A. The Contractor Mall be reaponsible fen providing all 'erenary a ^Trey slaking. Locate and protect central polite before starting work on the site. 2. Preserve the Walk. Permanent reference point. during progress of 3. Establish a minimum of two permanent benchmarks on the site, referenced to data established by survey control point's. a. Record location., with horizontal and vertical data, on Project Record Document,. SECTION 02f10 -SITE CLEARING PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section Includes: 1. Remove Surface debris. 2. Gear Wt. of plant life and grass. 3. Remove trees and shrbo. 4. Remove root system of trees and Mrubs. PART 2 - PRODUCTS Not used. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 PROTECTION A. Protect utilities that remain from damage. B. Protect tree., plant growth, and features designated to remain as Mal landscaping. C. Protect bench marks and existing structures from damage or displacement. D. Us e means nso $wry to prevent dust becoming a nulmn to the public, to neighbor, and to other work being performed on or near the site. E Maintain occesa to the site at all times. 3.02 CLEARING A. Clear areas required for access to site and execution of Work. B. Remove trees and shrub. within a s Indicated on the Plana. Remove stump.. root. and tap roots and other Projection s I%* or greater in diameter to 2'-0' below the awtad surfaces In cut area$ and 2'-0' below the exposed .ubgrode In III areas. 3.03 REMOVAL A. Remove debris, rock, and extracted plant life from site, B. The Contractor shall coordinate Work with the Engineer and Owner In Setablishing suitable are within the property :knits for depositing debris, rack saand extracted plant Ilfe. The Contractor sholl be rmpanelble for backfilling (capping) and grading all waste sites. 3.04 UTILITIES A. Coordinate with utility companies and agencies as required. SECTION 02150 - EROSION CONTROL PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section Includes: 1. The work under this ssotl- Includes but Is not limited to providing all labor, equipment and materials for the Installation of all required site related erosion control measures. If not ath.rwI.. directed on the Plans. erosion control .hall be In strict conformity with the latest revision of the 'Vermont Handbook for Sell Erosion and Sediment Control on Construction Sites'. B. Related Sections: 1. Section 02210 - Site Earthwork 2. Sacti- 02936 - Permanent Seeding 1.02 GENERAL NOTES A. The discharge of Sediment laden water from the project site is prohibited. All discharged wets, from dewoterinq operations shall diwharge Into a temporary eedlm tutlon trap m 'dirt bag' filter. B. Contractor Mal Install all a -Mon central measures a. depicted on plane and details or as recommended by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resource., m Sol Conservation Service, prior to any construction. Contractor shall also be responsible for Inspecting and maintaining all erosion control measure. until project IS completed. C. Contractor shall limit the Boil disturbance and seed applicatlon dates to between May let and Smtemer 15th. Site work between October i5th and May let involving newearth disturbance requires prior, specific approval from the Agency of Natural Resources. Detailed requests fm approval of Such work must be Submitted to ANR prim to September 15th. D. AP stockpile material (topsoil, borrow, etc.) shall be protected by elt fence Installed around the perimeter. Mulch shall be applied to disturbed portions of Stockpiles at the and of each construction day. Stockpiles to remain In place for more than 30 days shall be seeded. Locate Stockpiles on the uphill side of the disturbed errSe 1. possible. During windy conditions, stockpiled material e, shall be covered or watered appropriately to prevent wind erosion. E. Slopes greater than 1:3 shall haw erosion control netting Installed to stabilize the slope and reduce the erosion potential. Install netting over mulched slopes so that all parts are in contract with the Sell and mulch. Pin netting with wire Staples 3' a.c. to ensure full bonding with eon surface. F. Install Stone check dame In grass -lined awoles a maximum of 50 feel on center, to prevent silt from washing Into the drainage ran no during construction. Check dame shall be reoved once vegetation is established. G. Control duet through the application of calcium chloride or water. An average application of one pound of cdclum chloride per square yard of exposed am should be considered fen each treatment. The exact number of applieatlons and amount of duet controller Man be based upon field and weather conditions. It Mall be spread In Such manner and by such attained over the endevices tire area onwhich Il uniform Ordered r placed. ibution la PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 EROSION CONTROL NETTING A. Jute netting Mon Shall consist of undyed and unbleached yam woven Into a uniform open plain weave mesh. 2.02 EROSION CONTROL MATTING A. More required on the plans or where directed by the Engineer, erosion control blankets (matting) shall be North American Green C125 for swalea, and SCISO for Mope stabilization, or approved equal. 2.03 FILTER FABRIC A. When filter fabric is required, it shall conform to the requirements of Mfrafl 50OX or approved eglvalent. 2.04 CALCIUM CHLORIDE A. Calcium chloride shall conform to the requirements of AASHTO M 144. Either regular flake calcium chlorlde, Type 1 or concentrated flake, pallet or other granular calcium chloride, Type 2, may be uaed. 2.05 WATER A. All water used Mall be clean and free of harmful amounts of oil, salt, acid& alkalies, Sugar. Organic matter and other Substances injurious to the finished product, plant life or the establishment of vegetation. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 CHECK DAM AND INLET PROTECTION A. Check dame shall be Installed In accordance with the project dot -Us. and Inspected weekly annd following any min or melt vent producing measurable off. B. Catch baelne within and adjacent to construction areas shall be protected In accordance with the details depicted an sheet C-14. Inlet protection shall be Inspected weely, and following any rain or melt event producing measurable runoff. 3.02 SILT FENCES A. The silt fences shall be constructed In accordance with the construction dotal. The fence shall generally be placed 10 feet from the toe of the elope or as shown on the plans. The end. of the fence shall be placed uphill to form a horseshoe Shope to trap all runoff. B. The Sfit fences shall be hepseted weekly, and following rain for damage or build-up of sedim-ts. All damaged fences shall be repaired or replaced. Sediment deposit. shall be remowe from the fence as they build up and be placed In an area where there is no danger of further erosion. 3.03 EROSION MATTING A. Erosion matting Stoll be placed on all grass -lined ditches with profile grades exceeding 5.0X and shall be placed old maintained in accordance Ith the Vermont Agency of Tranaportati- Standard Specifications Sections 654 and 755.07. 3.04 RESTORATION A. Disturbed areas Shall be lopeoll d, seeds. and mulched within 48 hour of Mal grading, unless otherwise approved, ere .pacified In Section 02936 - Permanent Seeding. 3.05 STABILIZED ROAD ENTRANCE A. A stabilized pad of crushed stone located at any point where traffic veil be entering m ISevIng the constructon site to m from o public right-of-way or street - os Mown on the drawings Moll be constructed fen the purpose of preventing the tracking of sediment onto public right. -of -way. B. Design Criteria: 1. Uee 1.5 to 2.5 Inch aton 2. Use 8 inch lays of Mon:,e. 3. Stone pod shall be full width of entrance. 4. Minimum length Mall be 50 feet. 3.06 GRASS -LINED DITCHES A. All ditches that are not stone-Ilned Mall be topsolled, seeded, fertilized and mulched. Any area which shows signs Of erosion shall be reseeded immediately and maintained until permanent vegetation is established. 3.07 MAINTENANCE A. All erosion central meres shall be Inspected weekly and repaired and/or asureplaced ae needed. B. All erosion control measures hdl be Inspected after any rain m melt event producing measurable runoff. C. The stabilized road entrance shall be top dressed with additional atone should the existing stone become clogged with sediment. D. Hay or trow mulch Is wb)mt to wind action. Mulch may require anchoring as the weather conditions warrant. 3.08 WINTER CONSTRUCTION A. New sol disturbance between September 15th and May let will require specific opprovol from the Water Quality Divislon. The .. troctw shall identify any Such area. not addressed by the ent Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan (EPSCP) In writing, to the Engineer by September 7th. No new disturbance in these areas will be permitted until approved by the Water Quality Division. B. Silt fence and other erosion control msowres requiring earth dleturtonce for Installation shall be Installed prim to September 151h, unless otherwise approved. SECTION 02210 - SITE EARTHWORK PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section Includes: 1. All utility and silework excavation (unless covered In other section. of these paclfications), removal and stockpile of topsoil, stabilization fabric, and other mixellansous and appurtenant works. 2. Site flllin9. 3. Roadway/parking lot structural sections. 1.02 REFERENCES A. ANSI/ASTM C136 - Standard Test Method f- Slew Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregate& B. ANSI/ASTM D698 - Standard Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Son Using Standard Effort. 1.03 PROTECTION A. Pretext bench marks and existing structures. S. Protect above and bola. grade utilities which me to remain. 1.04 SUBMITTALS A. Testing laboratory reports indicating that material far ba.k ll meet. requirements of this Section. B. Field density test report. of site fill In place. C. Field density tent reports for roadway ."ctural sections in place. D. Stabilization Fabric: Submit copies of manufacturer's specifications and Instalation Instructions. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.02 CRUSHED GRAVEL A. All materials shall be secured from approved sources. This gravel shall consist of angular and round fragments of hard durable rock of uniform quality throughout. reasonably free from thin elongated places, soft or disintegrated store, dirt, organic or other ob)-tlonable matter. ThM material Mall meet the following grading requirement.: Percent by Weight Slew Designation Passing Square Mesh Slew Fhe:2. 00 1 1/2' 90 - 100 No. 4 30 - 60 No. 'DO 0 - 12 N. 200 0 - 6 Co.— 495 - 100 No. 4 25 _ 50 No. 100 0 - 12 No. 200 0 _ 6 2.03 AGGREGATE SURFACE COURSE A Aggregate for surface course and shoulder shall corals( of clean, hard gravel, crushed gravel or crushed stone. It Moll be reasonably free from silt, loam, clay Or Organic matte. It shall be obtained from approved sources. B. Grading. This material Mall be uniformly graded from course to fine and shall meet the following grading requirements: Percent by Weight Sleve Designation Passing Square Mesh Slew 1 1/2' 100 1. 90 - 100 No. 4 45 - 65 No. 100 0 - 15 No. 200 0 - 12 2.04 COMPACTED FILL/GRANULAR BORROW A. This material shall be free of shale, clay, friable material, debris, and Organic matter, graded In amordonce with ANSI/ASTM C136 within the following limits; Percent by Weight Slew Designation Passing Square Mesh Slew 6' 100 3/4' 75 - 100 No. 4 20 - 100 No. 100 0 - 20 No. 200 0 - 12 2.05 GEOTEXTILE STABILIZATION FABRIC A. This work shall consist of furnishing and placing on approved stabilization fabric on a prepared Surface within the limits shown on the plane. The fabric shall meet, or exceed the following propertlm 1. Grab tensile strength (ASTM D-4632) - 200 lbs. 2. Grab tensile Mongotlon (ASTM D-4632) - 15% 3. Puncture strength (ASTM D-4833) - 120 lbs. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 PREPARATION A. Identify required lines, levels, contour, and datum. B. Identify known below grade utilities. Stake and flag I ... tlona. C. Maintain and protect existing utilities remaining which pose through work area. D. Upon discovery of unknown utility or concealed conditions, discontinue affected work; notify Engineer. 3.02 EROSION CONTROL A. Erosion control must be installed prior to beginning any sorthwork operations. 3.03 TOPSOIL EXCAVATION A. Excavate topsoil from oleo, to be excavated, re-lardscped or regraded and stockpile in areas designated on site or as directed by the Engineer. B. Maintain the stockpile In a manner which will not obstruct the natural flow of drainage. 1. Maintain stockpile free from debris and trash. 2. Keep the topsoil damp to prevent duet and drying out. 3.04 SUBSOIL EXCAVATION A. Excavate Subsoil from areas to be regraded In accordance With plane. B. Excavate Subsoil required to accommodate building foundation& slabs on grade, site structures, construction perotims, roods, and parking areas. C. Grade top perimeter of excavation to prevent Surface water from draining Into excavation. D. Notify Engineer of unexpected Subsurface conditions and discontinue affected walk in area until notified to resume work. E. Correct areas over-excavated by error as directed by the Engineer at no cost to the Owner. 3.05 DITCHES A. Cut accurately to the croes-section., grades, and elevations shown. B. Maintain excavations free from detrimental quantities of leaves, sticks, trash, and other debris until completion of the work. C, Dipoee of exccwted materials as shown on the drawings or directed by the mile Engineer; except do not. In any case, deposit materials less than three feet from the edge of a ditch. 3.06 EMBANKMENTS AND BERMS A. When embankments are to be made on a hlll.lde, the Mops of the original ground on which the embankments are to be constructed shall be stopped and properly as the fill is constructed that dverSe t$ of the slopes do not Occur. B. My excavated rockr , ledge, boulders, and atone, except where required In the construction of other time -otherwise directed, shall be used In the construction of embankments to the extent of the project requirements and generally .hall be placed ao as to farm the base of an embankment. C. Frozen material shall not be used In the construction of embankments, nor Mall the embankments or eselve layer of the embankments be placed upon frozen material. Placement of material other than rock shall stop when the sustained air temperature, below 32 degree. Fahrenheit, Prohibits the obtaining of the required compaction. If the material le otherwise acceptable, it Mall be stockpiled and reserved fen future use Shen Its condition I, acceptable fen use In embankments. D. When an embankment le to be constructed acre a swamp, muck , , o of unstable who, the u sultable material .hall be excavated to reach Solis of adequate bearing capa the embankmwt bun. Alternative such cote used of a stabilization abrlc In place of a cavaton and backflll, may be utilized only after approval of some by the Engineer. E. Material being placed In embankments shall be placed in horizontal layers of uniform thickness across the full width of the embankment. Stumps, tress, rubbish, and other unsuitable material shall not be placed in embankments. F. Embankment area. shall be placed In eight -Inch Ilfts. Effetlw spreading equipment shall be used on each layer to obtain uniform thickness prior to compaction. Each layer Mall be kept crowned to shed water to the outside edge of embankment and continuous leveling and manipulating will be required to assure uniform density The entire area of each layer Mall be uniformly compacted to at least the required minimum density by use of compaction equipment consisting of rollers, compactor, or a combination thereof. Earth -moving and other equipment not speel0cally manufactured far compaction purposes will not be considered as compaction equipment. G. All III material Mall be compacted at a moisture content :liable for obtaining the required dwalty. In no case Mall the moisture content In each layer under construction be more than three percent above the optimum moisture content and Mall be lees than that quantity that will cause the embankment to become unstable during compaction. Sponglnesa, Moving, - other displacement under heavy equitltepment -hn tionl all backonMdf stabllit Ad-c. far on engineering and further placementofmaterial In theunderhis am requirement, dtahall be stopped or retarded to allow the material to stabilize. H. When the moisture content of the material In the layer under onetructlon Is less than the amount necessary to obtain mtlefaetmy compaction by mechanical eompacllon methods, water shall be added by pressure distributors or other approved equipment. Water may also be added In excavation - borrow pits. The water shall be unIf-mly and thoroughly Incorporated Into the eon by dlee, horowing, blading, or by other approved methods. This manipulation may be omitted fen -nd. and gravel. When the moisture content of the material is in excess of three percent above optimum moisture content, dry material Mall be thoroughly Incorporated Into the wet material, or the wet material Mall be aerated by disking, harrowing. blading, rotary mixing, - by other approved methods; m compaction of the layer of wet material shall be deferred untn the layer has dried to the required moisture content by evaporation. 3.07 COMPACTION REOUIREMENTS A. All backfllls and file Mall be compacted In even lifts (12' maximum) to attain the required densities as follows: Standard Proctor Location ASTM D-698 Subgrade and Gravel for Roods and Parking Lot. 95% General Embankments 9OX 3.08 MAINTENANCE A. All earthwork Mould be checked periodically to see that Slopes are In good conditlon. Any rills or damage from erosion and animal burrowing Mould be repaired Immediately to avoid further damage. If maps develop an the dopes, the area Mould be evaluated to determine If the seep will cause a, unstable candlllon. Subsurface drains or gravel mulching may be required to solve seep problems. Diverwims, berms, and waterway. in the land grading area Mould be checked to acre that they are functioning property. Problems found during the Inspections should be repaired promptly. SECTION 02216 - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section Includes: 1. Construction of $term water detention pond. PART 2 - PRODUCTS A. Compacted FM/Granular Borrow: The material far the fill Mall be Obtained from the designated areas and Mall conform to the requirements of Section 02210 - Site Earthwork. The material shall be free from stump., wood, brunt, root., sod, rubbish, and other matter that may decay. It should be tree of etonea over 2 Inches In diameter where compacted by hand or mechanical tamper, m over 6 Inches in diameter where compacted by rollers or other equipment. Frozen material shall not be placed In the fill, nor shall the fill materlal be placed on a frozen foundation. B. Stone Fill: Stone fill shall conform to the requirements of Type 1 Stone Fill as specified In Section 02439 - Stone Fill, C. Riser and Grain Pipe: Riser and drain pipe shall conform to the requirements of Section 02725 - Drainage. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 SITE PREPARATION A. The area to be covered by the pond and embankments shall be cleared of all trees, brush, stumps, root. and other objectionable material. The area to be covered by the earth embankment and the Surface of the borrow area shall be stripped of all grass, roots, organic materlals, m other object) -able materials to a depth that will Insure the -owl of any materials which will prevent bond between the foundation and the fill. Material cleared shall be disposed of In acc-dance with Section 02110 - Site Clearing. Where the embankment will be on a hillside, the Mope of the original ground on which the embankments am to be con structed shall be stepped and properly drained os the fill 1. constructed - that adverse movements of the Mope. do not occur. 3.02 COMPACTED FILL/GRANULAR BORROW A. Preparation of Foundation: Upon completion of the clearing operation and just prior to placing the fill material w any portion of the foundation, that portion shall beecarlfled. plowed, or disked to a depth of 3 Inches. All objectionable material exposed by this operation shall be disposed of -told. the limits of the fill. B. Placing and Spreading Material: The placing and spreading of material sholl be started at the lowest part of the section under construction and the fill constructed in lays of 6 Inches. The layers Mall slope slightly toward, the reservoir to prevent puddles and provide for faster runoff in ease of rain. Where possible, the layer shall extend over the entire area of the Ill. The distribution SITE ENGINEER: r E _- CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. 10MMSFIELDVIFWLANE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTO5403 &12-881- - - 802-8 -22r1 -b: wxw.ceeN.c ACL lE SAVn APPHOVF.n rsTC SAV ONAL PROJECT: SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURUNGTON VERMONT SPECIFICATIONS nn7z nRnswc M:!®eR NOV., 2005 scuF NONE C7.0 PRO, NO. 02250 and gradation of the materials throughout the III Mall be such that them be no lenses, pockets. streak.. or layers of mated.1 differing substantially In texture m gradation from the serrounding material. The most porous borrow material Mall be placed on the downstream portions of the enbankmmt D. Compaction: NI fill Mall be compacted to 95X maximum density par ASTM D-698. E. Limits The embankment Mall be eansWcted Moro located and oe detailed In the Contend Plans. Sid. elope Mall be 1 vertical to 3 horizontal. F. Ravi -Ions to the proposed design of the detention pond may be necessary If, In the opinion of the Engineer, unsuitable material Is found at the pond location. 3.03 SLOPE PROTECTION A. Placement: Stone FBI Type l Mall be locations yp picn atf1*-0* Indicated on the plena to a minimum thickness of 1'-0' In one ccures In a manor that will result In a reasenably wall graded surf- hall be taken In displacing vih e u denying material. Thastones Mal g to id be d placed and distributed so that them call be no ac,umula- time of either the larger or the arraller etonss. mR.- arrangement of the atone fill by hand lobar or mechanical equipment may be required to obtain the specified results. SECTION 02225 - UTILITY TRENCHING AND BACIffiWNG PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section ndudes: 1. Trench, bockfill, and compact as specified herein and as needed far Installation of underground utilltim located 5 feel outside the buildings. 1.02 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Use adequate numbers of skilled workers who are thoroughly trained and experienced In the necessary malts and who are completely fmnlir with the pecifiei requirement. and the methods needed fen proper performance of the work of this section. B. Use equipment adequate In size, capacity, and numbers to accomplish the work In a timely manner. C. Comply with requirements of governmental agencies having jurlediction. 1.03 REFERENCES A. ANSI/ASTM C136 - Standard Test Method fen Slew Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates. B. ANSI/ASTM D690 - Standard Test Method far Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Sol Using Standard Effort. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 SOIL MATERIALS A. FII and bookfll materials: 1. FYI material Is subject to the approval of the Engine.. Material provided can be removed from ...avatl . m sits or Imported from approved ott-site borrow areas. klaterlals must be predominantly granule, rem-expanslw sell free from porous mattr, organic matter and other deleterious matter and contain no rocks m lumps over 6 Inches In greatest dimension. 2. Rocks having a dhnmsian greater than 2 Inches shall not be placed within 2 feet of the outelde of pipe. 3. Cohmionlem material used for backfill: Provide sand free from organic material and other foreign matte, and as approved by the Engineer. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 SURFACE CONDITIONS A. Examine the urwo and condition. under Mlch work of this section will be performed. Correct conditions detrimental to timely and proper completion of the work. Do not proceed until unsatisfactory conditions are corrected. 3.02 PREPARATION A. Identify required lines, levels, contours, and datum. 3.03 PROCEDURES A. Existing Utilities 1. Unless shown to be removed, protect active utility lines shown on the drawings or otherwise made known to the Contractor prior to trenching. If damaged, repair or replace at no cast to the Owner. 2. :n existing underground utilities Mich are not :an for removal or abandon I, me encountered In the exwwtim, they shall be adequately supported and protected from damage. Any damage to utilities shall be repaired promptly at no additional cast to the Owner. 3. If utility service is interrupted as a result of work under this section, immediately restore service by repairing the damaged utility at no additional cast to the Owner 4. If existing utilities are found to Interfere with the permanent facilities being constructed under this section, Immediately notify the Engineer and secure In.Wctlons. 5. Do not proceed with disruption of service or permanent relocation of utilities until written Instructions are received from the Engineer . B. Protection of persons and property. 1. Brrleade open hot" and depressions occurring as part 01 the work, and past warning lights on property adjacent to m with public oa 2. Operate warning lights during hours from dunk to dawn each day and as otherwise required. 3. Protect structures, utlitle.. sidewalks, pavements, and other feclltlee from damage caused by semen ttlet, lateral movement, washout and other hazard. created by operations under this wctlon. C. Dewatering: The Contractor, at all times, shall canduct operations ex, as to prowl the accumulation of water, Ice and now in excavations or in the vicinity of excavated progrand to prevent water from interfering with the ess and quality of the work. Under no conditions shall water be allowed to rise In open trenches after pipe has ben placed. D. Accumulated water, Ice, and mow shall be promptly removed and disposed of by pumping or other approved means Disposal shall be carded out In a manner Mich will not emote a hazard to public health, nor cause Injury to public r private property, work completed or In program, or public streets, norcause any Nterfrmce In the use of street^ and road by the public Popes underconstruction shall of be used far drainage of excavations E. Maintain access to adjacent areas at all time. 3.04 TRENCHING A. Provide Meeting and shoring necessary farprotection of the work and for the safety of person .1. 1. Sheeting and bracing required for trenches Mall be emaved to the elewtion of the pipe. but no Meeting will be allowed to be pulled, removed, or disturbed below the pipe. B. A trench Mall be excavated to the required depth and to a Width sufficient to allow far joining of the pipe and compaction of the bedding and boakfill material under and around the pips. C. The completed tench bottom shall be firm far Its full length and width. D. If Indicated on the plans or directed by the Engineer, poor foundation material encountered below the normal grade of the pipe bed Mall be removed and replaced with granular backfill. E. Where pipes are to be placed In mbankment fill, the excawtlon Mall be made after the embankment has been completed to a height of 3 feet plus the diameter of the pipe above the designed grade of the pipe. F. Excavating far appurtenances: 1. Exwwte for manhdee and similar structures to a distance sufficient to leave at least 12 Inches clear between outer surfaces and the embankment or shoring that may be used to hold and protect the banks. 2. Ow -depth excavation beyand such appurtenances that has not been directed will be considered unauthorized. Fill with sand, grant, or lam concrete as directed by the Engineer, and at no additional cost to the Owner. G. Exwwtim Mail not Interfere with normal 45 degree bearing play of foundatlon.. H. Where utility rune traverse public property or are subject to governmental or utility company jurisdlction, provide depth, bedding, cow, and other requirernmts as set forth by legally constituted authority having jurisdiction, but In no case lava than the depth shown in the Contract Documents. I. Where trenching occurs In existing lawns, remove turf In sections and keep damp. Replace turf upon completion of the backfllling. 3.05 BEDDING A. Pipe Bedding Area: Prim to laying pipe. bedding material Mall be placed to the limit. of the excavation and to a depth bmsuth the pipe ae specified. This material Moll be with. aand, grovel. or crushed stane and Mal not contain large lumps and stmse over one Inch In diameter. A. the pipe is laid, bedding material shall be extended to 6 Inches .bow the pipe and leveled along the width of the trench. 3.06 BACKFIWNG A. Backfllling Mall not be done In freezing weather, with frozen materials, or Man materials already placed are frozen. B. Badkfill material Mall be evenly pmad and compacted In IN* not more than 12 Inches thick r as approved by the Engineer. Previously placed or new materials Moll be moistened by sprinkling, If required, to ensure proper bond and compaction. C. Trenches Mich how been Improperly backflled, anclosed or covered up before It has been approved Mall be reopened. Refill and compact as specified, or otherwise correct to the approval of the Engineer, at no additional cost to the Omar. D. Take pedal care In b.ckflling and bedding operations to not damage pipe and pipe coatings. E. No compacting shall be done when the material Is too wet to be compacted properly. At such times the work Moll be suspended until the previously placed and new materials haw dried out sufficiently to permit proper compaction, r such other precautions are taken as may be necessary to obtain proper compaction. F. Backflll material Mall be compacted to the following percentages of maximum sty density and the In -place moisture content Mall not be more than 2R above the optimum moisture cantmt. as determined by Standard Proctor ASTM D69B. 1. Around all structures. under roadway paving, shoulder and embankments - 95X 2. NI other areas - BOX G. Frost Protection: Pipes laid with lees than the minimum over the crown and when approved by the Engineer Mall be protected against freezing by installation of rigid insulation fm the width of the trench. Insulation shall be minimum of 2 Inches thick with we additional Inch of thlcknam far every foot of depth of piping Ims than 5 feet. The Meets Mall be ploced 6 Inches above the roan of the sawr after compaction of the 6 Inch lift Immediately above the mown. Cam Mall be exercised by the Contractor during badkfll and compaction aw the Insulation. The Inset. hail meet the compressive strength requirammts of ASTM D1621-73, 3.07 TEST FOR DISPLACEMENT OF SEVERS AND STORMORAINS A. After the trench he. been backfllled to above the pipe and has been compacted as specified, check sewere and stormdrolne to determine whether displacement has occurred. B. Visually inspect pipe Installation by flashing a light between manholes m between the locations of the manhdee, by means of a flashlight or by reflecting sunlight with a mirror. C. If the illuminated Interim of the pipe Ise shows poor alignment, displaced pipes, or any other defects, correct the defects to the specified conditions and at no additional cost to the Owner. D. After visual approval of pp., a 95% mordrd test may be required. SECTION 02400 - WORK ON OR NEAR PRIVATE PROPERTY PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 DESCRIPTION A. The wok under this section Includes the proteetlon of Privet: property and the restoration of orecs near oron Private Property. (For further requirements see the General Conditions and the Special Conditions of these sp..111-tion .) 1.02 SUBMITTALS A. The Contractor Mall, upon award of the Contract, take photographs of the existing conditions in the project area. These photographs shall be taken as directed by the Own. and/or as fellow.: I. My aultable cam.a may ba used, but the Ions must be a 'wkle angle lens' having a (Deal length of not more than thirty -flea (35) mllthneten. 2. The photograph. Mail be at least three and a halt (3.5) Inches wide and five (5) Inches long, colored, printed with a matted finish and brdeneas. Each photograph shall be marked with the following Information an the back: Location Station Date B. Upon completion of the project, the Contractor Mall submit a second set of photographs, taken as before, showing the conditions in the project area. Each photograph Mall be marked on the back as specified above. C. Approximately 10 each before and after photographs will be required. 1.03 PROTECTION A. Every effort Mall be made to protect private r public property during construction. All damaged trees, shrubs and .the vegetation .hall be replaced in kind by the Contract. at no additional coat to the Owner. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 MATERIALS A. All materials not specifically described, but required for work Included In this section shall be new, first quality of their respective kinds, and subject to the approval of the Engineer. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 LAWNS A. In a ecs M.e removal of lawns I. necessry to complete the work, the Contract. may elect to cut, remove and stockpile the sod and put It back at the completion of the work, or replace the sod with new sod. Seeding Moll not be considered as on approved equd to either of the above alternatives. 3.02 BUSHES A. Bushes Mich are in the way of the construction and are located on private property shall either be removed, stored and replanted r shall be replaced at the option of fins Ownr. 3.03 PAVEMENT A. Existing driveway. and parking areas Mall be protected during the canetructsn. Damaged paved areas outside the contract limits shall be neatly cut out and replaced with bituminous concrete to the complete satisfaction of the Owner. SECTION 02430 - $TOTE FRL PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section Includes, 1. Stone nit - Type. I, II, III, and IV. 2. Rip -Rep - Heavy Type, Light Type, 3. Geotextlle Fabric. B. Thls work shall consist of furnishing and placing protective matrial. In conformity with the dimensions elevations and at the locations Indlected in the contract or as directed by the Engineer. 1.02 REFERENCES A. VAOT Standard Specifications, Section 700. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 STONE FOR STONE FILL A. Stone far store fill shall be approved, hard, blasted angular rock other than serpentine rock containing the fibrous variety chryeetlle (offia.tos). The least dimmsian of the at-. shall be greatr than 1/3 of the longest dimension. The stone fill shall be reasonably well graded from the amdlest to the maximum .1. atone specified so as to farts a compact mass Mm In place. Type I: The longest dimension of the atone shall very from 1 Inch to 12 Inches, and at least 50 percent of the volume of the atone in place shall how a least dknmsion of four Inches. Type 11: The longest dlmensim of the store shall wry from 2 Inches to 36 Inches, and at least 50 percent of the volume of the stone In place shall haw a least dknmelon of 12 Inches. Type III: The largest dimmalon of the atone mall wry from 3 Inches to 48 Inches, and at lead 50 percent of the volume of the .tons In place Mall haw a least dimanalan of 16 Inches. Type IV: The largest dknenesn of the stone shall wry from 3 Inches to 60 Inches, and at least 50 percent of the volume of the stone In place shall haw a least dimension of 20 Inches. 2.02 RIP -RAP A. Stone far rip-rop shall be approved, rough, unhewn quarry etme, as needy rectangular In section as Pmctieable. The stone shall be hard, sound and resistant to the action of water and weathering. They shall be of a rock type other than serpentine rock containing the fibrous variety chrysotAe (asbestos) and suitable In every respect far the purpose Intended. Heavy Type The Individual atmee Moll hew a depth equal to the thickness of the course of rp-rop. At least 75 percent of the volume of the rip-rop, complete In place, shall consist of stone. that haw a minimum volume of 16 cubic fast. Light Type: The individual slmss Mall haw a depth equal to the thickness of the coupe of rip -rap. The rip -rap, template In place, Moll consist of stones that haw a minimum volume of 1/2 cubic foot. 2.03 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC A. Gwtextle fabric shall conform to the requirements of Section 02210 - Site Earthwork. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 PREPARATION A. The areas to be protected Mall be constructed and graded to the lines Indicated on the plans or as directed by the Engineer and, if a fill area, Moll be compacted. All slopes Mall be maintained to the neat It. indicated an the dcns prior to the placing of geotextile fabric or bedding material, stone fill, rip-rop or dope paving. 3.02 PLACING STONE FILL A. The specified atone fill Mall be placed In one course thickness as shown on the plan. In a manner that will result In o reasonably well graded surface. Caro shall be taken In the placing to avoid displacing of the underlying material. B. The stones shall be so placed and distributed that there will be no oewmulations of either the larger or smaller sizes of stone. C. Rearrangement of the stone AT by hand labor or mechanical equipment may be required to obtain the specified results. 0. When atone fill and geotextile fabric era to be placed as part of on embankment, the protective materials Mall be placed concurrently with the caneWction of the embankment unless otherwise authorized by the Engine. E. Whm stone fill and geotextile fabric Is to be placed under water, methods shall be used that will minimize segregation and Insure that the required thickness of protective matrial win be obtained. SECTION 02513 - BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVING PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section Includes: 1. Base Courses Z. Leveling Courses 3. Finish Course B. General: This work .hall conelat of one or more course. of bituminous mixture, constructed on a prepared foundation In accordance with thew Specifications and the type of surface being placed, and in conformity with the Ivies, grades, thick.- rand typical roes section. Mown on the plans or established by the Engineer. 1.02 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Use adequate numbers of skilled workers Mo are thoroughly trained and experienced In the neceseary rafts and an as completely famllar with the specified requirements and the methods needed for proper performance of the work of this Section. B. All motarla1. and installation shall be In mcmdm with The Asphalt Institute Manuel (MS-4) and the VAOT Standard Specifications, 1990. C. Mixing Plant: Conforn to State of Vermont Standards. D. Obtain materials from same source throughout. 1.03 PROJECT CONDITIONS A. Bituminous concrete Mall not be placed between November 1 and May I. Material shall not be placed when the granular subbase Is wet or Mm the air temperature at the paving site in the shade and away from artificial heat Is as follows Air Temperature Pavement Degrees Fahrenheit Compacted Depth 40 Degrees or below Greeter than 1 1/4' 50 Degrees or blow Lass than 1 1/4 PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2,01 MATERIALS A. Materials shall be combined and graded to most the criteria as defined In the VAOT Standard Specifications, Division 700 far Type ll (base course) and Type III (finish course) bituminous cncrete. B. Gradation: Materials shall be combined and graded to meet composition limits specified In VAOT Standard Specification, Section 406.03, for the base course and finish coume. C. Thickness of paving for drives and parking Iota shill be as shown an the plans consisting of base course and finish courea. D. For pavement reconstruction areas due to trenching, the depth of each course shall be Increased by 1/2'. Pavement atructlon caused by trench mopm{ng due to improper men placet or non -approved placement shall be performed at no additional mat to the Owner. 2.02 TRAFFIC MARKINGS A. Traffic mwksg paint to be factory -mixed, meeting the requirements of the VAOT Standard Specification.. Section 70&08. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 INSTALLATION A. Install in accordance with VAOT Standard Speelflantlons, Section 406. 3.02 EXAMINATION A. Verify base conditions under the provisions of Section 02210 - Site Earthwork. B. Verify that compacted granular base Is dry and ready to support paving and Imposed loads. C. Verify gradients and elevation. of base are correct. 3.03 PREPARATION A. Matching Surfaces, When a new povement Is to match an existing bituminous pavement for a roadway r trench, the Contractor shall vertically smooth cut the existing pavement, over the existing gravel bags. The smooth cut shall be thoroughly cleaned and coated with Emulsified Asphalt, RS-1, Just prior to paving. 3.04 PREPARATION - TACK COAT A. When the bottom course of bituminous concrete pavement is left ow the winter, or paving is to be made over an existing bituminous concrete pavement, the existing surface shall be cleaned and Emulsified Asphalt applied before the next cause is applied. B. Also apply to contact surfaces of curbs. C. Coat surfaces of manhole and catch basin frames with all to prevent bond with asphalt pavement Do not tack coot these surfaces. 3.05 PLACING ASPHALT PAVEMENT A. Place to compacted thickness Identified on the plane. B. Compact pavement by roiling. Do not displace orextrude pavement from position. Hand compact In areas Inaccessible to roiling equipment. C. Develop rolling with conasoutive passes to achieve own and smooth finish, without roller marks. 3.06 JOINTS A. Joints between old and new pavements or between successlw days work shall be made so as to Insure a through and continuous bond between the old and new mixture.. Whenever the spreading process Is Interrupted long enaugh far the mixture to attain Its Initial stability, the pow shall be removed from the mat and a joint constructed. B. Butt joints shall be formed by cutting the pavement in a vertical plane at right angles to the centerline where the pavement has a true surface as determined by the use of a straight-.dge. The butt Joint Mall be thoroughly coated with Emulsified Asphalt, Type RS-1. just prim to depositing the paving mixtures. C. Longitudinal Pints that haw become cold shall be coated with Emulsified Asphalt, Type RS-1, before the adjacent mat le placed. If they have berm exposed to traffic, they Mall be cut back to a clean vertical edge prim to painting with the emulelon. D. Unless otherwise directed, longitudinal joints shall be offset at least 6' from any Joint In the lover courses of pavement. wee Pin ts shall not be constructed nearer than we foot from the transverse Joints constructed In lower mums.. 3.07 TOLERANCES A. The surface will be tested by the Engineer using a 16 foot straight -edge of selected locations parallel with the cmterlins. Any variations exceeding 3/16 of an Inch between my two contacts shall be satisfactorily eliminated. A 10 fool stralght-edge may be used or a vertical curve. The atralght-edges shall be provided by the Contractor. B. Scheduled Compacted Thickness: Within 1/4 Inch. C. Variation from True Elevation: Within 1/2 Inch. 3.08 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL A. Permit no whlcular traffic an surfaces until thoroughly cod and hard. 3.09 REPAIR OF SUBSIDENCE A. Settlement - Should any pavement settle within one year of completion of the Contract, soon pavement shall be repaired at the Contractors epmss. If the Contractor fail. to make such repairs promptly upon receipt of notice to do so from the Omr, than the Owner may make such repo" as necessary and the Contractor shall pay the Owner far all casts Incurred In making such repalm. 3.10 MARKING PAVEMENT FOR PARKING A. Striping - Throughly clean the area. to racelve striping and locate all stribeping as Indicated m the Contract Plane. All strIpInq shall 4' wide unless otherwise noted. B. Miscellaneous - Provide handicapped symbols and all other miscellaneous signs and symbols as Indicated on the Contract Plane. SECTION 02515 - CURBS AND WALKS PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section Includes: 1. Concrete Curb. 2. Canmete Sidewalk. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 CONCRETE A. The concrete shall haw a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 pal at 28 days and Mall confi m to the requirements of Cast -In -Place Cancrets. 2.02 ADMIXTURES A. Air-entmining admixture shall meet or exceed ASTM C260. Air content shall range from minimum of 5XG to 7X maximum. 2.03 EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL A. Expansion Joint material shall be pramolded bltumIncus film conforming to ASTM D994. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 CONCRETE CURBS A. Excavation shall be made to the required depth and the base material upon Mich the curb is to be set shall be compacted to a Inn, even surface. All soft and unsuitable material Mall be removed and raplac.d with suitable material Mich shall be thoroughly compacted. B. Installation: The curb shall be set se that the front top line le In dose conformity to the line and grade required. All pace under the curbing shall be filled and thoroughly tamped with material meeting the requkemmts of the material for the bed course. C. Concrete Mixing and Placing: Compaction of concrete placed In the forms shall be by spading of other approved methods. Farms shall be left In place far 24 hours or until the conmete hoe set sufficientlysothat they ran be removed without injlry to the curbing. Upon removal of the forms, the curb shall be Immediately rubbed down to a smooth and uniform surface but no plastering will be permitted. For this work, competent and skillful finishers shall be employed. D. Sections: Curbing shall be constructed In sections having a uniform length of ten feet. unless otherwise ordered. Sections shall be separated by open Joints 1/8 Inch wide except at expansion pints. E. Expansion Joints: Expansion pints shall be formed at the Intervals shown on the plans using o pro -formed expansion Joint filler having a thickness of 1/4 Inch cut to conform to the cross-section of the curb. They shall be constructed at 20 foot Interval. m - directed by the Engines. when the curb Is constructed odjocent to or an concrete pavemmt, expansion Joints shall be located opposite or at expansion Joints In the pavement. SITE ENGINEER: 0 CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. 10 MANSFIELD VIEW LANE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT VAX SoP-0er.2a]a FAX aWdM2 1 wanw.nv.(waM.cm DB4wN ACL � Cie o ¢ SAV ¢ am". ('1ta aTfp� SAV bNAL PROJECT: SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT RIY19101? SPECIFICATIONS 1 AUG., 2010 scut AS SHOWN C7.1 02250 F. BackfNling: After the concrete has set aufficlently, the spaces In front and bock of the curb shall be filled to the required elewtlan with loyere of not more than alz inches of the some material as the bedding and thoroughly tamped. G. The Cmtroctm shall protect the curb and keep it In alignment until the completion of the contract. Each curb which is damaged at any time previous to final acceptance of the work shall be removed and replaced with satisfactory curb at the Contractor's expense. 3.02 CONCRETE SIDEWALXS A. Excavation veld Foundation: Excavation shall be made to the required depth and to a width that will permit placing of bed course material and the installation and bracing of the forme. Bad course material shall be placed to the depth and section shown an the plans. When the layer requiem exceeds six Inches, two layers of approximately equal depth shall be placed and each layer thoroughly compacted w that It is hard and unyielding. The wetting of bed coupe material may be required to obtain the compaction. B. Finishing: The surface shall be finished with a wooden flout. No plastering will be permitted. The edges shall be rounded with an edger having a radius of 7/4 Inch. Ths surface of the eldewalk, after the floating and mom ng precesa Is completed, shall be flnlahed with a broom of a type approved by the Engineer, drawn over the surface parallel to the transverse joints. Special texturing on sidewalk ramps Mall be Installed In accordance with cronetructlon plan detalls. C. Joints: Unless otherwise indicated an the plan. or directed by the Engines, exponsim Joints Mall be placed ewxy 20 feet. Expansion joints sholl be formed around all appurtenances such as manholes utility poles and oths obstructions ext-ding Into and through the sTd-Dlk, Pre -farmed pint fills 1/4 Inch thick shall be Installed In these ),Into. EepOn*im joint filler of the thickness Indicated shall be installed between concrete sidewalks and any fired structure such as a building or bridge. This expanal- joint material Mall extend for the full depth of the walk. Be'.- the @.panel- Joints, the sidewalk Mall be divided at Intervols of 5 feet by dummy Joints formed by a jointing tool an other acceptable morns as directed to provide grooms approximately 1/8 Inch wide and at least 1/3 of the depth. When the sidewalk Is constructed next to a concrete epon- slon, joint material shall be placed between sidewalk and curb fan the depth of the sidewalk. D. Curing: During the curing pmlod all traffic, both pedestrian and vehicular, shall be excluded. Vehicular traffic shall be excluded for such additional time as the Engines may direct. E. Backfilling: Before the cmwete has been opmed to traffic, the space an each side of the sidewalk shall be backflled to the required elevation with .unable material, firmly compacted and neatly graded. SECTION 02700 - WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section includes, 1. Pipe Materials 2. Hydrants 3. Valves 4. Fitting. 5. NI other appurtenances necessary to complete the water main system as shown on the Contract Plans. 1.02 SUBMITTALS A. Product Data: Submit published data from manufacturers of products and aconsorlas specified, Indicating compliance with requirement. to the Engineer and local municipality. 1.03 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. All materials and the Installation procedure shall be In accordance with the Department of Environmental Conssrwtion, Water Supply Division and the applicable construction ordinances of the local municipality. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 GENERAL A. Fumleh ells, two, reducing two, wyes couplings , Inczwxr crosses, transitions and and cap. of the same type and close of material as the conduit, an of material having equal or superior phywical and chemical properties as - table to the Engineer as necessary to complete the water system. 2.02 DUCTILE IRON WATER PIPE A. Pipe shall be Ductile Iron Clan 52 (sizes as shown an the plan.) conforming to current ANSI/AWWA C151/A21.51 latest revi.lon. Larger size mains will be required If necessary to allow withdrawal of the required fire flow while maintaining the minimum pressure pecified In the VT Water Supply Rule, Chapter 21. 8.1.1. Any proposed departure from minimum requirement. shall be justified by hydraulic analysis and future water use amomment, and cull be considered only in epecial circumstances (VT Water Supply Rule, Chapter 21 8.1.4). Push-m joint pipe shall be minimum thickness Class 52. Push-m joint accessories shall conform to applicable requirements of ANSI/AWWA Ciit/A21.11. B. Pipe shall be cement mortar lined an the Inside In eo,owce with ANSI Specification A21.4 except that the content lining thickness se shall not be lathan 1/8 Inch. A plus toleran ce of i/8 Inch will be permitted. C. Pipe shill be given an exterior petrdsum asphaltic c-ting In accordance with ANSI AWWA C151/ANSI A21.51. D. Fmr-Inch (4') and six-inch (6') pipe shall haw no lase then (2) bran wedge Installed at each joint Elght-Inch (8') and larger pipe shall haw no law than three (3) brow wedges Installed at each pipe joint. Conductivity bmds may be Installed in place of wedges E. When a pipe material Is pacifically noted on the contract dawings,the contractor/developer shill not how the option of utilizing any other ppe material. Galvanized pipe or fittings shdl not be used in y water system ed maintained by the CWD Retail Deportment an within the dbtrPoutbn system of the City of South Burlington. The CND Retail Superintendent reserves the option of requiring polyethylene pipe ad- m---tit and/or alternate pipe materials in known an wapected corrosive soil conditions 2.o3 FITTINGS A. Ductile Iron fittings shall conform to ANSI/AWWA C110/A21.10. 350 PSI working pressure. Ductile Iran fittings larger than twelve Inches (12') shall haw a standard body length equal to Class 250 Cast Iron fittings. Cast Iron Class 250 fittings will be allowed In Ilm of ductile Von fittings larger than twelve Inches (12'). Ductile Iron fittings .hall be rated for 250 p.s.i. Hoover, twelve Inch (12') and smaller may be rated for 350 p.e.l. with the use of special gaskets. All ductile Iron compact fittings @hall conforming to AWWA/ANSI C153/A21,53 standards. B. Anchor tees shall be standard mechanical joint tees except that the branch I. plain Clan 250 cost Iran or Class 350 ductile Iran, cement lined, conforming to ANSI/AWWA Clio/ A21.10, Cttt/A21,11, and C104/A21.4. Anchor tees shall be Clow F-1217, U.S. Pipe U5-92 or equal. C. Mechanical Joint restraints shall be Incorporated Into the design of the fdlowor gland and shall Include a restraining mechanism which, when actuated, Imparts multiple wedging action against the pipe Increceing Its resistance as the pressure Increases Flaxibillty of the plot shall be molntained aka burial. Glands shall be manufactured of ductile Iran, and haw a minimum working pressure of 350 psi. Twist off nuts (Le. mega -lug) or equal shall be used to re proper actuating of the restraining devices. Cantroctwo may also use approved grip ring (m equal) lalner gland,. D. Bolts Moll conform to ANSI Speciflcotion A21.10. E. Pipeline couplings shall canfarm to AWWA Standards C110 and ANSI A21.10. Mechanical joint connecting pelces of Proper di-.ts shall be Installed In accordance .Ith the manufacturer recomm endation. and at locations directed by the plans or the CWD Retail Superintendent. F. All fittings shall be wrapped in plastic and haw concrete thrust blocks poured In place. 2.04 TAPPING SLEEVES AND VALVES A. The CWD Wholesale Department shall be notified whenever a proposed tap Is to be made an any CND tron-Isslon main within the district. B. Only approved tapping companies shall be allowed to perform wet taps an any CND or South Burlington avatar mains. C. All materials used when tapping far a branch connection m Interconnection from any Champlain Water District or South Burlington water transmission or distribution pipelines Mall be peclfled below 2.05 TAPPING SLEEVES For use on existing asbestos cement, gray coat Iran, ductile Iran or PVC C-900 pipe: A. Tapping eI-- Moll be of the split alnw design. constructed with two solid holf-News bolted together. Slnwa Moll be constructed of ductile Iron, Mall how o working pressure of at lead 150 psi, and shall haw mechanical pint ends with and and side gasket seals. S. All Vann body lopping sleeve shall be provided with a 3/4' NPT test plug, or other provisions must be made for air testing the wive and siasw at maximum working pressure. prim to tapping. C. All bolts and nuts for mechanical joints of tapping sines Mall be of high -strength cost Iron an high -strength, low - alloy steel conforming to ANSI/AWWA C111/A21.11. 0. All bolts and nuts for flanged Joints of tapping deemn shall be of high -strength, low carbon steel conforming to ANSI/AWWA C110/A21.10. E. All bolts and nuts shall be sound, clean, and coated with a rust-mal.tant lubricant; their surfaces shall be frm of objectimable protrusions that would Interfere with their fit In the made-up mechanical w flanged joint. 2.06 TAPPING VALVES A. Topping valves shall conform to ANSI/AWWA C509 Standard for Resllient-Seated Gate Valor. for Water and Sewage Systems, except as modified herein. Valves shall open cqunterclmkwin and shall haw a minimum working pressure of 150 psi. Inlet flanges shall be Clan 125 conforming to ANSI outlet�nection Maifloction /l lbenStandarA�ed Mechanical Joint pies. specified otherwise on the drawing. for the type of pipe required far the branch or lateral pipeline. B. Tapping valves o- sixteen Inches (16') diameter shall be Installed with their et.m. horlzontal. Mall be equipm with rollers, trucks and scrapers, and shall be provided with bypass valwe unless otherwise epecIfled. C. Burled topping wives shall be providedwith a two Inch (2') Square wrench nut and shall be Installed with o -at Iron valve box as required to allow positive occess to the valor opsating nut at all times In Installations where the depth from grade to top of wlw operating nut Is greater than 6'0', a valor stem riser shall be provided and Installed much that the depth from valve stem riser nut to grade Is from four feet to six feet (4'-8'), (minimum length of valve stem floor I. two feet (2')). Valor atom riser shall be of high strength at.., and of welded construction. D. All contractors (or the.) who apply to Champlain Water District for water line topping permits shall submit complete specifications of the topping material they Intend to use at the time the topping permit application Is submitted on 8 1/2' x 11' shop drawing sheets E. All bolts and nuts used with all pipe slaws Mall, upon find tightening and testing, be brush coated heavily with bltumaetic odd-opplMd material to thor-ghly co- all expand surfaces of the bolts and nuts. 2.07 GATE VALVES -RESIDENT SEAT A. Valves shall be manufactured to meet all requirement, of AWWA Specification C509. Valve twew inches (12') and smaller shall be bubble tight, zero leakage at 200 psi working pressure. Valves shall haw non -rising .lama, open counter dockwin, and provide a two Inch (2') square operating nut with crow, cast In the metal Indicating dlrectlm of opening. Each wive shall how maker's name, pressure ling and year In which manufactured cast an the body. Prior to shipment from the factory, each wlw sholl be tested by hydrostatic pressure equal to twice the pacified working pressure. Gate wive shall be Mueller, Dresser, Kennedy, or approved equal. B. Burled vahs Mall be installed with a gate wlw box. C. Gate valves shall normally be placed o maximum of live hundred feet (500') apart. Toe Intersections shall haw a minimum of three (3) gets valves. Cron sections (foru way Intersections) shw dl have a minimum of four (4) wives. D. The CND Rwtag Superintendent may require all bolts etude and nut. be made from a corroelon resistant-moterld much as low -zinc, nickel -copper alloy or stainless steel In known wpectm carrwiw sal condition.. 2.08 VALVE BOXES A. Valve bozo shall be of the three -place Cast Iron aIlde type with a minimum Inside shaft diameter of five and one quarter Inches (S lr 4') and a mix foot (W) trench depth. Valw boxes shall not transfer loads onto the valve. B. Valor boxes shall haw a cast Iron cover, marked 'WATER'. The bores shall be dirt tWht with the top of the cover flush with the top of the box rim. 2.09 FIRE HYDRANTS AND HYDRANT BRANCHES A. Fire hydrants shall be Mueller Super Centurion 250. Figure A-42 , Kennedy K-81 D. or Waterm. Pacer and shall conform to AWWA C502 with the following specs icatione: 1. Main Vdw Opening: 5 1/4 Inches 2. Nozzle Arrangement: Two 2 1/2 Inch Hose Nozzle with Notional Standard Thread (NST) 3. One 4 1/2 Inch Pumper Nozzle with National Standard Thread (NST) 4. Inlet Connection: 6 Inch Mechanical Joint. 'Mega -Lug' or equivalent retaining gland and concrete thrust block 5. Operating Nut Standard 1 1/2 Inch Pentagon B. Direction of Opening: Counterclockwise 7. Depth of Bury. Six-foot cover. The hydrant shall haw at ,-at 15 Inches and no more than 21 Inches between the bottom of the steamer cap and the ground. 8. Drain: The hydrant shall be non -darting or haw the drains Cr plugged. 9. Color. Rod 1 10. Other. Hydrants shall be compression type dosing with the pnessurs Hose and pumper nozzles shall be 1/4 turn type a-ured by stainless at" an corroalm resistant pins or screws. Pressure Beals behind the nozzle flanges shall be '0' rings. A breakable coupling retained in place by stainless at" an corroelon resistant pins Mall make the union between theupp,, and lows stems. The two-plece traffic flange Mall be hold In place by nuts and bolts. The upper barrel Mull as able to rotate 360 degrees without removing any bolts Hydrant flags Mall be required and supplied for each hydrant. Wherever o traffic hazard appears to exist, curbing and/or bollards shall protect the hydrant. B. Far .Ingle-twnfy house subdlA.Ions there will be at lecet one hydrant at such intersection and a maximum of flw hundred feet (5DO') between hydrmt. with a minimum water flow of 500 gallon. per minute (gpm) at the flow hydrant with a 20-psl residual pressure at the residual hydrant. Hydrants should be located Immediately adjacent to street property Imes A 20' x 20' ent will be required wound all hydrants. No structures an plantings are to be placed within a 20' x 20' sow of any hydrant. C. Where dead -and main. Occur, they shall be provided with a fire hydrant if flow and pressure mot minimum requlremmts. If flows and pressure are not sufflclwt. then an approved flushing hydrant or Mow off Mall be Installed for flushing purposes. Flushing devices should be sized to provide flows which will give a velocity, of at Twat 2.5 feet par second In the water main being flushed The een The open end of a blow oft must be capped and I=n.t. at l.t eightInane. (18') above grow.. D. When set In loon space between the curb and sldasalk, n portion of the hydrant or nozzle cap will be lees than we foot off the gutter face of the curb or edge of the sidewalk. Hydrants shall be a minimum of fmr feet (4') and a maximum of six feet (5) from the edge of the sidewalk to the closest point an the hydrant when placed behind the sidewalk. In the absence of a curb or sidewalk, no hydrant shall be placed more than .Ix fast (W) from the edge of pavement. Hydrants Mall be located so as to provide complete accessibility and minimize the possibility of damage from vehicles or Injury to pedestrians. 2.10 HYDRANT ASSEMBLIES A. Hydrant aoemblies shall consist of on anchor tw, a six Inch (6') mechanical joint gate wlwe conforming to the above specifications, the appropriate length of six Inch (6') Ductile Iron Comenl Lined, Class 52 pipe, all ry mchor coupling@ and approved restraining glands, the fire hydrant and appropriate thmet block. B. Care Mall be taken to prevent damage to hydrants and appurtenances during handling and installation. NI matwlals shall be carefully Inspected for defects In workmanship and material.; all debris and foreign material cleaned mt of the hydrant bowl; all operating mechanism. operated to check their proper functioning, and all nuts and bolts chocked for tightness. All hydrants shall be carefully incorporated In the water main and supported In their respective poeltlane free from distortion and strain. Hydrants shall be set plumb. All hydrants shall be oriented to most efficlmtly allow fire truck access and connection for emergency purposes. They shall be Installed away from the curb line at .ufflclmt distance to avoid damage from or to vehicles. Traffic model hydrants shall be Installed so the breakaway flange I. not less than two Inches (2'), nor more than six Inches (6') above the established grade. according to manufacturer recommendations Hydrant locations are subject to the approval of the CWD Retail Superintendent and the appropriate municipality. fire dportmmt. Installation for fire hydrant. can be found in AWWA Standard C600. 2.11 BLOW -OFF ASSEMBLIES A. Blow -off assemblies will be constructed as detailed In the drawings. They shall consist of an anchor tee, a six Inch (6') meehonical joint gate wive conforming to then Specifications the appropriate length of six Inch (6') Ductile Iron Cement Lined, Class 52 pipe, all necenany, anchor couplings, approved restraining glands, MJ and flanged fittings, and cap or rodent Smaller blow-oN aeasmbliem may be allowed with approval of the CWD Retail Superintendent. B. Blow -off. shall not be connected to any sewer, submerged In any stream or ditch, or Installed In any manner that will permit back alphmage Into the distribution system. The open and of the blow -off must be capped and terminate at laaei eighteen Inches (15') above grade (VT Water Supply Rule, A-8.1.7). 2.12 SERVICE CONNECTIONS A. Service lines shall be installed so as to run perpendicular, in a straight ,no from the water main to the curb slop. B. Each s"ce shall consist of a corporation, curb alp, copper tubing and a curb box with a cast Iran or stainless at" service rod. Service lines from three-quarter to two Inch (3/4' to 2') shall be copper tubing from the corporation stop to the curb stop. Copper tubing shall be type 'K', wft temper, conforming to ASTM BBB. The name or trademark of the manufacturer and type shall be stamped at regular Intervals along the pipe. Copper eeMca pipe shall be one pkce from the corporation to the curb stop. The minimum service for a eIngls-fomlly residence shall be three-quarter Inch (3/4'). The minimum service for a duplex Mall be one Inch (1'). C. Corporation. shall be Cambridge Braga No -Lead brass or Red Head Manufacturing bran 4381 or Department approved equal and manufactured in accordance with AWWA COW. Corporation. shall haw AWWA standard threads at the Inlet and a onpresalon type fitting at the Outlet. Both Inlet and Outlet shall be the acme size. Threo-quarts Inch and me -Inch corporations shall be directly topped Into ductile Irm pipe siz Inches (6') and larger In diameter. Longer size corporation, up to two Inches (2') shall ass a tapping saddle. Pipe less thin *I, Inches (6') Mall require the use of a lapping coddle and corporation. Corporation. shall be used for all tape up to two Inches (2m). in no Instance, except when a tapping eleew and vow we used, shall a tap be mode without a corporation. A connection made to a pipe that requires a tapping wddle or Is not ductile iron will have a body with a suitable outlet, seal, and sultable mean. for attachment to the main. The body shall be made to conform to the outside conflguratlon of the main. The wince saddle shall be designed to provide a drip tight nectian. The body shall be Teflon or Epoxy coated with atatnlesa steel etrop(s), bolts, nuts, and mechanism for attaching to the pipe barrel. D. Curb stops shall be a quarter turn plug type calve with an c-ring type seal and manufactured of Cambridge Bross No -Lead braes or Red Head Manufacturing SB approved or Department approtl equal In accordance with AWNA CSOO. The curb stop shall open left, haw a positive atop, and be of the tee design or flat design. No curb stop shall haw the ability to drain the 9"ce line. Both the Inlet nd outlet of the curb stop sholl haw compression type fittings. Tha tee head of the curb atop shall haw the provision for the connection of a service rod. The curb atop shall rest an a four Inch by eight Inch by sixteen -Inch (4' x 8' x 16') concrete block far support. Curb stops shall be Installed Just Inside the munbipdity R.O.W. E. Curb boxes shall be of sliding adjustable type capable of adjusting from five feet to six fest (5' - 5). The base of the box shall be arch typo so as to prevent the box from resting on the curb stop. The adjustable upper notion shall be one Inch (1') diameter for use with 3/4' and i' curb stops For larger curb stops the upper section shall be 1 1/4' In diameter. Stationary rods affixed to the key of the curb stop with a Dross pin shall be thirty Inches (30') in length for 3/4' and 1' curb stop* and twenty-four inches (24') far large curb stops Curb box rods shall be stainless at". The ward 'WATER' shall be inscribed on the cover of the box. The cover of the box shall have countersunk bran pentagon plug for paved or concrete area.. and stmdwd two holes for grass we Curb box coupling. and extmaims will be the same material as the curb box. Both cow and upper section of the box shall be able to be located with an aqua type metal locator. F. All service connections shall be Installed to the curb stop for all building lots before the street Is powd. 2.13 BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES A. No water service connection shall be approved or maintained by the CWD Retail Department. the City of South Burlington an the Village of Jericho union the water supply is protected as required by State Iowa, regulations and ordinances The type of protective device shell depend on the degree of hazard that exists. In general, backflow, devlcw designed to protect potable wets supplies h acc-donce with national plumbing codes for on -health hazard moss connections d continuous pressure applications shall be used, i.e. Watt. Series 007 or approved equal. Watt, Sines 709 Double Check Valor Assembly or approved equal shall be installed on all sprinkler systems. A shop drowng detail assembly showing bockflow devices and ter placements shall be required by the CND Retail Superintendent. 2.14 ROCK EXCAVATION A. Arms of known or suspected ledge may require subsurface Investigation to determine its extent prim to job commencemmt. at the contractor'. expense. A pre -blast survey shall be required prior to blasting. B. Rock Mall be excavated, when encountered, to the lines and grades Indicated on the drawings or as directed by the CWD Retail Supslntend-L Excavated material sholl be disposed of and acceptable material Mall be furnished for backfill In the space voided by the excavated rock. C. Rock In pipe trenches shall be excavated to a depth not lees than six Inches (6') lower than the bottom of the installed pipe. When w specified or Indicated. m when laying the pipe In an excavated rock arm, the trench shall be backfllled with satisfactory material listed and approved under Pipe Bedding. D. Blasting shall be in full compliance with all State and Federal Iowa and local ordinances Take oil possible care to amid Injury to persona and damage to property. The rock Is to be well -ed with blasting mats and sufficient warning glean to all re permms In the vicinity of the work befoblasting. Care shall be taken to avoid damages to utilitim or other structures above and below ground. E. No blasting will be permitted under or adjacent to any street, rood, or highway union permission has been received in writing by the authority having jurisdiction. F. Conform to all municipal, State, Federal and other ordinances and codes relating to the storage and handling of exploslves. Particular attention le called to adherence of requirements of the electric, go and other utilities that may be located In the project area. G. Damages and cost of whatever nature resulting from blasting operation. hall be borne solely by the contractor. H. If rock below grade is shattered by blasting, caused by holes drllled ton deep, Or too heavy charges of explosives, an y other ciroumstance due to blasting, and If such shattered rock does not provide suitable foundation, the rode shall be removed and the awtion refilled with acceptable material by and at the .P..of the contractor. 2.15 PIPE BEDDING A. Water lines shall be laid and maintained on lines and grades mtablishad by the plans for the project. Pipeline trenches shall be excavated to the width and depths shown an the plan typical.. Pipeline trenches In which pipe is to be laid directly on the trench bottom shall not be excavated entirely by machinery, but shall be finally excavated by hand tools such that the trench shall haw a bottom shaped to support the pipe throughout its entire length by firm and undisturbed material. Pipeline trenches, for which bedding is required, may be excavated to the required depths using machinery. No pipe shall be laid directly w ledge, hard shale or a wry compact glacial till. When an unstable trench bottom Is encmntwed and the CWD Retail Superintendent determine. that It cannot support the pipe adequately, an additional depth shall be excavated and refilled to the pipe Invert with approved material at the contractor'. expense. Pipeline trenches Mall be dry during the laying of pipe. Wood supports seder pipe shall be removed prior to backfllIng. Pipeline inatallatim procedures can be found In AWWA Standard C800. B. Bedding material shall conslat of crushed an natural stone conforming to ASTM D2321. Slew Percent Passing 1' Scram 100% 3/4' Screen 100% 1/2' 90 - 100% 3/8' Screen 40 - 70% No. 4 Sieve 0 - 15% C. Bedding and blanket material shot be Close II material (ASTM D2321) consisting of clean, granular material (send), partide size limit. described as follows Slow Percent Passing No. 4 100% No. 100 30% No. 200 12% 2.16 PIPEUNE INSULATION A. Approved waterlines with leas then flw feet (5) of cower own the womr, that crow a storm w r where Indicated on the plane, shall be protected against freezing by the installation of four Inch (4') thick highest awllable density extruded polystyrene Insulating sheets or eq.I.I.t. Shewts shall be the total width of the trench, for a typical four foot (4') trench. The Mesta shall be placed el. Inches (6') above the crown after placement of four to six Inches (4' - 8') of clean medium an coarse and below the pipe bottom and four to of, Inches (4' - 6') above the mown. Joint. shall be overlapped - there le no gap that will allow frost to penetrate. Core *hall be exercised during backfill and compaction owl, the polystyrene sheets to prevent damage to the ghosts. The pdywtyrw sheets shall meet the comprehensive strength requirements of ASTM D1621-73. In no cases shall the wat dine haw lees than four Ml (4') of cower over the top of the pipe. 2.17 POLYETHYLENE PIPE ENCASEMENT A. Polyethylene pipe encasement may be required In weas of corrosive sole and shall conform to current ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5 Specifications. Minimum material requirements for the pnlyethytma flm shall be high den*Ity, was. laminated virgin pdyethylme 4 mil film. The CWb Retail Superintendent serves th. right to specify Polyethylene Dip., C-900, In area. of c oolve wile. B. The polyethylene encasement shall prevent contact between the pipe or fittings and the surrounding backfill and bedding material and shall be Installed as outlined In Section 4.1 of the above ANSI/AWWA mt.d.rd. 2.18 AIR RELEASE VALVES A. Air releaes wawa shall automatically release rndl pockets of air as they accumulate at local high paints within the diamButim system and be provided at required locations as shown m drawings. Air releon wlvee shall be designed to open positively and vent air to the atmosphere at system per rare up to the moximum working pressure as required by the venting wifice elze. Valve shall haw a at.[,$... elect goat and stainless steel or bronze trim. A brass gate valve m ball valve Moll be provided In the conneMlg pipe ahead of the valve. Valves shall be APCO No. 200 A or approved equal. Orifice Mall be 3/16' and valve. Isolating whve, and connection piping Mall be one Inch (1') union Otherwise specified. Automatic air relief valves Mal not be used In situations where flooding of the access -way an chamber may Occur. All air release whom shall conform to ANSI/AWWA C512 and be installed according to the VT Water Supply Rule, A-8.4. 2.19 AIR RELEASE MANHOLES A. Precawt manholes shall conform to ASTM Designation C478 and meet the following odditlwal requirements: 1. The wall thickneas shall not be less than five Inches (5'). 2. Sectlane shall haw tongue and groom Joints with butyl mastic rope Installed between sections. 3. Drain". from the manhole shall be designed to run to daylight when.- possible. 4. Top sections shall be eccentric except that the concentric flat top smtlons Mall be used where shallow co- requires top .action less than three feet deep. 5. Precast boas., coat -In -place bows, or precool boom Integral with base emtims may be used. Precast bases and cost -In - place sh bases all be eight Inches (B') thick. 6. Cement Mall be Type II Portland Cement, conforming to ASTM Designation C150. 7. Manhole ladder rungs sholl be aluminum alloy 6061-T6 in mcaordance with ASTM designation 8221, by Aluminum Company of America w Washington Aluminum Company or equal, conforming to Washington Aluminum Company Mad T-14-OR. Runge shall be at In pretest sections during costing of section or grouted with a non -shrink grout Plastic cmted sled loader rungs secured In the walls of the precast structure *hall also be acceptable. 8. Brick or masonry *hall not be used to rates the manhole frame to groom In roadways. 9. All eection. Moll be -red by an approved method. Section. Mall not be shipped or manhole rungs subjected to loading until the concrete has attained a compress SITE ENGINEER: C CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INCJ 10 MANSFIELD WEW LANE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05M 802­ FAx: -saran -: eww.aw.t.can DRAM ACL CR@ . A A SAV2B APPROy.D efer.TGe SAV rorM PROJECT: SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT SPECIFICATIONSI aen AUG., 2010 a - NONE PROD. NO. 02250 C7.2 SECTION 02725 - DRAINAGE PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A Section Indudea: 1. Drainage pipe and appurtenances. 2. Drainage structures. B. Related Sections: 1. Section 02225 - Utility Trenching and Boak191ing 1.02 SUBMITTALS A. ManufactunW. technical data for. i. Pipe and appurtenances. 2. Structures. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A. Furnish ells, tees, reducing less, wyes, couplings, Increasers, crosses, tron.lUons and and cps of the acme type and dace of material as the conduit, or of material having equal a superior physical and chemical properties as acceptable to the Engineer. 2.02 DRAINAGE PIPE AND PERFORATED PIPE A If the Contract Plans do not specify a particular type of pipe, at the Contractor's option, the following materials may be used: 1. Pelyrinyi Chloride Plpa conforming to ASTM Specification D3034 or F879, (PVC) rear pipe and fittings SDR 35. Z Corrugated Polyethylene pipe and fittings (smooth Interior) meeting the requirements of AASHTO M-294 and M-252. 2.03 CONCRETE STRUCTURES A. ASTM C478, sized as Molested. 2.04 METAL ACCESSORIES A. Manhole frames and cowro: 1. Grey cast Iron, ASTM A48, as shown on plans. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 INSPECTION A. Examine the area. and conditions under which Norm racer system work Is to be installed and notify the Engineer in writing of conditions detrimental to the proper and timely completion of the work. Do not proceed with the work until unsatisfactory conditions haw been corrected. 3.02 GENERAL A. When existing underground utilities, which are not scheduled for removalor abandonment, are encountered In the excavation, they Mall be adequately supported and protected from damage. Any damage to utilities shall be repaired promptly at no additional cost to the Owner. 3.03 PREPARATION A. Hand trim excavation (where necessary) to required elevations. Cannot over-"cowtlons with fill material. B. The slopes shall be graded to match the grade as shown an the plans. Whom required, and sections Mall be placed and backflllad to prevent undermining. C. Remove large stones or other hard matter which could damage drainage structures or Impede consistent backfMing or compaction. 3.G4 INSTALLATION OF PIPE A. Pipe shall be Installed In accordance with Section 02225 - Utglty Trenching and Bodoni ing. 3.05 INSTALLATION OF DRAINAGE STRUCTURES A. Precast cohaete structures: 1. Place precast concrete etructurm and covers a. shown an the Contract Plans 2. Where manholes occur In pavement, set tops of frames and town flush with finish surface. 3. Provide rubber pint gasket complying with ASTM C443. 3.00 INSTALLATION OF STONE FILL A. Place None fill on shown on Contract Plans. SECTION 02730 - SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section indudee: 1. Gravity Sawer Pipe 2, Manhole Structures and Appurtenances B. Related Sections: 1. Section 02225 - Utility Trenching and BackfMing 1.02 SUBMITTALS A. Product Data: Submit published data from manufacturers of product. and acasa-le. specified, Indicating compliance with nowt menu. 1.03 QUALITY ASSURANCE A AN maritary wear materials and constuction of same hull be as shown an the Contract Plans and shall meet the requirement. of the State of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (Department of Environmental Conservation) and the Public Wake Standard. and Spwlflcotions of the local municipality. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 GENERAL A. Furnish ells, tees, reducing tar, wyes. couplings. Increasers, crosses, transitions and and cps of the same type and class of material as the conduit, or of material having equal or superior physical and chemical properties as acceptable to the Engineer to provide a complete and perable system. 2.02 PVC GRAVITY SANITARY SEWER PIPE A. PVC sewer pipe shall conform in all respect. to the latest revision of ASTM S edflcations 0-3034 or F679, Type Pod Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Sever Pipe and Fittings, SDR 35 pipe. All pipe and fittings shall be clearly marked as follows: - Manufacturer'. Name and Trademark - Nominal Pipe Size (as shown an plans) - Material Designation 12454-C PVC - Legend 'Type PSM SOR 35 PVC Sewer Pipe' a PS 48 PVC Saver Pipe' - Designation ASTM D-3034 a F679 B. Joints shall be push -on type using elostomerlc gasket. and Mall conform to ASTM 0-3212. The gaskets shall be factory sh Installed. The pips all be fumlehad In nominal 13 foot lengths. Sufficient numbers of Mort length. and full machine fittings shall be provided for use at manholes and connections. All cwnectlona will require the use of manufactured fittings. Field fabricated, saddle -type connections will not be cansidered acceptable, 2.G4 MANHOLES A. Manholes shall be sized as Indicated on the plan and shall be precast concrete with a mnollthic base and shall conform to the latest version of ASTM Specification C478. B. Shelves shall be constructed with concrete having a minimum ompre.elw strength of 3,000 psi at 28 days. Inverts for manholes sholl be a. shown an the plane and details and .h.11 be enstmcted with concrete or brick, as per the local municipality's standard.. Inverts shall haw the ...at shop. of the saver to which they are connected. and any change In size of direction shall be gradual and even. C. All monhoes are to be provided with copolymer polypropylene plastic steps with Ned reinforcement 12 inches on center. D. All manholes shall be provided with rough, gray, cast Iron manhole fumes and coven. All Dan castings shall be thacughly cleaned and than tooted with hot to before being delivered. Frans antl cowsa Mall be LeBaron LC 266, a on approved equal, and haw a minimum weight of 400 pounds E. Precast risers and bases for manholee Moll conform to ASTM Specificotlon C-478. The pipe opening In the precast manhole system shall haw a cast -In -place flexible gasket or an equivalent system for pipe Installation as approved by the Engineer. Joints between manhole risen shall be 1 minimum width fles@le gasket a approved equals. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 GENERAL A. Core sholl be exercised by the Contractor to avoid disrupting the operation of existing monitory sewn Mclltles without prior written approval of the Engineer. B. When existing underground utilities not scheduled for removal or abandonment we encountered In the excavation, they shall be adequately supported and protected from damage. Any damage to utilities shall be repaired promptly at no additional at to the Own.. C. Installation of pipe shall be In accordance with Section 02225 - Utility Trenching and Backfllling and as specified by this -tin. 3.02 BEDDING FOR PIPE A. The bedding material Mall be Moped to fit the pipe for a depth of not laws than 10 percent of Its total height and .hall haw -a.- to receive the bell. 3.03 LAYING PIPE A. In general, se a pipe shall be installed in accordance with the latest detailed Instruction. of the manufacturer. B. The laying shall begin at the outlet and and the lore segment of the pips shall be In contact with the Moped bedding throughout Its full length. Ball or grooved ends of rigld p1pom and the circumferential lops of fl-lbls pipe Mall be placed facing upstream. C. All pipe and fittings Mall be carefully examined for defects and no pipe or fitting. Mall be laid which are known to be detective. If any defective piece Is discovered after laying, It Mall be removed and replaced at the Contractors e,penee. All pipes and fittings Mall be cleaned before they are laid and shall be kept dean and accepted In the completed work. D. The pipe Mall be laid to conform to the lines and grades Indicated an the drawing. a given by the Engineer. Each pipe Mall be w laid as to form a dose pint with the next adpining pipe and to bring the Inverts continuously to the required grade. E. The Contractor Mall take all necessary precautions to prevent flotation of the pipe In the trench. F. When pipe laying Is not In program, the open ends of the pipe Mall be claimed with temporary watertight plugs. If water is in the trench when work Is resumed, the plug Mall not be removed until all danger of water entering the pipe le eliminated. 3.04 GRAVITY SEWER PIPE TESTING A. The Contractor Mall provide all necessary equipment and Instrumentation required fa m proper completion of the flushing and testing. Quality of water, test procedures, and method of disposal of water Mall be approved by the Engineer. Prior to testing, flush with water to remove construction debris. B. AI test. Mall be made In the presence of the Engineer. Preliminary testa made by the Contractor without being observed by the Engineer WIN not be accepted. The Engh- will be notified at twat eight hcun before any work is to be inspected or tested. C. The maximum sewer length to be tested at one time Mall be that length between any two manhol". D. Air Testing: Low pressure air testing shall be conducted in accordance with the following procedures: 1. Each and of the teat section shall be plugged, capped and braced. Necessary safety precautions shall be taken to prevent blowout. and possible Inyry. 2. An air hose shall be connected to a tapped plug used for an air inlet. The hose will be connected to the air control equipment, which shall Include valves and pressure gauge.. These Mall allow air to enter the new lest line, monitor air pressure In the sewer, shut off air, and provide pressure reduction and relief. Thor monitoring pressure gauge Mall haw a range of 0-10 psi with dM.lons of 0.10 psi and accuracy of 0.05 pel3. 3. The air compressor and air supply Mall be connected to the test line and the toot section filled slowly. until constant pressure of 4.0 ping I. maintained. 4. A pressure above 3.0 psig Mall be maintained fw at I~ five minutes to allow the temperature to stabilize. A check for lack. Mall be made and If any are found, the pmsaum Mall be released and the fitting replaced or repaired. 5. After the stabilization period, the pr.-ra Mall be adjusted to 3.5 psig and the air supply diecannected. 6. Measure and r-rd the time interval far the lest line pressure to drop from 3.5 psig to 2.5 pslq. 7. If the groundwater table is above the pipe, Increase above test pressures 0.5 psig for each foot the groundwater is above the Invert of the pipe. 8. The requirement. of thin specification Mall be anWdered wtlafind if the time required In secandle for the pressure to d--. horn 3.5 to 2.5 psi great. than the average back pressure of any groundwater that may submerge the pipe I. not Ire than that computed according to the following table: Minimum Test Time fa Varlcua Pipe Sizes Diameter (Inch") Time (Sea./100 Ft.) 4 18 8 45 8 75 10 90 12 110 Minimum Test Period - 1 minute 3.05 MANHOLES A. The excavation Moll be to the depth Indicated on the pins or ordered by the Engineer, and carefully shaped and graded. B. Manhole sections Mall be precast concrete and Mall conform to the dimensions Indicated an the pions w ordered by the Engineer. C. Channels, Inverts and floor areas fa "cur manholes Mall be constructed of brick and mwtw or concrete_ Invests Mall have the "act Mute of the firer to which they we connected and my change In size or direction Mall be gradual and own. All construction of sewer manholes must be carried cut to Insure watertight work. D. The required courses of brick shall be placed on top of the concrete to the elevation indicated on the plans or ordered by the Engineer. Brick shall be laid in an appropriate manor by a competent mash. Aster the bricks ore laid, the pints on the Inside of the brick maawry Mall be -Ily pointed. The outside surface of the brick Mall be covered with mortar of the same quality as used for laying the bricks mo that a rem -ably smooth surface Is obtained. E. The cast Iron frame shall be set as indicated on the plane In a full mortar bed. The grade or cow shall be property placed in the from. 3.06 MANHOLE TESTING A Manholes Mall be tested separately by one of the following two procedures: 1. Exflltratlon Leakage Test: All pipes and other openings Into the manhole Mall be suitably plugged and the plugs braced to prevent blowout. The manhole Mall than be filled with water to the top of the cone section. A period of time may be permitted, if the Contractor w wishes, to allow for absorption. At the and of this period, the manhole shall be refilled to the top of the cone, If necessary, and the measuring time of at least four houro begun. At the and of the test Period, the manhole shall be refilled to the top of the cans measuring the volume of water added. This amount shall be converted to gallon. par vertical foot depth tar 24 hours The leakage for each manhole shall not exceed one gallon/vertical foot/day. If leakage .....do the allowable rate, repairs Mall be made as approved by the Engineer and the manhole retested. If the Contractor slects to baddgl prior to testing, the testing shall be at his own risk, and it shall be Incumbent upon the Contractor to determine the reason for any failure of the test. No adjustment In the leakage allowance will be mode far unknown co such as leaking plugs, absorption, etc It will be assumed that all loan of water during the test Is o result of leaks through the pints or through the concrete. Furthermore, the Contractor shall take any steps necessary to assure the Engineer that the water table 1. below the bottom of the manhole throughout the toot. 2. Vacuum Test: This method of testing manholes for leakage Involves the use of a device for sealing the top of the manhole cone section and pumping the air out of the manhole, creating a vacuum and holding this vacuum for a pr"cr@ed period of time. The procedure for this test 1. an follow.: All Iifting holes and exterior pint. Mall be filled and pointed with on approved non -shrinking mortar. The completed manhole shall not be badtfilled prior to testing. Manhole which haw been bockf0led shall be excavated to expose the entire exterior prior to vacuum testing or the manhole shall be tested for leakage by moons of the "flltratlon Ieakoge teat. b. At pipes and other openings into the manhole shall be suitably plugged In a manner to prevent dlplacemwt. c. A plate with an Inflatable rubber ring the size of the top of the manhole shall be Installed by Inflating the ring with air to pressure adequate to prevent leakage of air between the rubber ring and the manhole wall. d. Air shall than be pumped out of the manhole through on opening In the plate until a vacuum Is created Inside of the manhole equal to 10Inches of mercury an n approved vacuum gauge. The removal of air shall then be stepped and the test begun. a. The manhole shall pass this test If the vacuum held. at 10" Hg or drops no lower than 9" Hg within the f.11-Ing times: Time Depth of 4' Manhole Minute. Secnde 0'- 10, 2 0 10, - 15' 2 30 15' - 20' 3 0 2W - 25' 3 30 f. If the vacuum drop exceeds 1' Hg during the specified time periods, the manhole shall be .sled and Steps 2 through 5 above repeated until the vacuum holds for the specified time. g. After the manhole posses the vacuum test. It shall be backfilled carefully so that no leaks are created. If the manhole Is disturbed In any way during backfill, It shall again be vacuum tested according to Steps 1 through 5 above. If the manhole fail. the vacuum test, the Contractor shall test the manhole using the manhole exfiltratlon test. h. The Contractor shall provide the Engineer with a written log of each manhole leakage toot result. 1. Manholes Mall be tested and accepted prior to building manhole Inverts. SECTION 02021 - LANDSCAPE GRADING PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section Includes: 1. Finish grading; bring rough grade In areas to design elevallona sue shown on the drawings. 2. Topsoil: Work shall conslst of fuml.hing, placing and shaping tpeoll, a placing, eprwding, and @hoping topsoil form eta kpil- or stripped areas. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 TOPSOIL A. On -site topsoil shall be natural surface layers of soil etrlppV V. grubbed. stockpiled, and conditioned, If ry, fa use in lopselling and seeding operations. Additional topsoil shall be brought In from off -site at the ,ww'sexpense fa areas lacking sufficient topsoil to support vigorous plantgrowth. B. Topsoil shall be loose, friable, reasonably free of admixtures of subsoil, free from refuses, stumps, roots, brush, weeds, rocks, and atones 1 1/4 inch In overall dbnendons. The topsail Mall den be fr- from any material that will prevent the formation of a suitable seedbed or Prevent seed germination and plant growth. It shall contain not Isms than three (3) nor more than twenty (20) percent ron agonic matter as determined by fo-- Ignition of own -dried samples drawn by the Engineer. Any material which has become mixed with undue amounts of subeal during any operation at the source or during placing o spreading will be rejected and shall be replaced by the Contractor with acceptable material. C. Topsail Mall .-.let of sandy loom, loam or slit loam with the following maximum proportions of materials as determined by slaw analysis or inspectlon, 30-50 slit: 0-20 day, and shall be dark brown In color when dry. D. Borrow Topsoil: Provide name of source. Each source of borrow topeoll shall be noturd surface w9 from well drained areas. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 SUBGRADE PREPARATION A. Clean subgrade of all stumps, stones, roots, trash a other materials which might hinder proper tillage or spreading. B. All surfaces an which topsoil Is to be placed shall be graded to a reasonably true surface and mcarlfied by raking, di- cing a other approved memo to a minimum depth of two Inches before placing topsoil.• C. All traaw and plantings to be placed a minimum of 5' away from all underground utilities. 3.03 PLACING TOPSOIL A. Minimum final depth of topsoil shall be 4 Inches. B. Place topsoil when ..Whg operations can doady follow prodding operatlns Use topadl In relatively dry state. C. Topsoil shall be spread and shaped to the lines and grades .haven an the plans or as directed by the Engineer. The depth stated In the contract to which the topsoil Is to be placed Is that required after find rolling of the material has taken place. All stones, rests and debris over 1 1/4 Inch In diameter along with any sodding weeds and other undesirobla material shall be removed. SITE ENGINEER: D. After Muting and grading, all trucks and other equipment r shill be exduded from the topwiled area to prevent excessive compaction. The Contractor shall perform much - E work as required to provide o Mabie surface for seed germination and plant growth prior to seeding. E It Mall De the Contractor'. repona@ility to reatore to the iine, grade and surface all eroded weas with approved material and to keep topwllad owe in acceptable condition until the completion of the work. SECTION 02936 - PERMANENT SEEDING PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section Includes: 1. Furnishing all labor, materials, and equipment to complete all seeding work as shown an the drawings and pacified herein. 2. Except where otherwise shown or specified, the Contractor Mall seed all area. where new contours are shown an the drawings and all or... where existing ground cover has been disturbed by the Contractor's operation.. B. All work and materials of this Section shall conform to the applicable requirements of the VAOT Standard Specifications, Division 600. 1.02 SUBMITTALS A. Provide the following fa approval prior to delivery to the site: 1. Suppller's Certificate of Compliance attesting that lime. fertilizer and seed meet the requlremrts specified. 2. The Contractor shall provide representative topsoil samples for testing and approval, deliver samples to a public extension service agency testing laboratory, haw testing report sent directly to the Landscape Architect and pay all costs. Testing shall report onmechanical and chemical (pH aduble salts) analysle. Report shall be submitted at least one month before any looming Is to be done. 1.03 SEEDING SEASONS A. Seeding and Initial fertilizing shall be done between May let and September 15th, unions otherwir authorized. Seeding shall not be done during windy weather or when the ground Is frozen, excessively wet. or otherwise untlllable. If seeding I. done during July or Augusl, additional mulch material may be required by the Engineer. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 LIME A. Lime shall be stondard, ground dolomite limestone. agricultural grade, containing a minimum of 95X of calcium and magnesium carbonates. 100% shall par the 10 mesh sieve: minimum BOX Mall pass the 20 mesh slew; minimum 40% shall pa.s the 100 mesh slew. 2.02 FERTIUZER A. Fertilizer shall be comm erclal grade granular fertilizer as required for mail condio' ne as specified In SwUon 643 of the VAOT Standard Specifications. The fertilizer shall be delivered to the project In new, clean, .soled containers which Dear a label Tully describing the contents, the chemical analyst. of each nutrient, the fertilizer grade, the net bulk, the brand and the name and address of the anufacturw. The fertilizer and labels shall conform to all existing State and Federal regulations, and shall most the standards of the As-lalion of Official Agricultural Chemists. 2.03 GRASS SEED A. Provide fresh, dean, new -mop seed of the grass speaks, proportions and minimum parcrtags of purity, germination and maximum peroentage of weed seed as follows, 1. Park seed shall normally be used an loom areas. This aced mixture shall conform to the following table: Minimum Minknum Kind of Seed Purity Germination Lb./Acre Creeping Red Fescue 96% 85% 40 Perennial Ryegrar 98% 90x 50 Kentucky Bluegrass 97% 85X 25 Redlp 95X Box 5 TOTAL - 120 2. Slope owed shall normally be used fa all slope work, usually 3:1 or steeper and shall conform to the following table: Minimum Minimum Kind of Send Purity Germination Lb./Acre Creeping Red Fescue 96x 85% 35 Perennial Ryegras 98X 90x 30 Redtop 95% Box 5 Smooth Bromegrow 96% 05X 10 TOTAL = 80 B. sh The sand mixture all be deliveIn new, ean, ed containers. Labels and ententered dslshall conform to all State and Federal regulations Seed shall be subject to the testing provialona of the Association of Official Seed Analysts Mixm containing Sweet Clover, White Clover, or Blydfeat Trifoil Mall not be used. C. Seed that has became wet, moldy, or otherwise damaged will be m)wted. 2.04 MULCH A. Mulch must be Installed an all seeded areas, The following mulches are acceptable for use. 1. Hay mulch free of weeds and eacrse matter at a rate of 90 pounds par 1.000 square feet 2. Wood fiber applied in a slurry (1/6' or longer) at a rate of 40 pounds par 1.000 square tact. 2.05 WATER A. All water used shall be obtained from fresh water sources and shall be free from Injurious chemical and other toxic substances harmful to plant life. No water which Is brackish will be permitted at any time. The Contractor shall Identify to the Engineer all women of water at least two weeks prior to use. The Engineer, at his diecretlon, may take samples of the water at the sou a from the tank at any time and haw a laboratory test the samples for chemical and saline content The Contractor shall not use any water from any ewers which is disapproved by the Engineer following much torts. CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. 1OW 14RELD VIEW LANE, SOUTHBURLINGTON, VT 05403 eozea-2aza FAx: 802-421, woo: www.cmw.ma, nRAwn � ACL ykrrp A k CBBC® k l� A SAV /J22e APPRawD f'wfmTte SAV PROJECT: SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT REVISION 12-90-10 Mr/1CL pey196D aPECm1GT1aN8 SPECIFICATIONS 1 AUG., 2010 NONE 012 0 C7.3 2.06 HERBICIDES A. A pre -emergence herbicide, siduron (tuper.an), shall be applied to the finished topsoil if seeding Is to occur prim to June 1. This type of herbicide is effective against germinating seeds - it kills the plant. before they emerge to the soil surface. More Importantly, It does not interfere with the germination of coal season grasses such as Kentucky Bluegrass and C-26 Hard Fescue. Contact Englneer prior to application. B. Application: Contractor shall use extracare In handling. Siduren, commonly known as 'tuperw n. , shall be applied at the manufacturer's recommended rate. 2.07 FINAL FERTILIZER A. 'Uramite or 'Nltroform containing 38% nitrogen in a slow ,.I-- fans. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 PREPARATION A. Examine finish surface. and grades. Do not start seeding work unto unsatlafactory conditions ar. netted. Perform seeding work only after planting and other work affecting ground surface has been completed. B. Notify Landscape Architect at least seven (7) working day. prior to starting needing. C Prepare areas Immediately prior to weeding as follows: 1. Loosen sell of mad area. to a minimum depth of 4'. 2. Remove stones over 1' In any diameter and sticks, roots, rubbish and extraneous matter. 3. Remove existing weeds and grasses by pulling or tilling under. 4. Grade areas to be weeded to a smooth, free draining even surface with a loose, moderately come, texture. 5. Remove ridges and fill depreselona as required to drain. 6. Restore prepared area. If eroded or disturbed prior to ...ding. 3.02 SEEDING CONDITIONS A. Seeding .hall not be done when the ground is frozen, snow cared, muddy, or In any other u eatlafactmy condition' planting. No weeding operations shall be conducted under wea ther ather conditions or when sell moisture condition. are unfavorable (too wet or too dry) or when wind. exceed 5 MPH. B. Construction methods Mall be them satabllshed as agronomically acceptable and feasible. The Contractor Mall keep all equipment and vehicular end pedestrian traffic off was that have been .ceded to prevent ex Ive compaction and damage to young plants. Nfiere such compaction has occued. the Contractor shall rework the soli to make a suitable seed bed; then reseed and mulch such areaswith the full amount. of the specified materials, at no extra expense to the Owner. C. Surface and seepage water Mould be drained or diverted from the site to prevent drowning or winter killing of the plants. D. All area, and parts of arsoe which fall to Mow a uniform et and of grass for any reason whatsoever Moll be reseeded, and such grace and part. of areas shall be aesded repeatedly unto all arece are covered with a satisfactory growth of grass. E. Watering Is considered a necessary element for establishment and servlval. F. Where ryegras. has been planted for temporary erosion emir and and has not been eliminated prior to the completion of the work, such or-. .hail be all -al at least 3 Inches deep and weeded to permanent grasses to prevent the rysgra.s from reseeding and becoming competitive with and retarding development of the permanent cover. 3.03 SEEDING A. Lime and fertilizer should be applied prior to or at the time of seeding and Incorporated Into the coo. Kinds and amounts of Ilme and fertill.. Mould be based on an evaluation of Boll testa. When a son test Is not ovalleble, the following minimum amounts Mould be applied: Agricultural limestone, 2 tons per acre or 100 Has. per 1.000 square feet. Nitrogen (N), 50 Ibs. per acre or 1.1 Has. per 1,000 square feel. Phosphate (P205), 100 It.. per acre or 2.2 Ibs. per 1,000 square feet. Potato (K20), 100 Has. per am. or 2.2 lb.. per 1,000 square feet. (Note: This Is the equivalent of 500 It. per core of 10- 20-20 fertilizer or 1,000 lbw. per acre 5-10-10). B. Seed Mould be spread uniformly by the method most appropriate for the site. Methods Include broadcasting and hydroaeeding as follows: 1. Broadcasting: Sow seed using mechanical spreader at a rate of 4 lb./1,000 square feet. Distribute sees verily over entire area by sowing equal quantity in tow directions at right angles to each other. Rake owed lightly Into top 1/8' of topsoil, roll lightly and water with o one spray. 2. Hydroseeding: Mix specified weed, fertilize and pulverize mulch in water, using equipment specifically designed for hyd..... d application. Continue mixing until uniformly blended Into homogenous curry suitable far hydraulic application. Apply Wurry uniformly to all areas to be weeded. Rate of application as required to obtain specified seed Bowing rate. 3. Hydraulic application of seed will not be allowed within 200 feet of the detention pond. 3.04 MULCHING A. Mulch materials shall be spread uniformly by hand or machine at a rate of two 50 Ib. bales per 1,D00 square feet. B. Organic Mulch Anchoring - Straw or hay mulch must be anchored Immediately after spreading to prevent wind blowing. 3.05 MAINTENANCE A. The maintenance period shall begin Immediately after seeding and shall continue until acceptance. B. All mulches must be Inspected periodically, In particular after r.1mitorm . to check for rill erosion. Where erosion le observed, additional mulch shall be applied. Net should be Inspected after raMatorme far dielocalion or failure. If washout. or breakage occur, reinstall net as necessary after repairing damage to the elope. Inspection. should take place until grosses are firmly established. Grasses .hall not be considered established until a ground cover Is achieved which Is mature enough to control soil erosion end to survive severe weamer conditions. Where mulch Is used In conjunction with ornamental planting% Inspect periodically throughout the year to determine If mulch Is maintaining coverage of the soil surface; repair an needed. C. Seeding areas shall be protected and maintained by watering, reseeding, mowing, weeding, rolling, Insect or disease control measures, re-fertmzing and repair of washouts which are necessary. C. The Contractor shot maintain all seeded areas until full vegetation Is established. D. All seeded areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris, such as stones, cables, baling wire, and all Mopes 4:1 or lee. (flatter) and level turf shall be mowed In the following manner: 1. When grass reaches a height of 4-6% mow to a height of 3'. 2. At least two cuttings shall be made prior to final acceptance. E. Following mowing, oil permanent seeding grace areas (mowed and unmowed) shall receive a uniform application of Mow releoae ferttllzer hydraulically placed at the rota of 10 pounds per 100 square feet. 3.06 ACCEPTANCE A. Inspection to determine acceptance of weeded arms will be mode by the Landscape Architect, upon Controctm's written request. 1. Provide notification at least ten (10) working days before requested Inspection date. B. Seeded area. will be acceptable provided all Installation and maintenance requirement. haw been complied with and a healthy uniform lows Is established. C. Upon acceptance, the Owner will assume maintenance. 3.07 WARRANTY A. All seeded area. will be warranted for a period of twelve onlha from date of Owner's acceptance. Should any seeded sae fail to maintain full vegetation, failed areas will be refurbished until this specification Is achieved at the cost of the Contractor. Type A Stabllizatlon EcoAegls or approved equal Application Rate 4,000 Iba per acre Composition - Refined wood fiber (90% by weight) Blended hydrocollold-based binder (10% by weight) Water Holding Capacity - 10 times own weight Surface Coverage Thickness - 1/8' to 1/4' Martina North American Crean DS-75 Fully degradable - non -woven Fully bio-degrable pins in mowed areas (lasting 3 to 8 weeks and may require multiple installations) Type B Stabilization t{vdraulieally A -plied Mulch EcoAegla or approved equal Application Rate 3,500 Ibs per acre Composition - Refined wood fiber (90% by weight) Blended hydrocolloid-based binder (10% by weight) Water Holding Capacity - 10 times own weight Surface Coverage Thickness - 1/8' to 1/4' Martina North American Green DS-75 Fully degradable - non -woven Fully bio-degrable pine In mowed areas (lasting 3 to 8 weeks and may require multiple Installations) Type C Stabilization H vdraulically Aoolied Mulch EcoAegis or approved equal Application Rate 3,000 Iba per acre Composition - Refined wood fiber (90% by weight) Blended hydrocolloid-based binder (10% by weight) Water Holding Capacity - 10 times own weight Surface Coverage Thickness - 1/8' to 1/4' Q North American Green DS-75 Fully degradable - non -woven Fully blo-degrable pins in mowed areas (lasting 3 to 8 weeks and may require multiple installations) Type D Stabilization Hvdroulically Aool(ed Mulch Application Rate 1,500 be per acre Composition - Standard wood fiber Blended hydrocolloid-based binder Surface Coverage Thickness - 1/8' to 1/4' North American Green DS-75 Fully degradable - non -woven Fully bio-degrable pins in mowed areas (lasting 3 to 8 weeks and may require multiple installations) SITE ENGINEER: f VE CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. 10MANSREIDVIEW(ANE, SOUTH BURLINGTON. VT 05I03 8 Bse2 1 FAC 6029 4221 wail: wwwoft - DRA.N � ACL yti��E„ar A -c- a r' + A SAV qy + �128 1. at alcsE. PxV fgyHL SAV PROJECT: SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT DATE ­D I R uiv 1-ei-11 9rY/rCL HZVD - P8. RE'Ya;lr COYMl I-LS-11 9\1/LL1 D PIAN P%R COeYQ:T9 SPECIFICATIONS 1 DAIY AUG., 2010 NONE 1. Nil. 02250 C7.4 SITE ENGINEFJt: 'SWIFT ESTATES' SUBDIVISION c CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. P.B. GrabowsM I T. & L. Kleh C. Shand et al k & J. L. Milot M. & M. Scollins Volume 175 Page 163 Volume 405 Pee 72e 0 Mansfield View Lane, Souh Burlington, V 054Q3 Volume 115 Page 523 9 9 IF 802-864-2323 FAX 802-88a2271 webs www.cee-N com Volume 643 Page 287 - r I i �ra,caT r ,,, r anseDveo PLAN REFERENCES: 20 Rac ea"°nel E mean rlf 3/4" IPF S0T33'16"E _ _SOS'31'35"E See Note 9 1.25' Ac ' ""•" A. "PLAT OF BOUNDARY SURVEY - PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE OF 508'03'16"E S07 32 21 E _,I(� _ - - --- - o- -- PJM /JLM ^� 4 33:16 IPF 359.08' �"'' 317.02• J/4" )Pr ILA M. ISHAM" PREPARED BY CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, 268.55' 1/2' IRF Open Space nrcrED INC., LAST REVISED JUNE 30. 1999. 2" IPF 0. 7' AG r.o' Ac I City Of Pa JLM 2.5' AO gp, s Pinnacle @ Spear' Subdivision B. "PLAN OF LAND OF HARRY B. and BERNICE N. CONKLIN" I t'a w/a'eA �U/ll/ - APPnavee PREPARED BY J.M. SINCWR, DATED JULY 1943. ume ; /r h TRC C. "FINAL PLAT FOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY OF GERALD MILOT App� AND JOHN LARKIN" - PINNACLE ® SPEAR (FORMERLY NOWLAND S1"""" MAAdOWS` r Inc. i1 �iQ�`C /Q pHOJECT: TWO), PREPARED BY BUTTON ASSOCIATES, DATED 8/21/1998. - --7 I Lerldn/MIIOf D'•�VE W 1 D. "PLAT SHOWING SURVEY AND SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF Volume 747 Pages 653-B56 PWV*rsh! I P .�� �SPEAR LANDS OF PINNACLE O SPEAR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION", �I' March 31, 2006 Volume 296 Page 630 MEADOWS UVM and State Agricultural College _8 PREPARED BY LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED &BUTTON w '. 22.22�* acres I l I Volume 134 Page 364 n ASSOCIATES, DATED 3/31/1999. 9 _$ a - 0.083 acres to Tarrant E. • SWIFT ESTATES" PREPARED BY WILLIS ENGINEERING, DATED - 0. 16± acres to Franzonl I ,� 9/21/1971, 1 21.98± acres as shown I SPEAR STREET F. "LANDS OF ROBERT AND MARJORIE SKIFF - 3 LOT SUBDIVISION ( SOUTH BURLINGTON PLAT", PREPARED BY LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON CONSULTING 1 1­Faond r-8- Fwne ENGINEERS, INC., DATED 4/21/2002. _ _ 299.53' _ a5' Ac VERMONT N14'23'S93' /p NO3� 53�4 W G. "PLAT OF BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT LANDS U SPEAR MEADOWS, / INC., R.&T. TARRANT, AND D.&C. FRANZONI" PREPARED BY 2 1/2- IPF 79 93 UNDEVELOPED LANDS 1 CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, DATED JANUARY 25, 2011 i0' AO 1340 SPEAR STREET G.N. Farrell / I I 3 Volume 677 Page 402 /3 W I 0.94 ± acres N N13'57'40"E '•']Nloi I �' '� � I� NOTES: z4.4s J/4• IPF (ant) / = W. & M. Gilbert z 10 WIDE PEDEsrnuN PURPOSE 0 5' AC//per\ J 4 IPF o \ 41 / VolumO 209 Page 225 I EASEMENT TO SERVE' D? I� 1. OF SPEAR OME MEADOWS, THIS INC.. OFF GE&FJ BOUNDARIES AND OF LANDS G.N. / / n.M pa"�pt'�`B', NTSgg�S?• 1 YOUNG AND TARR4NT f FARRELL. AFTER A BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT WITH TARRANT AND W /5-IPF Z N 1 ZS` FRANZONI. OTHER PROPERTY LINES SHOWN ARE FOR 1' AG I . I Open Space REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY, ARE NOT A PART OF THIS X SelkM m w I Nt4'34'5a"E J/4' IPF SURVEY, AND ARE NOT EMBRACED BY THE CERTIFICATION K McCoy -Whitten h o I ae 23' - F1oBn r I "Pinnacle @ Spear" Subdivision BELOW. \ Volume846 ' I Page 328 1.z5: IPF n 87'32'23 St a'26'13"W 2. THE PERIMETER BOUNDARY SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITH A o " o.z' AG G. & J. Farrell 65.14' 100. 45' " See reference J/4' IPF •n' v 1n 1 n TOTAL STATION AND A STEEL TAPE BETWEEN FALL 2003 AND AG Volume 142 Page 45 / / IaI1'Ci' WINTER 2004-5. ADDITIONAL SURVEY AT TARRANT/FRANZONI 1902*wSt I g f/ P 8 2.99± acres / 1 ? / I CONDUCTED WINTER 2011. � p ,� I NI 61• 3/4" IPF p 4111 3 BASED ON SOLAR OBSERVATONSBEARINGS SHOWN ARE ED TO MA E NSEPTEMIBER,FR995. TH r.0'Oec n�,n 5193 =W y8QD0, 1350 Spefer Se9ef ���'° I I E N87- 2.23"E I SEE PLAN REFERENCE 'A'. S14.., W / h l I �L 43.87' I I SNFT O 4. SURVEY MARKERS PROPOSED SHALL CONSIST OF 5/8" / I D. & L r-� I �' 2343 , 1 a DIAMETER REBAR WITH ALUMINUM CAPS STAMPED CIVIL I I 31 3Z3,64, 2Young I E:") NIsr 3 <19F-d y SITE ENGINEERING ASSOC.-VTL5597" IRON PIPES FOUND ARE SHOWN WITH INSIDE DIAMETERS. I FIaOkBC MMF a�S4 W� r-6o. r nepilip w I I P. 0.5'Ac Copped)I J/4- ia' OJAC ush 5. SPEAR STREET HAS A RECORD 66 FOOT HIDE RIGHT OF WAY. �., LOCATION HERE DETERMINED BY EXISTING MONUMENTATION AND St. Clair Group, Inc THE TRAVELED PORTION OF THE ROAD. REFERENCE TOWN OF IPFBURL/� I R. & T, 0.5" AO TOWN OF HIGHWAYS AND ROADS 18OLUME 5, PAGE 22 AND No ` \ r-oz AcI r s /PF Tarrant D. & C. I TOWN OF SHELBURNE TOWN MINUTES VOLUME 1, PAGE 229. Vol. 729 Levigrl8 �F 5 Frar120f1I I M. Dencker 6 MUNICIPAL AWATER SERVICE, SERVICES ARE SANITARY SEWER, AVAILABLE TELEPHONE. Rum o.1 nc Volume 471 VPage 3237ELECTEN RD, LINES IC THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM POINTS T THE ORIGIN I L4 /PF J/.- P (co m) (BMf7 ? \ P / Pepe 447 I D1 Muhr Pegs 323 Cdrarlonael THROUGH PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY OR RECORDED EASEMENTS. I5/e" IRF ''QQ SporzynsM LOCATION MAP 7. BEING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS SURVEY, CIVIL ENGINEERING I I o.z'ec I ►DAam218 Not To Scale ASSOCIATES, INC. HAS UNDERTAKEN NO INVESTIGATION I I /� -� I pap 07 WHATSOEVER WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER THE PROPERTY AND EACH COMPONENT THEREOF IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL OR 1 Tea. F d CHECK Dan m STATE PERMITS. (y' ✓!f 1411 3/4' IPF 8. THIS PROPERTY LES IN THE "SOUTHEAST QUADRANT" AND I �r Wllklns 0,7- "DORSET PARK SCENIC PROTECTION - ZONE D" ZONING DISTRICTS. ,� ......�.� IPF (o;sturt4a) p \ -�\ not uase 9. A 60' WIDE EASEMENT AND A 20' WIDE "RECREATIONAL Q # 1421 EASEMENT", BETWEEN VALE DRIVE AND THE SUBJECT 03 O' Yew *1�1 PROPERTY, ARE DEPICTED ON REFERENCE PLAN D, AND ,y1' \ ,p nvan REVISED (AS SHOWN HEREON) ON REFERENCE PLAN C. THE & 1 �p EARLIER ALIGNMENT IS REFERENCED IN AN "IRREVOCABLE LEGEND i / I' IPF FLL OFFER OF DEDICATION" TO THE CITY DATED NOV. 15. 1995 AND 10 AC RE1'LECT eoDnnRECORDED IN VOLUME 428 AT PAGE 732. SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE10, SEE OPTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN DOUG & CHRISTINE FRANZONI - - - - OTHER PROPERTY LINE (APPROX.) '�/ 1. PLAT of SURVEY AND SPEAR MEADOWS, INC. FOR A 30' WIDE SEWER EASEMENT _..- _..-.. __ ._ _ _ _ EASEMENT LINE ands of TOE CONVEYED TO CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON. VOLUME 862 PAGE 318 (5/15/09) - - -ZONING BOUNDARY SPEAR MEADOWS, INC. 11. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE SOLELY WITHIN AN AREA SHOWN CMF/MMF O CONCRETE/MARBLE MONUMENT FOUND AS "ZONE C - AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING" PER. FLOOD IPF/IRF 0 IRON PIPE/REBAR FOUND (w/SIZE) 1340 SPEAR STREET INSURANCE RATE MAP, COMMUNITY PANEL 500195-0005-8, EFFECTIVE DATE MARCH 16, 1981. G "T BAR" FOUND SOUTH BURLINGTON To the best of my knowledge & belief this plat VERMONT AG ABOVE GROUND properly depicts the results of a survey conducted • SURVEY MARKER PROPOSED GRAPHIC SCALE under my supervision as outlined in the notes above, based on our analysis of records & physical DATE DRAWING NUMBER O CONCRETE MON. PROPOSED evidence found. Existing boundaries shown are in Januery25,2011 FENCE LINE substantiol conformance with the record. This plot is in substantial compliance with 27 VSA 1403. ( IN FEET Inch ) ORIGINAL SCALE • O 1 Ih = 100 It 1" =00' 1 PROD. NO. Timothy R. Cowan VT L.S. 597 02250 Sheet I of 7 •_� � �" +wmlc SEE NOTE 3 PLAN REFERENCES: A. "PLAT OF BOUNDARY SURVEY - PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE OF ILA M. 'SHAM" PREPARED BY CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC., LAST REVISED JUNE 30, 1999. B. "PLAN OF LAND OF HARRY B. and BERNICE N. CONKLIN' PREPARED BY J.M. SINCLAIR, DATED JULY 1943. C. "FINAL PLAT FOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY OF GERALD MILOT AND JOHN LARKIN" - PINNACLE 0 SPEAR (FORMERLY NOWLAND TWO), PREPARED BY BUTTON ASSOCIATES, DATED 8/21/1998. D. "PLAT SHOWING SURVEY AND SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LANDS OF PINNACLE 0 SPEAR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION", PREPARED BY LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED & BUTTON ASSOCIATES, DATED 3/31/1999. E. "SWIFT ESTATES" PREPARED BY WILLIS ENGINEERING, DATED 9/21/1971. F. "LANDS OF ROBERT AND MARJORIE SKIFF - 3 LOT SUBDIVISION PLAT", PREPARED BY LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC., DATED 4/21/2002. G. "PLAT OF BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT LANDS OF SPEAR MEADOWS, INC., R.&T. TARRANT, AND D.&C. FRANZONI" PREPARED BY CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, DATED JANUARY 25, 2011 NOTES: 1. PURPOSE OF THIS PLAT IS TO DEPICT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF LANDS OF SPEAR MEADOWS, INC. AT 1340 SPEAR STREET. OTHER PROPERTY LINES SHOWN ARE FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY, ARE NOT A PART OF THIS SURVEY, AND ARE NOT EMBRACED BY THE CERTIFICATION BELOW. 2. SURVEY MARKERS PROPOSED SHALL CONSIST OF 5/8" DIAMETER REBAR WITH ALUMINUM CAPS STAMPED "CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOC.-VTLS597" IRON PIPES FOUND ARE SHOWN WITH INSIDE DIAMETERS. 3. BEARINGS SHOWN ARE REFERENCED TO ASTRONOMIC NORTH BASED ON SOLAR OBSERVATIONS MADE IN SEPTEMBER, 1995. SEE PLAN REFERENCE "A". 4. REFERENCE SHALL BE MADE TO SHEET 1.0 FOR NOTES AND DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE PERIMETER BOUNDARIES. 5. SPEAR STREET HAS A RECORD 66 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY. LOCATION HERE DETERMINED BY EXISTING MONUMENTA71ON AND THE TRAVELED PORTION OF THE ROAD. REFERENCE TOWN OF BURLINGTON HIGHWAYS AND ROADS 1802-1865. PAGE 22 AND TOWN OF SHELBURNE TOWN MINUTES VOLUME 1, PAGE 229, 6. MUNICIPAL WATER SERVICE, SANITARY SEWER. TELEPHONE, ELECTRIC AND GAS SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE LOT LINES OF THE SUBJECT PARCELS FROM POINTS OF ORIGIN THROUGH PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY OR RECORDED EASEMENTS, 7. NOT BEING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS SURVEY, CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. HAS UNDERTAKEN NO INVESTIGATION WHATSOEVER NTH RESPECT TO WHETHER THE PROPERTY AND EACH COMPONENT THEREOF IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL OR STATE PERMITS. 8. THIS PROPERTY LIES IN THE "SOUTHEAST QUADRANT" AND "DORSET PARK SCENIC PROTECTION - ZONE D" ZONING DISTRICTS. 9. A 60' WIDE "EASEMENT' AND A 20' WIDE "RECREATIONAL EASEMENT', BETWEEN VALE DRIVE AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, ARE DEPICTED ON REFERENCE PLAN D, AND REVISED (AS SHOWN HEREON) ON REFERENCE PLAN C. THE EARLIER ALIGNMENT IS REFERENCED IN AN "IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION" TO THE CITY DATED NOV. 15. 1995 AND RECORDED IN VOLUME 428 AT PAGE 732. 10. SPEAR MEADOWS, INC. WILL MAKE IRREVOCABLE OFFERS OF DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON FOR "ROAD A", "ROAD B", "ROAD C", AND "PARCEL 7-NEIGHBORHOOD PARK". LEGEND SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE - OTHER PROPERTY LINE (APPROX.) --- - - - - -- EASEMENT LINE - ZONING BOUNDARY CMF/MMF ❑ CONCRETE/MARBLE MONUMENT FOUND IPF/1RF 0 IRON PIPE/REBAR FOUND (w/SIZE) a "T BAR" FOUND AG ABOVE GROUND • SURVEY MARKER PROPOSED O CONCRETE MON. PROPOSED - - - - - STORM WATER EASEMENT PROPOSED UVM and State Agricultural College Volume 134, Page 364 P.B. Grabowski & J. L. Milot Volume 643, Page 297 2" IPF III _._25'AG STORMWATER POND EASEMENT TO SERVE CITY 2.5" IPF 1.0' AG 3/4' IPF (Bent) 1 24,46- 0.5' FIN K S011D, a K McCoy -Whitten m .r/4" 'Z' To oVolume &16 rn \ n nT 7 1� � iD e nuah CMF HBdtMI I LOT 1 s 4 e LOAD PARCEL OVHRAAL RAIMet. BPEARAlAOOW6 SiC. YOL 747. PO. e81 ARIA SQUAREFEET 130,494 S.F. 141.470 S.F. 106,304 SF. 210,6r0 By. 162.090 eF. 06,404 S.F. 10= S.F. 90.119 S.F. 130,242 SF, "SWIFT ESTATES" SUBDIVISION 0 43 4F k OS§"W / 20 Recreational Easement 3/4- IPF See Nate 9 r 25' AG Open Space f _ W i ,Rapoeww I 1 1 68.12' �­/ 'Pinnacle ® Spear Subdivision M. & M. Scollins T. & L. Kleh Volume 116, Page 523 Volume 176, Pepe 163 3/4• IPF IRF 1.0 A.c S07'33'16"E 1= - 07'32 21"E .- 7 __ __ _ 17 02' __ _ _-_-_ 454.43'_-_ . PARCEL 2 C. Shand et al W*M 405, P090 726 � 89.55 N33-32'5§" - I' IPF _ SOS 31'35"E u NRedaetloml 75'13'27`E -_. v h N74'46'33"W 52.00' fasenrerrtr i - Im 16.21' 11� 11' C I: 14__a4"w - 422.73' -� - ^ - - - - - - - 33" N05'31'35"W % % N14.46- 289.t6'2. - 63.61' 97.78' - - (SEE NOTE 10) ROADS _ - .- I Larkin/Mi/ot _B_ _ _ _ _ _ $ S30'5056"E _ - 0 s04.27'44"e 408.51 sa.12 Partnership __ S14'46'33" Volume 296 538 PARCEL 6 E r' S2 63,92' "E �� N05'31'35"W O N75'13'27"E al 1 6392 NIN 101.73' N14-46'33"W 70.22' n IM ole / 16.21' NO3'53'44" PARCEL 4 M N75-13.27"E m I Icy! 70.22 PARCEL S T-ep r ad 8.00'W ^� In 1 I I (ecagpAed) 299.53' NO3�3444 r-eon Fouoe O3 0 5' AG M p PARCEL I J I rnl STORMWATER POND i p EASEMENT TO SERVE I n n I 3jOg•- I 01 2 CITY 31 f _ 152.39' _ I 11`E I _ ALI .2_ _ 10 WOE PEDESTRIAN I n I N ry3J /o / NO3'53'44"W EASEMENT TD SERVE a / `70• a YOUNG AND TARRANT I �I PARCELT �e 39F 1•E NOTE10 1' Ac / "+•. OA S14'26'13"W N PAW V,g4E�,t N8. 23 E 58.53 59.n' z Pen O S ace _w P 0. 'Pinnacle @ Spear" Subdivision ^ 3/4" IPF 461 1. 5" IPF / LOT'� W. & M. Gilbert N87-32'23E Fo-,en ; \ m 65.14' VolumeN74'26'13"E ` \ VOIe 209, Pape 226 100.45' N1 \j9q F rn �M� IPF 1, 45 f PARCELS S 43 n S1 N S4 W ? I I GIs a N87'34727"E "4I9 D. & L _VokOW412 R. T. I � S144.W `S6 16b•W fF r-eaFsdI Vol. 1782M9 I >�3v' PAF�G o.s' lae J/4' IPF (Capp-6) I P9862D 0.3' AG I Q.I ` nu-h St ClairGmup, Inc N16'09'54"E I I t 10.12' IPF I a5' AG \ \ \ r��Gb" 1 I / D. & C. LewWle I 'Er N0 I I Franzonl j w M. Dencker 3 /4Fhah s \ Tad, r d I Volume 211 I o Volume 137 (eeAU I Pepe 447 I (7 Page 323 DhIH11011� 0.2' AG �L25" IPF/ I I I 3/4" IPF (Capl.ehFpe0.1'AO' /-5o./E" IRF I Ir z' ec Mar Fnd ' J/4' IPF ` I aQr APF (Disturbed) ACANS V 2.99111 AC. V'c,1". A�(-' 32M AC. R x `A¢1 • 1pr ��� '•MO Gj 0' AC 4ZI8 AC. 4A34 AC. 3110 AC. 1.610 AC. OM5 AC. 2.7E9 AC. 2.900 AC. 1,128,786 S.F. 2(5.81 AC. CURVE DATA CURVE LENGTH AAfMIS DELTA CHORD CHORD BEARING LENGTH OA 112.87' 775.00' 8'20'41" 112.77' N79'13'37"W O 289.15- 775.00' 21'22'36" 287,47' N85'54'45"E © 372.97' 719.00' 29'43'17" 368.80' S89'54'55"E OD 84.91' 526.00' 9*14'58" 84.82' N10'09'04"W EO 76.52' 474.00' 9'14'58" 76.44' N10'09'04"W FF 85.32' 474.00' 10-18'49"' 85.21' S09'37'09"E OG 94,68' 526.00' 10-18'49"' 94.56' N09'37'09"W OH 275. 46'676,00' 23'20'51" 273.56' S19-10'31"E O 287. 37�'624.DO' 26-23'12"I 284.84' N17-39'20"W • �2Q0 �Q 4 GRAPHIC SCALE 4. I IN FEET ) 1 inch _ 100 ft. To the best of my knowledge & belief this plat properly depicts the results of a survey conducted under my supervision as outlined in the notes above, based on our analysis of records & physical evidence found. Existing boundaries shown are in substantial conformance with the record. This plat is in substantial compliance with 27 VSA 1403. Timothy R. Cowan VT. L.S. 597 SITE ENGINEER: C CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. 10 Mansfield View Lane, South BuMnpron, VL 05M 802-864-2323 FAX 602-66/-227/ web: www. opD JDUGAC -1.. JLM APP - TRC PROJECT SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT sm LOCATION MAP Nof Tn Scale ICascEI .,. , i..,i I 'RC 12/Y'.'./I! I-f� - TRI I1 I /'rRC 1126/11 . 1.1S PA n 6 PE ,i 111 ENERAL UPDATE /Ml 11/0/le REFLECT EWNO.IEY Dlt ti[whNT PRELIMINARY PLAT of SUBDIVISION OVERALL PARCEL SPEAR MEADOWS, INC. 1340 SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON DATE DRAWING N11MIl E'R AUG. 10, 2010 ORIGINAL SCALE 1" =1W S1.1 PROJ. NO. U250 Sheet 2 of r __101.73' ___ Njd'4fi5 N0531'35"W N75'13 �,7 E 70.22 1 I 1 i LEGEND 1 Iw I — — —SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE M1� ISMMMATIERPONDE�4SEMENT _ 1 I Ti7.�ERVE d1Y 7 OTHER PROPERTY LINE (APPROX.) I Z -- ZONING BOUNDARY CMF/MMF ❑ CONCRETE/MARBLE MONUMENT FOUND j IPF/IRF O IRON PIPE/REBAR FOUND (w/SIZE) 1 1 n "T BAR" FOUND 1 �� AG ABOVE GROUND- -0 5/8" REBAR w/ SURVEY MARKER PROPOSED El CONCRETE MON. PROPOSED 1 STORM WATER EASEMENT PROPOSED PARCEL T RECORD OWNER: SPEAR MEADOWS INC. VOL. 747. PG. 053 LOT AREA SOUARE/8T ACRES 2 5.200 S.F. 0.115 AC. 3 4.50 S.F. 0.108 AC. 4 2.640 S.F. 0.061 AC. 5 4,312 S.F. 0003 AC. S 2,544 S.F. 0.068 AC. COMMON AREA 121,774 S.F. 2.786 AC. TOTAL AREA 141,470 S.F. 3.25 AC. (43 SITE 4_Nc1sE[:P.: i PIL- CIYII ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. 10 Mansfield View Lane, South Burlington, W 05403 602-Ba0-232s FAX e02-860$271 web: www.Cee-N— 44 rz _ . JDUGAC JLM�� fiVY:l) TRC PAR I'RO.ID("I''. SPEAR MEADOWS - — _._.—.—._.—.—._.— I I — — 2 1/2• IPF 1.0' AG 11'\ PARCEL 1 1 I I TIE LINES UVM and State Agriculture/ College `\\ (TYPICAL) ©1 Volume 134, Pqe 384 \ 1 1 \ STORMWATER POND EASEMENT 7O SERVE GiY \ J' 1 3 1'0 \09c m \ / \ / NO3 5 44+W LOT I 05' 1PF (sent) pp \ BOUNDARY / \ (TYPICAL) / I 574564 \\ `90 4+w O I I S1 4� I m PF 1.5" IPF y /. •"1 / 6 l Fruah S1,j 4p+ \AG w� ,i y / 1 W O / 4 0, SEE SHEET S1.1 FOR6� / / 00%\ lh N1gS64¢-E _ ,ti3 CURVE DATA K Sdbn y'ys`4-W �� h 49094E 644 f �y _ LOT 1 25 / 0.2- AC 17 / J Op' / SEE SHEETS S1.0 & W�Fr o2'A�` qp 'o Nlq�3' p.1v �A S1.1 FOR FULL NOTES r \ \\ � 16go�• ^y/� 55 q5 &LEGENDS a/4-1PF � \ 6 /_ / � To the best of my knowledge &belief this plat 5j`13 F1uan \ N74 �,�00• properly depicts the results of a survey conducted under my supervision as oboutlined in the notes ove, based on our analysis of records & physical GRA11111C S(_'ALE 2 �4 / / evidence found. Existing boundaries shown are in \1gq '�•\� / substantial conformance with the record. This plat is in substantial compliance with 27 VSA 1403. 10 n IN FEET) l i cb = 30 It. Timothy R. Cowan VT L.S. 597 SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT SITE LOCATION MAP Not To Scek f lll:tk I"n I R6welON I I IL, PRELIMINARY PLAT of SUBDIVISION PARCEL 1 SPEAR MEADOWS, INC. 1340 SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT DATE '[PI 11 AUG. 10, 2010 pltl(:1NAL SOAI.F: 1e_�, S 1.2 PROD. NO. 02250 sheet 3 of 7 P.B. GraboMid & J. L. Milot 20' RECRFAnOiNAL VDlmns 84 Peps 2P7 E 42EMENT 2.5' AG I to ( Im ---- N0511'35"W w 58428'26'W II �� 62%2 J Ci >)I lz UM and SUN Aplc d" COpaye VbN8n88134, PWO 364 I - WIN C C N 7 I I -- — _ _97_78'N10b� N05'31'"/3355""WW/�� / ){ ln� e V A a L� D1 PARCEL 6 __ 101.73' _- N05'31'35"W (npCAla 112" IRF 01 AG N08'03'16"W 65'18 38 1 26.41' 0 10 til'I'h_ FSGI51'.ICI: M. & M. S0011ins VDMm8114 Paps 523 Z " TIE LINES LOT BOUNDARY = 9 (TYPICAL) (TYPICAL) J/s" wrl 317.02' -- -- -- N07'3r21"WAi0.�V� � CIVIL Erero VIewERING Lene South BO ASSOCIATES, PARCEL 2 --- --- -- ----- -- ' 9LS� _ _ gga_2s2s FAx eo2A81-2277xeb mN A \ 9 7 "w u lnpron �` 602 ens 03 -- - S vv S14-4,645"� S042744E AN SO4'27'44"E mnxn ' 1\ 5189.54E 60.00 60.60 79:\ `� 58.00' 4 N k \ JDUGAC 1 I \ SO4_27'44"E I 13 �� 1 I1 wl 13 I 13 JLM N14'46'33"W �� f d, i� 8 3 �I� TRC E 7 wI+ e.lgIn �Im inl '�°IN IuI r 1--14'asotW 15 1 =ITi - � �'�� 11,onrr �_ 14 =�L' m ll I 17 v� l 0 18 N14'4'- z SPEAR :Iw Io w O £ �.�45"W LDs - - —J MEADOWS 1 1ro a1 A 2 $ w m N14'46' -- - - N0427 44'N04'27'44"W N f >_ 09..,:; 514'4634E — 507-23'37"E 8 806W -�'- ----_-------- N042744W -- i i.uN I --:�ie 3"E -� 89.163— ROAD B I Ss.64 I _— — 5144 4 ?I 45 10 T. and L. K/eh C. Shand et al 20(4710NN. Vb"M 175, Page 103 TIE LINE VOIIINM 404 Paps 720 S89'32'10"W (ryPlIl"i 25.15' - - - - - - - - NOS'31'35"W - - - - - - - 3- ��t 59.78' 454.43 PARCEL . 2 ,-- /3 I / _ __________ _ �_____ ^�/p04'S4'2 -------------------------------- II S o0'ti 61.54' SO4'27'44"E /2`� w �p0 9� 8 �N 9 j:: o SO4'27'39"E 1v. O ni� 58.00-77 38.00 N04' 429 0 'i � _ o 0 = u1Di w I N04'54'29"W S1 1 O N 1£ 15.9T ..�5 10 L ' S85'05'31"W� `� 1 E 3 w �3 10.0046 ' . N CIIn I I 019.4 m O �m 42, ^^. IIm = rn I rn / ">� 6"E 51 00i N04'27'44"W N04'27'44"W 51.00' ZI 29' N04'2744"W - �_ - 514'43'29"E - �•� _ _ ! - /v 04.27443 - - - - N04'24'S1 "e-� �-_- 422.73--------_- _---- /i (a ROAD B o LEGEND SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE OTHER PROPERTY LINE (APPROX.) — ZONING BOUNDARY CMF/MMF ❑ CONCRETE/MARBLE MONUMENT FOUND GRAPHIC SCALE IPF/IRFO IRON PIPE/REBAR FOUND (w/SIZE) a "T BAR" FOUND -. AG ABOVE GROUND i IN FEET) O 5/8" REBAR w/ SURVEY MARKER PROPOSED 1 inch = 30 R El CONCRETE MON. PROPOSED SEE SHEET S1.1 FOR CURVE DATA SEE SHEETS S1.0 & S1.1 FOR FULL NOTES & LEGENDS PARCEL RECORD OWNER: SPEAR MEADOWS INC. VOL. 747. PG. 653 LOT AREA SOUAREFEET ACRES 7 ILM &F. CAM AC. 8 4AM B.F. 0.101 AC. 9 4,= BF. 0.101 AC. 10 3= &F. OA78 AO. 11 3.110 BY. 0X11 AD. 12 2,Oe1 &F. 0018 AC. 13 4,4T7 BF. 0.103 AD, 14 Z004 B.F. DAM AC. 15 4.40 B.F. 0.107 AC. 18 4 W B.F. 0.114 AC. 17 3.000 B.F. 0A70 AD. 18 4.720 S.F. 0.109 AC. 19 2,1M B.F. 0A00 AD. 20 4AT7 B.F. 0.103 AC. 21 z061 B.F. 0.00 AD. 22 4,720 B.F. 0108 AD. 23 Z9D5 B.F. 0,054 AD. 24 2.0D6 B.F. OABT AC. 25 8,06E G.F. 0.116 AC, 26 2A01 &F. OA88 AC, OONMONAREA 114.712 B.F. 2.633 AC. TMALAMA IIII& M B.F. 428 AC. To the best of my knowledge & belief this plat properly depicts the results of a survey conducted under my supervision as outlined in the notes above, based on our analysis of records & physical evidence found. Existing boundaries shown are in substantial conformance with the record. This plat is in substantial compliance with 27 VSA 1403. Timothy R. Cowan VT. L.S. 597 SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT sm LOCATION MAP NOt To SCd1 r9Nx4:"Ge n1I TRC 12/22/Il RMM LOT PRELIMINARY PLAT of SUBDIVISION PARCEL 2 & PARCEL 6 SPEAR MEADOWS, INC. 1340 SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT LATE DRAWING NUMBER AUG. 10, 2010 ORIGINAL SCALE 1' = S 1.3 30 PROS. NO. 02250 i PARCEL ( I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I © I I I I I I 1 I I 45.00' S14'4634"E - —$-- - - �- - - — - 51.00' "VI S0773'37'E 8_ NVV4806 1, 3' ROAD B N45'�11Q7�9"W 3E ROAD B © _ u _-_-- S00_50_10"E 173.89__—_ N04'27'44_W"__�_____ N04'27'44"W` �Q-7• 408.51' 4fi 33_'W__ 51.00 _ _ --_ _ ____ 114 854k"W N04'27'44"W _ SO4_27'44"E SO4'27'44"E N09'S0'36"W _ _ x 3"E 46.00 1 4 . �— 117 30 62 69 / 46.00' 49. 00 NZ%ap 59 � 3 42 oD•3 4 1 v 4 , _ 514'46 O OIw M" O OIN bF O o ? 3 I 1 '"al M1 a o0 0 � z IM � Nlrn � � 5 I � ;I � ❑ I N I SO4'27'44"E N144520.77 75 575'13'27"W I " z Nt 4 5 51. • £ ul ? N 5t 4•g6'33"E 8.00' SO4'27 44 E SO4'27 44 E 4r 504'27'44"E o 3 N04'38'18"W NIN �1 A - f 46'33"E 04'77 44 E M �n SO, 7 4 E N0 49,00' I I z a 5.00' rn g, 33"E 514' 0 S14'46'33"E r11 �49.00' S14'46 0 Iz 1 u l 6,00 N1445'04"W 37 w N8532'16"E N04'2T44"W N w "'"+" 4.30 11.24' Iz NI% e 1 N S14.46'33"E Ni. � 8.00' ol; Ni 8 8J Oj6 e 4 w SO4'27 44 E �. 1 In 750719 w I 3 9 n 3 M 61.00' it 14001327E Iv w 41 £ ZI zl 36 ni 4 IN 44 " 1\ I -n ml JI 1 N04'27'44W / 73.00' I \\` N04'2T44 W 8�4 N\ N04'27*4 4"W I 73.00, 1 \ N14'46' I N14'4633"W?Ol '13.27„E PARCEL 3 `N10yg.J5�E �JF\\ ///4i� N75 1 44.00 I LOT BOUNDARY (TYPICAL) I TIE LINES 007' AG 299.53' _ _ (TYPICAL) NO3'S3'44"W r-eo. Found 0.5' AG 6.00' I 1® I I / I / I I W h I ry/A I /y STORMWATER POND EASEMENT 70 SERVE CITY / 1 ( / f I / 331.02' NO3'53'44"W LEGEND - SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE — - - OTHER PROPERTY LINE (APPROX.) CMF/MMF ❑ CONCRETE/MARBLE MONUMENT FOUND IPF/IRF O IRON PIPE/REBAR FOUND (w/SIZE) a "T BAR" FOUND AG ABOVE GROUND 0 5/8" REBAR w/ SURVEY MARKER PROPOSED EI CONCRETE MON. PROPOSED - — — - STORM WATER EASEMENT PROPOSED LEE SHEET S1.1 FOR URVE DATA SEE SHEETS S1.0 & 51.1 FOR FULL NOTES & LEGENDS GRAPHIC SCALE I IN FEET I I Inch = 80 ft PARCELS RECORD OWNER: SPEAR MEADOWS INC. VOL. 747, PG. 653 LOT AREA SQUARE FEET ACRES 33 4,98T S.F. 0.114 AG 34 3,031 By. 0.070 AC. 35 3.007 aF. 0A71 AC. 36 4= SF. OAW AC- 37 3011111 S.F. OOM AD, 38 2.744 S.F. 0= AC. 39 4= S.F. MISS AC. 40 2,W8 SF. OAe/ AC- 41 4.303 BY, OAW Aa- 42 S,378 SF. OAM AC. 43 3.138 S.F. 01M AC. 44 4.303 SF. 0AW AC- 45 4A*4 S.F. 0.100 AC. 46 ZAN S.F. OWE! AC. GbASAON AREA 188,804 S.F. 3,087 AC. TO ALA1KA 210,8/0 SF. 41.83 AC. W. and M. Gllbeil I Voiane 20D, Pape 225 I 1 I -1� N v n iQ 1 I V I 4 I I O To the best of my knowledge & belief this plat properly depicts the results of a survey conducted under my supervision as outlined in the notes above, based on our analysis of records & physical evidence found. Existing boundaries shown are in substantial conformance with the record. This plat is in substantial compliance with 27 VSA 1403. Timothy R. Cowan VT. L.S. 597 CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. 10 MansOeM View Lena, South BurUngton, W 05403 SW4We 202E FAX: a02-8842271 web: www.ce9 W. JDUGAC I 1 AM APf'RUVF:U TRC PROM, I` V 1 I SPEAR OI MEADOWS ISPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON 1 VERMONT I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I SIN NII� I" I I LOCATION MAP �rsru.f I uuum n¢, , ,r,nn PRELIMINARY PLAT of SUBDIVISION PARCEL 3 of SPEAR MEADOWS, INC. 1340 SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT DATF I DRAWING N11MIlER AUG. 10, 2010 !ORIGINAL SCALE 1"=30' PROS. NO, 02250 S1.4 N07'33'16"W - _ _ 359.08' _ 454 Aar PARCEL 2 —— — — I i- As17r�nornic �p•�,Wr,§",� / N45'571�j W 3.72 f 529�2 � � I N 9' 7 4 W �� i I 9�i _ N042Z4$'I _ _ _ I I � � -� " - —' N30'S8 36 W � / / o$ 1 ROAD B _ N04' 7'44"W �J _ 408.51 PARCEL 4 RECORD OWNER: SPEAR MEADOWS INC. VOL. 747, PO. 063 LOT AREA SQUAREFEET ACRES 27 2,80S BF. OXIN AC. 28 4,582 8.F. 0.101 AC. M 2,801 B.F. OAM AC. 30 8.104 By. 0.117 AC. 31 2.744 G.F. OAM At. 32 1000 S.F. 0.110 AC. Op6gNAM 120,te1 or.. 2A>o AC. TOTALAREA IU M S.F. 8.51 AC. I I I NO3'53'44"W r-Sar Fad O5' AG N3'4"W 6. 0I W. and M. Gilbert I Va11L81e 200, Nap. n6 I I LEGEND I 1 SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE — OTHER PROPERTY LINE (APPROX.) — ZONING BOUNDARY CMF/MMF ❑ CONCRETE/MARBLE MONUMENT FOUND i>31 IPF/IRF O IRON PIPE/REBAR FOUND (w/SIZE) 1 a "T BAR" FOUND I AG ABOVE GROUND m 5/8" REBAR w/ SURVEY MARKER PROPOSED 0 CONCRETE MON. PROPOSED ; I I I ' ' S26��0 °� ��, �� � I PrraNts►Np S07'51'21"E 6QQ ',',�"N'_ S25'35•t9�Er t� NO. 5131962 'q I m 31 15 3o I i N r� � 6600 I / p9 LOT BOUNDARY n / (TYPICAL) 1 / 01 IZ // 1D TIE UNES t^, N'• I / (TYPICAL) m✓ / PARCEL 4 I I �y I / Open Space "Plnnecle ® Spear I � 1 i SEE SHEET S1.1 FOR i `� I CURVE DATA a SEE SHEETS S1.0 & S1.1 FOR FULL NOTES NoD' — E --__ � & LEGENDS I. PARCEL 7 27 -----� I 3 81N I NEIGHBORHOOD PARK �' I the best of my knowledge &belief this plat properly I � properly depicts the results of a survey conducted I under my supervision as outlined In the notes above, based on our analysis of records & physical GRAPHIC SCALE evidence found. Existing boundaries shown are in I 1 substantial conformance with the record. This plat is In substantial compliance with 27 VSA 1403. i IN FEET ) / 1 inch 30 It 1 Timothy R. Cowan VT. L.S. 597 srrr rncl�erx CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. 10 Mansfield View Lane, South BurllVor; VI 05403 802-884-2323 FAX, 802-W4-2271 web: wxw.Cee-viodn plus JDUGAC F � cRn JLM x1,m TRC PROJECT: SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT LOCATION MAP N01 Ta Sale . [ j1,Y O.Nlin eI J451-MhN PRELIMINARY PLAT of SUBDIVISION PARCEL 4 SPEAR MEADOWS, INC. 1340 SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT IIATN UkAeING NUMBER AUG. 10, 2010 olih;INAL SCALE S 1.5 1I. 30" 02250 LEGEND — — SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE — ---- OTHER PROPERTY LINE (APPROX.) - -- - -- EASEMENT LINE — — ZONING BOUNDARY CMF/MMF ❑ CONCRETE/MARBLE MONUMENT FOUND IPF/IRF0 IRON PIPE/REBAR FOUND (w/SIZE) A "T BAR" FOUND AG ABOVE GROUND OO SURVEY MARKER PROPOSED 71 CONCRETE MON. PROPOSED W. and M. GAbwt VWM 201h Pets 225 0 n Im 1S2.39' Etch PARCEL 7 oI.M p O'W NEIGHBORHOOD I p I PARK \ 1 I I I � ' 1 t y�Yl 1� IZ rn 10 WIDE P &SMYOM r,� i I Open Space 1 \ 'Pinnacle @ Spear ` 100.1 I "'4'�, ' PARCEL 5 COMMUNITY GARDENS NIpy4,4s E�� I" IPF (Bent) I.0' AG (off line) � —-I � � � , Ih. ,jr,, ENGINEER: F CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC, 10 Mansfield View Lane, South Burlington, W 05403 802-664-2323 FAX: 802-884-2271 web: Www.ceeM.can RRA11N JDUGAC c.—D JLM APPRow TRC PROJECT SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT SITE LOCATION MAP Not To Scete R.Ckr NIh TD. & C. FmnwW / nIa 1 cxxcx mrE ua u ry Page,329 I �« 1 SEE SHEETS S1.0 & o S1.1 FOR FULL NOTES — ------ & LEGENDS / ICU "553 Z3F I 1 'TRC /28/ll, CRENBh4FL ®'IE M FUN RCF. G W WOE j I � � I JI ,T .i /li/IO RxrI1Cf,T DeIlNDi1R1 ADJI)STMeNT ISEWER E49E 1EW TO CITY PRELIMINARY PLAT of SUBDIVISION PARCELS 5 & 7 (Capped) I t I G. and M. SPEAR MEADOWS, INC. I D. Whr \ 1340 SPEAR STREET ►ok M210 To the best of my knowledge & belief this plat SOUTH BURLINGTON I OOJ� I properly depicts the results of a survey conducted VERMONT I under my supervision as outlined in the notes above, based on our analysis of records & physical DATE DRAM- NU IITz11 GRAPHIC SCALE evidence found. Existing boundaries shown are in AUG. 10, 2010 / I l substantial conformancecompliance with the This plat s in substantial wth 27V A 103. ORIGINAL SCALE W "IN FEET ) I 1 i ch = 30 fit. PROD. NO. 02 50 Sheet 7 of 7/ I Timothy R. Cowan VT L.S. 597 � � ��� � •�■ t ■ .,•� �_r7 a ��'� �r-w..�ti .I/ 11� �r� g �r � . t � �� 1 ems' �.� ► re 1/ ..were �-�•i ,pne ��� ► II � � C 1 � 1 � aF t ;+ -�� �" ors: r ■ m���,m ■ i� �� ® ,►.® __ >a ® r�■® ' I ��j tl � �, PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL EASEMEWIND NOUN ,� ;t q r•. ------- - _-- - IIh� I--1.�-STORMWATER POW/ FAVOR - i►L�BURIJINGTON r = Units that Address the Road (67 Units Total) NOTES: 1. Buildings #2 and #3 are also subject to a 50 foot seback from Spear Street 2. Setbacks listed below are for Front Yard Setbacks only 3. Front Yard Setback requirements in the the SEQ-NR district are measured from the back of sidewalk 4 or % y O On -street Parking) / 4- r r r recreation path. ` r r r r Building Label Key n j rr Porch Building Porch Building �\ ;O No. ._ Label Setback Setback Square Ft Description No. Label Setback Setback Square Ft Description 2 / i / 1 N/A WA N/A N/A Existing Single Family 24 BX2r N/A N/A 1,885 Smell Single Family Expanded, 2-Car Garage, Rear Access ® % ' 2 H2+lalt 10' 20' 2,736 Small Townhouse, Flat Over Garage 25 JX2+1 aft 15, 15' 3,053 Large Townhouse, Flat over Garage, Alternate Deck 3 N2+1 N/A WA 3,120 One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat 26 C1 20' 20' 1,738 Large Single Family, 1-Car Garage 4 B2 12' 20' 1,373 Small Single Family, 2-Car Garage 27 BX1 20' 20' 1.885 Small Single Family Expanded, 1-Car Garage f r 5 P2+2 N/A WA 3,400 Duplex Townhouse 28 H2+1 10' 20' 2,73E Small Townhouse, Flat Over Garage r yob 6 C2 12' 20' 1,738 Large Single Family, 2-Car Garage 29 Al 20' 20' 1,860 Medium Single Family, 1-Car Garage 7 B2 12' 20' 1,373 Small Single Family, 2-Car Garage 30 P2+2 N/A N/A 3,400 Duplex Townhouse 8 N2+1 N/A WA 3,120 One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat 31 CX1 20' 20' 2,200 Large Single Family Expanded, 1-Car Garage 9 HX2+1 20' 20' 2,890 Small Townhouse Expanded, Flat Over Garage 32 H2+1aft 13' 20' 2,736 Small Townhouse, Flat Over Garage 10 B2 12' 20' 1,373 Small Single Family, 2-Car Garage 33 HX2+1at 15' 15' 2,890 Small Townhouse Expanded, Flat Over Garage 11 CX2r WA WA 2,200 Large Single Family Expanded, 2-Car Garage, Rear Access 34 CX2r 20' 20' 2,200 Large Single Family Expanded, 2-Car Garage, Rear Access 12 82d 12' 20' 1,373 Small Single Family, Detached 2-Car Garage 35 B2 12' 20' 1,373 Small Single Family, 2-Car Garage 13 M1+1 N/A WA 2,630 Duplex Flat Over Garage 36 N2+1 N/A N/A 3,120 One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat 14 A2d 12' 20' 1,860 Medium Single Family, Detached 2-Car Garage 37 A2d 12' 20' 1,660 Medium Single Family, Detached 2-Car Garage / 15 HX2+1 20' 20' 2,890 Small Townhouse Expanded, Flat Over Garage 38 CX1 20' 20' 2,200 Large Single Family Expanded, 1-Car Garage I 16 H2+1 10, 20' 2,736 Small Townhouse, Flat Over Garage 39 N2+1 N/A N/A 3,120 One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat 17 BX2 20' 20' 1,885 Small Single Family Expanded, 2-Car Garage 40 B1 12' 20' 1,373 Small Single Family, 1-Car Garage 18 J2+1 20' 20' 3,053 Large Townhouse, Flat over Garage 41 N2+1 N/A N/A 3,120 One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat 19 C2d 12' 20' 1,738 Large Single Family, Detached 2-Car Garage 42 C2d 12' 20' 1,738 Large Single Family, Detached 2-Car Garage I ` \ 20 M1+1 N/A N/A 2,630 Duplex Flat Over Garage 43 CX2 20' 20' 2,200 Large Single � � � � • rg g Expanded, 2-Car Garage 21 82d 12' 20' 1,373 Small Single Family, Detached 2-Car Garage 44 N2+1 N/A N/A 3,120 One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat 22 JX2+1 20' 20' 3,205 Large Townhouse Expanded, Flat Over Garage 45 HX2+1alt 15, 15, 2,890 Small Townhouse Expanded, Flat Over Garage �Sj � `\ \ 23 B2 12' 20' 1,373 Small Single Family, 2-Car Garage 46 B2r 18' 26' 1.373 Small Single, 2-Car Garage, Rear Access 1 GRAPHIC SCALE; I Ctl' MR ( . FEET )'m - I 1 inch - 60 n. RtVIeIONe Boyle --- -� --- - Applicant. Eric Farrell lands ape architects . planning consultants jbo/mjb jbo 12-23-201t SPEAR MEADOWS Burlington, Box 1335 _ _ _55 -- © e.aw e.m T 0 0 1 - jJ BuAington, VT 05402 301 college street • burlinglon .vennon858 t •osaot 802 .43555 talp9Mww.yboyl•.mn ! �bo s 1• W Concept Plan Building Summary Unit Summary Required Parking Proposed Parking Single -Family Dwelling 24 Units 2 Spaces/Unit = 48 Spaces 82 Spaces Ground Floor Flat 6 Units 2.25 Spaces/Unit = 13.5 Spaces 24 Spaces Flat Over Flat 6 Units 2.25 Spaces/Unit = 13.5 Spaces 12 Spaces Flat Over Garage 15 Units 2.25 Spaces/Unit = 33.75 Spaces 30 Spaces Town House 15 Units 2.25 Spaces/Unit = 33.75 Spaces 60 Spaces Existing Single -Family 1 Unit 2 Spaces/Unit = 2 Spaces 9 Spaces 67 Units Total Required Spaces: 144.5 Total Proposed Spaces: 217 (Total Does Not Include U QY y UY -n u .nm UI Q m UI m to T ?J to m 0r �� W I 00 a 0 Oc CO)c� �'1 O � O t,o z n �'o Urn rn= mCn �z m0 vU z Vf m= ntn �z rn0 0,0 a 2 D D >ILL d 1. -D{ D D mtl bLL D 7Cn DO D m b S(� =D Ni X 0 N > r � 20' 2 . 20 10' Vol I l i 10' 26' I 26'— 6'-6" REC. 1' 5 I I g• PATH -52' Rightof-Way I� 50' Right -of -Way k ALTERNATE ROAD B CROSS SECTION - 15' BUILDING SETBACK WITHOUT PROJECTING PORCH L002 1' = 10' Iq 52' Right -of -Way k 1 ROAD B - TYPICAL GROSS SECTION L002 1" = 10, ROAD C - TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION L 002 1' = 10' 56' Right -of -Way 1 ROAD A - TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION L002 1' . 10' pG GdOf>�1�G:IL^�G3�1 IPRAV @IUMMUINIL 91�/��3/309 9 Applicant: Eric Farrell _ - PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT05402 landscape architects *planning consultants 301 college street • burlington •verrnont -05401 802 -058 .3555 Nrp:IA—.Qboyle.mm s 1' . 10' SPEAR MEADOWS L T O O n ;ht-of-Way Cross Sections G GRAPHIC SCALE lo mIN FEET) ch = 60 N. I LL I l�TLL LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE -ABB-I CLW. MANUFACNRE FDRURE/ ORDERING INFOLAMP VOLTAGE POLE FINISH MOUNTING HT. ARCHTECn1RAL AREA LIGHTING - PROV[DENCE MEDIUM PHILIPS MASfEtNL00. PRDV-H3/1000MH/BJ( CDM 100W 40 MED ED 17 CL 129s C830 SR141BB ell( 14' 3 ARCHITECTURAL AREA LIGHTING - PROV 11. MEDIUM PHILIPS MASIERODLOR 120* DelO 5R1418B ell( 14' PROV-H5/100CMH/BLA CIDM1001NIM MED ED 17 CL NOTES: ' VOLTAGE TO BE VERIFIED BY ELECTRICAL ENGINEER PRIOR TO ORDERING SEE SHEETS L201 AND L202 FOR MORE LIGHT F3D(T1RE INFORMATION GARDENS I I LEGEND 2.00 LIGHT LEVEL 1.00 LIGHT LEVEL 0.20 LIGHT LEVEL PROPOSED LIGHT FIXTURE & DIRECTION EXTERIOR LIGHTING STATISTICAL SUMMARY DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM MINIMUM AVG AVE/MIN ROADWAYS 1.87 0.13 0.53 1 4.17 SIDEWALKS 1.95 0.06 0.50 1 8.19 pa�do�oaaa� KAU T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC EVISIDNs Applicant: Eric Farrell landscape amhitects*planning consultants © , mjb jtw 12-23-2011 SPEAR MEADOWS L003 PO Box 1335 e _ - Bunington, VT 05402 so] college Street .Burlington .Ye monl .0540t 1102 F858 .3555 DtlpJhvAw.gboylB.mm .2" — t• = 60 Lighting Plan T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC 10 1 W w, y w W ----- \ I I I Idlll II I. 1 L1.il Saar Meadow. -Sway Street South Burlinalon -Planting Schedule - 1 _ 1 --------- 3g4 385 ` LI. I I I I `��� Applicant Eric Farrell '' PRELIMINARY PLAT S 1 2 23 201 1 T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC Burlington, VT 05402t om• ®om 00 • ��om� ��m - �m•m•m� om �®m•m� am �m.mm� 00 �Ex•,'��m� om ®m•m� 0o r.�m.�^�o�m• om = �m•m•m� o© �m•m•m� ®m �m♦om� ®m �m•m•m� 00 00.. �m•om� rrr�r.•�m•m•o� ©m iiiiiimiiiiiil m•m•m� 00 • �m•�:�m� 00 • �m•m•m� Qom ... �m•om� ®®• ®®moo Imo® o® 00 • ��om e w.. toes commoe N.me e evNruwlNus o<aa.me��.e CR CgiNU3 recemae rely D°pwwJ t 12-23-201SPEAR MEADOWS "' ---- _ L 101 ��` Landsca Plan No Text PVB 1 r V�r�fu 1 l MA 1 ''1ff\�Ijj1 I Vim I tl ►�� tT Ip, �'AT %J I I I I. Isham Estate 0570-01225 }—_ TON(w) / BIKE PATH EASEMENT / BUILDING SETBACK (15'-2(Y FROM SIDEWALK) / / PORCH SETBACK (10' FROM SIDEWALK) 3' X 3' X 5' HT. STONE COLUMN (BOTH SIDES OF / ROAD, LABEL BOTH SIDES OF STONE) / --mac--- -x---�q�-- -x � I 8 % 398 +____ F------ — -- _ �`` / " ` 3g� -----Open 395� /------------ ,� 5 -- / __Pinnacle Pew I / I — -----x--- -mac - -Space I pt Spear; ^ c polo f, —OWN VA 1. >•`������� , :I,.rA7�� ����' r�►; j� ey TMD(4) TON -- - - �- GEB)) W —00033 I RCA(2)uN(�) To \ TONp) y1 �.� 1742 e (B) Tom) MD g I MD(J) HM TU11(4) 1. 9� eoc(B) M N TMG(B) JCIIC \ `l (z) FNH OJ � AGAe(9) RR 4 6 P MM W w W \ J i / MFI(I) 39393 GT am(s) I MFl w w i 1 — W w) —" PG1 P®p) � RM (1BI PG:7 W w w W W w i / l — — aM(10) w w w w w W y w w w w -,ur PARCEL 4 w w GAT '489 W w W W w w w W w w w W w W w w w w w W W w W w w w r ,�y___y / ,P389W____„--- ---- ,�____W___�,.___,,,---�;-_ -W _ y_ __� w w w w/ w w W w A MATCHLINE L103 IvIA,W w w MATCHLINE L104 w W389WPWWww WwWwWwWwW�W W W W� wWETLANrww w w w w rY W W W w w w w w W w w W y w W w /�COC(3) T / W W W W W W W W W W W w W W W GRAPHIC SCALF. CR(s) \\ ARH(Y) � w \ � w W� \ W - W ( F•F• ) I \ _____________ w w w �S-_`e-__-.p'- w 1 inch - 30 1L I �""'" � � , � / w w �w w PG3C�d011val�MnG^1Gi�I P�14 �MC3fn�,t1�44Qd Applicant: Eric Farrell PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT05402 landscape amhRects . planning consultants --1W-1bo 12-23-2011 SPEAR MEADOWS T - -_--� ln-—_JL301 college street • budingmn .mont .os4o� 302.895hnp«w.a,I..n 1'=0 Vale Drive South Platng Plan 103 « W. and M. Gilbert 1640-01400 10'PEDESTRM EASEMENT P01(3) PM(7) I PBH(25) I 20X1a P-1E. PLOTS I / I -.I- --- — ------- —--- r---d----P h 4- --- a w W J VIAPREBT 'WETLANDS w w w COC(3)O � COC(3) W-Y___N w W ✓• W v W •Y 4 W 4 � W V V•Y W W y W W Y V W W w / W W y W W •Y .L W/ W y W W/ v W w W •L W I w � W W W W I •✓ ARH(2) v W W W W W W W W I ® \ ra SAT W W ® (0) / ACC1(2)J ACC2(3) L`D1(2) / PG1 D2 _(8) _ --- - PLAY STM\1C1U1(E -9YEAR-0 D) - - \ BASEBALL BACKSTOP \ I MTIHI ECOURT J 3 / I� SAT UL P) `;``, AR ' / PARCEL 7 1 Y YEAR ) (24 / - R(2) / NEIGHBORH000 PARK / OPEN PLAY AREA - BNH I K / I 1S'x20' PICNIC I �\\ S I--•__,_- STRUCTURE I I Tom)/ SOCCER GGu r rOUTH) / I / I T I 0- PGt( J I 1 / I I - PG2( I L I I Cry I E; 1L. and D. Y 1640-01 0 I l l I / I I f—; Z I I I---+ I L- �- — J I R. and T. /J arrant ; / / / / / / / / / CEDAR SMI74LML FENCE �2'X1C U1L1TY ��- � I / STRLICTIIRE AND- - / PARNINOISTORAGE _ \ "° CCTSOMM" "' PARCEL 5 p PLOTS COIWNITYGARDENS EXPANSION \ ACC1(2)' ACC2(4) w � II G. Sporzynski Win 1640-01408 J ' M. Dencker jI 1640-01430 MATCHLINE L104 DORSET PARK SCENIC VIEW PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT ZONE D VEGETATION HEIGHT FORMULA 441' - 2' PER 1000' DISTANCE FROM ZONE D WEST BASELINE EXISTING GRADE . MAX HEIGHT OF VEGETATION M1'-1.5'-3ua • 40&• VEa.t*.T Open Space Acc1(2) Pinnacle at Spear ACC2(4) / SNH(2) ' PG1(2) PGz(3/ OM(2S) IN �Y-\ / I a1•.1•.3WMr MAx VIRi. HEpHr \ \ N<H1C SCALF I UN /E� ao inch - 30 it p��do�ao�aa�r p�a4 ��a�ao�c� T. J. Foyle Associates, LLC vlsloNB Applicant Eric Farrell.N PP 71anldscaps architects .planning consultants jlxYmjb jbo 12-23-2011 SPEAR MEADOWS PO Box 1335 _. _.. - - --- - -.- -__ ©� _: _ cl _ 104 — Burlington. VT 05402 College street . burlingODn evennont .05401 S02 om .3m httplAVAw.Ylwyk.mm YG .m. 1" = 30' Palk P1aIItlIljy� P).9T3 GENERAL PLANTING NOTES: 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE AND VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO STARTING WORK. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY ALL PLANT MATERIAL IN QUANTITIES SUFFICIENT TO COMPLETE THE PLANTING SHOWN ON ALL DRAWINGS. 3. ALL MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO THE GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED BY THE CURRENT AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK (ANSI) PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN. 4. NO PLANT SHALL BE PUT INTO THE GROUND BEFORE ROUGH GRADING HAS BEEN FINISHED AND APPROVED BY THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR EQUAL. 5, PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED SUCH THAT THE ROOT FLARE IS AT OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE FINAL GRADE (DUE TO NURSERY PRACTICES THIS MAY REQUIRE REMOVING SOIL FROM THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL TO LOCATE THE ROOT FLARE. 6. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE BALLED AND BURLAPPED OR CONTAINER GROWN AS SPECIFIED. NO CONTAINER GROWN STOCK WILL BE ACCEPTED IF IT IS ROOT BOUND. ALL ROOT WRAPPING MATERIAL MADE OF SYNTHETICS OR PLASTICS SHALL BE REMOVED AT THE TIME OF PLANTING. 7. WITH CONTAINER GROWN STOCK. THE CONTAINER SHALL BE REMOVED AND THE CONTAINER BALL SHALL BE CUT THROUGH THE SURFACE IN TWO VERTICAL LOCATIONS. B. THE DAY PRIOR TO PLANTING, THE LOCATION OF ALL TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL BE STAKED FOR APPROVAL BY THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR EQUAL. B. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MAY REQUIRE ALL PLANTS BE SPRAYED WITH AN ANTIDESSICANT WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER PLANTING. IN TEMPERATE ZONES, ALL PLANTS SHALL BE SPRAYED WITH AN ANTIDESSICANT AT THE BEGINNING OF THEIR FIRST WINTER. 10. ALL PLANT BEDS MUST HAVE A MINIMUM PLANT BED DEPTH OF 18' WITH A 2/3 TOPSOIL TO 113 COMPOST MIX. REMOVE SUBGRADE AND OTHER FILL IN PLANTING AREAS ON SITE. 11. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER DETAILS AND THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS. 12. STAKING PLANTS IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CONTRACTOR. ONLY STAKE PLANTS AS SPECIFIED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 13. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AMENDED BACKFILL AS PER THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS. 14, ALL PLANTS SHALL BE WATERED THOROUGHLY TWICE DURING THE FIRST 24 HOUR PERIOD AFTER PLANTING. ALL PLANTS SHALL THEN BE WATERED WEEKLY, IF NECESSARY, DURING THE FIRST GROWING SEASON. 15. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 16. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE PLANT LIST FOR SEASONAL REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THE TIME OF PLANTING. WCLEARANCE PROPOSED UNIT I /�'— WOODEN SCREENING FENCE, r / 4' HEIGHT MAXIMUM DARK GREEN ARBORVITAE (d) ELECTRICAL PAD � PERENNIALS OR DECIDUOUS SHRUBS (S) TYPICAL UTILITY CABINET FENCE AND PLANTING PLAN •PRUNE DAMAGED OR BROKEN BRANCHES. INSTALL TREES AND STAKES PLUMB. USE WIDE BELT -TYPE TREE TES; DO NOT USE ROPE OR WIRE IN HOST: SLEEVES. REUSABLE PERFORATED PLASTIC TREE WRAP (TO BE REMOVED ONE YEAR AFTER PLANTING). USE IF NECESSARY. 3-2• X 2• HARDWOOD STAKES 1/3 HEIGHT OF TREE OR MIN. OF 72'. ALLOW FOR A DEPTH OF 1Y BELOW UNDISTURBED GRADE. (STAKING TO BE REMOVED ONE YEAR AFTER PLANTING.) ROOT FLARE SHALL BE PLANTED AT OR SJGHTLY ABOVE FINAL GRADE (DUE TO NURSERY PRACTICES, THIS MAY REQUIRE REMOVING SOIL FROM THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL TO LOCATE THE ROOT FLARE). Y-3' FINE CHIPPED BARK MULCH, NOT MORE. DO NOT PLACE MULCH DIRECTLY AGAINST TRUNK. am. _ Y EARTH SAUCER. SCARIFY SUBGRADE TO 4•. AMEND BACKFILL AS $ ... BREAK UP CLODS AND 16'b REMOVE DEBRIS AND STONES IN. NOTE: CUT k REMOVE ALL WRAPPINGS FROM ROOT BALL. 3 TIMES DIAMETER OF ROOT BALL •ED PLANTING DECIDUOUS TREES < 3" CALIPER T VAX LAWN PER PLAN. 1' REVEAL MAX �2'-3 FINE CHIPPED BARN MULCH, NO MORE DO NOT COVER FOLIAGE. REFER TO SPECFlCATIOIMS 1 •" 18' �MINIMUM PLANT BED DEPTH CONTAINING 2/3 TOPSCIL AND 1/3 COMPOST MIX UNDISTURBED OR COMPACTED SOIL / `' TYPICAL PLANT BED/PLANTING AREA DETAIL 200 NTS �2'-3 FINE CHIPPED BARK MULCH, NO MORE. 00 NOT COVER FOUAGE. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS. �1B' MINIMUM PLANT BED DEPTH CONTAINING 2/3 TOPSOIL AND 1/3 COMPOST MIX. UNDISTURBED OR COMPACTED SOIL. �I \ TYPICAL PLANT BED/PLANTING AREA DETAIL L200 NTS . PRUNE TO REMOVE DEADWOOD k CROSSING BRANCHES. USE HIDE BELT TYPE TIES ON EACH MAJOR STEM ALL MAJOR STEALS SHOULD BE BELTED TOGETHER DO NOT USE ROPE OR WERE IN HOSE SLEEVES. ROOT FLARE SHALL BE PLAITED AT OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE FINAL GRADE (DUE TO NURSERY PRACTICES. THIS MAY REOUIRE REMOVING SOIL FROM THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL TO LOCATE THE ROOT FLARE). 2•- J' FINE CHIPPED BARK MULCH, NOT MORE DO NOT PLACE MULCH DIRECTLY AGAINST STEMS Y EARTH SAUCER Y X 2• X 10" HARDWOOD STAKES 3 PER TREE DRIVEN INTO GROUND. (STAKING TO BE REMOVED ONE YEAR AFTER PLANTING) AMEND BACKnLL AS SPECIFIED, BREAK UP CLODS AND REMOVE DEBRIS AND STONES SCARIFY SUBGRADE TO 4'. UNDISTURBED OR COMPACTED SOIL MOUND. NOTE: 3 TIMES CUT h REMOVE ALL WRAPPINGS FROM ROOT BALL DIAMETER OF ROOT BALL �6�MULT1-STEM PLANTING 1200 NTS PRUNE DAMAGED OR BROKEN BRANCHES. INSTALL TREES AND STAKES PLUMB. 4OF/ WOE BELT -TYPE TREE TIES, DO NOT USE ROPE WIRE IN HOSE SLEEVES. SABLE PLASTIC TREE WRAP (TO BE REMOVED ONE R AFTER PLANTING). T FLARE SHALL BE PLANTED AT OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE L GRADE (DUE TO NURSERY PRACTICES THIS MAY IRE REMOVING SOIL FROM THE TOP OF THE ROOT TO LOCATE THE ROOT FLARE). 3' FINE CHIPPED BARK MULCH, NOT MORE. DO PLACE MULCH DIRECTLY AGAINST TRUNK. ND BACKFBL AS SPECIFIED. BREAK UP CLODS REMOVE DEBRIS AND STONES. TH SAUCER - 2' DEPTH RIFY SUBGRADE TO 4' X Y X 19' HARDWOOD STAKES - 3 PER TREE - N UPHILL SIDE -NOTE'. CUT t REMOVE ALL WRAPPINGS FROM ROOT BALL ROOT BALL ANTING AND DECIDUOUS TREES > W CALIPER • PRUNE DAMAGED OR BROKEN BRANCHES INSTALL TREES AND STAKES PLUMS. USE WADE BELT -TYPE TREE TIES. DO NOT USE ROPE OR WIRE IN HOSE SFEVES ATTACH AT 2/3 HEIGHT OF TREE 3 - 2' X 2- HARDWOOD STAKES 1/3 HEIGHT OF TREE OR MIN. OF S'. ALLOW FOR A DEPTH OF 12' BELOW UNDISTURBED GRADE. (STAKING TO BE REMOVED ONE YEAR AFTER PLANTING.) / ROOT FLARE SHALL BE PLANTED AT OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE FINAL GRADE ((DUE TO NURSERY PRACTICES, THIS MAY REQUIRE REMOVING SOIL FROM THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL TO LOCATE THE ROOT FLARE). 2'- 3' FINE CHIPPED BARK MULCH, NOT MORE DO NOT PLACE MULCH DIRECTLY AGAINST TRUNK. 2• EARTH SAUCER e' MIN. AMEND BACKRLL AS SPE'CIFm, BREAK UP CLOGS AND REMOVE DEBRIS AND STONES 1 to 24' - SCARIFY SUBGRADE TO 4. UNDISTURBED OR COMPACTED SOIL MOUND. 3 TIMES NOTE DIAMETER OF CUT ! REMOVE ALL WRAPPINGS FROM ROOT BALL ROOT BALL 4 CONIFEROUS PLANTING --- -- L200 NTS -----.—PLANT 2- FINE CHIPPED BARK MULCH, NO MORE DO NOT COVER FOLIAGE 2/3 TOPSOIL AND 1/3 COMPOST MIXER. SEE PLANT SPECIFICATION FOR DEPTH OF SOIL MIX. _,:�UNCSTURBED OR COMPACTED SOIL TYPICAL GROUNDCOVER PLANTING L200 NTS PRUNE TO REMOVE DEADWOOD k CROSSING BRANCHES TOP ROOTBALL TO BE SAME HEIGHT AS IC PREVIOUSLY CROWN. FINE CHIPPED, PINE BARK MULCH, NOT M ORE MDO NOT PLACE AGAINST PLANT STEM. - — 2• EARTH sAucEn. AMEND BACKFlLL AS SPECIFIED, BREAK UP CLODS AND REMOVE DEBRIS AND STONES 3 TINES DIAMETER OF ROOT BALL L SHRUB PLANTING zoD NTS l \DECIDUOUS TREES <3'CALIPER NOTE: CUT k REMOVE ALL WRAPPINGS FROM ROOT BALL OR COMPACTED SOIL MOUND. PRUNE DAMAGED OR BROKEN BRANCHES. INSTALL TREES AND STAKES PLUMB. USE WIDE BELT -TYPE TREE TES: DO NOT USE ROPE OR WIRE IN HOSE SLEEVES REUSABLE PERFORATED PLASTIC TREE WRAP (TO BE REMOVED ONE YEAR AFTER PLANTING). 3 2• X 2- HARDWOOD STAKES 1/3 HEIGHT OF TREE OR MN. OF 72'. ALLOW FOR A DEPTH OF 12" BELOW UNDISTURBED GRADE. (STAKING TO BE REMOVED ONE YEAR AFTER PLANTING.) ROOT FLARE SHALL BE PLANTED AT OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE FINAL GRADE (DUE TO NURSERY PRACTCES, THIS MAY REQUIRE REMOVING SOIL FROM THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL TO LOCATE THE ROOT FLARE). 2 -3- FINE CHIPPED BARK MULCH, NOT MORE. DO NOT PLACE MULCH DIRECTLY AGAINST TRUNK. 2' EARTH SAUCER. AMEND BACKFILL AS SPECIFIED, BREAK UP CLODS AND REMOVE DEBRIS AND STONES. SCARIFY SUBGRADE TO 4'. NOTE - CUT k REMOVE ALL WRAPPINGS FROM ROOT BALL NTS P1219101TOMQGTv PDAV @UBHOTTIL 9 2/20/209 RIVLSXXHe Boyle. -- Appiicant: Eric Farrell landscape architects p ,planning consultants JbDJbo-23-2011 SPEAR MEADOWS T noo PO Box 1335 _ -- - _ - - °'� _ ----_ jJG Burlington, VT 05402 301 College SbDet, budirglon, vennonl e05401 802 M .35W IUIpJ1WWw.tjtwYMA "bo s es srlawn Landscape Details ProNdenoe° -PPOVH ID s1,amIWa«�� , a rubs 1*111 - 2ro \ — xcit za-ItM Fwwt asenthad Uee[kc.+rda'mr ThepS4�tsFd be mrypy m +aaweaMwn ay�:h xcw..va Fy;q. Th"xlo Edlah d faby UrBva ubRwNlofs ur�oubn. .GG� .9� a NEI�.k+1.21m EP.i.09F � 11¢ PIKY.'ilsake mdbetrAivarmFaim a mnd+-'s, _ O - M IMa sYd�a...a 6'!t Wm� .�bp paa v� be.maaa stl mwN aazsa; e sd mewh N aM F���� a�rgpwE� FNlSH Nez yPreezatriw;egmsWe! wN a�dme..al�abrrz „Nva4 mmoia'H+,u��av onwb atfi tn"r*kaLLw iYtMYrAvrrrArP_sYdtrmnryalot �.s{mid az�e. aeaarpM1 4tlmee+He.MN✓rftK[: pstomarx yrmfiv�m MFM � '3 !olvua P'+r trirmrwnn Ni-b Mldroi � dtiv arslN+g karat ra Corm �aaal�e�vebueml�iacsmd ere.uaw NJSII�danaer3+w tllaabll nMzcmmm+ref mromdWga+eaus eSArayimwvp gpbme paM:ts ma.!raca.ri+w �emapunuf sbw eeAxly zvzWo. PEFLEGTCP ugLE1.E- Bµ W I vaa'i alaJavay1.21F.ma?I F6Arakaerer;+z. �"• �polnaaiaw'tdmMrri.Tp ap bP'a MMzt alp 1oY!"a'�aa�a dmo� Prg _ cUy„Srz. G'L!2ro2Ee.IPb5 fa0.re5 war-stlslly tlaae Yasr 411at mnRCa;6 cary ae J+ mavrx+aav'-laran;w.n.p. ay <..ceprc.vrat;m, eaFx+��.r�0ew �rr�we!r�m Na N+'.tmV+1Nd we d: �aA. .cacatetaeP��rm<r PamaN wllra a. �wmuma lap msv.>aam ��wvmaeumaotre Poa p..1 r�� tlaasd aoa roto�!sap �glwunw s��eaF: rw�a�o-�maskwmn: �.w� ~ mo�P.+t�mr+ awornran wmNrk'aaaa�ry bsw6, haradnrra Nola A1dJb9)wl\>PMrYlakpN .tE+:.mr5'9. e>ayHvs, ".if�v6E,�e Architectural Area Lighting al;w.v I u rrnx ratsnnaar� aor; y.o m+o rwonW+a 4 PEDESTRIAN FIXTURE DETAIL L207 NTS Poles - DB6 P amoFwh�ral ox„la.�.4 x,.,� hirM1 0 uIDu!4 oPg� av •au cw nl 0 o r.� r� r. a Ar�llGequ�ralArea al�tlri7_ o we .� PEDESTRIAN FDRURE POLE DB6 4R14-125 L201 NTS ;IFIt aloe C I %I 1 I .e• ! � i I; C1 r"xJ I . . inµ m ku R'd �e1r, wpH .rom laic Ymc kp Js» Aa Ham, , nx.q tiM Fay. 4 w mp)-m Fµ'r� na Raum as mnn a, andw " ..alknrn e...,ram y<.ew� May penprm: .�� �irN<Eo ; Iln�%? Ir.FE Irwxi Fn'kH< �aa<km, w aka ya k, PHILIPS 2 100 CMH LAMP DETAIL 201 NTS 14' S-0" MIN 5'-0" FROM FINISHED GRADE AT BASE OR CURB ANCHOR BOLTS, AS PROVIDED BY MANUFACTURER 1" DIAMETER PVC CONDUIT REINFORCED CONCRETE FOUNDATION PRECAST OR CAST IN PLACE COMPACTED GRAVEL 3/4" X BID- COPPER GROUND ROD, CONNECT TO GROUND LUG IN POLE W/ #6 COPPER N1RE OR COMPACTED SUBGRADE PEDESTRIAN LIGHT FOOTING DETAIL L201 1Y1" = 1'-0" pG3C�d�G�n1�G.9L1G3rI pdGl4 �N�C3Gvt10441�1L T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC I sewslwls - : Applicant: Eric Farrell landscape architects *planning consultants jbo/mjb jbo 12-23-2011 _ SPEAR MEADOWS PID Box 1335 L2 0 1 - -_- _ Burlington, VT 05402 301 college street . burlllgton .vermont .OFi401 802 a658 4555 hapiAvaw.rlloyla.k:cal _Lbo .ml. as shown Lighting Details KICHLER LIGHTING q- No Family Association - Outdoor Bracket 1 Lt. Fluoresc IN24DCO Ou[Ooo1 Bradet I Lt. Fluorescent DIa AVklih: 5.0IN Body Nei"lt 9.3 IN Ldmgdn: 1.51N Available Finishes: deal Ienn.a wa tn• IaPvttlan iw tna. oae.a.tl roDPr Dntrastl Crones ramy •nclert owdwr fntwe. Psimde m.cttl, hm4.tl ertn and iis Mkd lnlorrnatbn r rrc/sMse. we Meml r sit, bdl sonic• mdr fo. a mntm• Iwk swa u µred•. wall I qhL tmOk, KS,— lamp —&d. 9add, 5'. Kesht 9 r FYyx[ 1mm a..[a a w.0 opa.ma s Ri .Il IndudedI.— for wtt location. R®Icemn[ bulb a0n. rgI-1 bAlal.031. Oeh Sky m PWt. U.S. Pant P•ndke. e Isweonemwe EXTERIOR WALL MOUNTED SCONCE FIXTURE L202 KICHLER F LIGHTING �. Tularon - Outdoor Bracket 1 Lt Fluoresce t 0415C0 Dulcwr Dr." I Lt. Roracert Dia,/Width: aC IN BodJHNghF 135 N Length: 9-551N Available Finishes: n••n.gr.N.+•n[rulrw Cdt•.tian Was f.-dalan uld omen yrew add.a`.A—u -1 hum•- Wdh ow —aim, Canyca — 1 161 tat At - .k 1 Tochnkd Informdbn .upa s:h .x CrRuy Ylwbi gob NeNxn won 9.Ha a.I—, ..art .1, d u ssn. kn1. wren In (f-r d1• Iona Ipdacrn pa ,drags atwm•. t00 weu imex. i o/Ib, he a MgM d 13.5 Iroha, and Is U.L. 16[tl br ntt laredm. Myrnm.elam roes. a a Ll.•1oa'roa n/ks, o..wY. conmDw KICHLER FM LIGHTING �\ Morris- Outdoor 1Lt Fluorescent 10928000 Outdoor 1Lt Fluorescent Dla/39Wth: 1,1IN Body Hdght 9. Q51N Available Finisher. Imuas•d Ice— Technkd Information Tote s r[lwu/Wb. w.idn a e, Th• mcaepa.ebbl wibna dttlgn ur the wall h.trn Irwn [he orryY dfklct.w 1. mllctan rdlch S—.1- r"I.. D's—d I,— fmax alma with Ne bslde etcx.d. Ldd—m —dy pas wal b..dmr.d ten.— aaam. 1 IIght. 2700x MM U W. JW21) ewe (—dtl). ML—Efficacy). Width 81/2'. 1,1SI1112'. Ext•awn 9% hegh[ from untr of -1 op•nma 3.3/!. Ndylet, she: a 3 r.' r s 1/1'. ILL. Imes Ia wit la.nm. mar aarYroln a-�ar tpxm. KICHLER FM LIGHTING �'C Pending Family Assignment - Outdoor Wall Sc— 1Lt Fluore 10% Ba Outdoor Wxll Smme 1U R—cm DIa IWII 9.751N Body "I 9." IN Available Fildahea: Black Ipaimed.. White Technkd Informatbn Upns dose nYaa rlr• erkvvMa wr� � wNp� as Trx Wrrdn akka— r eu wNa r n.Ipx x•m r< . may Yea.i wuWrvun arsd.wDlm.rebm ..sreslN EXTERIOR WALL MOUNTED SCONCE FIXTURE rZ�EXTERIOR WALL MOUNTED SCONCE FIXTURE Lzoz L2oz KICHLER LIGHTING ��- Alameda - Outdoor Wall Brkt 1Lt Fluoreac lowcv Outdoor Wall Brkt ILt Fluor— D13/WMeh: 5.0IN "Helght: 7 01N LOW& 5.5 IN Available Finishes: TKMkd Information T,De wear Lars .ar [•.1 xm x a�aa. mid ualn The It—.. C i—, shop In ample, dewmtoronh daryn m your outs dcu tldky en urassumrna dynemk m Y1. norms pMar. Ech fury utaba •clank len[•m Np.01 caush. Qv,i-via., fmbh and Mney opalecmt at,, p•nds, add Ynitam bmutyand.mblece, makma the cway.Hicant alem.de fadcebn a lamayd outbaor fvwa Mat )amens att•newn wfir•ar ya m W 1 it. TM demur• , I�t wdl len[ttn n the smdltt[ In tta alam.da I.- . It m.cura V wMa br T min. 1a a ISwan Imo.. I edb...d Y uL. lbt.d iw wtt Icc.tion. rJ EXTERIOR WALL MOUNTED SCONCE FIXTURE EXTERIOR WALL MOUNTED SCONCE FIXTURE L202 L202 N.Iw[n..,e•eY. r. ao x Im taaa UL M:rotw. unn KICHLER LIGHTING La nta ha - Outdoor Lahbm 1 Lt Fl—en "'o"2 O,ddw, Lantern ILt Fluorescent In DI..,W ..9.0 IN BodyllNfh' 13.0IN L&I ].l IN Available Finishes: tatrray ENklrnt--I— cdlc[M dwtdoe. uantIMb A,-Otectural B..., Mtl —ystyfbh wnhsdldlydd— lba ant done barcnkcswY Te,Rured Granite m.x. font and Ilk, umbr pm, rnb l leht.Al lwnr.la • I_ (dlt4) isuW IY 4dl and 19 wId., Whelk, ...,.Ms ) 1 /2' I_rh. — e.d Ma • Mlah[ of e' cram [lee curter d weuI ops�my. — fc wet l�c — Bedc•m•nt bulb ro awl. U. 5. Petmt DrdYe. T. h al Imormamn .L�s.n sm. rrolw elm..am xolx - .1.ra Laalx 711 rZ'.. Lr nwa 1.--D a.wn n.m seals. r. .�. ayaaena awwY EXTERIOR WALL MOUNTED SCONCE FIXTURE L202 9 2/00" 9 'A "ff YL�L I PO BOX 1335 landscape architects a planning consultants 301collegestreetabuilYlpeoR avermont a05401 8=4584555 heptM-.gbWM.mm a_ I12-23-2011 SPEAR MEADOWS asshown w _ _ _ __ L202 aFlown Li¢htin¢ DetAil8 HINTS FINIAL BALL TRUCK FOR INTERNAL HALYARD SYSTEM TAPERED FLAGPOLE NOTE: USE WOODEN WEDGES TO SHIM POLE PLUMB. REMOVE UPON PLACING SAND. FLASHING COLLAR CAULK AROUND TOP AFTER INSTALLATION GROUT TOP 2" OF GROUND SLEEVE GROUND SLEEVE SAND FILL CONCRETE FOOTER Yls' STEEL PLATE WELDED TO BOTTOM OF SLEEVE 0'- COMPACTED SUBGRADE OR UNDISTURBED SOIL '/" LIGHTENING SPIKE 18" LONG WELDED TO STEEL PLATE rf-�FLAG POLE DETAIL (TWO TOTAL) L203 NTS 6 COURTYARD PAVERS PINE HALL BRICK RUMBLED FULL RANGE COLOR L203 NTS 6X4X3P6 RECT TUBE 27•P STLPLIRLINS CONCRETE SLAB - 20-a' 0"g 16'-P - - 14'. p 15-P CONCRETE SUB 1'• P MNCCONCRETESLAB U•P ZJ.p NOTE: TOP VIEW GABLE NOT SRONA IN END NEW SO PURUN EXTENSIONS ARE VISIBLE. 2 X 6 T8G RIDGE CAP DECKING 24'•P 16-P GABLE TRIM 6-P --� 41112 10-99II6' DRIP EDGE ONE PIECE 6X4XMS CNIN T-IP 8X4X31I6 RECTTUBE RECT TUBE SIIPOST 1RUSSBEPM SIDE VIEW END VIEW SHEET 2 OF 6 ROCKY MOUNTAIN SERIES MODEL: 98-t16024.4TSPSB WITH 12" EAVE OVERHANG SCALE: NONE 16 X 24' ROCKY MOUNTAIN SHELTER WB" X 4• STEEL POSTS AND B" X 4' STEEL BEAMS 02001 REV07427110 N8&819tudmes P.O. BOX 270, BAKER CITY, OR 97814 PHONE: (541) 523-0224 FAX (541) 523-0231 (3)PAVILION DETAIL L203 NTS ENTRY PILLAR DETAIL L203 1/2" = 1'4" r 3' U 10, J.J _3 ENTRY WALL SECTION L203 1/2" = 1'-0" (12 ENTRY WALL - TYPICAL PLANTING PLAN L203 1/4" = V-0" 4' --------------------------------------- I I B" I \ ENTRY WALL ELEVATION p1�3C�d�Gv]�G.(]L^QG3`lI pC�Gl4 �MC3f�tl�44lQd REVIBgNs Boyle Associates, Applicant: Eric Farrell •� landscape architects .planning consultants-jbo/mjb �j�o 12-23-2011 SPEAR MEADOWS L2 03 - PO Box 1335 - - BuAington, VT 05402 301 college street a budington .Yennont "05401 802 .658-.1555 M�ilwvw.tltrvlb oom ,,,,, e .w as shown Site Details J• %�1200E PLAN SCALE: Ye" - I-o^ 51PE ELEVATION ' SCALE: Ye" - I _p' ��pEAP ELEVATION SCAT-E: yw _ I - _O.. MOT012 COURT ELEVATION 2 SCALE: Ye" - I'-o'. (7-womT ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES: THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS DEPICTED HEREIN REFLECT THE COMPLETION OF THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE OF THE PROJECT, AND ARE INTENDED TO ILLUSTRATE THE CHARACTER, THEME, VARIETY AND MDTURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES PRESENTED. THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF WINDOWS, DOORS, AND OTHER EXTERIOR FENESTRATION DETAILS. ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE, ALONG WITH ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE UNITS, AS THE INTERIOR FLOOR PLAN LAYOUTS ARE FINALIZED DURING THE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE OF THE PROJECT. ALL MODIFICATIONS TO THE ELEVATIONS WILL REMAIN CONSISTANT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER PRESENTED AND MAY INCLUDE ALTERNATIVE COLORS, THE ADDITION OF DECKS AND/OR SUNROOMS, ALTERNATE PORCH STYLES AND ORIENTATIONS, ALTERNATE ROOFING MATERIALS, AND OPTIONAL BASEMENT LEVEL DOORS AND WINDOWS, AS INDIVIDUAL SITE LOCATIONS WARRANT AND PERMIT. r�nuom�� ]] Church p.c. S t r e l Suita 304 Burllnpton armonl DC Q W CL V) 8. 10.2010 l LDG TYIE: An Ell jN S H E E T: A.I %1R00r- PLAN SCALE: Ya" — 1-0" 51PE ELEVATION SCALE: Ya" -- 1'-O" e — REA2 ELEVATION scale: Ye" - I-0" -- MOTOR COURT ELEVATION FIdon-EsTmommall I r-RON1" ELEVATION SCALE: Ya" — 1'_p'' to hlteciurOi� 99 Church P.C. S r I e t Sulfa 90e 9 urlinpton Vermont 0 9' a16' 6.10.2010 GENERAL NOTES: THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS DEPICTED HEREIN REFLECT THE COMPLETION OF THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE OF THE PROJECT, AND ARE INTENDED TO ILLUSTRATE THE CHARACTER, THEME, VARIETY AND MIXTURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES PRESENTED. THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF WINDOWS, DOORS, AND OTHER EXTERIOR FENESTRATION DETAILS, ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE, ALONG WITH ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE UNITS, AS THE INTERIOR FLOOR PLAN LAYOUTS ARE FINALIZED DURING THE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE OF THE PROJECT. ' ALL MODIFICATIONS TO THE ELEVATIONS WILL REMAIN CONSISTANT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER PRESENTED AND MAY INCLUDE ALTERNATIVE COLORS, THE ADDITION OF DECKS AND/OR SUNROOMS, ALTERNATE PORCH STYLES AND ORIENTATIONS, ALTERNATE ROOFING MATERIALS, AND OPTIONAL BASEMENT LEVEL DOORS AND WINDOWS, AS INDIVIDUAL SITE LOCATIONS WARRANT AND PERMIT. III LDG TYPE: V R;ATT ON E HEET: Ar2 lJ A 1Lf5„FL - 100' O•' UNIT 'SF-5X2': GARAGE-2X: I,065 S.F, 4915 51- , �1200r- PLAN SCALE: Ye" _ I-o" �MOT012 COURT E�LrVATION —I 5CALE: Ye" _ I'-o" %1r.a-AR r-LF-VATION r-"�5ipEE r-LEVATION %�PPONT �L�VATION G E N E R A L N O T E S: THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS DEPICTED HEREIN REFLECT THE COMPLETION OF THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE OF THE PROJECT, AND ARE INTENDED TO ILLUSTRATE THE CHARACTER THEME, VARIETY AND MDRURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES PRESENTED. THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF WINDOWS, DOORS, AND OTHER EXTERIOR FENESTRATION DETAILS, ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE, ALONG WITH ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE UNITS, AS THE INTERIOR FLOOR PLAN LAYOUTS ARE FINALIZED DURING THE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE OF THE PROJECT. ALL MODIFICATIONS TO THE ELEVATIONS WILL REMAIN CONSISTANT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER PRESENTED AND MAY INCLUDE ALTERNATIVE COLORS, THE ADDITION OF DECKS AND/OR SUNROOMS, ALTERNATE PORCH STYLES AND ORIENTATIONS, ALTERNATE ROOFING MATERIALS, AND OPTIONAL BASEMENT LEVEL DOORS AND WINDOWS, AS INDIVIDUAL SITE LOCATIONS WARRANT AND PERMIT. ,cl,lt O tun"11 S i f e t sons ape BVrlinplon V efinent � e.lo.20l0 � BLDG TYPE: �X q V A R I A SHEET! A:--;5 UNIT '5P-L': 1,758 51'. GPJEACEi -I: 206 5.P. �Izoo� PLAN 5Ca-e: Ye" - 1'-0" iL�r L � ILU•,O" (H)mo-ro12 coLx-' E�LyyA11oN 5Ca'e: &" - I,_o'' %�t2�Al2 rLF:VAi1oN ScsLE: Ye" - I'-o" D2 51PF- rL�VA-noN SCALe: Ye" - I-o" %,1��oN-r ELrVATIoN sc�e: Ye � - I - 'I G E N E R A L NO T E S: THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS DEPICTED HEREIN REFLECT THE COMPLETION OF THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE OF THE PROJECT, AND ARE INTENDED TO ILLUSTRATE THE CHARACTER THEME, VARIETY AND MIXTURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES PRESENTED. THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF WINDOWS, DOORS, AND OTHER EXTERIOR FENESTRATION DETAILS, ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE, ALONG WITH ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE UNITS, AS THE INTERIOR FLOOR PLAN LAYOUTS ARE FINALIZED DURING THE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE OF THE PROJECT. ALL MODIFICATIONS TO THE ELEVATIONS WILL REMAIN CONSISTANT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER PRESENTED AND MAY INCLUDE ALTERNATIVE COLORS, THE ADDITION OF DECKS AND/OR SUNROOMS, ALTERNATE PORCH STYLES AND ORIENTATIONS, ALTERNATE ROOFING MATERIALS, AND OPTIONAL BASEMENT LEVEL DOORS AND WINDOWS, AS INDIVIDUAL SITE LOCATIONS WARRANT AND PERMIT. OC a W d N l CDG TYI E: V A R I A q10 S H E E T A a UNIT 'SFTH-LX': -I X: nPzool= PLAN %MOTOlZ COUk2r ELEVATION (P2EAI2 ELEVATON scaLE::1 _ I,_o,. SIDE ELEVATION sca,e: Ye„ - I - -o" %1E�ONT ELEVATION 5cn1,E: Ye" - I.-0.. GENERAL NOTES: THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS DEPICTED HEREIN REFLECT THE COMPLETION OF THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE OF THE PROJECT, AND ARE INTENDED TO ILLUSTRATE THE CHARACTER, THEME, VARIETY AND MIXTURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES PRESENTED, THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF WINDOWS, DOORS, AND OTHER E)(TERIOR FENESTRATION DETAILS, ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE, ALONG WITH ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE UNITS, AS THE INTERIOR FLOOR PLAN LAYOUTS ARE FINALIZED DURING THE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE OF THE PROJECT. ALL MODIFICATIONS TO THE ELEVATIONS WILL REMAIN CONSISTANT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER PRESENTED AND MAY INCLUDE ALTERNATIVE COLORS, THE ADDITION OF DECKS AND/OR SUNROOMS. ALTERNATE PORCH STYLES AND ORIENTATIONS, ALTERNATE ROOFING MATERIALS, AND OPTIONAL BASEMENT LEVEL DOORS AND WINDOWS. AS INDIVIDUAL SITE LOCATIONS WARRANT AND PERMIT. renu.�ro� 11 C nOeu rc n r." 5 t t lull* 00, Oul.Oton Vermont OC Q PW d N L O N My": V A R I A SHEET: A5 eLi. _ i�.ioo A []Nil TH-5': UNIT 'P4': 'P4' GARAGE: 1.421 S.F. I I,'115 5.F. P200F PLAN MOTOR COURT FLrVA-rION SCALE: Ye" — 1 -0" REAR ELF-�VAT10N SCALE: Ye" -- I --0" %,1511�F r-LEVATION L SCALE: Ye" -• I'-O" _. %,1FpONT F-Lr-VA-noN 0 A' 16 GENERAL NOTES: THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS DEPICTED HEREIN REFLECT THE COMPLETION OF THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE OF THE PROJECT, AND ARE INTENDED TO ILLUSTRATE THE CHARACTER, THEME, VARIETY AND MIXTURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES PRESENTED. THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF WINDOWS, DOORS, AND OTHER EXTERIOR FENESTRATION DETAILS, ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE, ALONG WITH ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE UNITS. AS THE INTERIOR FLOOR PLAN LAYOUTS ARE FINALIZED DURING THE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE OF THE PROJECT. ALL MODIFICATIONS TO THE ELEVATIONS WILL REMAIN CONSISTANT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER PRESENTED AND MAY INCLUDE ALTERNATIVE COLORS, THE ADDITION OF DECKS AND/OR SUNROOMS, ALTERNATE PORCH STYLES AND ORIENTATIONS, ALTERNATE ROOFING MATERIALS, AND OPTIONAL BASEMENT LEVEL DOORS AND WINDOWS, AS INDIVIDUAL SITE LOCATIONS WARRANT AND PERMIT. rohir.oruo as C111ch I,-,.s t r a r suer. ao� r m 0 Vo o�r N O Q CLu C a Lu a V) 5,10.2010 BLDG TY►E: N alt V A R I A T I O N SHEET: A,6 { i %11ZOOF PLAN SCALP.: Yes' - I -o- ���M0T012 COUKi ELEVATION SCALP: Ye" - I � -o" %,12EAR ELEVATION sCATF: Yes - I'-o" ® rl n rL 11 ri rl rf ���SII�E ELEVATION %1F�OT ENLEVATION SCALE: Ye'• _ I,_o„ rcnu.Uclun� ]1 Cnurcn P.,. S I r s I S.11.EB4 Bvrunolon vsrmonl DC a W CL N O 4' BIh' B.10.2010 GENERAL NOTES: THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS DEPICTED HEREIN REFLECT THE COMPLETION OF THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE OF THE PROJECT, AND ARE INTENDED TO ILLUSTRATE THE CHARACTER, THEME, VARIETY AND MD(TURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES PRESENTED. THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF WINDOWS, DOORS, AND OTHER EXTERIOR FENESTRATION DETAILS, ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE, ALONG WITH ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE UNITS. AS THE INTERIOR FLOOR PLAN LAYOUTS ARE FINALIZED DURING THE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE OF THE PROJECT, ALL MODIFICATIONS TO THE ELEVATIONS WILL REMAIN CONSISTANT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER PRESENTED AND MAY INCLUDE ALTERNATIVE COLORS. THE ADDITION OF DECKS AND/OR SUNROOMS, ALTERNATE PORCH STYLES AND ORIENTATIONS, ALTERNATE ROOFING MATERIALS, AND OPTIONAL BASEMENT LEVEL DOORS AND WINDOWS, AS INDIVIDUAL SITE LOCATIONS WARRANT AND PERMIT. B'tJDG TYPE: f NEl7: A.7 4 ,A A 6-11 50. UNIT 'F4': 'F4' GN2AlwE ,515 S.F. b50 S.F. %11200F PLAN 5GALE: Ye" - I-C)'' 0MOT012 COURT ELEVA110N SCALE: Ye" — I -0" s 12EAI2 ELEVATION 2 SIDE ELEVATION %,LONT ELEVATION G E N E R A L NO T E S: THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS DEPICTED HEREON REFLECT THE COMPLETION OF THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE OF THE PROJECT, AND ARE INTENDED TO ILLUSTRATE THE CHARACTER. THEME, VARIETY AND MIXTURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES PRESENTED. THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF WINDOWS, DOORS, AND OTHER EXTERIOR FENESTRATION DETAILS, ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE, ALONG WITH ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE UNITS, AS THE INTERIOR FLOOR PLAN LAYOUTS ARE FINALIZED DURING THE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE OF THE PROJECT. ALL MODIFICATIONS TO THE ELEVATIONS WILL REMAIN CONSISTANT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER PRESENTED AND MAY INCLUDE ALTERNATIVE COLORS, THE ADDITION OF DECKS AND/OR SUNROOMS, ALTERNATE PORCH STYLES AND ORIENTATIONS, ALTERNATE ROOFING MATERIALS, AND OPTIONAL BASEMENT LEVEL DOORS AND WINDOWS, AS INDIVIDUAL SITE LOCATIONS WARRANT AND PERMIT. rchllecluo 11 ChurchI- S i r e I I'll, 10, eramn Baroon Vont 1 8,10.20101 OLDG TYPE: q1101 I A SHEET: A,B eZoor- PLAN SCALE: Ye" - I ' -O" %molrok COUI2t ELEVATION SCALE: Y .. - I. f f2EA� ELEVATION SCAI E: Ye" - I, -o" SIDE ELEVATION %1��ONt ELEVATION G E N E R A L NO T E S: THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS DEPICTED HEREIN REFLECT THE COMPLETION OF THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE OF THE PROJECT, AND ARE INTENDED TO ILLUSTRATE THE CHARACTER, THEME, VARIETY AND MIXTURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES PRESENTED. THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF WINDOWS, DOORS, AND OTHER EXTERIOR FENESTRATION DETAILS, ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE, ALONG WITH ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE UNITS, AS THE INTERIOR FLOOR PLAN LAYOUTS ARE FINALIZED DURING THE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE OF THE PROJECT. ALL MODIFICATIONS TO THE ELEVATIONS WILL REMAIN CONSISTANT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER PRESENTED AND MAY INCLUDE ALTERNATIVE COLORS, THE ADDITION OF DECKS AND/OR SUNROOMS, ALTERNATE PORCH STYLES AND ORIENTATIONS, ALTERNATE ROOFING MATERIALS, AND OPTIONAL BASEMENT LEVEL DOORS AND WINDOWS, AS INDIVIDUAL SITE LOCATIONS WARRANT AND PERMIT. GC a W CL N 1 8 10.2010 1 6LDG TYPE: r�x �It V A R I A T I O N SHEET: A.9 IF n r u 0 :'P9' TINU UNIT .9.2 2H',I LfIIE5 5.F. 1 . i.2 ICa 671 S.F. S-woor- PLAN 5CALe: Ye �120NT ELE�Val "ION O I1MOT0p COUP -TV 5VC- ELrWATION 5CA-Es: Ye" - r -o'' (;')mAk2 I;LE VATION scA e: Ye" - I-o" �MOTOp COUY�T/ SII'J� �L�VATION o B6' 8.10.201:J G E N E R A L N O T E S: THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS DEPICTED HEREIN REFLECT THE COMPLETION OF THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE OF THE PROJECT, AND ARE INTENDED TO ILLUSTRATE THE CHARACTER, THEME, VARIETY AND MD(TURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES PRESENTED. THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF WINDOWS, DOORS, AND OTHER EXTERIOR FENESTRATION DETAILS, ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE, ALONG WITH ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE UNITS, AS THE INTERIOR FLOOR PLAN LAYOUTS ARE FINALIZED DURING THE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE OF THE PROJECT. ALL MODIFICATIONS TO THE ELEVATIONS WILL REMAIN CONSISTANT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER PRESENTED AND MAY INCLUDE ALTERNATIVE COLORS, THE ADDITION OF DECKS AND/OR SUNROOMS, ALTERNATE PORCH STYLES AND ORIENTATIONS, ALTERNATE ROOFING MATERIALS, AND OPTIONAL BASEMENT LEVEL DOORS AND WINDOWS, AS INDIVIDUAL SITE LOCATIONS WARRANT AND PERMIT. BLDDG TYPE: V ARIA qlll ASH EET: / \,10 un 0 %��2OOP I -LAN SCALE: YB" - I,_o„ �1511�E ELEVATION SCALE: Y" — N �1MAR F-LF-VATION SCALE: Ye" — I'-O" r--'XM0 0lO COL#Zr FLEVA1I0N �1FpONT ELEVATION SCALE: Ye" — I-C)'' O 4' S' 11' G E N E R A L N O T E S: THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS DEPICTED HEREIN REFLECT THE COMPLETION OF THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE OF THE PROJECT, AND ARE INTENDED TO ILLUSTRATE THE CHARACTER, THEME, VARIETY AND MD(TURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES PRESENTED. THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF WINDOWS, DOORS. AND OTHER EXTERIOR FENESTRATION DETAILS, ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE, ALONG WITH ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE UNITS, AS THE INTERIOR FLOOR PLAN LAYOUTS ARE FINALIZED DURING THE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE OF THE PROJECT. ALL MODIFICATgNS TO THE ELEVATIONS WILL REMAIN CONSISTANT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER PRESENTED AND MAY INCLUDE ALTERNATIVE COLORS, THE ADDITION OF DECKS AND/OR SUNROOMS, ALTERNATE PORCH STYLES AND ORIENTATIONS, ALTERNATE ROOFING MATERIALS, AND OPTIONAL BASEMENT LEVEL DOORS AND WINDOWS, AS INDIVIDUAL SITE LOCATIONS WARRANT AND PERMIT. rcnu.cmO k as Cnurcn P.c. s n e e r Sulr• i0� Burllnpton v srmont N 3 O 0 a W t D O V) B.10.2010 piY►E: V A R I A T I J S N E E T A,I I e III Lr : A ,'M-NT' TIVIU UNIf 'TH-AA', GA1PArE: .4.L 0S2 .9.2 000',I 1,700 5.F. 526 5.F. RCCr- PLAN %1r120NT ELEVATION ' SCALE: Ye" - I'-o �MO-rCR GOU12T/ 511E ELEVATION %LA12 ELEVATION �1M01 Op COUI'T/ 5irF ELEVATION SCAI EE: Av. — 1'-0.. G E N E R A L NO T E S: THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS DEPICTED HEREIN REFLECT THE COMPLETION OF THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE OF THE PROJECT, AND ARE INTENDED TO ILLUSTRATE THE CHARACTER, THEME, VARIETY AND MD(TURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES PRESENTED. THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF WINDOWS, DOORS, AND OTHER EXTERIOR FENESTRATION DETAILS, ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE, ALONG WITH ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE UNITS, AS THE INTERIOR FLOOR PLAN LAYOUTS ARE FINALIZED DURING THE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE OF THE PROJECT. ALL MODIFICATIONS TO THE ELEVATIONS WILL REMAIN CONSISTANT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER PRESENTED AND MAY INCLUDE ALTERNATIVE COLORS, THE ADDITION OF DECKS AND/OR SUNROOMS, ALTERNATE PORCH STYLES AND ORIENTATIONS, ALTERNATE ROOFING MATERIALS, AND OPTIONAL BASEMENT LEVEL DOORS AND WINDOWS, AS INDIVIDUAL SITE LOCATIONS WARRANT AND PERMIT. r�nu.�cwn� as cnu 'Cn P.C. e r r e r s��te aae Burlington Vermont C O E AL- W OC a LLJ CL N) 1 8.10.2010 PTYIE: V I A ql. I HE ET: A,I 2 I Aft� I'm; 1 4 A Fx ;7*7- a- an, is"I-IIN - d F11 At .AIL 116 J�-"w wo IRIS GINC. I'RANSPORTATION Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study South Burlington, VT August 2010 DATA ANALYSIS ■ SOLUTIONS MM,Ak- ASPORTSG,�_ -C A"110\ 60 Lake Street, Unit 1E ■ Burlington, Vermont 05401 802.383,0118 • r ,. 802.383.0122 - www.rsginc.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..............................................................................1 3.0 SCOPE OF STUDY......................................................................................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 U 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 i.0 DESIGN REVIEW ...................................................................................... 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 Figure7: 2011 PM Peak Hour No Build............................................................................................................... 11 Figure 8: 2016 AM Peak Hour No Build.............................................................................................................. 12 Figure9: 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 Figure14: 2021 AM Peak Hour Build.................................................................................................................. 18 Figure15: 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.................................................................................................... 6 Table 2: Trip Distribution Assumptions for Site -Generated Traffic (does not include diverted trips) ................... 7 Table 3: Level -of -Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections ............................................... 20 Table4: AM Peak Hour LOS Results..................................................................................................................... 21 Table5: PM Peak Hour LOS Results..................................................................................................................... 21 Table 6: Estimated AM Peak Hour Queues......................................................................................................... 22 Table 7: Estimated PM Peak Hour Queues......................................................................................................... 23 8 August 2010 Page ii .. 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,3 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),4 Traffic Impact Evaluation: Study and Review Guide,' 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 8`h 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 ifit,' jai fi. -, P� Vale �. Drive po°o o°Access 00 0 / omrv9oQp06- 0000� Ar r .. ..IDAc7DAQ9A R U IAIIC[41 �' OVONLAV .TWT saw. 0 ic�Aw Nrt Mni uaN oo= Spear 1 - Street i Access YT 3.0 SCOPE OF STUDY 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 800 400 0 800 feet �s Study lnterse'tionAL a ` 7 'r. .. v Acce I at C �g L Spear Meadows Road (new) Spear, Meadows GL N �R AcC� 's 42 of Vale Drive (existing) �O P .. N' tr ` 'O Q ZZZZ n O. < 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 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 w z r Q crosswalk 1 �► 0 t - '0 1. v Proposed Project Site 4 o -J �S o i Spear Street L 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 CDV 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 "1 IF P.; g �,.t�-........� r�P r�A�' We Jr A 51.pg_ - T ' i/y" �• i tJ� fjt~r{ } s;f..; 'li � C{ 1 6,« �L.•/—~ .n't-•' - I— Spear Meadows •.T_ii: 1' �tC,,\ fir- c' �'.,+'r•I ill South Burlington;?,? ' r.1 LAND fARM RO , 7L1T - I r 7rt„y�`j.a,r�-„1i]AJ� j'�_l, -Cider Mill 1 i {' jltt�lc:}T t4( 1 •.._ r 1 1&1 r _ . 1' r 1• - 7 south - 5 `, 1` �'r 1 .s I.. - , Village Goldberg y1 Shelburne ice\ Shelburne - 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)l 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 210 Weekday AM Weekday PM ITE Land Use Name Size Enter Exit Enter Exit Single -Family Detached Housing 220 Apartment 230 Residential Condominium/Townhouse 25 units 7 20 19 11 29 units 4 14 22 12 15 units 2 9 9 4 Subtotal 12 1 44 49 1 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 oft raffic for the year and is used as the design standard in Vermont. Z 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 Traffic 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 2: 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. 1 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 Weekdav AM Spear Street 0 3 0 i 0 R. 0 v x 0 x 2 2 n 1% t r 14 21 7 7 tA r 5 0 7 1 0 m 0 n 0 �► 0 < 0 m 1, t r 0 5 1 Spear Street 8 August 2010 Page 8 R 2 1 .0 R 2 4- 0 0 -► F 0 ,r 2 0 C c 3 z Site -Generated Traffic Weekdav PM Spear Street 0 14 0 A ' f 0 0 v x 0 -► 4- 0 9 jr 5 �n 1 7 7 it 7 7 3 29 0 R. 16 O N v a 8 15 0 7 4 .r i L 0 `i t P 0 14 3 Spear Street 0- 2 7 4- 0 0 y ,r 1 ,osed Project Site Vale Drive 2 4 A? % R 4 f- 0 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 A) L 45 - R. 73 m w 58 -► F 250 `^ D 69 r 87 � 27 r 227 325 11616 253 0 1 5. A t F 669 0 12 230 11 0 m 33 -V m a 5 -► v <' 4 —0 `i t P 1 509 16 Spear Street t 0 3 o p- M O a v7 y � o 4- 26 1 .0 4— 1 24 r 21 ,osed Project Site Vale Drive 15 7 � L a m 0 2 E F 42 LL 3 zo On -street bicycle travel accounts for roughly S% of the turning movement counts at the Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road intersection. 8 August 2010 W"Om Page 10 Figure 7: 2011 PM Peak Hour No Build Weekdav PM Spear Street 74 347 78 cn 48 34 at, 4 208 �► a F 141 m 231 �- 131 v3 `1 t IF 255 244 106 644 0 1 L t dw 604 0 32 577 35 Al ♦ L 0 0 22 n 6 -► rD 3 t 5 548 38 Spear Street 1,— 19 11 k— 6 4- 9 72 -► ♦- 53 I- 30 0 Of LL 3 0 z Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 11 Figure 8: 2016 AM Peak Hour No Build Weekday AM Spear Street 48 112 13 F 45 74 14 59 253 $ `i t 229 328 117 255 0 % r r 675 0 12 232 11 0 q 33 ru o_ 5 0 < 5 �' I 1 513 16 Spear Street 8 August 2010 Page 12 26 1 -0 '*— 2 1 24 -► 4- 43 ,�- 21 0 0 E m m 3 z° Figure 9: 2016 PM Peak Hour No Build Weekday PM Spear Street 75 350 79 J L L i 48 -0 R- 34 5 210 -i 4- 142 y R 233 132 v3 'i t P 257 246 107 650 0 1 % t ? 610 0 32 582 36 A� 1 L 0 0 22 ru n 6 -i 3 -y rD t IF 5 5 553 39 Spear Street 6— 19 12 6 4- 9 73 54 p- 30 0 E LL M 3 O Z Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 13 Figure 10: 2016 AM Peak Hour Build Weekdav AM Spear Street 48 115 13 45 —0 R 74 v 14 59 253 x 71 90 v3 1244 349 12424 0 9f 34 J ro a S -► 0 < 5 ro 264 7 � L A R 40 3 v v -00 ru o v o a r 8 t F 717 5 12 239 12 .d 4 �A 'i t P 1 518 17 Spear Street R 28 1 ,- 23 2 24 losed Project Site Vale Drive 19 9 0 R 4cc E 43 m _0 C 0 0 z 8A - Augustt 2010 Page 14 w Figure 11: 2016 PM Peak Hour Build Weekday PM Spear Street 75 364 79 Ln 48 34 v 210 -► 4- 142 x 242 138 v3 � r 264 253 11010 0 23 M a 7 �► 0 < 3 m 662 29 ♦ 1L t F 627 15 33 589 39 .0 ♦ ;L It t P 5 567 42 Spear Street 16 3 v y p 0 o 8- Ma Ln W o n i 8 k- 20 F 10 Irr 31 19 73 -► osed Project Site Vale Drive 7 10 t0 r 10 �- 54 LL a c 3 0 z OUR Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 15 Figure 12: 2021 AM Peak Hour No Build Weekday AM Spear Street 49 113 13 A 4 L 46 .! R. 74 v 59 -► a F 255 70 89 3 t r 21 331 118 258 0 10 4 % R. 0 3 a m o a to N o i- 0 1 F 681 0 12 234 11 .t 4 IA 0 � 34 a 5 -► 0 < 5 ro _ I 1 518 16 Spear Street 8 August 2010 Page 16 iosed Project Site Vale Drive 15 7 m A? % 0 cc 1 AOl h— 2 E 24 -► 4- 43 m C 0 z Figure 13: 2021 PM Peak Hour No Build Weekday PM Spear Street 75 353 80 49 35 v 212 f- 144 235 134 V) `% t F 259 248 108 656 0 t L t f 616 0 33 588 36 0 m 22 -0 rD a 6 3 ro t r 6 6 559 39 Spear Street 1,— 19 12 .0 R- 6 4— 9 74 -► 4- 54 r 30 Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 17 Figure 14: 2021 AM Peak Hour Build Weekday AM Spear Street 49 116 13 Al ♦ L 46 74 v 59 -► 255 =° 7 2 I- 91 v3 `1 t f 246 352 125 266 7 ♦ L t f 723 5 13 241 12 .r ♦ L 0 m 34 -0 rD a 5 �► O < 5 rD IN ♦ f 1 522 17 Spear Street 8 August 2010 Page 18 46' 29 2 -0 R. 4 4- 1 24 ♦ 4- 43 0- 23 0 LL c C 3 0 z Figure 15: 2021 PM Peak Hour Build Weekdav PM Spear Street 75 367 80 v, 49 J LL 35 V 212 -1 4- 144 $ °+ 245 �- 139 v3 � r 267 255 11111 668 29 ♦ L 8 16 3 v N -0 r0 0 aMi cc o � 8 a t IF 633 15 losed Project Site Vale Drive 33 595 40 7 10 0 1 ♦ L 23 R. 21 19 k. 10 rD a 7 "► 4- 10 74 -i r 54 o -o r 3 I< 32 t IF I z° 6 572 42 Spear Street 0" Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study W Page 19 4.0 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 510.0 < 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 VTrans 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 a Spear Street -Swift Street 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 - B 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 B 19 0.04 C 21 0.04 C 21 0.04 B 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 W B TR 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 NB 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 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 2S 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 NBTR 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 B 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 WBLT 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 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. 50th 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(ft) Queue(ft) Queue(ft) Signalized Intersections 50th 95`h 50`h 95rh soth 95`h 50rh 95`h 50`h 95`h 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 WBTR 60 191 27 92 27 95 62 197 62 208 NB 43 92 26 91 28 97 44 95 48 100 NBTR 89 241 48 215 52 232 92 248 100 265 SB L 2 30 1 7 1 7 2 11 2 10 SB TR 32 76 23 76 24 78 1 33 78 34 78 Unsi nalized Intersections Spear Street -Spear Meadows Road (proposed) WBI 3 2 WBR 7 8 58 l 1 1 Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road EB LTR 11 53 57 12 13 WBLT 6 12 13 6 7 NB LTR 0 1 1 0 0 SBL 1 1 1 1 1 Nowland Farm Road -Vale Drive EBL 0 0 0 0 0 S8l 2 2 2 2 2 .. v.ci �o ya ii .y-yucuc> iiiay ve i�ii�ei 8 August 2010 Page 22 Storage Say Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 50 150 Table 7: Estimated PM Peak Hour Queues PM 2011 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 501h 95`h 50`h 95th 50th 95th 50th 95th 501h 95th Spear Street -Swift Street a 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 SBL 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 `IW 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 WB LT 26 26 30 27 32 NB LTR 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 3 3 3 1 3 3 db Nowland Farm Road -Vale Drive EBL 1 1 1 1 1 SBL 1 1 2 1 2 n Svc. i.. v.­y-q­-i­yuei %n Storage Say 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 951h 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 Wrans (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 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 HCLs: 2003-2007 \ 0 250 S00 1,000 Number of crashes O Fee 1 2 3 4 05.8 ° • 9 12 ; u • ° 13 - 16 �CLSections�- ��� s � a ° o 0 o W s�o,at HtOGt °a- Spear A Meadows I 1 N �S UOgFYRO s I � ii OvtRiOOKM _ _ L00 R NOCYI.ANpF '�• � l M RO \ 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 Crash Type fee o, Rear End Single Vehicle Crash � c Broadside Involving Left -Turn lr� OSideswipe tF? 5 HCL Sections \ LL z � k o o G 0 A STONEH� R-.� Spear 1 ' 1T Meadows R n v GREY RD Z a T A O 'C A / O OVERLOOK DR � DE--.ERI�E�D Ok m _.- N04 I -1y_w " D FA M RD 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, Smoke 3% Other 2 % 20/ Not Reported 3% \� Rain 3% Figure 20: Contributing Factors in Study Area Crashes 30 --- — 27 20 f-- v L h 15 i 13 10 10 — _..__._ ..—_._ 5 3 3 Inattention Followedtoo Failed to Unknown Made an Drivingtoo Failureto Other 5wervingor Distracted Disregarded Visibility closely yleidrightof improper fast for keep in improper avoiding traffic signs obstructed way turn conditions properlane action or running 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. 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. 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. 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. 5 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 Figure 23: Sight Distance to the North as Measured from Site Plan ' Point 14.5' from E OF EXISTING PAVEMENT MINIMUM OF 1 FT. CLEAN EXISTING HOUSE AND t GARAGF.1 TO BE REMOVED- traveled way ' T NTH EMULSION PRIOR DETAIL THIS SHEET) -1 \ EXISTING DRIVE L I 392 I IG (SEE TO BE (REMOVED -, o )VE EXISTING 12" CMP 'ERT REPLACE WITH L _ -�— I RELOCATRELOCA I + 395\ AND RESTORE EXISTING IS E TIN Tree does not EXIS NG 15" HDPE STORM LINE 5' OFF NEW EDGE OF DRIVEWAYS AFTER -, MAILBOX appear to Interfere GMP POLL- II :MEN') INSTALLATION OF I NEW STORM LINE RELOCATE EXISTING I with sight. distance I(�\ ) NEW 15" HDPE GMP POLE. I IPC INV. = 382.0' NEW 15" HDPE I EDGE OF 'EMENT RELOCATE INV. - 384.2' EXISTING - - IITE 8" YELLOW ', MAII(30X _ _ � ' C— - - 385 386 - 1� . .r A.STING EDGE OF PAVEMENT O D TT D 4" ` ® ® `PAVEMENT WHITE LINE WE EXISTING MARKINGS EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT \ TO REMAIN \ 4" WHITE AS REQUIRED \ \ LINE \ PEDESTRIAN ADVANCE PEDESTRIAN \ CROSSING SIGNS EXISTING HEDGE TO BE REMOVED AS NECCESARY WARNING CROSSING SIGN MUTCD STANDARD) (PER MUTCD)PEDESTRIAN FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS \ `PER 1VADE PEDESTRIAN8" \CR.SS YELLC WALK LINES SPEAR STREET TURN LANE PARTIAL SITE PLAN 1 "= 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.z 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 SO'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. Z 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 PM 08/08/10 09:35 AM Raw Count Data DHV & Annual Adjustments (1) to I — — 2011 --- — - — Synchro Node EB WB NB SB 1 SpearSt/Swift St L 48 124 236 78 1 DHVATR/CTC S613086 SBuHin`ton:5pe_a,St0.3miNofswill— DHV Calculations South Burlington, VT T 208 141 226 328 DHV Poll Group Urban I ATR/CTC Year 2009 7/30/2009 R 228 34 98 74 1823 Annl Grwth ATR/CTC ID 56DO86 S Bu in` pn: spear St 0.3 mi Nof Swrf ATR/CTC AADT 4,900 5th Thursday Enter 484 299 560 480 1823 Annl Grwth Poll Group Urban 1 2009-2009 Growth 1.00 CCMPO Exit 384 451 308 680 1823 TM Count Year 2009 Corr. AADT 4,900 %Trucks 0.4% 1.7% 0.5% 0.4% DHV Adjustment 0.65 DHV (Equation) n/a Peds 4 1 1 1 PHF 2009-2011 Growth 0.96 CalulcatedAdjustment DHV (K-Factor) 510 Peak Hour 3:45 PM - 4:45 PM Peak 0.92 Total Adjustment t a Corr. Count 788 EB WB NB SB 2 Spear St/Nowland Farm Rd L 22 27 5 34 DHVATR/CTC 56DO86 5BurI.ngtonSpear5t0.3miNo(Swif� — DHVCalculations South Burlington, VT T 6 9 504 538 DHV Poll Group Urban Ii ATR/CTC Year 2009 7/22/2010 R 3 18 34 32 1232 AnnlGrwthATR/CTCID S61D086 5Buniyton:Sp— St0.3miws.itt ATR/CTCAADT 4,900 4th Thursday Enter 31 54 S43 604 1232 Annl Grwth Poll Group Urban 2009-2010 Growth 0.98 RSG Exit 14 46 544 168 1132 TM Count Year 2010 Corr. AADT 4,802 %Trucks 0.0% 1.9% 1.7% 1.0% DHV Adjustment 0.44 DHV (Equation) n/a Fed s 4 1 1 18 I PHF 2010-2011 Growth 0.98 Calulcated Adjustment DHV (K-Factor) 500 Peak Hour 4:45 PM - 5:45 PM Peak ,, 0.93 Total Adjustment f a Corr. Count 1,148 EB WB NB SB 3 Nowland Farm Rd/Vale Dr L 11 0 0 6 DHVATR/CTC ".. S6023 Nrs-atm Nmeanrte s: South Burlington, VT T 67 50 0 0 DHV Poll Group Ural Primary and Secondary 7/22/2010 R 0 6 0 4 144 Annl Grwth ATR/CTC ID -' P6C007 Hard k k: VT15 70Dft w of VT14 4th Thursday Enter 78 56 0 10 144 Annl Grwth Poll Group 7 RSG Exit 73 54 17 144 TM Count Year, 2010 %Trucks 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% DHV Adjustment: #CIV/01 Pedsl 0 0 0 13 1 PHF 2010-2011 Growthl Peak Hour 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM Peak 0.88 Total Adjustment r t Page 1 of 6 Adjusted Raw Counts ODVs L 2011 1 C Cider Mill Phase 1 Enter Exit PM 1 51 30 81 EB WB NB 5B 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 2227 5 34 L 0 1 T 6 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 WEI NB SB EB WB NB SB L 11 0 - 0 -- 6 I Lr— - -- i T 67 50 0 0 T) 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 Travelling through Nnwland/Dorset V V B Nentering SB exiting intersection intersection 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 j Enter Exit PM 69 39 107 Trip distribution based on AM EB WB NB SB L— RI - j 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 T 2 1 R�-- 3 Enter 2 1 0 0 3 Exit 2 1 0 0 3 Travelling through 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 CCMP SBOR83 PM peak hot ODVs ODVs L South Village Goldberg Enter Exit �Enter Exit PM 1 157 85 242 PM I 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 SB L 7 19 T 18 19 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 1 89 Enter 0 2 48 39 89 Exit 3 0 44 41 89 EB WB NB SB L 0 T 3 2 R 0 5 Enter 3 2 0 0 5 Exit 3 2 0 0 5 Travelling through Nowland/Spear SS exiting intersection NB entering intersection 41 48 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 T RF — — J 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NO SB L T RF 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 Travelling through Nowland/Dorset 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 resul wB EB (Allen) (S. Village) NB (Spear) SB (Spear) 'O TM count L 116 0 172 0 i -Spear-Allen T 0 0 558 197 it May 2004 R 37 0 0 114 -J 1194 Enter 153 0 730 311 1194 Exit 0 286 674 234 1194 Page 3 of 6 ODVs L _ Shelburne -O'Brien Enter Exit PM 1 17 10 27 EB WB NB SB J: RT L - _ _ Enter 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 PM No Build r Z0H Trip Generation Enter Exit PM 1 49 27 76 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L 48 131 255 78 L 5 7 T 208 141 244 347 T 7 14 0 R 231 34 106 74 1896 R 9 3 46 0 Enter 487 306 604 499 1896 Enter 9 5 17 14 46 0 Exit 392 470 326 709 1896 Exit 3 7 7 29 46 Spear Meadows Road WBL WEIR NBR SBL 8 16 15 29 EB _ WB NB SB RL _ 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SS T -- L R[ — — — — - — Enter 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 T.... Ili— th--h N-1—i )--t NB entering SB exiting intersection intersection 10 4 per CCMPO TM counts 4% are EBR 6% are NBL ting vol at Nowland/Vale 0 exit EB 0 enter WB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L 22 30 5 35 L 1 1 4 T 6 9 548 577 T 1 0 14 7 R 3 19 38 32 1325 R 2 3 0 33 Enter 31 58 592 644 1325 Enter 1 3 17 11 33 Exit 80 47 589 610 ' 1325 Exit 8 1 16 9 33 EB WB NB SB EB WB NEI SB L it 0 0 6 L 7 4 T 72 53 0 0 1 T 1 0 R 0 6 0 4 153 R 4 2 17 0 Enter 84 59 0 10 153 Enter 7 4 0 6 17 0 Exit 78 58 17 0 153 Exit 4 2 11 0 17 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% E8 WB NB SB 1. Directional NB enter S8 enter NB exit SB exit based on Sf L 0 0 0 0 distribution 25 25 14 14 T 0 0 604 644 SpearE15 r enter R 0 0 0 0 2. Internal Meado S from N exit to N exit to S Assumed distribution w Rd 23 13 8 ValeDr 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 58 L 48 136 262 78 T 208 141 251 361 1 R 240 34 109 74 1942 Enter 496 311 622 513 1942 Exit 395 477 333 737 1942 EB WB NB SB L 23 31 5 39 T 7 10 562 584 1 R 3 20 42 32 1359 Enter 33 61 609 655 1359 Exit 88 48 605 618 1359 ES WB NB SB L 19 0 0 10 T 72 53 0 0 1 R 0 10 0 7 171 Enter 91 63 0 16 171 Exit 82 60 29 0 171 )ear St N-S directional split (see ODVs) 11 Annual Adjustment Adjusted Raw Counts r-2016 2016 1.01 2011to2016 EB WB NB SB L 48 125 238 79 7 210 142 228 331 R 230 34 99 75 1941 Enter 489 302 566 485 1841 Exit 388 456 311 687 1841 EB WB NB SB L 22 27 5 34 T 6 9 509 543 RI 3 18 34 32 ; 1244 Enter 31 55 548 610 1244 Exit 75 46 549 574 1244 EB WB NB SB L it 0 6 T 68 51 0 0 6 R 0 6 0 4 145 Enter 79 57 0 10 145 Exit 74 55 17 0 145 Spear Meadows Road Page 5 of 6 No Build 2016 EB WB NB SB L 132 257 79 T F(0 142 246 350R3 34 107 75 1914 Enter 492 309 610 504 1914 Exit 396 474 329 715 1914 EB WB NB SB 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 SB L 12 0 0 6 T 1 73 54 0 0 R 0 6 0 4 155 Enter 85 60 0 10 155 Exit 79 58 18 0 155 EB WB NB 5B 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 WB NB 58 L 23 31 5 39 T 7 10 567 589 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 SB L 0 8 0 29 T 0 0 627 662 R 0 16 15 0 Annual Adjustment 2021 1.01 2016to2021 No Build 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 9 559 598 R 3 19 39 33 1350 Enter 32 59 603 656 1350 Exit 81 48 600 621 1350 EB WB NB SB L 12 0 0 6 T 74 54 0 0 R 0 6 0 4 Enter 85 61 0 10 Exit 80 59 18 0 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 35 111 75 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 1 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 0 156 R 0 10 0 7 174 156 Enter 93 64 0 16 174 156 Exit 84 61 29 0 174 EB WB NB SB L 0 8 0 29 T 0 0 633 668 R 0 16 15 0 Page 6 of 6 AM 08/08/10 09:32 AM Raw Count Data DHV & Annual Adjustments (1) to _ 2011 _ Synchro Node EB WB NB SB 1 Spear St/Swift St L 45 79 206 13 DHb ATR/CTC S613086 s_-,st.,, ,Pa _ r„;,swift DHv Calculations South Burlington, VT T 58 250 295 101 DHV Doll Group Urban ( ATR/CTC Year 2009 7/30/2009 R 64 73 105 48 1337 Ann[ Grwth ATR/CTC ID 56DO86 5B.rr,gt- S—IStCi m N,,}swat ATR/CTC AADT 4,900 5th Thursday Enter 167 402 606 162 1337 Annl Grwth Poll Group Urban 2009-2009 Growth 1 00 CCMPO Exit 176 504 413 244 1337 TM Count Year 2009 Con AADT a,900 %Trucks 4.2% 1.5% 1.2% 3.7% DHV Adjustment 0.65 DHV (Equation) n/a Peds 2 2 2 0 PHF 2009-2011 Growth 0.96 OHV(K-lactor) 510 Peak Hour 6:45 AM - 7:45 AM Peak 0.85 Tutal Adjustment - Corr Count 788 EB WB NB SB 2 SpearSt/Nowland Farm Rd L 33 18 1 11 OHV ATR/CTC 56DO86 dingtnn:Spea StG3miNofSwift DHV Calculations South Burlington, VT T 5 1 446 205 DHV Poll Group Urban ATR/CTC Year 2009 7/23/2010 R 4 25 14 12 774 Annl Grwth ATR/CTC ID S6131086 ATR/C1C AADT 4,900 4th Thursday Enter 42 44 460 228 774 Annl Grwth Poll Group Urban 2009-2010 Growth 0.98 RSG Exit 30 13 504 227 774 TM Count Year 2010 Corr AADT 4,802 %Trucks 2.4% 2.3% 0.7% 5.3% DHV Adjustment 0.44 DHV (Tquation) n/a Peds 2 0 0 14 PHF 2010 2011 Growth 0.98 DHV (K-Factor) 500 Peak Hour 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM Peak 0.88 Total Adjustment Cor .Count 1,148 EB WB NB SB 3 Nowland Farm Rd/Vale Dr L 1 0 0 7 DHV ATR/CTC S6C723 H —,k VT15 B.ImiNof G,—te St South Burlington, VT T 22 39 0 0 DHV Poll Group Rural Primar, and Secondary 7/23/2010 R 0 2 0 14 84 AnnlGrwthATR/LICID PISC007 �fardwitk:VT15roonwo0T14J 4th Thursday Enter 22 41 0 21 84 Annl ,3rwth Poll Group P6CO07 RSG Exit 29 53 2 0 84 TM Count Year 2010 %Trucks 4.5% 2.4% 0.01/6 0.0% DHV Adjustment #DIV/O! Peds 0 0 0 10 PHF 2010-2011 Growth im, Peak Hour 7:15 AM - 8:15 AM Peak 0.91 Total Adjustment Page 1 of 6 AM Adjusted Raw Counts _ _ ODVs_ _ 2011 I Cider Mill Phase 1 Enter Exit 15 46 1 62 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L 45 79 206 13 1 L T 58 250 295 101 T R 64 73 105 48 1337 R 0 Enter 167 402 606 162 1337 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 176 504 413 244 1337 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L 33 18 1 11 _ L 0 T S 1 446 205 T 0 R 4 25 14 12 775 RL 0 _J 1 Enter 42 44 461 228 775 Enter 0 1 0 0 1 Exit 30 14 504 227 775 Exit 0 0 0 0 1 EB _ WB NB _ SB EB WB NB SB L 1 0 0 7 L I T 22 39 0 0 T 1 R 0 2 0 14 85 R Enter 23 41 0 21 85 Enter 0 1 0 0 1 Exit 29 53 3 0 85 Exit 0 1 0 0 1 Travallina thr--h Nnwland/nnr<oi _ ODVs _ Cider Mill Phase 2 Enter Exit 20 65 85 Assumed directional splits for AM peak: Dorse EB WB NB SB L — — —� T R — -- —J 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB L[ 0 T 0 I R — 1 - 1 Enter 0 1 0 0 1 Exit 0 0 1 0 1 EB WB NB SB L T 1 R ::: — -_j 1 Enter 0 1 0 0 1 Exit 0 1 0 0 1 TravPllinv th—juh Nnwland/r)nrcat SB exiting intersection NB enterin g SB exiting intersection NB entering ntersectio intersection 4 35 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 hoc Page 2 of 6 AM ODVs South Village ODVs Goldberg Enter Exit Enter Exit 53 188 241 4 16 21 xset Street: 75% NB, 25% SB (per Figure 13 of Dorset Street Corridor Study; Spear Street: 70% NB, 30% SB (per R5G'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 i R 1 4 Enter 2 2 0 1 4 Exit 2 2 0 0 4 Travelling through Nowland/Spear NB ntering eB exiting intersection IS intersection 28 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 Travelling through Nowland/Dorset NB entering SB exiting intersection intersection 1 12 per CCMPO TM counts 4% are EBR 2% are NBL resulting vol at Nowland/Vale 0 exit EB 0 enter WB result EB (Allen) WB NB (Spear) SB (Spear) 0 TM count LI 1 9 0 66 0 I Spear -Allen T 0 0 327 534 1 hour May 21 RI 124 0 0 218 1 1438 Enter 293 0 393 7S2 1438 Exit 0 284 496 658 1438 Page 3 of 6 ODVs Shelburne Enter Exit 6 19 1 25 No Build �— 2011 AM Trip Generation Enter Exit 12 44 1 56 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB N8 SB L L 45 87 227 13 L 2 14 T T 58 250 325 111 T 21 3 R I 0 R 69 73 116 48 1423 R 2 7 49 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Enter 172 410 669 172 1423 Enter 2 2 43 3 49 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 187 525 443 267 1423 Exit 7 14 21 7 49 Spear Meadows Road WBL WEIR NBR SBL 8 40 5 7 EB _ WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L L 33 21 1 11 L 0 2 1 TF T 5 1 509 230 T 0 0 5 7 R 0 R 4 26 16 12 869 R 2 1 0 19 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Enter 42 48 526 253 869 Enter 1 4 5 8 19 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 32 14 568 255 869 Exit 2 0 7 9 19 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L L 1 0 0 7 L 1 2 T T 24 42 0 0 T R 0 R 0 2 0 15 91 R 2 5 10 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Enter 25 44 0 22 91 Enter 1 2 0 7 10 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 31 S7 3 0 91 Exit 2 5 4 0 10 Travelling through Nowland/Dorset Assumptions NB entering 60%of veh to/from south use Spear and remaining 40% SB exiting intersection intersection use Vale Drive 2 14 95% of veh to/from north use Spear and remaining 5% per CCMPO TM counts 4% are EBR 2% are NBL EB WB NB 5B 1. Directional NB enter SB enter NB exit SB exit based on Spe ing vol at Nowland/Vale 0 exit EB 0 enter WB L 0 0 0 0 distribution 9 4 31 13 T 0 0 669 253 R 0 0 0 0 Spear enter enter exit to N exit to S Assumed Meado 5 4 29 8 I Vale DrI 3 0 2 S 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 F 2016 1.01 2011 to 2016 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WS NB SB EB WB NB SB T 58 250 3346 114 T 59 253 298 102 T7925�3 328 1 2 T 59 253 349 115 R 70 73 123 48 1472 R 65 74 106 48 1350 R4 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 196 545 468 276 1485 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L[ 21 T 53 513 237 T 53 18 450 207 T 5 1 513 232 T 5 13 518 239 R 4 28 17 12 888 R 4 25 14 12 783 R 5 26 16 12 877 R 5 28 17 12 895 Enter 43 52 532 261 888 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 NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB �I T 24 42 0 0 I T 22 39 0 0 T 24 43 0 0 T 24 43 0 0 R 0 4 0 19 101 u 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 58 EB WB NB S8 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 Annual Adjustment No Build 2021 2021 1.01 2016to 2021 EB WB NB SB L 46 89 231 13 T 59 255 331 113 R 70 74 118 49 1450 Enter 175 418 681 176 1450 Exit 190 535 452 272 1450 EB WB NB SB L 34 21 1 11 T 5 1 518 234 R 5 26 16 12 885 Enter 43 49 535 258 885 Exit 33 14 578 260 885 AM Build 2021 EB WB NB SB L 46 91 246 13 T 59 255 352 116 R 72 74 125 49 1499 Enter 177 420 723 178 1499 Exit 198 550 473 279 1499 EB WB NB SB L 34 23 1 12 T 5 1 522 241 R1 5 29 17 13 903 Enter 44 53 540 266 903 Exit 34 15 585 269 903 EB WB NB 5B EB WB NB 5B L 0 7 L 2 0 0 T43 F24 0 0 T 24 43 00 R2 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 N8 SB EB WB NB 5B 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 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 IntersectionSummary 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 +T r Vi 1� '* I T Volume (vph) 45 58 69 87 250 73 227 325 116 13 ill 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 Flt 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 ill 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 Summary 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 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41� 4 jr 4 1 T 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) IF (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 SIB 1 SIB 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 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 1- 4- t �' �► Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r 1� + 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 -A -• � � � 4\ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r T+ 1� Vii 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, d1 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 Summary 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 t -• --v i< '- ',- 4\ T �► 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4 if 4 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 IC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (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 'A � ~ � \*� 4/ Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations *' T Y Volume (vehlh) 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) IF (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 SIB 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 Ir I Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations I r T + 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 IC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (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 Volume Left 0 Volume Right 0 cSH 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 Approach LOS A 0 633 423 0 0 0 0 0 0 1700 1700 1700 0.00 0.37 0.25 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A 0.0 0.0 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 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 8l8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 B 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBIL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations #' r T* ►j 1 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 Fri: 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 Fit 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 Fit 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 Summary 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 ---* --0- Ai f ~ 4-- "61 t l# 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4 r 4 Vii 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) IF (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 --,I. *-- 4-1 4/ 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 f" 4- I' ► i 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 SB 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 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 EBL EBT EBR NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations .' r '� T+ T Vii 1� 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 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 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, dl 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 Summary 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 -A -► -'* r 4- k, -*\ T 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4 r 4 1 T 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 9 NIB 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 � ~ Al \*. 4/ Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations +' 1� 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 f � i Movement WBIL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations •j r T f 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 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 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +T if 1J 1 T 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 Flt 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 vls 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 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + +' r + T 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 ,` —► 41, `► W 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 2021 B 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline i- I T 10� 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations I r T+ ij + 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 8l8/2010 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 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +' r I T T I 1� 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, PH 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 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.18 0.48 0.26 0.84 0.56 0.22 0.72 Uniform Delay, dl 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 Summary 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 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2011 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 4* 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 8/8/2010 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 4 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) IF (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 Ir 4-- t �► 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations I r T 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 N131 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 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 -' -. --t #e '- k' 4� t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + r I 1� ►j T I 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 Said. 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, dl 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 � � � 'r � 4\ t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 +' ?" 4 T 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) IF (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 i' 4- T /". "0. 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 Volume Left 0 Volume Right 0 cSH 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 Approach LOS A 0 610 650 0 0 0 0 0 0 1700 1700 1700 0.00 0.36 0.38 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A 0.0 0.0 IntersectionSummary 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 T T VS 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 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 1843 Fit 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. 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, dl 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 --* --. --v 'r �- 4-- A\ T �► 1 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4 r 4 1 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) IF (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 f- k- 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 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) 18.3 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 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 Summarv- # 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 *' r 1� 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 At 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, d1 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 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4 jr 4* 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 __I. 4 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 SB 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 IntersectionSummary 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 'r 'I- �` r' �► Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations I r T 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) IF (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 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 (It) 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 --I' -► -,* 'r *-- *-- 4% I /00. 1*' 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations #' r ►j 1, 1, 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 Fri: 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 1843 Fit 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 -,-* --I. -,v f- *- 4-- T �► 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 (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 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 IC, 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 4,- *--- i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r 1� ►j + 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 SIB 1 SIB 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 TON )NING RMONT 05403 CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT �.v BOX 2085 SBURLINGTON, VT 05407 4f 017HIS528513 nf---------- U) $0.440 . Mailed From05446 southburlington PLANNING & ZONING October 18, 2011 Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the November 1, 2011 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The agenda includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846- 4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. p . Belair Administrative Officer 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com 0"A do southburlinoon P L ANN ING & Z O N I N G AGENDA South Burlington Development Review Board City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT. Tuesday, November 1, 2011 7:30 p.m. 1. Other business/announcements. 2. Design Review application #DR-11-10 of Charles DesLauriers to remove the chimneys on three (3) multi -family dwellings, 345 Dorset Street. 3. Preliminary & final plat application #SD-11-35 of Badge Motor Co. to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of a 36,883 sq. ft. auto sales and service complex and a fire station. The amendment consists of constructing an 868 sq. ft. auto sales addition and a 900 sq. ft. porte-cochere, 1301-1325 Shelburne Road & 3 Holmes Road. 4. Sketch plan application #SD-11-36 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 25 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. 5. Continued master Plan application #MP-11-01 and preliminary plat application #SD-11- 07 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 25 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. 6. Minutes of October 4 & 18, 2011. Respectfully Submitted, Raymond I Belair Administrative Officer CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPT. OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SC' '-I BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 ' is 17H1552Fi613 uj From05446 MARC & JILL YANKOWSKI 1 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 F iji?IW f-dR D 'Y' I M E: E; X r) );rT J TO SEND YANXOUSKI 9 a,WEE TOR:CAR DR WZ SON JNY 128 31 --2S2 riM TL)PN TO SENDER _...... ' `=a 1)11„11„,1,I„1)1,,,11„1 AN 1� �E, f� southburlington PLANNING & ZONING October 18, 2011 Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the November 1, 2011 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The agenda includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846- 4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. p . Belair Administrative Officer 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com � _" A r-4100� rf11* southburlington PLANNING & ZONING AGENDA South Burlington Development Review Board City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT. Tuesday, November 1, 2011 7:30 p.m. 1. Other business/announcements. 2. Design Review application #DR-11-10 of Charles DesLauriers to remove the chimneys on three (3) multi -family dwellings, 345 Dorset Street. 3. Preliminary & final plat application #SD-11-35 of Badge Motor Co. to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of a 36,883 sq. ft. auto sales and service complex and a fire station. The amendment consists of constructing an 868 sq. ft. auto sales addition and a 900 sq. ft. porte-cochere, 1301-1325 Shelburne Road & 3 Holmes Road. 4. Sketch plan application #SD-11-36 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 25 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. 5. Continued master Plan application #MP-11-01 and preliminary plat application #SD-11- 07 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 25 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. 6. Minutes of October 4 & 18, 2011. Respectfully Submitted, Raymond I Belair Administrative Officer rr -0.0 southburlington PLANNING & ZONING MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner RE: Agenda #3, Farrell Real Estate DATE: May 16, 2013 Continued 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 St. The applications were reviewed by the Development Review Board on February 21, 2012, March 20, 2012, November 20, 2012, and February 5, 2013. At the most recent meeting of February 5, 2013 (meeting minutes attached), the Board discussed the location of the park, community gardens, and buffering. The applicant has agreed to work with related committees regarding the park location and amenities. The applicant would like cursory feedback on several changes to the plan. These changes include, but are not limited to, a reduction to 52 total units, re -located park, the addition of three single family homes in the southwest portion of the lot, and four single family homes in the northwest portion of the lot. A full review of the plans will be provided after such time as these major issues can be addressed. It should be noted that the agenda description above does not match what is being asked. Subsequent to feedback received over the course of several meetings, the applicant is seeking approval for a total of 52 dwelling units: 1 existing single family, 7 new single family lots, 16 new single family homes, and 14 duplex buildings. Number of Units/Density/Lot Layout: The applicant is proposing a total of 52 units. 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 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com 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 51 new units, with one existing dwelling to be razed and one to remain, for a total of 52 units within the PUD. This is a proposed density of approximately 2 units per acre. A total of 21 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. The applicant shall submit legal documents showing clear ownership of the 21 development rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the 32nd unit. The plans have been revised to include three single family homes to be accessed via a narrow private road which crosses a wetland. The South Burlington Land Development Regulations allow for 3 homes on a private road. However, the applicant should work with the Director of Public Works and Fire Department to determine the needs for access and turn -around to these lots, as well as the details for the road construction. The plans have been revised to include four house lots in the northwest portion of the property. The Board should discuss the location of the homes on these seven lots. The Board previously advised the applicant to provide a wide corridor along the wetlands to potentially serve as a wildlife corridor. The applicant has made several adjustments throughout the process in order to accommodate this. The Board should determine whether any of the homes would interfere with this goal. Staff advises that the Boards may consider designated building envelopes within each of the proposed lots. The Board should also stipulate how the buildings are to be situated on the lot; which way they shall face. Staff advocates that the proposed dwelling units on Lots 2 and 3 front along Spear Street in keeping with the rhythm of the adjacent properties. Road Connection: The plans depict a road connection to Vale Drive. This connection has been re -designed from previous iterations of the plan to narrow the road and create a jog from the previous linear design. The South Burlington Deputy Fire Chief, Police Chief, and the South Burlington Director of Public Works reviewed the revised plans and have all provided comments. Fire Department, Deputy Chief Terry Francis, dated January 30, 2013: The proposed connector road to the proposed park and to Vale Dr shall be no less than 18' wide and be post with no parking signs on both side of the road as parked vehicles to impede emergency vehicles. The development of lots 2,3,& 4 shall have an NFPA compliant sprinkler system installed appropriate to the occupancy use. There shall be a hammerhead installed at the end of the private road servicing these lots. Police Department, Police Chief Trevor Whipple, dated January 30, 2013: After meeting with city staff and Eric Farrell to review Spear Meadow Draft proposal 01-09-2013 1 have no concerns involving the police department. The two point of egress responds to my concern about limited access to the development. Public Works Department, Director Justin Rabidoux, dated January 31, 2013: After reviewing the new conceptual road connection from the referenced project to Vale Drive I find it a step in the right direction and approve of it in concept. If a more detailed preliminary plan submission is made Public Works will make detailed comments at that time. Thanks for setting up the meeting with the applicant and for providing the opportunity to review the plan. A new traffic study has not been submitted but the current plan calls for 18 fewer units than even that study anticipated. Logically, the increase in trip ends is expected to be even less. Proposed Park: The plans depict a 3.05 acre park. It is unclear if this is proposed to be deeded to the city as a neighborhood park. The plans also include several areas identified as Community Gardens. There are no details available for either the park or the gardens and it is unclear if any programming or park infrastructure is proposed. Previous plans depicted amenities such as basketball courts and a tot playground after communications with the South Burlington Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee. It is also unclear if the proposed park will serve as an amenity not just to the residents of the PUD, but also adjacent neighborhoods or be open to the general public. 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." Staff understands that this level of review is not yet complete and these details should be largely worked out prior to any decision on the preliminary plat application. 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. r MA southburlington PLANNING & ZONING MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner RE: Agenda #6, Farrell Real Estate DATE: January 31, 2013 Continued 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 St. The applications were reviewed by the Development Review Board on February 21, 2012 and March 20, 2012. Subsequent hearings were sequentially rescheduled until November 20th (meeting minutes attached for reference). At the November 20th hearing, the Board reviewed a plan which did not connect the newly proposed road to Vale Drive. The Board indicated unanimously that they would not approve a plan without this road connection, and continued the application to February 5, 2013. It should be noted that the plan materials submitted this week do not match the agenda description included above. The applicant would like cursory feedback on several substantial changes to the plan. These changes include, but are not limited to, a reduction to 56 total units, re -located park, the addition of three single family homes in the southwest portion of the lot, and a reduction in the number of requested waivers. A full review of the plans will be provided after such time as these major issues can be addressed. Number of Units/Density/Lot Layout: The applicant is proposing a total of 56 units. It is not clear at this time what the unit makeup is therein. 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 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com 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 55 new units, with one existing dwelling to be razed and one to remain, for a total of 56 units within the PUD. This is a proposed density of approximately 2.2 units per acre. A total of 25 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 25 development rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the 32"d unit. The plans have been revised to include three single family homes to be accessed via a narrow private road which crosses a wetland. The South Burlington Land Development Regulations allow for 3 homes on a private road. However, the applicant should work with the Director of Public Works and Fire Department to determine the needs for access and turn -around to these lots, as well as the details for the road construction. Furthermore, the Board should discuss the location of the homes on these lots. The Board previously advised the applicant to provide a wide corridor along the wetlands to potentially serve as a wildlife corridor. The applicant has made several adjustments throughout the process in order to accommodate this. The Board should determine whether the home on Lot 2 is in keeping with this goal. Staff advises that the Boards may consider designated building envelopes within each of the proposed lots. Road Connection: The plans now depict a road connection to Vale Drive. This connection has been re -designed from previous iterations of the plan to narrow the road and create a jog from the previous linear design. The South Burlington Deputy Fire Chief, Police Chief, and the South Burlington Director of Public Works reviewed the revised plans and have all provided comments. Fire Department, Deputy Chief Terry Francis, dated January 30, 2013: The proposed connector road to the proposed park and to Vale Dr shall be no less than 18' wide and be post with no parking signs on both side of the road as parked vehicles to impede emergency vehicles. The development of lots 2, 3, & 4 shall have an NFPA compliant sprinkler system installed appropriate to the occupancy use. There shall be a hammerhead installed at the end of the private road servicing these lots. Police Department, Police Chief Trevor Whipple, dated January 30, 2013: After meeting with city staff and Eric Farrell to review Spear Meadow Draft proposal 01-09-2013 1 have no concerns involving the police department. The two point of egress responds to my concern about limited access to the development. Public Works Department, Director Justin Rabidoux, dated January 31, 2013: After reviewing the new conceptual road connection from the referenced project to Vale Drive I find it a step in the right direction and approve of it in concept. If a more detailed preliminary plan submission is made Public Works will make detailed comments at that time. Thanks for setting up the meeting with the applicant and for providing the opportunity to review the plan. Finally, Staff has included a copy of the traffic report for the project when 69 units were proposed. As you can see, the increased amount of traffic utilizing Vale Drive is minimal. The increase in traffic between a no -build scenario and one with 69 units includes only 7 westbound vehicles and 4 eastbound going from Nowland Farm Road to Vale Drive, during the PM Peak Hour. The increase in traffic between a no -build scenario and one with 69 units includes only 3 westbound vehicles and 4 eastbound going from Vale Drive to Nowland Farm Road, during the PM Peak Hour. A new traffic study has not been submitted but the current plan calls for approximately one dozen fewer units than even that study anticipated. Logically, the increase in trip ends is expected to be even less. Proposed Park: The plans depict a 3.05 acre park. It is unclear if this is proposed to be deeded to the city as a neighborhood park. The plans also include several areas identified as Community Gardens. There are no details available for either the park or the gardens and it is unclear if any programming or park infrastructure is proposed. Previous plans depicted amenities such as basketball courts and a tot playground after communications with the South Burlington Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee. It is also unclear if the proposed park will serve as an amenity not just to the residents of the PUD, but also adjacent neighborhoods or be open to the general public. 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." Staff understands that this level of review is not yet complete and these details should be largely worked out prior to any decision on the preliminary plat application. 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. R )CEIVED JAN 0 3 2012 City of So. Burlington South Burlington DRB Dear DRB Members: 214 Meadowood Drive South Burlington, Vt 05403 Jan. 3, 2012 As an abutter to the proposed Spear Meadows development, who is also speaking for many concerned neighbors, I would like to make several points at tonight's DRB meeting. Since you are all extremely busy and inundated with written material, I'll be as brief and succinct as possible. 1) The neighbors respect the Farrells' right to develop their land. We challenged their initial proposal to build 31 units on the 26 acres, because the plan was grossly incompatible with the homes to the east and west. Recognizing that the approved plan WAS of the same density as Pinnacle to the south, we chose not to appeal the decision, and to make the best of the project. 2) We are not necessarily opposed to TDR's, putting aside for the moment our contention that South Burlington's TDR law is unconstitutional. We however insist that applying TDR's to this land and allowing more than 31 units, is totally inappropriate, due primarily to density and aesthetic considerations. 3) The DRB clearly does have the responsibility and right to limit the project to 31 units. We think they could and should have made this determination early in the review process, and saved themselves an enormous amount of work. A "one size fits all" formula cannot be employed with TDR's, and it is clear that while this land was included in those for which TDR's might be considered, on closer scrutiny it is clearly inappropriate. 4) When most of the neighbors east and west of the Farrell land (including Gary Farrell) settled in their homes, the land was zoned to permit just 2 houses. When the zoning was changed to allow a maximum of 1.2 units per acre about 20 years ago, the DRB was constituted and we were assured that they would fairly arbitrate the respective interests of residents and developers. 5) When we bought our lot in 1974, we did so because we realized that it afforded a beautiful view of sunsets, because it was situated on the ridge between Spear and Dorset Streets. We were assured by the zoning administrator (Dick Ward) that no more than 2 houses could be built in that field, so we proceded with the purchase. 6) The erection of 31 units in the adjacent field will certainly seriously reduce any sunset views, but we reluctantly decided to accept this. The construction of 60 (of the total 67) units along the easterly border of the field, would effectively create a 30-foot high wall, COMPLETELY blocking out ALL sunsets. This will impact not just the four families along the woods line, but the many neighbors whom we welcome to walk or ski through our woods to enjoy the paths, pond, stonewalls, wildlife and views, and everyone who uses the planned recreation path. Are there any rules addressing the vertical building envelope? The 31-unit plan, set back further from the woods, posed a 5 degree elevation in the horizon as viewed from our house, and an eighteen degree elevation from the rec path, with some breaks in the roofline that would allow sunset light to transmit. The 67-unit plan poses an eight degree elevation in the horizon as viewed from our house, and an incredible 50 to 60 degree uninterrupted wall as viewed from the rec path. 7) While our lot measures 3 acres (about 350ft square), it contains a natural bog, or pond, extending 100 ft. westerly from our house, which is 40 to 50 ft. wide. There are only 80 ft. of wooded land between the pond and field, so our buffer is much more limited than the lot size would suggest. During the DRB site visit on 11/15111, Bill Stuono made note of the projection of the Klehs' porch light into the field. Lights from most rooms in our houses project readily into the field. Can you imagine how the lights from 60 units will project into OUR homes, and into those of our neighbors to our west and south? 8) I have built a 30-inch high fieldstone wall along 250 ft. of the border with the Farrell land. This has enhanced the enjoyment of walking on our paths (provided by all four landowners on the east side of the boundary), and I had expected it to likewise enhance the enjoyment of walking on the future recreation path on the eastern edge of the Farrell land. Unfortunately, the plan to crowd 30 units along and in very close proximity to the recreation path, will seriously and permanently mar the appeal of all the paths, and block the sunsets and Adirondack views that made this the logical location for the recreation path. 9) It is a perversion of common sense to begin the assessment of this or any proposal with an evaluation of DESIGN, when DENSITY determines the essence of the plan: density above the standard allowance of 1.2 units per acre introduces issues of privacy and security that should be primary. Address of this fact has been conspicuously absent from the discussion to date. The density of 67 units places this proposal in the category of what, in any of the 5 boroughs of NYC, would be called a "project", with all the drawbacks that connotes. An example can be found in our own City: the character of the East Terrace neighborhood has changed, and its crime rate increased, since the construction of the adjacent Deslauriers development. And like that development, it would be an eyesore when viewed from adjacent roads. 10) Installation of a solar farm would be a much more intelligent use of this land. It is perfectly situated for maximum sun exposure, almost all the 26 acres could be utilized, and the issues of traffic through the site and Vale Drive, and onto Spear Street, would be completely obviated. More than a year ago I asked the Planning Commission to include some guidelines for solar and related renewable energy projects in its regulations. At this juncture, the DRB cannot force the Farrells to make such a radical change, but they can refuse to allow more than the 31 units already approved, and suggest consideration of a solar array as an elegant alternative. 11) NO ONE (except the owner of the home to Gary Farrell's north, who sold to Gary to furnish Spear Street access) in the past 7 years has spoken in favor of this project, and since the proposed increased density enabled by TDR's, the neighborhood opposition has been uniform and forceful. How can the DRB ignore this and jump to design considerations? The eyes of the City are on the DRB: will it cater to the developer, or will it listen to its citizens, and use its authority to support them? 12) The Farrells already have approval for 31 units: invite them to proceed with those plans, but show the courage and wisdom to deny them more. The 31 units IS the fair compromise. It would even obviate the need for the strongly -opposed full connection to Vale Drive. 13) We agree that connectivity of neighborhoods is important, if not overridden by concerns of privacy and security. We will make available a connecting path between the new recreation path and Meadowood Drive if, and only if, the development is limited to 31 units or fewer. 14) None of us opponents have been involved in the idea to establish Interim Zoning, but our familiarity with this project has made us amply aware of the need for clearer and more rigorous Land Development Regulations. We feel we have sufficient arguments to limit this proposal to 31 units, and don't need to resort to IZ for postponement, but in the broader scheme of development in South Burlington, IZ is in our collective best interest. 15) If for any reason the DRB approves a density in excess of 31 units, we feel that the neighbors, and all City residents, will be owed a written explanation, published in The Other Paper, and in that event we respectfully request that this be done. Thanks very much for your time, hard work and consideration. Respectfully, i Mice ollins CC: Paul Conner City Council Planning Commission Sandy Miller Neighbors Agenda. #4 south PLANNING & ZONING MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Cathyann LaRose, A1CP9 RE: Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-11-36 DATE: December 28, 2011 Continued sketch plan application #SD-11-36 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned unit development on 25.91 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: l) razing one_(1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 25 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. The Development Review Board heard several hours of testimony on the application on November 1, 2011 (meeting minutes attached). The Board continued the application to allow time for the Board to discuss the application and provide the applicant with feedback with regards to any further level of review. Staff respectfully advises the Board to take the time to provide all feedback to the applicant that it can with respect to any items it seeks more information on, generally are not comfortable with, or would like to continue to see present in any further levels of review. This is a sketch plan review and discussions are most efficient when limited to those items which would be non- starters, would require Board waivers, or which would change the fundamental layout of the site. Sketch plans are not required by state statute but are a good tool for both the Board and applicant in order to establish a framework before proceeding to more costly, detailed levels of review. Technical issues, building details, and finer points will have ample opportunity for discussion and refinement at a preliminary plat level of review. Staff has no additional comments on the application at this time and has included a copy of the previous staff report. 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: October 28, 2011 drb\sub\staffcomments\2011\ SD_11_36_SpearSt_Farrell Application received: September 20, 2011 nda # 5 SPEAR MEADOWS- 1350 SPEAR STREET SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-11-36 Meeting date: November 1, 2011 Owner Applicant/Contact Gary N. Farrell, Jane G. Farrell & Spear Eric F. Farrell Meadows Inc. Farrell Real Estate 1350 Spear Street PO Box 1335 South Burlington, VT 05403 Burlington, VT 05402 Engineer/Landscape Architect Property Information Civil Engineering Associates Tax Parcel 1640-01350 10 Mansfield View Lane SEQ Zoning District - South Burlington VT 05403 Neighborhood Residential Dorset Park Scenic View Protection Zone D TJ Boyle Associates LLC 25.91 acres 301 College Street Burlinqton VT 05401 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING Eric Farrell, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking sketch plan review of 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 25 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. COMMENTS The staff notes herein reflect a review of the major topics for review and are, at this stage, intended to review the basic concept and site design, as well as to advise the applicant as to any potential problems and concerns relating to those major issues. For the purposes of a focused sketch plan discussion, staff has tried to narrow the discussions to the central issues that seem to present themselves at this early stage of the project: density, access and street configuration, wetlands impact, parks planning, and building orientation and design. Additional items, including but not limited to the specific requirements for recreation paths, landscaping, snow storage, adequacy of parking, etc, certainly warrant a full review and will be addressed in detail at a later stage. Associate Planner Cathyann Larose, Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Director of Planning Paul Conner, all herein after referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments with respect to these very significant issues: 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 gravel public drive to the proposed public park and private community gardens. Vale Drive is currently a public street terminating in a cul-de-sac. A right-of-way exists at the end of the cul-de-sac, always intended as an access to this parcel. The applicant has submitted details of the roadway (including cross -sections) as part of this application. It is premature to review those at this time. 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 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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 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 Board has the authority to seek a third -party, technical review of a traffic study. The Board should discuss this. 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. DESIGN STANDARDS The proposed project shall be subject to the design guidelines pursuant to Section 9.08 of the SBLDRs. 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 front building setbacks, placement of garages and parking, and mix of housing types. The applicant has submitted preliminary sketches which illustrate the general layout of the proposed single family and duplex units. At this stage in the process, the design proposed by the applicant appears to meet the goals and objectives of the design standards of the Southeast Quadrant enumerated within the Land Development Regulations. Staff recommends more detailed, smaller scale sketches of the proposed buildings at the preliminary plat level. Still, staff has included the text of the regulations with respect to the Southeast Quadrant in this report should the Board wish to address any of the items at this stage, or to get a better understanding of those issues to be later discussed. The applicant is proposing a 2.7 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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 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 `Park Street'). 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 meets the requirements of this section. The 70 units proposed as part of the PUD are estimated to generate 60.58 pm peak vehicle trip ends (LUC 210 & 231). This increased traffic is neither exorbitant nor insignificant. The City requisitioned a corridor study of Spear Street in November, 2004. This corridor study identified several serious concerns within the corridor, most significantly of which is the intersection of Spear Street and Swift Street (partial copy attached). It also outlined several recommendations for improvements along the corridor and at this intersection. Staff recommends a traffic analysis for the proposed development which would include this intersection and interface with the already completed corridor study. At the last meeting, the Board suggested that the traffic study include impacts for a full build -out of the property. The Board should then discuss any need for technical review of said analysis. 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 69 new units, with one existing dwelling to be razed and one to remain, for a total of 70 units within the PUD. This is a proposed density of approximately 2.7 units per acre. For purposes of comparison of density, Pinnacle at Spear is 1.2 units/acre, Pheasant Way is approximately 2 units per acre, neighborhoods such as Laurel Hill, Chamberlin, and Mayfair Park are approximately 4 units per CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING acre. Nearby Stonehedge Condominiums is 4 units per acre. Farrell Street has a density of 15 units/acre, or more than 20 units/acre if senior housing units are counted. A total of 39 transferable 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 recommends 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 further recommends 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 applicant shall submit legal documents pertaining to the options to purchase Transferred Development Rights (TDRs) to the City Attorney for approval, prior to Final Plat approval. The applicant shall submit legal documents showing clear ownership of the remaining 62 development rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the 32Id unit. 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 some development. Still, pursuant to the SBLDRs, the applicant must obtain a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) from the State of Vermont prior to final plat approval. There are some locations where the units or associated pavement rest directly upon the wetland buffer limits. The applicant should include a very detailed grading and erosion control plan for construction. 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. Possibilities include a line of planted cedars, split rail fencing, or other physical barrier between what is to be the grassed lawn area and the more sensitive wetland buffer. Staff also suggests additional measures of protection, including limitations on fertilizers and mowing. The following are suggested conditions: 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. 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING Deeds and association covenants shall reflect all of the standards included above, especially the use of the wetland buffer as lawn or other recreation areas, and the use of pesticides on site. Section 9.08 C(5) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations states that "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." The proposed plans include: ■ 1 existing single family home ■ 25 detached single family homes ■ 22 duplex structures resulting in 44 units All of these structures are mixed throughout the proposed development. The applicant has also stated that "among the single family structures, several configurations are made possible by varying the home size, roof orientation, exterior fenestration and porch design, resulting in more than 20 different home styles." Staff finds that the proposed plan fully meets the requirements of this section of the Land Development Regulations. 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." 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. As previously stated, staff has included the text of the regulations in the report for the reference of the Board members. Again, Staff urges the Board to discuss those items which affect the fundamental layout of the site, with other issues to be addressed at the formal hearings of Preliminary and Final Plat Plan review. 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub -Districts CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 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. (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. 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 (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. 9.07 Regulating Plans A. Description and Regulatory Effect. The regulatory text of this Article is supplemented with illustrations, officially known as the Regulating Plan, illustrating the dimensional and design concepts. The Regulating Plan contains basic land planning and neighborhood design criteria that are intended to foster attractive and walkable neighborhood development patterns. Design criteria and guidelines set forth below are intended to address basic neighborhood design relationships related to scale, connectivity, and overall orientation that promote pedestrian friendly development as follows in Section 9.07(C). The Regulating Plan is an illustrative guide; it does not have the same force of regulation as does the text in this bylaw. However, the Development Review Board will refer to both the Regulating Plan and the text of this section in its project reviews B. General Provisions (1) The Regulating Plan shall apply to new development within the SEQNRT, SEQ-NR, SEQ- VR and SEQ-VC sub -districts. (2) All residential lots created on or after the effective date of this bylaw in any SEQ sub -district shall conform to a standard minimum lot width to depth ratio of one to two (1:2), with ratios of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended. C. Street, Block and Lot Patterns (1) Overall Criteria: Development criteria within the Street, Block and Lot Pattern section are intended to provide pedestrian -scaled development patterns and an interconnected system of streets that allow direct and efficient walking and bicycling trips, and decrease circuitous vehicular trips. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING (2) Street Design: The intention of street design criteria is to provide a system of attractive, pedestrian -oriented streets that encourage slower speeds, maximize connections between and within neighborhoods, and contribute to neighborhood livability. (3) Building Design: The intention of the building design guidelines is to ensure that new housing and commercial development reinforce a pedestrian -friendly environment, while allowing creativity in design. (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. (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. (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. C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community -supported agriculture. Provisions that enhance overall neighborhood and natural resource values rather than preservation of specific soil types are strongly encouraged. 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. (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. (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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING (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 of adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. (1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. (2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and neighborhoods shall apply. 9.09 SEQ-NR Sub -District: Specific Standards The SEQ-NR sub -district has 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 longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid -block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. (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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). (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. (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. B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards (1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the VR 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 9-3 and 9-4, and Figures 9-8 and 9-9 below. (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. (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. (4) On -street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4). (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). (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. 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). A CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 11 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING minimum of thirty five percent (35%) of translucent widows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. (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. (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. Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8) into the front setbacks. (4) 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. Rear Alleys are encouraged for small lot single-family houses, duplexes, and townhouses. (5) 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. OTHER The applicant shall work with staff at the preliminary plat level to discuss road names and E-911 standards. The applicant should propose another name for "Park Street" as the City already has a street named Park Road. Also, Vale Drive should be spelled correctly on the plans. The applicant should propose any new names to the Planning Commission for approval prior to final plat approval. Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. There are several items which must still be addressed as part of a more detailed, engineered preliminary plat application. Respectfully submitted, (AL101-11"k- CathyanLaRose, AICP, Associate Planner Copy to: Eric Farrell, Applicant 214 Meadowood Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 October 27, 2011 South Burlington DRB Dear members, I'm writing to briefly summarize, from the neighbors' perspective, the course of events since the Farrells first proposed Spear Meadows in 2003. This may be helpful especially to those who were not on the Board at that time, and who haven't had the time to read and digest all the related material that has accumulated since. The Farrells initially proposed 31 single units on the 26 acres. The neighbors strongly objected because the project was grossly incompatible with all the homes on the east and west, each of which is situated on 2 to 6 acres. Further, the proposal involved extending Vale Drive onto Spear Street, despite the fact that this potential future right-of-way had never been promulgated (see my correspondence with Chuck Hafter in 2004-2005), and many Vale Drive residents were surprised and upset by this possibility. Despite these reservations, Tom Kleh and I initially expressed our willingness to allow a right-of-way running east -west between our properties to connect the new recreation path planned to run along the easterly border of the proposed development, with Meadowood Drive, and promote inter -neighborhood connectivity. Early in the DRB hearings on the project, the neighbors wrote to Gary Farrell to propose that he consider allowing the neighbors to jointly purchase the land, so that it could be subsequently donated to UVM (who at the time were very interested) for farming, or to our City for a future park (the site has ample wildlife and nice views of the Adirondacks). He never responded or acknowledged, although we wrote to him twice and brought it up in two separate DRB meetings. In 2006 the Farrells were given approval for 31 units, many of which were duplexes. We were not happy but chose not to appeal, as the density, while much greater than that to the east and west, was similar to that of Pinnacle to the south. We did, however, withdraw our offer to adjoin the recreation path, based on the final plan, Eric Farrell's many misrepresentations, and Gary's refusal to acknowledge our correspondence. We were in disbelief when, two years later, the Farrells came back to the DRB with a proposal for 93 units, enabled by the application of TDR's. The plan was eventually pared to about 70 units, the bulk of which would be located along the easterly border of the property, closely abutting the planned rec path. It was clear that the LDR's permitted the DRB discretion to allow anything from NO increase in density from the base of 1.2 units per acre, up to a maximum of 4 units per acre, but when this passage was recited before the DRB, the Chair (John Dinklage) rather rudely discounted the fact. The neighbors believe strongly that the TDR regulations are unconstitutional due to vagueness (see Bill Gilbert's letter for a detailed discussion of the legal issues), but the Board had the authority and compelling reasons to disallow ANY density increase in any case. When The Other Paper reported about a year ago that the proposal had passed sketch review, we were shocked: we had attended that DRB meeting a few days earlier, the Board seemed undecided, and no vote took place. We left the meeting assuming that the proposal remained in sketch status. About a year ago I presented to the Planning Commission a suggestion that they address renewable energy features in their development guidelines. I believe this appeared on a recent P.C. agenda, but likely has not yet been incorporated into any formal guidelines. I certainly don't expect that at this point the Farrells have any interest in the lesser profit that a solar farm would afford, but perhaps they would consider the option if their housing proposal is turned down. It would provide much better utilization of the entire plot, and obviate the traffic concerns relating to Vale Drive and to Spear Street. Implementation of this project in any density approaching that proposed, would be in flagrant discord with the surrounding neighborhoods and dramatically transform the area. It would introduce safety and privacy issues that we thought we would avoid by living here, reminiscent of the increasing crime and trespassing that have been seen on East Terrace since the Deslauriers project has been built. Sadly, if the Farrells are allowed to proceed as requested, we and the Klehs would feel obliged to erect a tall fence along our western border, and this would unfortunately block access to neighbors from throughout the area, who now enjoy our woods, paths, stone walls and pond. In the eight years that this project has been discussed, I have heard two people (besides the Farrells) speak in favor of it: the man who lived to Gary's north (who sold Gary his house to provide Spear Street access) and one resident who would like to see every piece of land developed to the max. Nearly one hundred people have expressed strong support for our resistance to this project, and many of those have conveyed derision that the DRB would even entertain approval. We are not opposed to such dense housing, but it belongs in the City Center, where the necessary infrastructure exists. I call upon you to exercise your good judgment and courage, and reject ANY proposal for more than 31 units on this land. Thank you for all your time and hard work. We are all most grateful for your dedication to this difficult task. Respectfully, AcVa�eVS ol ins Cc: Paul Conner City Council 1 �1 St. Clair Group 15840 Lakeview Court Grosse Pointe, MI 48230 Mr. Raymond J. Belair Administrative Officer South Burlington Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Mr. Belair: March 2, 2011 This is to again register our objection to the proposed Farrell Development. The proposed density its totally out of character with the surrounding properties. We had originally agreed to a lower density proposal; then this new unacceptable proposal was subsequently brought forward. Please do not approve the current proposal. Roger Fridholm President March 7, 2011 Ishams Mr. Ray Belair Ref: Continued Master Plan app # MP-11-01 Proposed Spear Meadows Development I am Phil Shand from Charlestown NH and am a spokesperson for the [sham Estate. I have a couple of questions and concerns for the up coming development and in hope of getting some information and clarification. The first would be to ask that the developer install a fence line along the Isham property line. (From pin to pin and on the developers property side) This would help inform the future residents of this project that the adjacent property does belong to some one else and is restricted. The second concern is the set back of the concrete recreation path. It was mentioned that the recreation path is 5' from the property line. What is the state or city set back regulation from property lines? The third concern is the 24" drain system piping. The plan shows this to be between the recreation path and the property line. If the path is 5' from the line then add another 2' (that is the pipe and not the trench size that will be needed to install the drain) towards the line that is not leaving any buffer. By digging this close to the existing tree line what will the impact be on the root system of the trees and there by the trees themselves in the future. Thank you Phil Shand 245 Scenic Hill Rd Charlestown, NH 03603 Page 1 of 1 ray From: Ross A. Feldmann [Feldmann@gravelshea.com] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 10:51 AM To: ray Subject: Spear Meadows, Inc. Farrell Project Ray, Daniel Seff advised that two of his clients were not on the service list for the Environmental Court appeal in the referenced matter. The clients are Dr. Robert Skiff & Ms. Marley Skiff, 89 Springhouse Road, South Burlington, VT 05403. He requested that they be added to the service list for local permit matters. I'm not sure whether or not they belong on the service list for local matters, but I told him I would pass it along. Best regards, Ross Ross A. Feldmann Gravel and Shea PC 76 St. Paul Street, 7th Floor P. 0. Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402-0369 802-658-0220 (phone) 802-658-1456 (fax) reldmann@,grav_elshea.com The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication (or in any attachment). 12/16/2011 RUSSELL D. BARR" JESSE M. GOLDFINE+ JENNIFER J. LAJOIE' DANIEL A. SEFF" ALLEN C.B. HORSLEY, OF COUNSEL# •' MEMBER .7 AND NY BARS *MEMBER VT BAR +.MEMBER VT, MA AND RI BARS #MEMBER VT AND MA BARS VIA HAND DELIVERY BARR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 125 MOUNTAIN ROAD STOWE, VERMONT 05672 TEL: (802) 253.6272 FAX: (802) 253.6055 www.barrlaw.com November 1, 2011 NEW YORK OFFICE 100 PARK AVENUE SUITE 1600 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017 TEL: (212) 486-3910 FAX: (212) 486 7688 SCOTT L. KEYES, LAW CLERK Mr. Mark Behr, Chair o South Burlington Development Review Board City of South BurlingtonFILECOPY 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Continued master Plan application #MP-11-01 and preliminary plat application #SD-11-07 of Farrell Real Estate; and Sketch plan application #SD-11-36 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, 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"). Last week, the Gilberts submitted two memoranda for your consideration at tonight's DRB meeting outlining various reasons why the above -referenced applications should be denied. I am authorized to state that all members of the Spear Meadows Opposition Group hereby join in the Gilbert memoranda and respectfully request that the above -referenced applications be denied. Thank you very much for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Daniel A. Seff cc: Mr. Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer (via email on October 31 st) Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via email on October 31 st) Mr. Kevin Donahue, Pinnacle at Spear Homeowners Ass'n President (via email on October 31 st) Mr. William Gilbert and Ms. Maurene Gilbert (via email on October 31st) Dr. Thomas Kleh and Ms. Louise Kleh (via email on October 31 st) Dr. Michael Scollins and Dr. Mary Scollins (via email on October 31 st) Dr. Robert Skiff and Ms. Marley Skiff (via email on October 31 st) r NO- dolo southb-ndington PLANNING & ZONING October 18, 2011 Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the November 1, 2011 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The agenda includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846- 4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. S*ymond r . Belair Administrative Officer 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com RP southburlington PLANNING & ZONING Permit Number SD -- (office u e only) )� APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SOUTHEAST QUADRANT 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. For amendments, please provide pertinent information only. 1) OWNER(S) OF RECORD (Name(s) as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) SEE A--r1'h- C-"0 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED(S) (Book and page #) S E1E &q-TT,4 C." 1S p 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) S EIr 4) APPLICANT'S LEGAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY (fee simple, option, etc.) 5) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) 5 EE A-TTA-C-H " 5a) CONTACT EMAIL ADDRESS $6E 6) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: SEE j -rr A-C-,!f'Sb 7) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) S 15E /J—}'j A-C f--lS 0 8) PROJECT DESCRIPTION a) General project description (explain what you want approval for): 5 IS E " 6 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburf.com b) Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use) s 61E A--rrA-C-it 6D c) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain) $ C /t-T'r /ramkf E 7 d) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) SEE A- TT d-rE e) Proposed height of building (if applicable) 5 ET f: f) Total parcel size(s) 2.5i q 1 (3 p tp-,c- 6 L. S) A^L[L%5 g) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable) s E E` l't117+G bf-IMA 9) 9a: SEQ SUBDISTRICT (identify in each) Acreage Units Existing Units proposed NRP NRT NR 2S.'! ! o2 _7 VR VC 9b: Are Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) being utilized? _ eS If yes, please identify how many and from which parcel (street address) 3 9 u N i T S ftQ o wt t. E D 4 e- _E_4 R.w1_ 10) TYPE OF EXISTING OR PROPOSED ENCUMBRANCES ON PROPERTY (easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc.) eV * Aj E , E Y. G is P T FQ 2 PRyf'Oosdo 2v4-Pc-ok77oPi- rK AwAb e-xsra"4 W T7 &—I r tifir &* s e "I ep;'•rs . 11) LOT COVERAGE a) Building: Existing —I 45 % b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing 1. / (e % c) Front yard (along each street) Existing— % * SK-+6 PLAW sLeT 04mo Proposed l f . 9 % Proposed 2rj • '3 % Proposed Southeast Quadrant Sketch Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2010 12) PROPOSED EXTENSION, RELOCATION, OR MODIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL FACILITIES (sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc.) S IG E 13) OWNERS OF RECORD OF ALL CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES & MAILING ^ A rT ADDRESSES (this may be provided on a separate attached sheet and on pre -stamped and pre - addressed envelopes. The city will add the return address). 14) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE 'p se-ew, (d eir- Z o 19 15) 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 and one reduced copy (I I" x 17") of the plans must be submitted. The application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the application. See the City fee schedule for details. I hereby certify that all the information ested as his application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge _ TURE OF APPLICANT ATURE 09 PROPERTY O Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: / // I have reviewed this sketch plan application and find it to be: Lam" Complete ❑ omplete Administrat v fficer Date 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. Southeast Quadrant Sketch Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2010 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH 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 project description The Applicant desires to combine the parcels in a PUD creating 70 residential units (1 existing to remain), a public park and a private community garden area, using 39 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 70 residential units (including one existing single family house to remain); a public park and a private community garden area. 39 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 69 New homes: 110,750 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. 2 7 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 i V (J Date: 9/20/2011 Re: Spear Meadows 1302,1340 & 1350 Spear Street Sketch Plan Application This Sketch Plan Application is being filed to address the procedural question that was raised by neighboring property owners regarding the timing of our pending January 28, 2011 Preliminary Plat and Master Plan Application. While it is our intention to proceed with this new Sketch Plan Application, to be followed by a new Preliminary Plat and Master Plan Application, we specifically reserve the right to proceed with our pending January 28, 2011 Preliminary Plat and Master Plan Application. This new application shall not be construed as a withdrawal of our January 28, 2011 Preliminary Plat and Master Plan Application which was deemed complete by staff and which we believe was timely filed. In the event that this new Sketch Plan Application and a new Preliminary Plat and Master Plan Application are approved, our intention will be to withdraw our pending January 28, 2011 Preliminary Plat and Master Plan Application. Therefore, we request that the DRB continue our January 28, 2011 Preliminary Plat and Master Plan Application until: (a) an approval is issued on the new applications; and (b) we provide written notice of withdrawal of the January 28, 2011 Preliminary Plat and Master Plan Application. Accordingly, attached please find the following materials for your review: • Application Subdivision Sketch Plan Review/Southeast Quadrant • Additionallnformation • Application Fee - $3,213.00 • List of Abutters RECEIVED • Full set of Plans (5 sets at 24 x 36) SEP 2 0 2011 • Full set of Plans -1 set at 11 x 17 City of So. Burlington • Planting Schedule (street trees, project & park) • 14.05 Application, Review, and Approval Procedure - 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 dated 2/ 27/ 11 • Traffic Impact Study by RSG, Inc. Transportation dated August 2010 Densi The plans depict a revised total of 70 dwelling units in 48 (was 50 at last Sketch) buildings, representing an overall density of 2.70 (was 2.75 at last Sketch) units per acre. The building configurations are as follows: Single Family Homes • 1- existing Single -Family Home -1 unit • 25 - new Single -Family Homes - 25 units Duplex Buildings • Ground Floor Flats - 6 units • Flat over a Flat - 6 units • Flats over Garage -16 units • Townhouse -16 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 39 units. 0 Page 2 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 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 0 Page 3 Spear Meadows - Spear Street, South Burlington - Planting Schedule Street Trees (ode Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Edible Notes 21 AFAB ACER x freemarin'Autumn Blaze' Autumn Blaze Maple 2.5" Cal. B&B 8 BNH BETULA nigra'Heritage' Heritage River Birch 2.5" Cal. B&B TREE FORM 9 GB GINKGO biloba'Autumn Gold Autumn Gold Ginkgo 2.5" Cal. B&B 25 GTH GLEDITSIA tricanthos inermis'Halka' Halka Honeylocust 2.5" Cal. B&B 6 MA MAACKIA amurensis Amur Maackia 2.5" Cal. B&B 3 PAS PLATANUS x awrifolia'Bloodgood' Bloodgood London Planetree 2.5" Cal. B&B 21 PCA PYRUS calleryana'Aristocrat' jAristocrat Flowering Pear 2.5" Cal. B&B 12 PSA PRUNUS sargentti Sargent Cherry 2.5" Cat B&B 8 OR OUERCUS rubra Red Oak 2.5" Cal. B&B 6 UP ULMUS X.'Patriot' Patriot Elm 2.5"Cal. B&B 6 LAP JULMUS americana'Princeton' jPrinceton American Elm 2.5" Cat B&B Trees Qty Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Notes 8 ACC1 ABIES concolor White Fir T HL B&B 29 ACC2 ABIES concolor White Fir 5' HL B&B 6 AN1 ABIES nordmanniana Nordman Fir T Ht B&B 7 AN2 ABIES nordmanniana Nordman Fir 6 Ht. B&B 5 AFAB ACER x freemanii'Autum Blaze' Autumn Blaze Maple 2" Cal. B&B 10 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 6 AHB AESCULUS hippocastanum'Baumann"n' Double White Horsecheslnut 2.5" CaL B&B 43 AGAB AMALANCHIER grandifolia'Autumn Brilliance' Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry 6' HL B&B x CLUMP 12 ARH AMALANCHIER'Robin Hil' Robin Hill Servicebeny 2' Cal. B&B x SINGLE -STEM 9 BN BETULA nigra River Birch 10' HL B&B CLUMP 8 CTH CHAMAECYPARIS thyoides'Hopkinton' Hopkinton While Cedar 5' B&B 20 CRA CORYLUS americans American Hazelnut 30" HL #5 Cont x 7 CC CARPINUS caroliniana American Hornbeam 2" Cal. B&B 4 CCI CRATAEGUS crusgali inermis'Crusader' Crusader Hawthorn 2' Cal. B&B 25 GTS GLEDITSIA tricanthos inemtis'Skyline' Skyline Honeylocust 2" Cal. B&B 1 LD1 LARIX larcina American Larch T Ht B&B 3 LD2 LARIX larcina American Larch 5' Ht. #10 Cont. 21 MOD MALUS'Corttand' Cortland Apple 1314"Cal. B&B x 16 MDW MALUS'Donald Wyman' Donald Wyman Crabapple 2" Cal. B&B 25 MFI MALLS'Fujr Fuji Apple 1 3/4" Cal. B&B x 18 MMC MALUS'Mclnlosh' McIntosh Apple 13/4"Cal. B&B x 12 MS MALUS sargenth Sargent Crab 2" Cal. B&B 12 MSD MALUS'Snowdrift Snowdrift Crab 2"Cal. B&B 6 NS NYSSA sylvabca Black Gum 2" Cal. B&B 85 OM ORCHARD mix Fruiting Orchard Mix 3 Gal. Cont, x 2 PA1 PICEA abies Norway Spruce T Ht. B&B 5 PA2 PICEA abies Norway Spruce 5' HL B&B 32 PG1 PICEA glauca White Spruce T Ht. B&B 66 PG2 PICEAglauca White Spruce V HL B&B 1 PAS PLATANUS x acedfolia'Bloodgood' Bloodgood London Planetree 2" Cal. B&B 8 PBG PRUNUS'Blackgold' Blackgold Chen 1 1/4" Cal. 97 Coal x 9 PEB PRUNUS'Evans Bali Evans Bali Cherry 1 114" Cal. #7 Cont. x 10 PK PRUNUS 'Kristin' Kristin Cherry 1 114" 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 Gal. Cont. x 3 PVC PRUNUS Arginiana'Canada Red' Canada Red Chokecherry 2" Cal. B&B 3 PWG PRUNUS'Whitegold' Whitegold Cherry 1 114" Cal. 97 Cont x 1 PCA PYRUS wlleryana'Aristocraf Aristocrat Flowering Pear 2" Cal. B&B 9 PYB PYRUS x'Bardett' Bartlett Pear 1 1/4" Cal. #7 Cont. x 9 PYA PYRUS x'D'Anjou' D'Anjou Pear 1 1/4" Cal. #7 Cont x 10 PYS PYRUS x'Secker Seckel Pear 1 114" Cal. #7 Cont. x T. J. Boyle and Associates 301 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 Unit Material Price 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 $4,620.00 $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 $62,525.00 Unit Price $150.00 $1,200.00 $3,000.00 $108.00 $3,132.00 $7,830.00 $185.00 $1,110.00 $2,775.00 $135.00 $945.00 $2,362.50 $135.00 $675.00 $1,687.50 $107.00 $1,070.00 $2,675.00 $144.00 $2,304.00 $5,760.00 $204.00 $1,224.00 $3,060.00 $75.00 $3,225.00 $8,062.50 $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 $1.064.00 $2,660.00 $133.00 $532.D0 $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 $2,415.00 $6,037.50 $125.00 $2,000.00 $5,000.00 $115.00 $2,875.00 $7,187.50 $115.00 $2,070.00 $5.175.00 $107.00 $1.284.00 $3,210.00 $107.00 $1,284.00 $3,210.00 $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.D0 $3,840.00 $9,600.00 $80.00 $5,280.00 $13,200.00 $160.00 $160.00 $400.00 $85.00 $680.00 $1.700.00 $85.00 $765.00 $1,912.50 $85.00 $850.00 $2,125.00 $120.00 $1,200.00 $3,000.00 $45.00 $135.00 $337.50 $107.D0 $321.00 $802.50 $85.00 $255.00 $637.50 $115.00 $115.00 $287.50 $85.00 $765.00 $1,912.50 $85.00 $765.00 $1,912.50 $85.00 $850.00 $2,125.00 L/ I QB QUERCUS bicolor Swamp White Oak 2' Cal. B&B 11 QR QUERCUS rubs Red Oak 2" Cal. B&B 16 SAT ISALIX albs Tristis' lGolden Weeping Willow 1 3l4- Cal. B&B 6 1 TD ITAXODIUM distichum IBald Cypress I 2" Cal. B&B Shrubs Oly Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Notes 21 AAR AMALANCHIER alnifolia'Regent' Regent Serviceberry #3 Cont x 15 AAB AROMA arbutifolia'Briliantissima Red Ghokeberry 5' Ht B&B x 15 COC CEPHALANTHUS occidentalis Buttonbush 30" #3 Cont. 5 CA CLETHRA alnifolia SummersNeet 30' #5 Cont 34 CAH CLETHRA alnifolia'HummingUrd' Hummingbird Summersweet 24' HL #5 Cont. 33 CM CORNUS mas Comelian Cherry T HL B&B x 3-5 Stem Clump 9 CR CORNUS racemosa Grey Dogwood 4' HL B&B 8 GSA CORNUS sericea'ANman's Compacta' Allman's Compact Dogwood 3-4' HL #5 Cont 2 CSI CORNUS sericea'Isanti Isanti Dogwood 3-4' Ht. #5 Cont. 35 FNH FORSYTHL4'New Hampshire Gold' New Hampshire Gold Forsythia 3' B&B 3 HV HAMAMELIS virginiana Wddchhazel 5' B&B 51 IGS ILEX glabra'Shamrock' Shamrock Inkbeny 18" HL B&B 2 IVSG ILEX veniallata'Southem Gentleman' Southem Gentleman Winterberry 24" HL B&B 2 IVJ ILEX ver6cillata'Jim Dandy' Jim Dandy Winterberry T B&B 15 IVR ILEX verticillata'Red Sprite' Red Sprite Wnterberry 18' HL #3 C int 25 JCHC JUNIPERUS chinensis'Hetzii Columnaris' Green Columnar Juniper 6' HL B&B 2 JCS JUNIPERUS chinensis sargentii Yiridis' Green Sargent Juniper 24" HL B&B 38 PBH PRUNUS besseyi'Hansen's' Hansen's Bush Cherry 3 Gal. Cont x 3' O.C. 20 PCJ PRUNUS x. kenrasis'Cannine Jewel' Carmine Jewl Cherry 5 Gal. Cont x 27 PCP PRUNUS x. kerrasis'Crimson Passion' Crimson Passion Cherry 5 Gal. Cont x 13 PT PRUNUS tomentosa Nanking Cherry 3 Gal. Cont z 9 RCA RHODODENDRON catawbiense'Alba' Alba Catawba Rhododendron 36" HL B&B 2 RPJM RHODODENDRON -P. J. M.' P. J. M. Rhododendron 30" Ht B&B 18 RRE RHODODENDRON'Roseum Elegans' Roseum Elegans Rhododendron 36" Ht. S&B 49 RHR RIBES grossulada'Hinnomaki Red' Hinnomaki Red Gooseberry 3 Gal. Cont x 5 RBS RIBES nigrum'Ben Sarek' Ben Sarek Black Currant 3 Gal. ConL x 24 RRL RIBES rubrum' Red Lake' Red Lake Currant 3 Gal. Cont. x 190 BM RUBUS mix Blackberry Mix #2 Cont x 208 RM RUBUS mix Rasberry Mix #2 Cant c 30 SJLP SPIRFA japonica 'Little Princess' Little Princess Spirea 18" HL #3 Cont 14 SB SYRINGA'Bloomerang' Boomerang Lilac 15' HI. #1 Cont 20 SV SYRINGA vulgaris Purple Lilac 6' HL B&B 43 TMC TAXUS x media'Cole' Cole Yew 4' HL B&B 4' O.G. 90 TMD TAXUS x media'Densifomus' Dense Yew 24" HL B&B 45 THE TAXUS x media'Everlov/ Evedow Yew 24' HL B&B 8 TMH TAXUS x media'HicksW Hicks Yew 36' HL B&B 46 TOE THWA occidentalis'Emerald Emerald Arborvitae 5' Ht B&B 30" O.C. 164 TON THWA occidentalis'Nigra' jDark Green Arborvitae 5' HL B&B Grasses Qty. I Code I Saentfic Name Common Name Size Spec Notes 79 CAF CALAMAGROSTIS x aculifom'Kad Foemter' Kad Foerster Reed Grass #2 Cont. Clomp 7 DC IDESCHAMPSIA caespitosa'GoldstauV Golden Hair Grass #2 Cont. Clump 4 MSS MISCANTHUS s.'Strictus' Porcupine Grass #5 Cont Clump 38 1 SS ISCHIZACHYRIUM scoparium The Blues' The Blues Little Blue Stem #2 Cont Clump T. J. Boyle and Associates 301 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 $180.D0 $180.00 $450.00 $162.D0 $1,782.00 $4,455.00 $87.00 $1,392.00 $3,480.00 $133.00 $798.00 $1,995.00 Unit Pnce $15.00 $315.00 $787.50 $45.00 $675.00 $1,687.50 $22.00 $330.00 $825.00 $22.00 $110.D0 $275.00 $23.50 $799.00 $1,997.50 $85.00 $2,805.00 $7,012.50 $20.00 $180.00 $450.00 $37.50 $300.00 $750.00 $25.00 $50.00 $125.00 $15.D0 $525.00 $1.312.50 $42.00 $126.00 $315.00 $22.00 $1,122.00 $2,805.00 $27.00 $54.00 $135.00 $31.00 $62.00 $155.00 $17.00 $255.00 $637.50 $72.00 $1,800.00 $4,500.00 $20.00 $40.00 $100.00 $45.00 $1,710.00 $4,275.00 $65.00 $1,300.00 $3,250.00 $65.00 $1,755.00 $4,387.50 $45.00 $585.00 $1,462.50 $58.00 $522.00 $1.305.00 $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.D0 $375.00 $30.00 $720.00 $1,800.00 $12.00 $2,280.00 $5,700.00 $15.00 $3,120.00 $7,800.00 $13.50 $405.00 $1,012.50 $18.00 $252.00 $630.00 $49.00 $980.00 $2.450.00 $54.00 $2,322.00 $5,805.00 $24.50 $2.205.00 $5,512.50 $31.50 $1,417.50 $3,543.75 $45.00 $360.00 $900.00 $42.00 $1,932.00 $4,830.00 $37.00 $6,068.00 $15,170.00 Unit Pnce $7.00 $553.00 $1,382.50 $7.00 $49.00 $122.50 $13.75 $55.00 $137.50 $7.00 $266.00 $665.00 Unit Pnce $0.00 $0.00 $12.00 $0.00 $0.00 `-e 1-� Qtv Code Scienlific Name I Common Name I Size S Notes 20 HHR HEMEROCALLIS'Hap Retums' Happy Returns Dayliy 12• Ht. i2 Cont. 10 IVWR ILEX verticillata'Writer Red' Winter Red Winterberry 30• HL 1 Cont. 12 JSB JUNIPERUS sabina'Broadmoor' jBroadmoor Juniper 15• HL 1 83 Cont. 4 VCC VIBURNUM rariesii'Cayuga' iCayugaVibumum 24• HL 1 #5 Cont Park Planting Schedule Canal T- Qty Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Edible Notes 2 ACC! ABIES concolor White Fir T Ht. B&B 4 ACC2 ABIES concolor White Fir 6 Ht. B&B 7 AR ACER rubrum 'Red Sunset' Red Sunset Maple 2" Cal. Bas 3 ARH AMALANCHIER'Robin Hill' Robin Hill Servicebeny 2" Cal. B&B c SINGLE -STEM 6 BN BETULA nigra'Heritage Heritage River Birch 10, Ht B&B CLUMP 6 GTH GLEDITSIA tricanthos inemas'Halka' Halka Honeylocust 2" Cal. B&B 2 LD1 LARIX larcina American Larch T HL B&B 6 LD2 LARIX larcina American Larch 5' HL #10 Cont. 3 PG1 PICEA glauca White Spruce T Ht B&B 5 PG2 PICEA glauca White Spruce 5' HL B&B 3 PSA PRUNUS sargentti Sargent Cherry 2" Cal. B&B 7 OR OUERCUS rubra Red Oak 2• Cal. B&B 3 SA SALIX alba'Tristis' Golden Weeping Willow 1 3/4" Cal. B&B Shrubs Qt Code Scientific Name Common Name Size S Notes 6 COC CEPHALANTHUS occidentalis IButtonbush I 30• #3 Cont 5 1 CR ICORNUS recemosa lGrey Dogwood 1 4' HL B86 T. J. Boyle and Associates 301 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 Unit Pnce $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 $257,296.25 Including Street Trees or Park Plantings) Unit Matenal Price Installed $150.00 $300.00 $750.00 $108.00 $432.00 $1,080.00 $107.00 $749.00 $1,872.50 $140.00 $420.00 $1,050.00 $125.00 $750.00 $1,875.00 $135.00 $810.00 $2,025.00 $90.00 $180.00 $450.00 $27.00 $162.00 $405.00 $135.00 $405.00 $1,012.50 $75.00 $375.00 $937.50 $150.00 $450.00 $1,125.00 $162.00 $1,134.00 $2,835.00 $87.00 $261.00 $652.50 Unit Pnce $22.00 $176.00 $440.00 $20.00 $100.00 $250.00 Park Planting Total Park Planting Total $16,760.00 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 11" 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: (1) 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. Si.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. S1.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. S1.0, S1.1, S1.2, S1.3, S1.4, S1.5, and S1.6. (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 Ci.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 Si.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: 11.8% Lot Coverage; Overall: 25.2% 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: June 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. 15.08 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 (loo) feet to the inch, or not more than sixty (6o) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (too) feet of frontage, showing or accompanied by the following information: (1) 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. 6415.05 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 (too) feet to the inch, or not more than sixty (6o) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (too) 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.o5(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 ur 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 he 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. (lo) 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.i.o. (1i) 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 plans. 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 request. 1) Section 9.08 reads as follows: 669.08 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 5001 (2) Interconnection of Streets Size and Lot Proportion (a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet." The revised plans depict 5 street blocks having the following lengths: 750', 775', 450' and 170', plus one private street bock measuring 175'. These measurements are between intersecting streets or recreation path connections. The longest block (775') runs between the intersection of Spear Meadow Drive/Vale Drive and Park Street. The next longest block (750') runs from the intersection of Spear Street/Road A and Road B and is necessitated by the configuration of the property and the existence of a Class II Wetlands that cuts through the middle of the property. These two longer blocks could be reduced by introducing intermediate recreation path connections, thereby eliminating the need for a waiver, however, the new connections would not make good planning sense, as one would lead to a dead end at our north property line and the other would be duplicative. 2) The setback language in the 5EQ-NR 5ub-District section of the LDRs is a recommended guideline and therefore, the requirement in Table C-2 governs. Table C-2 sets forth the following setback requirements: "TABLE C-2 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS by ZONING DISTRICT District Land Use Minimum lot size (max. residential density) Maximum site coverage: Standard setbacks (feet): Buildings only Buildings, parking and all other impervious surfaces Front yard(s) Side yard(s) Pear yard SEQ Single- family 12,000 SF (1.2) 15%** 30% 20 10 30 Two- family 24,000 SF (1.2) 15% 30% 20 10 30 All other uses 40,000 SF (1.2) 15% 30% 20 20 30 We are requesting a waiver of the setback requirement to accommodate additional buffering of the Class II Wetlands, per the recommendation and request of the Development Review Board at Sketch Plan Review. SPEAR MEADOWS BUILDING TYPE SUMMARY 713012010 BLDG TYPE: UNIT 1: UNIT 2 / GARAGE: NOTES: page 1 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 'z 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/ perpendicular access 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 Z,200 sf 4-bedroom, 2 '2 bath 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 SheetA1.0 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 X 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 X 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, 2 X 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 X 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 (1,520 sf) (1,600 sf) 2-bedroom, 2 bath + 3-bedroom, 2 bath variations: *N F1 F2 2 car attached garage + 1 car garage below P Duplex (1,700sf) (1,700sf) 2-bedroom, 2 X bath +2-bedroom, 2'z bath variations: * P TH-M TH-M 2-car attached garage + 2-car attached garage * Indicates specific Building Type variation illustrated on Sheet Al. Spear Meadows Modeling Type 1124-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 Paq_e_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 Subcatchment 15S: 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 T 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 T 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=3.0 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 T 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 �15S 16S I roposed `2 SS 228 Is tlmate �� 18 disc are and buffer ex dis area and buffer /ew wet pond are: E6j 27R 2RR 2RR wetland chan I wetland ch nel estimate wetland ch net wetland cha el estimate estimate estlmate 19 New wet pon est 21 S 25S 20S perk area proposed west pond trib area ex park area ex 24$ estimate west pond trib area proposed Subcat Reach on Link Jwest pond.zls Page 1 of 2 version: 9ro6 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 Flow -Based Practice Use this worksheet to calculate your WQv if you need to determine the Peak Q for the WQ stonn (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. See page 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 zoill affect the peak discharge rate which will ultimately affect the hydraulics, and thus residence time, in uour channel. Water Quality Volume Calculations Line value/calculation units 1 acres 2 acres 3 % (whole #) 4 inches 5 6 Qa (watershed inches, a.k.a. inches of runoff) 7 watershed inches 8 watershed inches 9 ac. ft. 10 cu. ft. Area draining to practice � A= 3.22 Impervious area 1.40 Percent Impervious Area =[(line 2/line 1) " 1001= I = 43,48 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 Minimum WQ Volume 0 2 Enter the greater of line 6 or line 7 WQv = 0.397 WQ Volume Calculation = (line 8 *A)/12 = WQv = 0.107 WQ Volume Calculation = (line 9 * 43560) = WQv = 4642 V V L=. 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 ST'I' (both type and label) which has been designed to treat this particular WQv (e.g. Wet Pond 42) west pond..rls 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 information 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*(QaA2 + (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. M 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 li2) Copy o(sm_wgv—mith_calcs_/low.zls Page 1 of 2 Version: 9/06 For the area draining to*: 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 channel. Water Quality Volume Calculations Line value/calculation units 1 acres 2 acres 3 % (whole #) 4 inches 5 6 Qa (watershed inches, a.k.a. inches of runoff) 7 watershed inches $ watershed inches 9 ac. ft. 10 cu. ft. Area draining to practice w A= 10.65 Impervious area 6.60 Percent Impervious Area =[(line 2/line 1) * 100] = I = 61.97 Precipitation P = 0.9 Runoff coefficient calculation = (0.05 + (0.009*I)) Rv = 0.608 WQ Volume (in watershed inches) Calculation � P * Rv) = 0 �i47 Minimum WQ Volume 0.2 Enter the greater of line 6 or line 7 WQv = 0.547 WQ Volume Calculation = (line 8 "A)/12 = WQv = 0.485 WQ Volume Calculation = (line 9 * 43560) = WQv = 21146 lNucea: 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) which has been designed to treat this particular WQv (e.g. Wet Pond #2) lCopy of$To_WgJ untlt caicsjlom.xis Page 2 of 2 Version: 9/06 For the area draining to*: Spear Meadows Pond -Sizing Located in drainage area for SIN: 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 = 10.7 acres 2. Use the following equation to calculate a corresponding curve number CN=1000/(10 +(5*P)+(10*Qa) - (10*(QaA2 + (1.25*Qa*P))A0.5)) where P = 0.9 inches CN = 96.1 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 name of the STP (both type and label) which has been designed to treat this particular WQv (e.g. Wet Pond #2) 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: 1/27/2011 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 on August 11, 2010. 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 SR 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 Organization As depicted on the plans, the project site is subdivided into 7 Parcels and 48 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 48 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) Height 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 ndjncent 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 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. • Page 2 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 undesignoted 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. Circulation 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. Street, Sidewalk & Parkin 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". • Page 3 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 70 units proposed would require a park area of 1.19 acres (70 x 2.25 = 158 persons / 1,000 persons x 7.5 acres = 1.19 acres). The proposed plans depict a "Neighborhood Park" on Parcel 7 containing 2.253 acres, fully 1.06 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 Ad_ioinina Parcels There are six public street blocks, having the following lengths: 750', 775', 450' and 170', plus one private street bock measuring 175', which will also be constructed to City standards. These measurements are between intersecting streets or recreation path connections. 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. 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. Although some of the block lengths do not conform to the regulations, the overall design of 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. • Page 4 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 1-001. 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. 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 48 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 • Page 5 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 conf igurations. There are 7 basic duplex building models, townhouses, flat-over-f lots 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. 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. At the most recent Recreation Path Committee meeting, on September 13, 2010 (minutes attached), 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 will re -design 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 $257,296, plus Street Trees of $52,525, plus Park plantings of $16,760. 0 Page 6 ORB 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 D 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 coati reference: Building:* Halt No. 2 Tvge: 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% CI 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 B2 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 IS M MOTOR 118 414 28.5% B2 62d 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% Cl C2d 21 C SIDE 82 251 32.7% M M 22 M MOTOR 118 414 28.5% B2 62d 23 B MOTOR 70 241 29.0% JX-alt 1X 24 1X SIDE 149 426 34.9% B2 62 25 B MOTOR 70 241 29.0% BX2 BX2r 26 BX REAR 47 280 16.8% J-olt 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 Halt 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 62 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 CX1 42 CX SIDE 96.4 220 43.8% N N 43 N MOTOR 84 415 20.3% C1 C2d 44 C SIDE 81.9 251 32.7% CX1 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 B2r 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. BARR & ASSOCIATES, P. C. RUSSELL D. BARR•` ATTORNEYS AT LAW JESSE M. GOLDFINE+ 125 MOUNTAIN ROAD JENNIFER J. LAJOIE' DANIEL A. SEFF'" STOWE, VERMONT 05672 ALLEN C.B. HORSLEY, OF COUNSEL# TEL: (802) 253-6272 •• MEMBER VT AND NY BARS FAX: (802) 253.6055 *MEMBER VT BAR www.barrlaw.com +MEMBER VT MA AND RI BARS #MEMBER VT AND MA BARS December 14, 2011 VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL Ms. Jackie Fletcher, Clerk Vermont Superior Court Environmental Division 2418 Airport Road, Suite 1 Barre, VT 05641 NEW YORK OFFICE 100 PARK AVENUE SUITE 1600 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017 TEL: (212) 486-3910 FAX: (212) 486-7688 SCOTT L. KEYES, LAW CLERK Re: In re Spear Meadows Inc Gary N. Farrell and Jane G. Farrell 70-Unit PUD Application, Docket No. 172-12-11 Vtec Dear Ms. Fletcher: We represent Mr. William Gilbert and Ms. Maureen Gilbert of 1400 Spear Street, Dr. Thomas Kleh and Ms. Lousie 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 South Burlington. Enclosed for filing please find: (1) a Notice of Appearance on their behalves; and (2) a Certificate of Service. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you very much for your assistance, and happy holidays. Sincerely yours, Daniel A. Seff Enclosures (2) cc: Ross A. Feldman, Esq. (via First -Class Mail w/enclosures) Ms. Donna Kinville, South Burlington City Clerk (via First -Class Mail w/enclosures) STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION IN RE: SPEAR MEADOWS, INC., ) GARY N. FARRELL AND JANE G. ) Docket No. 172-12-11 Vtec FARRELL 70-UNIT PUD APPLICATION ) (#MP-11-01 AND #SD-11-07) ) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE NOW COMES Barr & Associates, P.C. and hereby enters its appearance on behalf of Mr. William Gilbert and Ms. Maurene Gilbert of 1400 Spear Street, Dr. Thomas Kleh and Ms. Louise Kleh of 219 Meadowod 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 South Burlington. Dated: December 14, 2011 Stowe, Vermont Respectfully submitted, BARR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: 4�y Daniel A. Seff, Esq. 125 Mountain Road Stowe, VT 05672 Phone: (802) 253-6272 Fax: (802) 253-6055 dan@barrlaw.com 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 END OF DOS NT STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT IN RE: SPEAR MEADOWS, INC., ) GARY N. FARRELL AND JANE G. ) FARRELL 70-UNIT PUD APPLICATION ) (#MP-11-01 AND #SD-11-07) ) ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Docket No. 172-12-11 Vtec CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Daniel A. Seff, Esq., hereby certify that on December 14, 2011, true and correct copies of a Notice of Appearance and this Certificate of Service were forwarded by U.S. Mail, First Class, postage prepaid, to the following recipients: Ross A. Feldmann, Esq. Gravel and Shea PC P.O. Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402-0369 Dated: December 14, 2011 Stowe, Vermont Ms. Donna Kinville, City Clerk City of South Burlington City Hall 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Respectfully submitted, BARR &. ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: Daniel A. Seff, Esq. 125 Mountain Road Stowe, VT 05672 Phone: (802) 253-6272 Fax: (802) 253-6055 dan@barrlaw.com 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 END OF DOCUMENT VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington VT 05403 (802) 828-1660 2418 Airport Road, Ste.1 Barre, Vermont 05641 - 8701 December 2, 2011 Farrell Real Estate Preliminary Plat Application Docket No. 172-12-11 Vtec The above -referenced appeal from a municipal panel, district commission, agency of natural resources or agency of agriculture was received at the Environmental Division on 11/30/2011. Environmental Division docket number 172-12-11 Vtec has been assigned to this appeal. Please use the Environmental Division docket number and the above case name when filing any documents or asking any questions concerning this case. Please note, this case name may not be final if we are missing necessary information from the appellant. All documents should be filed with the Environmental Division at the address at the top of this letter. Also, if you have not provided the Environmental Division with a telephone number where you can be reached during working hours for the purpose of telephone conferences, please do so as soon as possible. The Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings (V.R.E.C.P.) set out the procedures to follow for this appeal. You may obtain a full copy of the Rules and Reporter's Notes at www.vermontjudiciary.org. 1. i'he person filing Lhe appeal is tolled ' LL= appeal aiL.' Ti1c at,pel .anL 'i loot take certain actions in order to assure that this appeal is not dismissed. Consult the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings to see what those actions are. For requirements regarding the appellant's responsibility to notify interested parties, see V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4) for municipal appeals, (see also Form 900 available on the Court's web site at www.vermontjudiciary.org or by calling the Environmental Division at the above number and requesting that one be sent to you). 2. This case will be ready for hearing or other appropriate disposition when the time for filing the appellant's statement of questions has expired, or 20 days after the notice to interested parties has been sent, whichever occurs later. To complete service of appeals, the appellant must do as follows: From an Appropriate Municipal Panel, follow V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(A). The clerk of the appropriate municipal panel must provide the appellant with a 1_st of interested persons within five working days of the municipality's receipt of a copy of the notice of appeal. December 2, 2011 -Page 2- 172-12-11 Vtec From a District Commission, District Coordinator or the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources, follow V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(B): Take special notice that no list of interested parties will be provided by the tribunal, other than the service list on the decision appealed from. The Environmental Division may extend that time if a request is made by written motion filed with the Environmental Division before the deadline has expired. If this case is set for a hearing on the merits, the hearing will take place in or near the county in which the case originated. Please note that pursuant to V.R.E.C.P. 5 (b)(4) (g), these appeals are de novo, unless the municipality has adopted procedures to make certain appeals on the record. 3. Faxing a copy of a document is not sufficient to meet deadlines for filing documents with the Environmental Division. Faxed copies may be authorized by the Environmental Division in certain circumstances, but the Environmental Division will not accept Faxed documents unless the sender has first telephoned the Environmental Division and obtained permission to do so or and unless the judge has authorized it in a scheduling order. 4. The person filing any document (including letters) with the Environmental Division must also send a copy of that document to each of the other parties. The Clerk of the Environmental Division will contact the parties to arrange for a pre -hearing conference in person or by telephone with a judge or with a case manager. Before the initial conference, the Appellant is requested to provide the Environmental Division with a copy of the decision being appealed from. The Environmental Division finds it useful in preparing to discuss the appeal with the parties at the initial conference. Sincerely, I C1. 0 - /w ��a 4"&�Y Jacalyn F 1 e her, ivi ion Manager CC: Municipality, City of South Burlington Ross A. Feldmann, Attorney for Appellant, Gary N: Farrell Ross A. Feldmann, Attorney for Appellant, Jane G. Farrell Ross A. Feldmann, Attorney for Appellant, Spear Meadows, Inc. 1 STITZEL, PAGE &. FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 TELEPHONE (802 660-2555) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802 660-2552) PATTI R. PAGE WWW.FIRMSPF.COM ROBERT E. FLETCHER JMCLEAN@FIRMSPF.COM JOSEPH S.McLEAN AMANDA S. E. LAFFERTY JOHN H. KLESCH DAVID W. RUGH* *(ALSO ADMITTED rN MD) December 5, 2011 Jacalyn M. Fletcher, Manager Vermont Superior Court Environmental Division 2418 Airport Road, Suite 1 Barre, VT 05641-8701 Re: Farrell Real Estate Prelim. Plat Application Docket No. 172-11-11 Vtec Dear Jackie: OF COUNSEL DINA L. ATWOOD Enclosed please find my Entry of Appearance on behalf of the City of South Burlington in the above -referenced docket. Thank you for your attention to this matter. me with any questions. 7S'cerely, i Joseph S. McLean Enclosure CC: Ross A. Feldmann, Esq. Ray Belair SON11-077.cor Please contact STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION FARRELL REAL ESTATE ) DOCKET NO. 172-11-11 Vtec PRELIM PLAT APPLICATION ) ENTRY OF APPEARANCE NOW COMES, JOSEPH S. MCLEAN, ESQ., of the firm of Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., and hereby enters his appearance on behalf of the City of South Burlington, in the above -referenced matter. Dated at Burlington, in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, this 5 day of December, 2011. sonll-042 JSM EOA.lit MUEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171BATTERYSTREET PO. BOX 1507 URLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. Attorneys for City of South Burlington By Jos ph S. McLean 171 Battery Street. P.O. Box 1507 Burlington, VT 05402-1507 (802)660-2555 GRAVEL AND SHA PC Attorneys at Law 76 St. Paul Street Post Office Box 369 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0369 Telephone 802.658.0220 Facsimile 802.658.1456 Writers E-Mail: www. gravelshea.com rfeldmann@gravelshea.com November 29, 2011 Jacalyn M. Fletcher, Court Manager Vermont Superior Court Environmental Division 2418 Airport Road, Suite 1 Barre, VT 05641-8701 Re: In Re: Spear Meadows, Inc., Gary N. Farrell and Jane G. Farrell 70-Unit PUD ADnlication (#MP-11-01 and #SD-11-07) 0 Dear Jackie: Enclosed for filing in the referenced matter, please find Appellant -Applicant's Notice of Appeal, together with the decision being appealed and this firm's check in the amount of $262.50. Thank you. Very truly yours, GRAVEL AND SHEA PC Ross A. Feldmann RAF:kah Enclosures cc: Donna Kinville, South Burlington City Clerk Paul Connor, South Burlington Director of Planning & Zoning STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Docket No. IN RE: SPEAR MEADOWS, INC., ) GARY N. FARRELL AND JANE G. ) FARRELL 70-UNIT PUD APPLICATION ) (#MP-11-01 AND #SD-11-07) ) NOTICE OF APPEAL Spear Meadows, Inc., Gary N. Farrell and Jane G. Farrell (collectively, "Farrell"), by their attorneys, Gravel and Shea, notice their appeal to the Environmental Court in the captioned matter. Farrell has party status by virtue of 24 Vt. Stat. Ann. §§ 4465(b)(1) and 4471(a). This appeal concerns the November 1, 2011 decision by the South Burlington Development Review Board dismissing Farrell's preliminary plat application as untimely. A copy of this decision is attached hereto. The properties at issue are located at 1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street, South Burlington, Vermont. Interested persons wishing to participate must enter an appearance in writing with the Court within 20 days of receiving this notice, or in such other time as may be provided in Rule 5(c) of the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings. Dated: Burlington, Vermont November 29, 2011 Ross A. Feldmann, Esq. Gravel and Shea PC P. O. Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402-0369 (802) 658-0220 rfeldmann@gravelshea.com For Appellant -Applicant GRAVEL AND SHEA PC Attorneys at La- P. O. Box 369 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0369 MP-11-01 SD-11-07 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING FARRELL REAL ESTATE, 1302, 1340, AND 1350 SPEAR STREET MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-11-01 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-11-07 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Master Plan application #MP-11-01 and preliminary plat application #SD-11-07 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 25 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on September 20, 2011. Eric Farrell represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: Notice of Decision Regarding Timeliness of Preliminary Plat Filing This matter was consolidated for hearing purposes such that, on September 20, 2011, that DRB heard evidence and argument regarding both an appeal by Appellants/Interested Persons, William and Maurene Gilbert, et al. (hereinafter "the Gilberts"), from a decision of the Administrative Officer to warn. Master Plan Application #MP-11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD-11-07 (the "Applications") for hearing before the DRB on August 3, 2011, and their request to "dismiss" the Applications for lack of DRB jurisdiction.I A separate decision has been issued addressing the appeal. Relevant Background Facts It is undisputed that this Board held a public meeting on July 6, 2010, on FRE's sketch plan application (#SD-10-20). On August 11, 2010, the applicant, Farrell Real Estate ("FRE") submitted Preliminary Plat Application#SD-10-28 and Master Plan Application #MP-10-01 to the City. However, FRE withdrew those applications on January 27, 2011, due to changes in project boundary lines proposed after the sketch plan meeting. The following day, on January 28, 2011, FRE submitted the Applications to the City. The Gilberts argue that FRE failed to ' The Gilberts seek an Order remanding the Applications back to the sketch plan stage of the subdivision review process. Page 1 MP-11-01 SD-11-07 submit its application for preliminary plat approval within the time required by the City's Land Development Regulations and that the DRB, consequently, cannot review it. Decision Reeardina Timeliness of Preliminary Plat Filing As noted above, the Gilberts have asked this Board to dismiss the preliminary plat application for failure to comply with the requirements of Section 15.06(C) and 15.08(A) of the City's Land Development Regulations.2 Those provisions address the timing of plat submission for .minor and major subdivision review, respectively. Section 15.08(A), in particular, provides that " [a]fter 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 au application for the approval of a preliminary plat with the Administrative Officer." (Emphasis added) In this case, the Applicant, FRE, did not meet this requirement. As noted above, the last sketch plan meeting for this project was held on July 6, 2010. Applications #SD-10-28 and #MP-10-01 were initially submitted in a timely matter, but those applications were withdrawn on or about January 27, 2011. The Applications that replaced them and that are at issue here (#SD-11-07 and #MP-11- 01) were not submitted within six months of the meeting on the sketch plan. Therefore, the Applicant failed to comply with the requirements of § 15.08(A), the plain language of which is not in dispute. 3 Moreover, as the Gilberts correctly observe, the new (2011) applications for preliminary plat and master plan approval have never been subject to sketch plan review. Although the Applicant argues that the new applications are substantially the same as the old (i.e., except for minor changes to boundaries, etc.), and therefore can "piggyback" on the July 2010 sketch plan review for the withdrawn applications, the Land Development Regulations do not appear to contemplate this process, and the so-called "minor" changes to boundaries reflected in the new preliminary plat/master plan applications implicate a substantial number of additional property owners who apparently did not receive notice of the prior sketch plan meeting. The DRB believes that it would be reasonable, under the circumstances, for the Applicant to provide new posting and notice to property owners impacted by changed boundaries, and to submit a new sketch plan for review by the DRB.4 Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, it is the determination of the DRB that preliminary plat and master plan review shall not proceed until a new sketch plan meeting has been held, with z The Gilberts have styled their request as a "motion to dismiss." While the DRB acknowledges and understands the Gilberts' request, it does not wish to encourage parties that come before it to engage in overly legalistic "motion practice." The DRB is a lay board, comprised primarily of non-attomeys, and it is both expensive and time- consuming for the Board to attempt to address complex legal motions like those filed in this case. ' By this decision, the DRB specifically does not decide whether failure to meet the 6-month requirement is 'Jurisdictional," as the Gilberts assert, or merely a procedural prerequisite. It is clear, however, that the 6-month deadline was missed, and the DRB believes that submission of a new sketch plan is warranted in this case. 4 The DRB understands that, as of the date of this decision, the Applicant has already submitted a new sketch plan application. Therefore, the Gilberts request for a "remand" for this purpose is essentially moot. Page 2 MP-11-01 SD-11-07 proper posting and notice to adjoining land owners per the requirements of 24 V.S.A. §4464 and the City's Land Development Regulations. DATED at South Burlington, Vermont, this Is day of November, 2011. jKff Chair Page 3 Ar ► W01, PAR southburlington PLANNING & ZONING December 1, 2011 Joseph S. McLean, Esq. Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C. P.O. Box 1507 Burlington, VT 05402-1507 Re: Spear Meadows, Inc. et al Appeal Docket No. -11-11 Vtec Dear Joe: Enclosed, please find a copy of a Notice of Appeal regarding the above referenced matter. Please enter your appearance of behalf of the City. Thanks. Sincere , Raymond J. Belair Administrative Officer 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 te1 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburI.com GRAVEL AND SJA PC Attorneys at Law 76 St. Paul Street Post Office Box 369 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0369 Telephone 802.658.0220 Facsimile 802.658.1456 www.gravelshea.com November 29, 2011 Jacalyn M. Fletcher, Court Manager Vermont Superior Court Environmental Division 2418 Airport Road, Suite 1 Barre, VT 05641-8701 Re: In Re: Spear Meadows, Inc., Gary N. Farrell and Jane G. Farrell 70-Unit PUD Application (#MP-11-01 and #SD-11-07) 0 Dear Jackie: Writer's E-Mail: rfeldmann@gravelshea.com Enclosed for filing in the referenced matter, please find Appellant -Applicant's Notice of Appeal, together with the decision being appealed and this firm's check in the amount of $262.50. Thank you. Very truly yours, GRAVEL AND SHEA PC Ross A. Feldmann RAF:kah Enclosures cc: Donna Kinville, South Burlington City Clerk Paul Connor, South Burlington Director of Planning &Zoning STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Docket No. IN RE: SPEAR MEADOWS, INC., GARY N. FARRELL AND JANE G. FARRELL 70-UNIT PUD APPLICATION (#MP-11-01 AND #SD-11-07) NOTICE OF APPEAL Spear Meadows, Inc., Gary N. Farrell and Jane G. Farrell (collectively, "Farrell"), by their attorneys, Gravel and Shea, notice their appeal to the Environmental Court in the captioned matter. Farrell has party status by virtue of 24 Vt. Stat. Ann. §§ 4465(b)(1) and 4471(a). This appeal concerns the November 1, 2011 decision by the South Burlington Development Review Board dismissing Farrell's preliminary plat application as untimely. A copy of this decision is attached hereto. The properties at issue are located at 1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street, South Burlington, Vermont. Interested persons wishing to participate must enter an appearance in writing with the Court within 20 days of receiving this notice, or in such other time as may be provided in Rule 5(c) of the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings. Dated: GRAVEL AND SHEA PC Attorneys at L.- P. O. Box 369 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0369 Burlington, Vermont November 29, 2011 Ross A. Feldmann, Esq. Gravel and Shea PC P. O. Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402-0369 (802) 658-0220 rfeldmann@gravelshea.com For Appellant -Applicant MP-11-01 SD-11-07 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING FARRELL REAL ESTATE, 1302, 1340, AND 1350 SPEAR STREET MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-11-01 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-11-07 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Master Plan application #MP-11-01 and preliminary plat application #SD-11-07 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 25 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on September 20, 2011. Eric Farrell represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: Notice of Decision Regarding Timeliness of Preliminary Plat Filing This matter was consolidated for hearing purposes such that, on September 20, 2011, that DRB heard evidence and argument regarding both an appeal by Appellants/Interested Persons, William and Maurene Gilbert, et al. (hereinafter "the Gilberts"), from a decision of the Administrative Officer to warn Master Plan Application #MP-11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD-11-07 (the "Applications") for hearing before the DRB on August 3, 2011, and their request to "dismiss" the Applications for lack of DRB jurisdiction. I A separate decision has been issued addressing the appeal. Relevant Background Facts It is undisputed that this Board held a public meeting on July 6, 2010, on FRE's sketch plan application (#SD-10-20). On August 11, 2010, the applicant, Farrell Real Estate ("FRE") submitted Preliminary Plat Application4SD-10-28 and Master Plan Application #MP-10-01 to the City. However, FRE withdrew those applications on January 27, 2011, due to changes in project boundary lines proposed after the sketch plan meeting. The following day, on January 28, 2011, FRE submitted the Applications to the City. The Gilberts argue that FRE failed to ' The Gilberts seek an Order remanding the Applications back to the sketch plan stage of the subdivision review process. Page 1 MP-11-01 SD-11-07 submit its application for preliminary plat approval within the time required by the City's Land Development Regulations and that the DRB, consequently, cannot review it. Decision Regarding Timeliness of Preliminary Plat Filing As noted above, the Gilberts have asked this Board to dismiss the preliminary plat application for failure to comply with the requirements of Section 15.06(C) and 15.08(A) of the City's Land Development Regulations.2 Those provisions address the timing of plat submission for minor and major subdivision review, respectively. Section 15.08(A), in particular, provides that "[a]fter 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." (Emphasis added) In this case, the Applicant, FRE, did not meet this requirement. As noted above, the last sketch plan meeting for this project was held on July 6, 2010. Applications #SD-10-28 and #MP-10-01 were initially submitted in a timely matter, but those applications were withdrawn on or about January 27, 2011. The Applications that replaced them and that are at issue here (#SD-11-07 and #MP-11- 01) were not submitted within six months of the meeting on the sketch plan. Therefore, the Applicant failed to comply with the requirements of § 15.08(A), the plain language of which is not in dispute. 3 Moreover, as the Gilberts correctly observe, the new (2011) applications for preliminary plat and master plan approval have never been subject to sketch plan review. Although the Applicant argues that the new applications are substantially the same as the old (i.e., except for minor changes to boundaries, etc.), and therefore can "piggyback" on the July 2010 sketch plan review for the withdrawn applications, the Land Development Regulations do not appear to contemplate this process, and the so-called "minor" changes to boundaries reflected in the new preliminary plat/master plan applications implicate a substantial number of additional property owners who apparently did not receive notice of the prior sketch plan meeting. The DRB believes that it would be reasonable, under the circumstances, for the Applicant to provide new posting and notice to property owners impacted by changed boundaries, and to submit a new sketch plan for review by the DRB.4 Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, it is the determination of the DRB that preliminary plat and master plan review shall not proceed until a new sketch plan meeting has been held, with ' The Gilberts have styled their request as a "motion to dismiss." While the DRB acknowledges and understands the Gilberts' request, it does not wish to encourage parties that come before it to engage in overly legalistic "motion practice." The DRB is a lay board, comprised primarily of non-attomeys, and it is both expensive and time- consuming for the Board to attempt to address complex legal motions like those filed in this case. ' By this decision, the DRB specifically does not decide whether failure to meet the 6-month requirement is "jurisdictional," as the Gilberts assert, or merely a procedural prerequisite. It is clear, however, that the 6-month deadline was missed, and the DRB believes that submission of a new sketch plan is warranted in this case. 4 The DRB understands that, as of the date of this decision, the Applicant has already submitted a new sketch plan application. Therefore, the Gilberts request for a "remand" for this purpose is essentially moot. Page 2 NIP-1 1-01 SD-11-07 proper posting and notice to adjoining land owners per the requirements of 24 V.S.A. §4464 and the City's Land Development Regulations. DATED at South Burlington, Vermont, this 1 st day of November, 2011. 'A L-4 514�-Chair Page 3 r southlburhnoon PLANNING & ZONING December 1, 2011 Ross A. Feldman, Esq. Gravel and Shea PC P.O. Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402-0369 Re: Spear Meadows, Inc.; Gary N. Farrell and Jane G. Farrell Docket No. -11-11 Vtec Dear Mr. Feldman, Pursuant to Rule 5(b) (4) (A) of the Vermont Rules of Environmental Court Proceedings (also see 24 V.S.A. §4471(c)), the following is a list of "interested persons" for the above referenced proceeding. You are instructed by that Rule to serve a copy of your client's notice of appeal upon all people or entities listed below, by certified mail. Michael L. Young 15 Dover Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Daniel Seff 210 Meadowood Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Debbie Hernberg 210 Meadowood Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Michael Scollins 214 Meadowood Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Thomas & Louise Kleh 219 Meadowood Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Sarah Dopp 500 Cheesefactory Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com Barbara K. Bull 17 E. Terrace So. Burlington, VT 05403 William Cimonetti 1393 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 William Gilbert 1400 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Kyle Church 23 Vale Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Barbara Masterson 6 Vale Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Diane Chamberlain 14 Vale Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Rick Hubbard 12 Woodbine Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Kevin Donahue P.O. Box 9481 So. Burlington, VT 05403 David & Trish Warshaw 35 Pinnacle Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 When the Development Review Board (DRB) sent out its notice on the above reference application, the following additional people or entities were provided a copy of the DRB notice (this list may also include the persons noted above whom appeared at the DRB hearing): See attached list. Lastly, I recommend that you consult the statutory definition for "interested persons" contained in 24 V.S.A. §4465(b). If you believe that our list is missing someone who has interested persons status in this proceeding, you should consider sending them a copy of the notice of appeal, so that you can be confident that all persons or entities who are entitled to notice have received it. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincere ymon J. Belair Administrative Officer cc: Vermont Environmental Court Joseph S. McLean, Esq. 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 YANKO W S KI 1 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 8of12 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 R MEADOWS — FARRELL SUBDIVI 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 IVISION 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 OWS — FARRELL SUBD Physical Address 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 SPEAR 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 11 a 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 2of11 WS — FARRELL SUBDIVfSION Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address Owner of Record 22 PINNACLE DR KEVIN & MICHELE DONAHUE South Burlington, VT 05403 22 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 23 PINNACLE DR JOSEPH F LARKIN South Burlington, VT 05403 410 SHELBURNE RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 24 PINNACLE DR YU JUN & MIAO LIMIN South Burlington, VT 05403 24 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 26 PINNACLE DR ROBERT & ELAINE ERLANDSON South Burlington, VT 05403 26 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 27 PINNACLE DR MOHAMMAD N & MAHNAZ M KHORRAMI South Burlington, VT 05403 27 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 28 PINNACLE DR DARYL L & GABRIELLE E MEUNIER South Burlington, VT 05403 28 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 29 PINNACLE DR CAROL L BLATTSPIELER South Burlington, VT 05403 29 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 31 PINNACLE DR PETER A & KAREN S HANDY South Burlington, VT 05403 31 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 35 PINNACLE DR DAVID M & PATRICIA M WARSHAW South Burlington, VT 05403 35 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 3of11 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 4of11 WS — 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 49 PINNACLE DR MICHAEL & HEIDI GAGNON South Burlington, VT 05403 49 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 50 PINNACLE DR RAHUL & APARNA NAHAR South Burlington, VT 05403 50 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 51 PINNACLE DR GERALD JOHNSON South Burlington, VT 05403 51 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 52 PINNACLE DR DENNIS & SANDRA LINDBERG South Burlington, VT 05403 52 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 53 PINNACLE DR LARRY N & MARIE E WOOD South Burlington, VT 05403 53 PINNACLE DR LOT 41 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 54 PINNACLE DR CHON I & PING Y LEI South Burlington, VT 05403 54 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 55 PINNACLE DR ERIC & DIANA SCHWAIGERT South Burlington, VT 05403 55 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 56 PINNACLE DR CEDRIC & UMA WESLEY South Burlington, VT 05403 56 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 57 PINNACLE DR CHARLES R & TARA K WILLETTS MILLER South Burlington, VT 05403 57 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 5of11 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 6of11 Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address Owner of Record 1260 SPEAR ST UVM & STATE AGRUCULTURAL COLLEGE South Burlington, VT 05403 109 S PROSPECT ST BURLINGTON, VT 05405 1285 SPEAR ST JOHN & HEIDI BEAN South Burlington, VT 05403 1285 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1295 SPEAR ST MARK & SHIELA PHILLIPPE South Burlington, VT 05403 1295 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1300 SPEAR ST KIM MCCOY-WHITTEN South Burlington, VT 05403 1300 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1302 SPEAR ST GARY N FARRELL South Burlington, VT 05403 1350 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1317 SPEAR ST ST CLAIR GROUP INC South Burlington, VT 05403 15840 LAKEVIEW COURT CROSSE POINT, MI 48230 1331 SPEAR ST ROBERT E & ESTALEEN R LAVIGNE South Burlington, VT 05403 1331 SPEAR STREET S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1350 SPEAR ST GARY N & JANE G FARRELL South Burlington, VT 05403 1350 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1400 SPEAR ST WILLIAM A & MAUREEN G GILBERT South Burlington, VT 05403 1400 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 7ofII 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 8of11 — FARRELL SUBDIVISI Ajoiners List Subject Property Tax Map Parcel 1640-01340 1340 Spear St. South Burlington, VT DATE: March 18, 2011 Physical Address Owner of Record 2 VALE DR LARKIN MILOT PARTNERSHIP South Burlington, VT 05403 PO BOX 4193 BURLINGTON, VT 05401 3 VALE DR TERRY A & LAURA B BENNER South Burlington, VT 05403 3 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 4 VALE DR RUIJIA XIA South Burlington, VT 05403 4 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 5 VALE DR WILLIAM & LORI CHARASH South Burlington, VT 05403 5 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 6 VALE DR KEITH J SAUNDERS South Burlington, VT 05403 6 VALE DR SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 7 VALE DR WILLIAM EDWARDS South Burlington, VT 05403 7 VALE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 8 VALE DR GEORGE & LINDA TANG South Burlington, VT 05403 8 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 9 VALE DR ROBERT M & TOMOKO BERMAN South Burlington, VT 05403 9 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 10 VALE DR CHRISTOPHER D & SARA L DUBIE South Burlington, VT 05403 10 VALE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 9of11 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 10ofll L` �EADOWS - FARRELL SUBDIVI 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 11 of 11 Interested Persons Record and Service List south udlir� o f Y F. RM O NT Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! r NAME MAII IAIr Anno=oc- ON Interested Persons Record and Service List salxth!.-Parhrig tor-, l Er M A NT Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME RM MAILING ADDRESS PROJECT OF INTEREST ( �� YT So t. Lt7 .. e- tbb rjV f ✓) va6 r Of ✓� I- ��f D�R�If crnc� ! �� l'i A/ / l� �'Ci �d Z/� �� �� C� �'1e d � r M Cad �ti (/l'LtGtS l� l�r r tt G �� • C A �'-q z i 811- N Interested Persons Record and Service List soutifl"arith"Ver" . EF lA 0 NT Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: .5 t PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME rA MAILING ADDRESS PROJECT OF INTEREST 1ui'�jlt/C. � - /��. !( l 7 � • %cam-r,.c� � J v- -t. .o�- %i%�cc�aars c _ o 3 +=voz S t s � vr-. Iq LL /SsuE- 23 VA -le- Or- S. Qur�l� lam, , v r a S yG 3 Spfa r /i1 lot hwWafirc .bc,,4gh kv • Fq" Ot t, a- 061 Sa K0 f K-O ZZ' fjc�rn S ley. S¢; o. 2 City of South Burlington Master Plan and Preliminary Application #MP-11-01 preliminary application and #SD-11-07 and Development Review Board SD 11-36 Procedural Issues The Applicant may not simultaneously seek 2 conflicting permits: The Draft Agenda and notice of abutting property owners was dated October 18, 2011 and was unsigned. Further the Draft Agenda included 2 separate items described as identical. Item 5 is the subject of a previously argued and as yet undecided Motion to Dismiss and Appeal presently with the DRB for decision. Applicant has requested a Continuance of Item 5 even if it prevails on the Motion to Dismiss and Appeal. Pancaked Applications hopelessly confuse the already complex Application process and prevent the interested Abutting property owners from due process in the review of the issues raised by the Applicant. A "Draft" Agenda with 2 competing Applications dealing with the same parcel is a misleading legal notice under the City regulations and State law. In addition a "draft" notice is invalid notice under the law, and notice of two separate applications on the same parcel is materially misleading. Finally, in the event that the Applicant prevails on the Motion to Dismiss and Appeal. We respectfully request, that the Board require the Applicant to make an election of remedies and be ordered to withdraw or have dismissed one or the other Application. Respectfully Submitted, October,-2011 William Gilbert Maurene Gilbrmt�- a1 City of South Burlington Development Review Board SD 11-36 William and Maurene Gilbert are owners of abutting parcels to the lands involved in the above application SD 11-36 hereinafter "Spear Meadows Development." The Project: The subject parcel is zoned for only 31 units (1.2 units per acre). The Applicant seeks DRB permission to develop 70 units. Using the PUD approval process along with setback and length -of -block and other waivers, Applicant seeks approvals including 25 single-family homes as well as an additional 44 units in 22 duplex units (condo -apartment). All these proposed units are to be squeezed onto the very small portion of the parcel that can support construction. Much of the parcel is wetlands and un-buildable. The rest is prime agricultural land. Without neighborhood objection, the Applicant has already been allowed a 31-unit development permit for this project, which it has chosen to abandon. A Bad Fit: Visually and in every other way, the proposed 70-unit project (69 new units in 48 new buildings ) does not "fit." The proposal is totally incompatible with the surrounding property. With roads having lengthy blocks and long lines of buildings, the Applicant creates a look of "row housing" and grossly excessive density for the land actually built upon that is totally inconsistent visually and otherwise with any of the neighboring parcels. `Smart growth' clustering is one thing, but the Applicant's money -motivated "density dump" is quite another. The densely clustered small condo -apartment units Applicant proposes are abutted to the north by UVM's actively farmed open land at the corner of Swift and Spear Streets, by forested and open land single-family lots to the east, by single-family homes on large lots to the west, and by Pinnacle at Spear open lands and single-family homes to the south. (See attached photos). Unfortunately, the Applicant rejects any suggestion that the owners of these smaller duplex units be required to occupy those units. Small 1200 square -foot rental units with proximity to UVM will inevitably draw transient rental occupancy to what is intended to be, and has always been, a year-round residential part of the SEQ. The project also proposes that the large traffic volume of hundreds of trips generated by the dense development be accommodated by imposing a connection on the currently quiet residential Vale Drive to the south as well as to already overburdened Spear Streetjust south of the very crowded and failing Swift and Spear intersection. Left hand turns to the south on Spear will be impossible at rush hour. Public transportation does not service this currently lightly populated part of the SEQ. No retail services or amenities are nearby The DRB is Not Required to Grant the Requested Waivers or Excess Density: The project cannot be built without DRB PUD approved waivers and DRB approval of the transfer of density using Transferable Development Rights (TDR's). Without waivers and TDR's the project would not be able to exceed the 31 units which represent the 1.2 units per acre zoning allowed in the SEQ-NR district. Indeed, 31 units also reflects the legitimate expectation of the neighborhood under City zoning and seemed satisfactory to the Applicant when the 31-unit approval was granted by the DRB some years back. The Applicant's plan is to attempt the use of waivers and TDR density to squeeze 48 new buildings (69 dwelling units) into a very few acres in the remote back lot of the Applicant's current home on Spear Street. The Project combines 3 parcel along with non-contiguous parcels (for TDRs) to creates an odd "L"-shaped parcel requiring extraordinarily long block lengths that require waivers. This configuration would also create the look of "Row Housing." The remote placement of the small housing units also raises the costs of infrastructure extensions and the need to recover costs through greater density. Density is increased further by the fact that much of the back lot is wetlands and un-buildable. Bylaw Compliance Must Limit Density: In the SEQ-NR zone, even the allowed 1.2 units per acre core density is permitted mly if a project also meets the stringent design criteria. That is basic. Here, the Applicant seeks waivers of design criteria soleyto allow greater density. Where design rules are waived, densitygoes up. Density is the core issue and must be reviewed by the DRB in this matter. The Citys TDR regulation purports to create a procedure by which 1.2 unit -per -acre zoning may be increased by the DRB using TDR's. The Applicant is not entitled to TDR density on the site as a matter of right. Additional density (as with core density) if allowed at all, must meet design criteria and serve some City purpose consistent with the Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. The law is clear that the bylaws limit the density, not that the density limits the effect of the bylaws. Density is allowed pDly when all other criteria are met. The Applicant must "walk" (comply with design rules) BEFORE being allowed to "chew gum" (add density). There is no automatic right to a TDR density boost (assuming the TDR scheme is lawful; see below). Specific Objections: For the DRB's consideration, we hereby raise the following specific objections to the proposed Spear Meadows Development designated SD 11-36. Specifically: Bylaw Section 15.18(5) requires that visual impact of density be compatible: The general review standards in Section 15.18 of the Land Development Regulations require specific findings of fact by the DRB on numerous specific design criteria for which the Applicant has provided no information. Section 15.18(5) requires that the project be designed to be: ... visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan. The Project is not even remotely visually compatible with the existing pattern or the patterns set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. (See attached Photos.) The DRB must make such a finding of visual compatibility, which it cannot do on the Application as presented. The Applicant has offered no evidence that the Project will be "visually compatible" and his applications should be denied based upon a failure of proof. We also specifically request that the DRB schedule a site visit to view the proposed site and to assess thereby compliance with this Bylaw. Setback may not be waived excepted or reduced: Setback requirements set out with specificity may not be reduced where the DRB is given no criterion by which to allow such reductions. Such a reduction amounts to "standard -less discretion" under the Jam Golf Decision (In re J.A.M Golf, 2008 VT 110). Such waivers are only sought by Spear Meadows in order to accommodate vastly greater density through TDR transfers. Rather, density must be reduced first so as to maintain the bylaw -required setbacks. TDR density cannot be allowed (without standards) to cancel the clear standards set out in the bylaws for setbacks. Setback standards are specifically termed as "Residential Design" standards in the bylaws at § 9.08(C). Setback requirements are not included as dimensional requirements in Appendix C, Table C-2, and as such may not be waived. The new Spear Meadows Plan asks that the DRB ignore the design criteria "Residential Design" relating to setbacks and allow exceptions to the very specific design criteria of the LDR for the SEQ-NR District. As the Applicant itself points out in the Notes to his Current Plan, "Front yard setback 3 requirements in the SEQ NR district are measured from the back of the sidewalk." Section 9.08(C)(3)(a) establishes a special setback rule applicable only in the residential and residential/transition sub -districts of the SEQ: "buildings should be set back twenty-five feet (25') from the back of sidewalk." The special 25-foot setback rule in Section 9.08(C)(3)(a) differs from the standard front yard setback. The special setback is measured from the "back of sidewalk," which presumably means the edge of the sidewalk away from the street. The Regulations are clear. A "Planned Unit Development" does not authorize the DRB to deviate from design criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations (LDR). Setback design requirements for the SEQ-NR are set out at LDR § 9.08(C), titled, "Residential Design" (Emphasis added): C. Residential Design (3) Front Building Setbacks. A close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. (a) Buildings should be set back twenty-five feet (25') from the back of sidewalk. (b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8') into the front setbacks. The Land Development Regulations require that buildings in the SEQ-NR district be set back at least 25' from the back of the sidewalk, and that front porches not be closer than 17' from the back of the sidewalk. Also note that Section 9.07(A) states that the text of Section 9.08 has the "force of regulation." We therefore request that the DRB enforce the plain meaning of LDR § 9.08(C). Spear Meadows asks the DRB to allow reduced street setbacks from the backs of sidewalks on this small parcel for many of the proposed units: Porch 10 feet min. requested -- (17 feet required by regs.) Main House 20 feet min. requested -- (25 feet required by regs.) Main House 15 feet min. requested -- (25 feet required by regs.)(where porch projects) This would allow buildings to be squashed together much more closely to the roads than the LDR permit in our district. Where design is waived, density goes up. By how much? ... The Applicant does not say. The problem is the number of buildings sought by the Applicant, not the setback rules established in the City Regulations. A waiver should be denied. Even if the DRB can waive the setback design requirement it should not do so. Setback design set out with specificity may not be reduced where the DRB is given no criteria by 4 which to allow such reductions. Glazing Requirements may not be waived by the DRB: The Applicant's Sketch Application has made no request for waiver from the Glazing requirements imposed in the Bylaws. Therefore no waiver can be granted. Additional Points of Opposition Wetlands are not permitted to "Receive" Development Rights. Under State and City law, Transferable Development Rights may only be sent to "Receiving" parcels. The Applicant seeks to have the DRB accept as "Receiving" parcels several wetland acres of the Farrell parcel that are not and cannot be developed at all. Applicant then seeks to move these TDR's from the undevelopable wetland acres onto the other parts of his parcel to thereby increase density. TDR's cannot be "twice removed" in this fashion. City LDR Bylaws on TDR's do not comply with the State enabling Statute: Vermont Statutes at 24 V.S.A. § 4423, Transfer of Development Rights (attached), provides specific requirements that must be met by a City to implement a TDR Bylaw. The City of South Burlington TDR Bylaw does not comply with the many requisites of the State TDR law and the City Bylaw is therefore of no force or effect. Accordingly, Applicant's request for TDR approval must be denied. The City's LDR Bylaws on TDR's are unconstitutionally void for vagueness: If an ordinance or applicable municipal plan provision is devoid of standards specific enough to guide decision -makers and applicants in analyzing a proposal, thereby leading to 'unbridled discretion' by the reviewing body, such an ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. Appeal of J.A.M Golf, 2008 VT 110, ¶¶ 13-14. The City s TDR regulation, Section 9.13(C)(2) provides in pertinent part that: (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 satisfythe provisions of Section 9.05 above. (Emphasis added.) This language leaves the DRB with "unbridled discretion." The DRB "may" decide whether 5 to approve none, some or all of the requested excess density. This is precisely the sort of standard -less discretion that the Vermont Supreme Court rejected as unconstitutional in the J.A.M Golf case. In short, the City s Bylaw on TDR's is unconstitutionally void for vagueness. Moreover, any assertion that "all or a portion" must be read as requiring "all" TDR density would be equally arbitrary on its face and could not save the bylaw. TDR's must be in place pdorto permitting: Even assuming for the sake of argument that the City's TDR scheme is constitutional, the DRB does not have the authority to grant a waiver or to defer decision on the TDR transfer as requested by the Applicant. The law requires that the transfer must be "secured" in place and must occur 2rLor to permit approval. Under State law, the rights transferred must appear on "a map of areas from which development rights have been severed" maintained by the municipality. There is no such City Development Rights Map either in existence or authorized by the Bylaws. Applicant shows no location and merely claims "39 units from the Leduc Farm." Moreover, the Applicant does not prove or even claim that development rights have been "secured" as required by Bylaw Section 9.13(C)(1)(a). They have not been secured.The Notice of the still secret Option which by its terms expires in only 15 months in February of 2013 (see attached) is just not sufficient. The independent clause imposes on the Applicant the duty to demonstrate to the DRB in the open hearing that the development rights have been secured. This must be done before a permit is granted. Applicant merely states that it will eventually acquire TDRs when and only if needed during construction. This is simply a request for an open-ended development of an unknown number of units based on future sales demand regardless of the impact on the design proposed. Unless and until TDR's have been approved, the maximum allowed density remains 1.2 units per acre on the Spear Meadows Site. We also request that copies of the actual Option be produced by the Applicant. Owners of TDRs to be transferred are Required parties: The Applicant combines three parcels on Spear Street with lands that are non-contiguous to the Applicant's parcel. The non-contiguous lands are not identified by the Applicant but will be directly impacted by the proposed use of TDR's. If a TDR is to be transferred in this proceeding, then a neighbor to the TDR-sending Parcel has a right to notice and to be a part of that proceeding. Abutters to both the contiguous and the non-contiguous involved lands in this proceeding are denied access to the actual (and still secret) option agreements that Applicant claims are in place. Applicant seeks to use TDR's located somewhere on the over 100 acres on several parcels the Applicant claims to have obtained. This is an issue of required proof before the DRB and not subsequent condition for the City Attorneys review. As the City is a Party to this proceeding the DRB may not rely upon the City Attorney for TDR Review in this Matter. The DRB has heard the undersigned on this issue on September 6, 2011, and the requests and attachments are therefor of record, and that record and request are renewed herein. We Respectfully Request: That the DRB provide decisions in writing, including a statement of the factual basis on which the DRB has made its conclusions and a statement of the conclusions on each issue raised herein, as required by law. See 24 V.S.A. § 4461 as well as City Land Development Regulations, Section 15.07(C)(2). Respectfully Submitted, October 25, 2011 William Gilbert ��) )': L Maurene Gilbe > 7 I i9 -• r `J N _ - v k-ter C Co Southeast from Swift and Spear Southeast from Swift and Spear3 Southeast from Swift and Spear4 East from Swift and Spear Chapter 117: MUNICIPAL AND REGIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 24 V.S.A. § 4423. Transfer of development rights § 4423. Transfer of development rights (a) In order to accomplish the purposes of 10 V. S.A. § 6301, bylaws may contain provisions for the transfer of development rights. The bylaws shall do all the following: (1) Specify one or more sending areas for which development rights may be acquired. (2) Specify one or more receiving areas in which those development rights may be used. (3) Define the amount of the density increase allowable in receiving areas, and the quantity of development rights necessary to obtain those increases. (4) Define "density increase" in terms of an allowable percentage decrease in lot size or increase in building bulk, lot coverage, or ratio of floor area to lot size, or any combination- (5) Define "development rights," which at mloumiun shall include a conservation easement, created by deed for a specified period of not less than 30 years, granted to the municipality under 10 V.S.A. chapter 155, limiting land uses in the sending area solely to specified purposes, but including, at a minimum, agriculture and forestry. (b) Upon approval by the appropriate municipal panel, a zoning permit may be granted for land development based in part upon a density increase, provided there is compliance with all the following- (1) The area subject to the application is a receiving area, and the density increase is allowed by the provisions relating to transfer of development rights. (2) The applicant has obtained development rights from a sending area that are sufficient under the regulations for the density increase sought. (3) The development rights are evidenced by a deed that recites that it is a conveyance under this subdivision and recites the number of acres affected in the sending area. (4) The sending area from which development rights have been severed has been surveyed and suitably monumented. (c) The municipality shall maintain a map of areas from which development rights have been severed. Following issuance of a zoning permit under this section, the nnnicipality shall effect all the following: (1) Ensure that the instruments transferring the conservation easements and the development rights are recorded. (2) Mark the development rights wrap showing the area from which development rights have been severed and indicating the book and page in the land records where the easement is recorded. (d) Failure to record an instrument or mark a map does not invalidate a transfer of development rights. Development rights transferred under this section shall be valid notwithstanding any subsequent failure to file a notice of claim under the marketable record title act_ (Added 2003. No. 115 (Adi. Sess.). 6 95_) 00001580 V: 837 PG- 225 NOTICE OF OPTION This Notice of Option (the "Notice") is by and between the LEDUC FARM, INC., a Vermont corporation with a place of business in South Burlington, Vermont ("Leduc") and SPEAR MEADOWS, INC., a Vermont corporation having a place of business in Colchester, Vermont ("Optionee"), and is made and entered into as of the date of execution by the last party to execute this Agreement (the "Effective Date"). Backwound 1. Optionee has an option to purchase a parcel of land (Parcel ID #1640-01302) containing 0.94 acres, more or less, owned by Gary N. Farrell and Optionee owns a parcel of land (Parcel ID #1640- 1340) containing 22.26 acres, more or less, both parcels being located on the east side of Spear Street in South Burlington, Vermont ("Optionee's Property"). Optionee's Property is located in the SEQ-Zoning District of the Southeast Quadrant under the Municipality's Land Development Regulations (the "LDRs") and qualifies as a "Receiving Area" for the transfer of development rights ("TDRs") under the LDRs. 2. Leduc owns parcels of land in South Burlington, containing 46.6 acres +/- (the "West Parcel") and 37.85 acres +/- (the "East Parcel") as shown on a two page plan entitled: "Plan Showing Portion of Leduc Farm, Inc., Cheesefactory Road, South Burlington, Vermont," prepared by Warren A. Robenstien, dated September 1, 2007 and recorded in Map Slide 507 at Pages 4 and 6 of the City of South Burlington Land Records (the "Plan"), together with several additional parcels and/or annexation parcels, which parcels contain a total of 27.08 acres (the "Additional Parcels"). The West Parcel, the East Parcel and the Additional Parcels are collectively referred to herein as "Leduc's Property." Leduc's Property is located off of Cheesefactory Road in South Burlington, Vermont, and is a portion of the lands obtained by Leduc by Warranty Deed of Alfred J. Leduc and Mary I. Leduc dated October 3, 1979 and recorded in Volume 155 at Page 457 of the City of South Burlington Land Records. Leduc's Property is located in the SEQ-NRP District of the Southeast Quadrant and qualifies as a TDR "Sending Area" under the LDRs. A copy of the Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 3. Optionee plans to seek permits and approvals to develop Optionee's Property, which plans could result in a density on Optionee's Property of 87 dwelling units, which would be 56 units in excess of the maximum allowable base density on that parcel under the LDRs. 4. Optionee wishes to obtain an option from Leduc for the dual purpose of (i) acquiring TDRs from Leduc's Property, for a minimum of twenty-five (25) units and up to a maximum of fifty-six (56) units of density, for transfer and application to Optionee's Property, pursuant to Article 9, Section 9.13(C)(1)(a) of the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations in connection with a planned residential development on Optionee's Property; and (ii) conservation rights for the purpose of conserving the prime agricultural soils, as defined by the State, on the acreage associated with the conveyed TDRs, to offset impacts to the prime agricultural soils on the Optionee's Property (collectively, the "Optioned Property"). 5. Leduc and Optionee entered into an Optionee Agreement of or about even date herewith in order to grant the Optionee the exclusive option and right to purchase the Optioned Property, subject to the terms and conditions of the Option Agreement. Leduc and Optionee execute this Notice to provide record notice of Optionee's option. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Received Feb 17r2OO9 12:30P Recorded in VOL: 937 P&: 225-41 31 OF So. Burlinston Land Records fittest : Donna Kinville city Clerk 00001580 NOW, THEREFORE, V: 837 PG: 226 In consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants and agreements herein set forth, and in reliance on the representations and warranties contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: Section 1. Grant of Option. Leduc has granted to Optionee the exclusive right and option (the "Option") to purchase and acquire portions of the Optioned Property from Leduc for a term which shall expire on the fourth (0) anniversary of the Effective Date. The Optioned Property is depicted on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Section 2. Original Option Agrgyment. The original Option Agreement, which is on file at the offices of the Leduc and Optionee, contains additional terms and conditions relating to the Option and the Optioned Property. Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the meanings set forth in the Option Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Notice, or caused this Notice to be executed, as of the 141t day of , 2009. IN PRESENCE OF: Wi ness ,2 R-15 kf tJ STATE OF VERMONT COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN, SS. LEDUC FARM, INC. By: /�Gtlat74?�e'J�" Duly Authorized Agent On this W,4 day of lbw _, 2009, personally appeared W&-Jci cp O. le.3ar , Duly Authorized Agent of the LEDUC FARM, INC., to me known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument, and he/she acknowledged this instrument, by him/her signed, to be his/her free act and deed and the free act and deed of the LEDUC FARM, INC. Before me, Notary Public Notary commission issued in Chittenden County My commission expires: 2/10/11 SPEAR MEAD WS, INC. By: Witness Duly Authorized Agent -2- 00001580 V : 837 -_. P'G : -- 227 STATE OF VERMONT COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN, SS. On this (t day of , 2009, personally appeared BRENT FARRELL, Duly Authorized Agent of SPEAR MEADOWS, INC., to me known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument, and he acknowledged this instrument, by him signed, to be his free act and deed and the free act and deed of SPEAR MEADOWS, INC. ,�1;uuuttrra�rr Before me,cAon IhLni Q irk''•, Notary Public :�.. •' °•., m Notary commission issued in Chittenden County My commission expires: 2/10/11 -3- 00001580 tit: 837 PG: 228 Exhibit "A" to Notice of Option Plan of Optioned Property [To be attached] 43442517"lI.DOURHH> �i J m1 G-�Qa.hrt .x•n„rtrN, nl.«IaW Vel.taa ry.da �m.a -� esu"• _ -I-: : g tlet- R ga. -- rSala 6rpNm tsela 76 p icr t���� dytTi V i swrCMrAa-4wa Trvs n+t A 0-QAw.eJ -- rSala 6rpNm tsela 76 p icr t���� dytTi V i swrCMrAa-4wa Trvs n+t A 0-QAw.eJ 1PjJrOVBCi oy 7s01!Rtori'of tale fJevelnpmerrt -� Th/ti�r��lfaan,en bskarM,.A.. Mnlp fni rtdlas� w»aw.u.l - So ar Z41¢�lif �rd+ J'of`w-/kj� V�D th6on ton�d /�wx a.r..errthap.nlx,.rn�wY xy Wa.arrgbgmbNnt Mlrh ((Mltti/.I:n. m/•N.reee/.rn.maTrsA..ewns,oa. aynf ^.�f-• subjea to the requImijftofsefd -LAM SNOW/Ni lGar/px a•C..W PAR. con WOW of said resoiution. Signed the .Z OG, by ++w: CN/!CSCfiICTO Kr aoAO Sa'BuaLixiiOx,Y - •'�h - ` r>.arrn R#ooa ryoi .lad �y norClerc wiewti.lainroRm.vraraRs. ri f� so I sMcwa wvnrAnc.w....... - mncpaLomaa Pr.,irrlTx'ttiaieo.d I.sspnbYNsy6�� ANo 70w. Glek F Anwovo by resolutbn of ;he Development e19 df Of Vermontonthe�dyd �f _%r wbjectto the ieq*EITpo�ft,,�d,r�Lys.My Conditions. of Said resoMon. $jgn2d#ft off Roe by ` . rman or Clerk Iph fArr{(aMNI M MRpq Mahar rrplN nr fpd ullLyesrNrrr Is armr erlwa..P..w.ar fda aNiq /rrawr/rrrar rrMl/rrrKOw. mn s+n amra.n m:rrataraue. s.oa PLAN aif, ram.+ wa�a+.rnw+r� wN� cnaaser., �ax._.r•—N—.N wppaLp taw � 4000C PApN,lNC. ry� .p.gvr. W MA11 IN Li. il) IFI rw V ...+2.�� • c�nr�.:sfc: MNII O- K n,{. i1, 4h< • APPRBy6p 8Y R6•SOurPN OP of Jl�y"row y � THGPLABN4✓G GopipliS too of T U� ympe } �7 S YS7tMol? 00 7W if'"OM 0P TBt.W oYSAV.fp ol.vgo}l! li�A'W T}Iif-�Sn'Oti'`f B=C,6i-, 0� so'tlpck ni.-__Ri fuwi .z>IAq.iAe 7..0m ly ufs i P� tal F,Mf A ar,.uir��i.l.-r) M .�'A•AVA• t \ Pfik. f 1 i 1R I �h1►y ate. �°r .� .yy ho l.<Sf>Wa4Y0/Odl11NlnnrNaH co fN>zf s f'f�.',un�r4i3ifriuw�,i+ai. w p3AN dNORIN6 fN301VIfigM jB04N0AM•LINd'Ay�RNf OORn f013t000 /AR1filMC YfN aa:u IRGTONfVFR40NT pA14J.w. i.3Y .fnW/•z104 WM. WA3gRA.R W.RiYlll2 /�� A - / i �+ MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Cathyann LaRose, AICP�- RE: Continued Master Plan application #MP-11-01 and Preliminary Plat application #SD-11-07 DATE: October 28, 2011 Continued master Plan application #MP-11-01 and preliminary plat application #SD-11-07 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 25 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. The Development Review Board heard testimony on the application on September 201n Staff has no additional comments on the applications at this time. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC HEARING SB DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD The South Burlington Development Review Board will hold a public hear- ing in the South Burlington City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on August 3, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. to consider the following: 1) Master Plan application #MP-11-01 and preliminary plat application #SD- 11-07 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 25 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 two (2) family dwellings,1302,1340, and 1350 Spear Street, 2) Final plat application #SD-11-24 of Heritage Automotive Group to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of a multi - building complex used for auto sales, service and repair. The amendment consists of a three (3) phase project to include: 1) the construction of a pri- vate on -site above ground fueling sta- tion, 2) replacing an existing 8,715 sq. ft. automotive building with a 35,032 sq. ft. automotive service building, and 3) the construction of a 600 sq. ft. fagade feature to an existing sales building, 1580-1620 Shelburne Road. 3) Conditional use application #CU-11- 03 of City of Burlington/ Burlington In- ternational Airport for after -the -fact approval to install a living wall to ex- tend 14 feet in height, 1151 & 1153 Airport Drive. Mark Behr, Chairman SB Development Review Board Copies of the applications are avail- able for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. July 14, 2011 SB WATER DEPARTMENT HYDRANT FLUSHING NOTICE The South Burlington Water Depart- ment will be conducting annual Hy- drant Flushing from July 14, 2011 through October 15, 2011. fG WILLOW tI07SE TIAL TENT SALE it the 10 Patchen Road. SB. nthly 7/16. ONLY 9-5. Store sto( e out. jewelry, antiques, fixtures iable, household items, too numerousto mention, 881-1188 (cell). related items, house wares, picture frames, antiques, books, games, toys (no clothing or furniture). Volunteers needed. Contact. Carolyn Long at 862-6732. GARAGE SALE: Saturday and Sunday, July 16 and 17.8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Dorset Farms, 22 Bower Street, S.B. Lots of preschool toys, puzzles, games, and infant mer- chandise. Tons of gently worn brand name kids clothing; Girls sized infant-7 and Boys sizes in- fant-5. GIANTYARD SALE: 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. 19 Cinda Street, S.B. Saturday, July 23 in conjunction with Country Club Estates annual yard sale. Shop tools, yard tools, ladders, lawn decorations, small appli- ances, many household items, Christmas decorations and more. DORSET FARMS NEIGHBOR- HOOD GARAGE SALE: South on Dorset Street, past Mill Market, right Midland Avenue. July 22, 23 and 24. 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Antiques, furniture, children's' items and more. FREE CONAIR BODY BENEFITS MAS- SAGING FOOT BATH. Used just a few times. Has vibration and heat settings. 264-1574 (07/14) WANTED VOLUNTEERS NEEDED at Ver- mont Veteran Military Museum, Camp Johnson, Colchester. Open Tue/Wed/Thur. 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Call 338-3360 or338-3307 (06/30) BABYSITTING JOBS: Looking to babysit in the South Burlington area during afternoons and eve- nings. I am a certified babysitter who has experience. 881-7516 (06/ 30) The American Cancer Society is seekingVOLUNTEERS TO COOR- DINATE AND MANAGE THE 2012 DAFFODIL DAYS® nrocram which ITEMS: Wood maple desk with 3 drawers. $25; 2-drawer filing cabi- net with hanging files. $15. 863- 5480 evenings. (06/23) EXERCISE EQUIPMENT: Ellipti- cal machine. Very good condition. Must pick up. $100.274-2087 (06/ 30) GAME SET: Melissa & Doug 11 in 1 game set.11 classic games in one collection. Wooden box and boards for games. $10. 264-1574 (07/14) HOCKEY SKATES: CCM ice hockey skates. New. Never worn. Mens size 7. $50.274-2087 (06/30) ITEMS: Invertabod - inversion gravity traction apparatus. $95; 60" Sony XBR HD TV. $295. 999- 9407 (06/23) KITCHEN ITEMS: Kitchen reno- vation in process. Used appli- ances.: JennAir refrigerator. $250; gas range. $100; white double bowl cast iron sink with garbage dis- posal (less than 6 months $200. Prices negotiable. 652- (06/30) LUGGAGE: Travel Pro whE carry -on, 21" x 14" x 9" deep. TCL Sports Gear wheeled do duffle. Used twice. 31" x 17". American Tourister hardsid( x 16". Carry -on size. $15.864-! Leave message. (06/30) MASSAGE CHAIR: Bedford i sage chair, model #46463, ma with silver aluminum fram, lbs, is 5.6 cubic feet, weight ca ity of 4501bs. $75. 863-6662 23) PLAY STRUCTURE: Rain Playset with incredible qu; upper fort with green cc slide, climbing wall, swing, r and a playhouse undernead a taller model so lots of oppc nity for kids to grow into. owner would need to disassei and transport. Purchased 6 } ago for about $3000. Asking 1 355-6034 (06/23) PROJECTOR: Dell proje 1100MP. Brand new, hardly t Excellent condition with case all wires. Paid $700, asking $ 861-2483 (06/30) SCOOTER: Pulse Kick 'N scooter. For riders 8 and up. i just a few times. Purchase www: oth::� erp CLASSIFIEDS F A servi'E:e forSouth Burlington Please Check One Beli ❑ Free Ad: Ads from South Burlington residents fc TAG SALES, WANTED ITEMS, FOUND ITEMS, LOST will be printed for 2 weeks free of charge, on a spa. ❑ Paid Ad: BUSINESS, SERVICE, REAL ESTATE FOR S, s .... N mes and duplexes, passed the House. mony on this issue from fire fighters, )rs, and many others over the course of rvation Daywas held at the State House s of citizens coming to talk about the ind conservation work going on in their oncerns is the potential loss of up to ng following expiration of federal con- .216 would require that those owners oups operating on their behalf, an op- . Our committee is hearing from own- rusing advocates, housing developers, n housing issues. pirited debate, our committee led the 3sage of an important bill concerning of the important symbolic and practi- tion. Gaining recognition will mean seekk federal arts and crafts designa- es for a better price and the tribes can !ducation, cultural preservation, and Leir people thrive and their way of life !d out bills recognizing the Nulhegan te-recognized tribes. The bills, which are now under consideration in the eve they will pass through that body, of the Legislature and Governor for is recognition for the two tribes since mendation from the Vermont Com- fairs. tended our February Legislative Fo- s for the next forum on March 281h at >ry Drive. Meanwhile, please contact Iggestions. I look forward to hearing venture are currently projected to i dollars over a twenty-year period lases. Emphasis was .placed on the into effect, the implementations Aar phase and more "as demands 3 to submit comments on the pro- A video of the full meeting can be to providing a link to a PDF of the R AFFORDABLE CONDO FOR SALE LOVE'S CARE APARTMENTS One Bedroom condoCare with a heart. Pines Senior- Iivin,, for sale at Community inSoutlh hire Terraces Burlington offers 1 2 bed- (htt1) theterracesvt (-'gir1). room apartments' The Terraces are Rent includes all utilities_ Independent living condos Optional living and health located in Shelburne for services. Comnlunitytour seniors 62 and older. every kvcduesday at 12:30 p.ni. Email rick@d-b-s.coin 865-11,09 or -call 802-383-1600. PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING SB DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD The South Burlington Development Review Board will hold a public hear- ing in the South Burlington City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on March 15, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. to consider the following: 1. Continued Master Plan application #MP-11-01 and preliminary plat appli- cation #SD-11-07 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 25 single family dwellings, and 3) con- structing 22 two (2) family dwellings, 1302,1340, and 1350S6earStreet. 2. Preliminary plat application #SD-11- 09 and final plat application #SD-11- 10 of Sphinx Development, LLC for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing an existing single family dwelling and an existing two (2) fam- ily dwelling, 2) merging a 1.31 acre parcel and a 2.33 acre parcel into a 3.64 acre parcel, and 4) constructing a 40,261 sq. ft. building to contain equal parts general office use and medical office use, 1060 & 1070-1080 Hinesburg Road. Mark Behr, Chairman South Burlington Development Re- view Board Copies of the applications are avail- able for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. February24, 2011 WANTED LACROSSE COACHES NEEDED: South Burlington Girls Youth La- crosse is looking for coaches for the upcoming season mid -April through June. The 5th = 8th grade girls' program holds practice 2-3 days/week and jamborees on Sun- days. Please contact Anjie Soucy at asoucy@sbschools.net if inter- ested. (02/17) WOMEN WHO LOVE TO SING! Champlain Echoes A an all female a capella chorus in Chittenden County. We are currently in need of women who are able to sing in the soprano range. We sing four part harmony in the barbershop tradition, both traditional and contemporary music. Rehearsals are on Monday nights in South Burlington. 318-6225 for more in- formation. (02/17) VERMONT FLOWER SHOW IS SEEKING HELP: The Vermont Flower Show, rated one of the top 10 things to do in Vermont in the winter by the Vermont Chamber Of Commerce, needs help. We are currently seeking volunteers for the biennial event which brings togethernearly 10,006 people from the -greater New England region. Horticulture businesses, garden centers, landscape designers and those interested in related fields will gather at the Champlain Val- ley Exposition in Essex Junction, Vermont from March 4-6. Call Delaney Meeting & Event Man- agement, 865-5202. (02/ 10) Looking for Rice and BHS alumni who want to play in, or be a part of the 3rd annual Rice vs. BHS Alumni Basketball Game. Save the date of Thursday, March 3 for a 6:30 game at Rice Memorial. We would like to have an idea of who will be involved, so if possible, �Ve treat you like l'amil Need lelp with transportation and errands? Escort to appointments? Grocer shopping and cooking Light housekeeping an laundry? Nursing horn visit? Companionship a; recreation? Travel y,; companions? Basic pe care? Medication reminders? Outings an travel assistance? Exerci and aid with physical therapy? Or any other task? 1 Reasonable rates. M_#; Call 657-3357 or 881-1188. contact Susan Cain O'BI (obrien@ricehs.org) in the I Alumni Office or John and Sb Pijanowski (srpij@comcast.j for -information. All alumni welcome. Proceeds from 1 game.will benefit the Rice Bos ers and the Brian McNeil Sunni Scholarship Fund. (02/10) FOR SALE CRIB: Contemporary, desigr White painted wood in excell condition. Retails for $700. Ask $250 (firm). 951-9547 (02/17) ITEMS: Radio/CD player, P $25; Antique copper teakettle a stand. $60; Wicker footstool.13 x 16"W. $30; Two nest of tab] blue wood. 20"Lx 19"H a 14"Wx26"W. $35;Antique painl fishpan. $40.658-3659 (02/17) NURSES SCRUBS: Many styl colors, tops and bottoms, all excellent condition. Mostlyint size 14-16 range. $5 each or br offer. Discount given for quant purchase. 865-4929 (02/17) TIRES: Three (3) Cooper C: touring tires. 225/55/R18. $: each.862-6181 (02/24) WOOD STOVE: Avalon. All 1. solid steel, brick lined and gla door. Stove comes with 5' x 6" di stainless steel stove pipe. Can 1 use on a fireplace or free stani ing. $1,500. 658-3494 (02/10) Alm link-t time ONINGA GULA I101NS The Other Paper March 17, 2011 .1............................... ................... ._._._ _......._ _........... PUBLIC NOTICE 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 April 5, 2011 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the fol- lowing: 1. Master Plan application #MP-11-01 and preliminary plat application.#SD-11-07 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned. unit de- velopment on 25.91 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 25 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. 2. Final plat application #SD-11-11 of Champlain Housing Trust to amend a previ- ously approved planned unit development consisting of two (2) 24 unit multi -family dwellings. The amendment consists of the installation of solar panels on the roof of each building requiring the, need of height waivers, 378-380 Lime Kiln Road. Mark Behr, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. March-16, 2011 lass*lf*lets-� AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS Pines Senior Living Community in South Burlington offers I R 2 bedroom apartments. Rent includes all utilities. Optional living and health services. Community tour every Wednesday at 12:30 „p.m. 865-1109 TAG SALE RUMMAGE SALE: Williston Federated Church, 44 North Williston Road. Friday, March 25, 9 a.m.-6 p.m. and Saturday, March 26, 9 a.m. -12 p.m. with a bake sale on Saturday as well. RUMMAGE SALE: First Baptist Church, 81 St. Paul Street, Burlington. 864-6515. Thursday, April 7, 9 a.m. 4 p.m., Friday, April 8, 9 a.m.-4 p.m. and 6:30-8 p.m., Sat- urday, April 9, 9-11 a.m. LOST Silver Pandora bracelet with charms. Lost on Dorset Street on February 14. Call 2337 5149 if found. FOR SALE 12' x 12' Otter Creek three -season room. Available soon. Best offer. 862-5098 (03/ 10) City of South Burlington Part -Time Temporary Accounts Payable/Payroll Clerk Responsible for weekly payroll entry and accounts payable. LOVE'S CARE Care with a heart. We treat you like family. Need help with transportation and errands? Escort to appointments? Grocery shopping and cooking?Light housekeeping and laundry? Nursing home visit? Companionship and recreation? Travel c-ompanions? Basic pet; care? Medication reminders?Outings and travel assistance? Exercise and aid with physical therapy? Or any other task? Reasonable rates. - Call 657-3357 or 881.1188. ANIMAL LEAD CRYSTAL COLLECTION Several pieces with two (2) barrister boot case, glass doors.. $1,300. 862-5261 (01 17) BAR STOOLS: Two (2). Walnut finish seat: with black backs and legs. $200 for the pair. 399-2127 (03/17) DRYER: Whirlpool Gold electric. 6 tem perature settings, 1/3 HP motor, remov able dry rack, wide -opening hamper door white, 43" H, 27" W 28-1/4" D. Excellen condition. $85. 233-1748 (03/17) HUTCH: With glass doors and sides Could also be used as display. Good con dition. $500. 862-5261 (03/17) ICE SKATES: Riddell figure skates. Mens size 10. Strauss 5-star finalist blades witl case. $75.862-6028 (03/10) INDIAN COLLECTION: Includes a vari ety of Indian stuff; dolls, statues mandelas, lights, etc. $1,200. 862-526 (03/17), ITEMS: Bikers: Road bike, Off -road bike,. Teak stereo home entertainment systerr Indoor exercise: Air resistant Rower, programmable jogging track, bike Hobbyists: 38 gallon bowed front, 70, 1 gallon aquariums with equipment. Fo your Ford truck: truck cab. For home com fort or camp: Garrison wood burnin CLASSI R Please Ch n Frp_P Ad- Aric frnm Snuth Rurlinetor RECEIVED SEP 19 2011 The Grays City of So. Burlington 39 Pinnacle Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 September 14, 2011 Development Review Board Attn: Raymond Belair 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 In regards to: Master Plan application #MP-11-01 & Preliminary Plat Application #SD-11-07 I am an abutter of the proposed #MP -11-01 Farrell Real Estate "Spear Meadows" project, and would like to make it known for the formal record that I was not notified of this application prior to it having gone through its initial review/approval cycle. As an abutter, I would have been better served to know about this project well before the current stage. The first DRB notice I received as an abutter was not until well after the "horse was out of the barn". It is not a comfortable feeling to be notified about a project that I abut, after it has been through the approval process. Now that all abutters have been properly notified, this project should be back at the "Sketch" phase, rather than being a partially forgone conclusion. The project does seem to be quite innovative and creative. They seem to be pioneering a new path for the abuse of TDR's in South Burlington, and creatively twisting the density guidelines. The shenanigans surrounding this project continue to pile up, and I for one would like it formally recognized that I would like this to return to Sketch. Let all the impacted parties have their fair say on the matter right from the get go. Please accept this as my written testimony and statement of concern related to #MP-1 1 -0 1 and #SD-11-07. Please share this with the entire board. Elliot Gray 39 Pinnacle Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 St. Clair Group 15840 Lakeview Court Grosse Pointe, MI 48230 South Burlington Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Attn: Mr. Mark Behr Dear Sirs: September 7, 2011 This is to express our continuing concern over the proposed 93 unit Spear Meadows development. My company purchased 1317 Spear Street from the Consuelo North Bailey Estate in 2003. At that time, realtors believed it would be torn down for a new home, because it had not been occupied for more than a few weeks a year since Mrs. Bailey died in 1976, and it had not been more than minimally maintained. But we decided it had "good bones", so I invested over $200,000 to put it into excellent condition. My wife's family have come to Vermont for over 60 years, and I for nearly 30. We love Vermont. My company purchased the house because my wife and I had thought that we might want to purchase it and occupy it in the future when we are fully retired. In the meantime, we rented it for 7 years to the same tenant. We are now selling it because family circumstances make it impossible for us to retire in Vermont. The proposed 93 unit development seems excessive in a neighborhood of single family homes on large lots. There is little doubt that a dense development including triplex and duplex units would significantly change the character of the neighborhood and impair the property values of the existing homeowners. One could argue that even the originally proposed 29 unit development was harmful, but we acquiesced with that proposal. We are also concerned with the ingress/egress of any development opposite our driveway. Twenty-nine units would have increased the traffic and risks significantly. Ninety-three units would, in our view, be unmanageable. We respectfully request that you do not approve the most recent Spear Meadows proposal. Fridholm Owner RECEIVED SEP 12 2011 City of So. Burlington RUSSELL D. BARR• JESSE M. GOLDFINE+ JENNIFER J. LAJOIE' DANIEL A. SEFF" ALLEN C.B. HORSLEY, OF COUNSEL# " MEMBER VT AND NY BARS 'MEMBER VT BAR +MEMBER VT, MA AND RI BARS #MEMBER VT AND MA BARS VIA HAND DELIVERY BARR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 125 MOUNTAIN ROAD STOWE, VERMONT 05672 TEL: (802) 253-6272 FAX: (802) 253.6055 www.barrlaw.com Mr. Mark Behr, Chair South Burlington Development Review Board City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 August 3, 2011 NEW YORK OFFICE 100 PARK AVENUE SUITE 1600 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017 TEL: (212) 48&3910 FAX: (212) 486-7688 SCOTT L. KEYES, LAW CLERK Re: Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 of Farrell Real Estate for a Planned Unit Development on 25.91 Acres, Etc. (S. Burl. Dev. Rev. Bd.) Dear Chairman Behr: I serve as counsel for 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, 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"). The Gilberts plan to submit a detailed memorandum with attachments at tonight's DRB meeting outlining various reasons why the above -referenced applications should be denied. I am authorized to state that all members of the Spear Meadows Opposition Group hereby join in the Gilbert Memorandum and respectfully request that the applications be denied. Thank you very much for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Daniel A. Seff cc: Mr. Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer (via electronic mail) Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via electronic mail) Mr. Kevin Donahue, Pinnacle at Spear Homeowners Ass'n President (via electronic mail) Mr. William Gilbert and Ms. Maurene Gilbert (via electronic mail) Dr. Thomas Kleh and Ms. Louise Kleh (via electronic mail) Dr. Michael Scollins and Dr. Mary Scollins (via electronic mail) Dr. Robert Skiff and Ms. Marley Skiff (via electronic mail) C south PLANNING & ZONING November 2, 2011 Daniel A. Seff, Esq. Barr & Associates, P.C. 125 Mountain Road Stowe, VT 05672 Re: Notice of Appeal & Motion to Dismiss — Spear Meadows Project Dear Mr. Seff: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision rendered by the Development Review Board concerning your recent appeal and motion to dismiss. If you have any questions, please contact me. Since y, aym nd J. Belair Administrative Officer Encl. Certified Mail -Return Receipt Requested # 7010 0290 0000 2215 3064 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com LFo, estic Mail Only; No Insurance Ci elivery information visit our website a a — ru Postage $ ru Certified Fee O M Return Receipt Fee p (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee 0 (Endorsement Required) Q' f1J Total Postage & Fees 0 O Sent To � SFreef, Apt IVo.; or PO Box No. Clly State, ZIP+4 t Post a AO\ ` C% O Here i=ti'�IN A 17- ` 8'Q S % Z Certified Mail Provides: ■ A mailing receipt ■ A unique identifier for your mailpiece ■ A record of delivery kept by the Postal Service for two years Important Reminders: ■ Certified Mail may ONLY be combined with First -Class Mail® or Priority Maile. • Certified Mail is not available for any class of international mail. ■ NO INSURANCE COVERAGE IS PROVIDED with Certified Mail. For valuables, please consider Insured or Registered Mail. ■ For an additional fee, a Return Receipt may be requested to provide proof of delivery. To obtain Return Receipt service, please complete and attach a Return Receipt (PS Form 3811) to the article and add applicable postage to cover the fee. Endorse mailpiece "Return Receipt Requested". To receive a fee waiver for a duplicate return receipt, a USPSe postmark on your Certified Mail receipt is required. ■ For an additional fee, delivery may be restricted to the addressee or addressee's authorized agent. Advise the clerk or mark the mailpiece with the endorsement "Restricted Delivery". s If a postmark on the Certified Mail receipt is desired, please present the arti- cle at the post office for postmarking. If a postmark on the Certified Mail receipt is not needed, detach and affix label with postage and mail. IMPORTANT: Save this receipt and present it when making an inquiry. PS Form 3800, August 2006 (Reverse) PSN 7530-02-000-9047 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First -Class Mail Postage & Fees Paid USPS Permit No. G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • A Y 4 1� ()v� CITY OF SOU-1 H BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05403 I I 1111 i I i I l l l l l 1111 i 11?II I I I I I I I I I P 11 i i 111111 I I i l I I I i I I 1111 I II i ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: �701 A. Signatu�e ❑ Agent X i ❑ Addressee B. Received by ( Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery ;�%h ((13 D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑ Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 3. SeWi e Type UP'Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7 010 0290 0000 2 215 3064 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 RUSSELL D. BARR** JESSE M. GOLDFINE+ JENNIFER J. LAJOIE• DANIEL A. SEFF** ALLEN C.B. HORSLEY, OF COUNSEL# •• MEMBER VT AND NY BARS *MEMBER VT BAR +MEMBER VT, MA AND RI BARS #MEMBER VT AND MA BARS VIA HAND DELIVERY BARR & ASSOCIATES, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 125 MOUNTAIN ROAD STOWE, VERMONT 05672 Ms. Donna Kinville, City Clerk City of South Burlington City Hall 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 TEL: (802) 253-6272 FAX: (802) 253-6055 www barrlaw.com July 29, 2011 g q . `i JUL 2 2011 NEW YORK OFFICE 100 PARK AVENUE SUITE 1600 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017 TEL: (212) 486-3910 FAX: (212) 486.7688 SCOTT L. KEYES, LAW CLERK Re: Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 of Farrell Real Estate for a Planned Unit Development on 25.91 Acres, Etc. (S. Burl. Dev. Rev. Bd.) Dear Ms. Kinville: I represent 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, "Appellants") in the above -referenced City of South Burlington Development Review Board ("DRB") matter. Enclosed for filing pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4465(a) please find Appellants' original Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. I am filing the enclosed document with you per Section 4465(a) because Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner informed me on July 27th that the DRB does not have an elected secretary. The enclosed filing is time -sensitive — it concerns a matter that is on the DRB agenda for this coming Wednesday, August 3rd. Hence, I would be grateful if you would make the enclosed filing available to the DRB membership at your earliest convenience. Thank you very much for assistance. Please contact my office if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, Daniel A. Seff Enclosure cc: Mr. Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer (via hand delivery) (w/enclosure) Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via e-mail) (w/enclosure) a CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD In the Matter of: II II I H E l'J T Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and u J U L 2 9 2011 Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 CP 9 . q s of Farrell Real Estate for a Planned Unit By Development on 25.91 Acres, Etc. NOTICE OF APPEAL AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 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, "Appellants"), 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 appeal pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4465 from the Administrative Officer's July 14, 2011 decision to announce the above - referenced Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 (the "Applications") for a hearing on August 3, 2011 before the City of South Burlington Development Review Board ("DRB"). In addition, Appellants hereby move to dismiss the scheduled August 3d Preliminary Plat and Master Plan hearing before the DRB for lack of jurisdiction and they respectfully request an Order dismissing the Applications and remanding the matter back to sketch plan review. This Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss is based on the following Memorandum of Law. Appellants state as follows: MEMORANDUM OF LAW This matter has a very short procedural history before this DRB. The Applications were filed on January 27, 2011 and this is the first time that either docket application has appeared on a DRB Agenda. Recently, the Administrative Officer decided to announce that the Applications would be heard at an August 3, 2011 DRB hearing. See The Other Paper, July 14, 2011, at 27, col. 1 (announcing an August 3d DRB hearing on the Applications). It is from this decision that Appellants are appealing pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4465.' As explained in detail below, the DRB lacks jurisdiction to hear the Applications, hence the scheduled August 3d hearing should be canceled, the Applications should be dismissed, and the matter should be remanded back to sketch plan review. A. The Applications Have Not Gone Through the Required Sketch Plan Review or Received the Required Sketch Plan Approval. Section 15.05(A) of the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations ("SBLDR") mandates that sketch plan review is required for all subdivisions or PUD's. The SBLDR set forth a similar requirement for Master Plan approval. See SBLDR § 15.07(C)(1). Section 15.05(C)(2) states that a DRB meeting is "required" for sketch plan review, and Section 15.05(C)(3) states that during sketch plan review the DRB "shall determine if the proposed application meets the purposes of the SBLDR. See SBLDR § 15.05(C)(3) (emphasis added). 1 Upon information and belief, the Administrative Officer approved the Applications as complete sometime in January 2011. While it might appear at first glance that Appellants' Section 4465 window to appeal that earlier decision has closed, this would only be the case if such decision met the requirements of SBLDR § 1409(c) ("All administrative approvals shall be reported by the Administrative Officer to the Development Review Board at its next meeting following the date of the approval, and all such decisions of the Administrative Officer shall state that the decision may be appealed in accordance with State law."). Hence, to the extent that the Administrative Officer's January 2011 approval of the Applications as complete did not comply with Section 1409(c), Appellants hereby appeal from that decision, as well. 2 There has never been a DRB sketch plan review of the Applications. Nor has the DRB ever made the required sketch plan determination concerning them. Therefore, on their face, the Applications for which the August 3, 2011 DRB Agenda has been set by a notice dated July 14, 2011 cannot proceed. Without the required sketch plan meeting or DRB determination mandated by the SBLDR, the DRB simply lacks jurisdiction to proceed on the Applications. The Applicant may attempt to argue that DRB review of a prior sketch plan application constitutes compliance with the required sketch plan review. However, such an argument would be unavailing, as no DRB action was ever taken on the Applicant's most recent sketch plan application. The last DRB hearing on the most recent proposed Spear Meadows sketch plan (#SD-10- 20) was held more than one year ago, on July 6, 2010. See Agenda item 5, Sketch Plan Application #SD-10-20 of Eric Farrell). The Minutes of that DRB meeting confirm that the DRB did not make the required Section 15.05(C)(3) determination on this sketch plan application. As set forth above, Section 15.05(C)(3) mandates that during sketch plan review the DRB "shall determine if the proposed application meets the purposes of the SBLDR (emphasis added). No such determination appears in the Minutes of the July 6, 2010 DRB meeting. The July 6, 2010 Minutes' lack of any mention of a DRB vote or determination is diapositive as a matter o f law regarding: (A) the DRB's failure to act on the #SD-10-20 sketch application that evening; and (B) the resulting lack of jurisdiction for the DRB to hear the present Applications. See 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a), which mandates in pertinent part as follows: The [development review board] panel shall keep minutes of its proceedings, showing the vote of each member upon each question, or, if absent or failing to vote, indicating this, and shall keep records of its examinations and other official 3 actions, all of which shall be filed immediately in the office of the clerk of the municipality as a public record.... 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a) (emphasis added). B. The Applications Were Filed Out of Time and are Therefore Null and Void. Section 15.08 of the SBLDR, entitled, "Major Subdivision or PUD Approval Procedure," provides in pertinent part as follows: "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...." SBLDR § 15.08(A) (emphasis added). As detailed in Section A, above, the last DRB sketch plan review meeting concerning Spear Meadows took place way back on July 6, 2010. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the DRB made the required Section 15.05(C)(3) determination on July 6, 2010 (which, according to the meeting Minutes, it did not), then January 6, 2011 was the deadline to file the "application" under Section 15.08. And yet, on January 27, 2011, Mr. Eric Farrell of Farrell Real Estate formally withdrew his prior Spear Meadows Preliminary Plat Review and Master Plan Review applications, both of which were dated August 11, 2010. There is no provision in the SBLDR that entitles the Applicant or the DRB to waive the Section 15.08(A) six-month deadline to file a Preliminary Plat application. As no DRB action was taken in July 2010 on the earlier sketch plan review application, the Applicant would still be in sketch today waiting for the motion and required sketch determination by the DRB (if the application had not been withdrawn). However, on January 27, 2011, the Applicant submitted the new Applications (and paid the fees) for: (A) Subdivision Plat 4 } Review/Preliminary, and (B) Master Plan Review. Also on that date, the Applicant withdrew the old applications for Preliminary Plat and Master Plan. It is these new January 27, 2011 Applications (#MP 11-01 and #SD 11-07) that are the subject of the DRB's August 3d Agenda. However, as detailed above, well over six months have passed since the last DRB sketch hearing (at which no vote was taken). Hence, these Applications may not now be considered by the DRB. C. The Prior Sketch Proceedings Were Fatally Defective and are Void. Contrary to clear legal requirements, the Applicant failed at every stage of each of the prior sketch plan review proceedings to provide a complete list of abutting landowners. In particular, numerous co -owners of the abutting Pinnacle at Spear common land were left off of the Applicant's list of abutters. In other words, the DRB proceeded with sketch plan review hearings on the SBLDR property interests of abutting landowners who never got notice of those hearings. As a matter of law, then, the prior proceedings without notice to necessary parties were fatally defective and are void. D. The Property Now at Issue is Different from Prior Applications. The current Applications involve property that is similar but not identical to prior applications. The Applicant has apparently transferred some portion of his previously described parcels out of the Applicant's holdings. Therefore, the new January 27, 2011 Applications involve different real estate and must be treated as a new application in all respects, including the need for sketch plan review. k, E. Simply Reviewing the Record of the Prior Sketch Hearings Would Be Insufficient. The prior sketch proceedings cannot be considered as part of the record in this new proceeding on the new Applications. On the record, the new Applications: 1. Involve different lands; 2. Involve numerous new abutting landowners as parties; and 3. Are before a substantially different DRB membership with a new DRB chairperson. Neither the new DRB members nor the newly notified abutting landowners will have had the benefit of the sketch plan discussions held before the previous DRB members and chairperson. These former discussions are only summarized in the DRB meeting minutes and are now more than one year old. The wisdom of the SBLDR in mandating that a preliminary plat application be filed within six months after the DR13's sketch plan determination (which, as explained above in Section A, the DRB never made in the instant case) should not be ignored by an attempt to review the prior record. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Appellants hereby appeal pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4465 from the Administrative Officer's decision to announce the Applications for a hearing on August 3, 2011 before the DRB. In addition, for the reasons stated above, Appellants hereby move to dismiss the scheduled August 3d Preliminary Plat and Master Plan hearing before the DRB for lack of jurisdiction and they respectfully request an Order dismissing the Applications and remanding the matter back to sketch plan review. r� 1 Dated: July 29, 2011 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. Ray Belair, Administrative Officer (via hand delivery) Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via e-mail) 7 E CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD In re: Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 of Farrell Real Estate for a Planned Unit Development on 25.91 Acres APPLICANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF APPEAL AND MOTION TO DISMISS NOW COME the Applicants, Spear Meadows, Inc., Gary N. Farrell and Jane G. Farrell, and Farrell Real Estate, by and through their attorneys, Gravel and Shea PC, and hereby submit this Memorandum in Opposition to Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss. The appeal that has been filed by the Appellant -Neighbors should be rejected because: (1) the appeal was not filed within the statutory time period; and (2) the appeal is without merit because Applicants' master plan and preliminary plat applications were filed within the required six-month period. Each issue is described below in further detail. Appellant -Neighbors' Appeal was not Filed within the Statutory Time Period An appeal from an act or decision of an administrative officer must be filed within fifteen days of the date of the decision or act. See 24 V.S.A. § 4465(a) (appeal from a "decision or act taken by the administrative officer ... must be filed within 15 days of the date of the decision or act"). Where, as here, an appellant fails to appeal and act or decision within the required fifteen day period, that party is bound by the act or decision and may not attempt to appeal or collaterally attack that decision at a later date. See In re Taft Corners Associates, 162 Vt. Vt. 638, 639, 650 A.2d 520 (1994) ("[a]n appeal from the zoning administrator to the board . . . is the exclusive remedy for a parry aggrieved by the administrator's decision. If a timely appeal is not taken to the board ... the superior court is barred under § 4472(d) from asserting jurisdiction"); Boutwell v. Town of Fair Haven, 148 Vt. 8, 10, 527A.2d 225 (1987) (failure to appeal extinguishes subject matter jurisdiction). Therefore, when a party fails to file an appeal of an administrative officer's decision to the DRB within the required time period, the DRB does not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Appellant -Neighbors claim that an act or decision was made by the Administrative Officer on July 14, 2011 to "announce" the applications for a hearing. However, this decision was not made by the Administrative Officer on July 14, 2011 as Appellant -Neighbors allege. Rather, this decision was made on several separate occasions long before July 14, 2011. The decision to refer Applicants' master plan and preliminary plat applications to the DRB for a hearing was first made on January 28, 2011 when the Administrative Officer confirmed in writing that the Applicants had filed complete applications. By confirming that the Applicants had filed complete applications on January 28, 2011, the Administrative Officer necessarily determined that the Applicants had satisfied all of the filing requirements, including the requirement that the applications be filed within six months of the sketch plan approval.' Appellant -Neighbors failed to appeal the Administrative Officer's ruling that the applications were complete within fifteen days (or by February 12, 2011). Therefore, Appellant -Neighbors should be barred from contesting the adequacy of the applications, or the Administrative Officer's determination that the Applicants satisfied all prerequisites for the consideration of the applications. Note that under the ruling in the Taft Corners Associates case, an unappealed decision is final, even if it was incorrect or made without authority. Id. at 639 (court lacks jurisdiction to hear appeal "even if decision is ultra vires").2 The decision to refer the master plan and preliminary plat applications to the DRB for a hearing was also made on at least two other occasions. The Administrative Officer first announced the applications for a hearing on March 16, 2011—well before the July 14, 2011 announcement for this hearing. The March 16, 2011 announcement was made through a public notice that was published in the Other Paper. That notice called for an initial hearing for the applications on April 5, 2011. See Exhibit ' An administrative officer's determination that an application is complete is an appealable decision. See 24 V.S.A. § 4465(a); see also 10 V.S.A. § 6083(d); Environmental Board Rule 10(D) (Act 250 Coordinator's determination that an application is incomplete may be appealed in the same manner as a jurisdictional opinion and a determination that an application is complete will initiate the time and notice requirements for processing the application). 2 Ultra vires is defined as "beyond, outside of, in excess of powers; that which is beyond the power authorized by law for an entity." Barron's Law Dictionary at 495 (1984). -2- 1. That hearing was continued. The Administrative Officer again announced the applications for a hearing when the April 5, 2011 hearing was rescheduled for May 17, 2011. The May 17, 2011 hearing was also continued. The Appellant -Neighbors failed to appeal either the March 16, 2011 notice or the rescheduling for the May 17, 2011 hearing. Therefore, the Administrative Officer's determination is final, the Appellant -Neighbors may not collaterally attack the finality of that decision, and the DRB does not have jurisdiction to consider the Applicant -Neighbors' appeal. Accordingly, the Appellant - Neighbors' appeal should be dismissed because it was filed out of time. 2. Applicants' Applications Were Filed Within Six Months of Sketch Plan Approval Appellant -Neighbors substantive claim is that Applicants failed to file their Master Plan and Preliminary Plat applications within the six month time period required by Section 15.06(C) and 15.08(A) of the Land Development Regulations ("LDR's"). However, as described below in further detail, the Appellants' applications were filed within the six month time period. 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). No formal written decision is issued for sketch plan review. Rather, consistent with 24 V.S.A. § 4464(b)(1), the decision is made by the minutes of the meeting. As noted by staff in the staff notes, this application was reviewed by the DRB through a series of sketch plan meetings "beginning on October 6, 2009 and ending on July 6, 2010." Although July 6, 2010 was the date of the last sketch plan hearing where the DRB announced its oral decision to allow the Applicants to proceed with their master plan and preliminary plat applications, July 6, 2010 is not the date that the decision was made. Rather, the decision was officially made on August 17, 2010 when the minutes of the July 6, 2010 hearing were approved. See Exhibit 2. The Vermont Supreme Court has held that the time for an appeal "does not commence at the time of the oral decision of the planning commission, but instead at the time of `some ministerial act we can -3- regard as a written decision."' In re Miller, 170 Vt. 64, 76, 742 A.2d 1219 (1999) (citations omitted). According to the Vermont Environmental Court, "[i]n a town which does not issue a written decision separate from that shown in the minutes of the ZBA proceedings, the appeal period may be measured from the approval and signing of the minutes of the meeting at which the decision was made." In re Appeal of Guerette and Paquette, Docket No. 266-12-02 Vtec, slip op. at 2 (Apr. 14, 2003) (emphasis added). Therefore, the proper time period to calculate the six month period for filing a master plan and preliminary plat application under LDR §§ 15.06(C) and 15.08(A) is from August 17, 2010, the date that the DRB approved the minutes of the July 6, 2010 hearing. Because Applicants filed their complete applications by January 28, 2011, their applications were filed within six months after sketch plan approval.3 In addition, the January 28, 2011 applications cannot be viewed in isolation. The January 28, 2011 applications were not the first applications that were filed by the Applicants. The Applicants filed an earlier set of master plan and preliminary plat applications on August 11, 2011. Because the project involved proposed boundary line adjustments with neighboring property owners and because the Applicants did not want to subject these parties to protracted appeals, the Applicants amended their applications in January, 2011 to remove these boundary line adjustments from their applications so they could be processed as separate applications. The resubmission of the January, 2011 applications was made in consultation with staff and was intended as an amendment to the applications that were previously submitted in August. As a technical matter, the January, 2011 applications were given new docket numbers and were treated as new applications. However, as a functional matter, the January, 2011 applications are part of the same continuous application process that started with the August 11, 2010 3 Appellant -Neighbors also question whether the sketch plan review was conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.05 of the LDRs. However, by failing to appeal the final sketch plan hearing, Appellant - Neighbors are barred from questioning the merits of that decision. Moreover, the record shows that the DRB did meet its obligations for sketch plan review. The DRB conducted several sketch plan hearings and provided comments and suggestions to the Applicants. During the last hearing: "Mr. Skiff asked when the DRB will see the plan they are going to decide on. Mr. Dinklage explained that sketch plan review is to alert the developer to any problems the DRB sees. The formal hearing occurs at preliminary plat." Minutes of July 6, 2010 Hearing at 4. -4- applications. See e.g., In re Molgano, 163 Vt. 25, 32-33, 653 A.2d 772 (1994) (where developer diligently pursues proposal through the local and state permitting processes before applying for an Act 250 permit, the developer is entitled to a vested right to zoning laws in effect at the time of a proper zoning permit application). As such, August 11, 2010 should be the actual date that is used for calculating when the Applicants filed a complete application. CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, the Appellant -Neighbors appeal should be dismissed because they failed to appeal either the January 28, 2011 determination that the applications were complete, the March 16, 2011 announcement to proceed with the hearings on these applications, or the rescheduling of that hearing to May 17, 2011. Because these decisions were not appealed, the decisions are final, they may not be challenged and the DRB does not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. In addition, even if the DRB could hear this appeal, the Appellant -Neighbors' legal claim is without merit because the Applicants' master plan and site plan applications were filed within six months of sketch plan approval. Finally, 24 V.S.A. § 4468 requires the hearing on an appeal from a decision of the administrative officer to be heard by the appropriate municipal panel within 60 days of the notice of the filing of the appeal, to be preceded by a 15-day warning notice. To the extent the DRB intends to hear this appeal at a later date, and not as part of the August 3, 2011 hearings for Applicants' master plan and preliminary plat applications, we respectfully request the opportunity to be heard and to submit additional materials. Dated at South Burlington, Vermont this 2 J day of August, 2011. Robert H. Rus ord, Esq. Attorney for Applicants Gravel and Shea PC P.O. Box 369 Burlington, VT 05401 -5- 50YT �: •• •. . ! i •; 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 April 5, 2011 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: I. Master Plan application #MP-11-01 and preliminary plat application #SD-11-07 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 25 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. 2. Final plat application #SD-11-11 of Champlain Housing Trust to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of two (2) 24 unit multi- family dwellings. The amendment consists of the installation of solar panels on the roof of each building requiring the need of height waivers, 378-380 Lime Kiln Road. Mark Behr, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. March 16, 2011 - yLiiur raper march 17, 2013 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 April 5, 2011 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the fol- lowing: 1. Master Plan application #MP-11-01 and. preliminary plat application.#SD-11-07 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned. unit de- velopment on 25.91 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 25 single, family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. 2. Final plat application #SD-11-11 of Champlain Housing Trust to amend a previ- ously approved planned unit development consisting of two (2) 24 unit multi -family dwellings. The amendment consists of the installation of solar panels on the roof of each building requiring the. need of height waivers, 378-380 Lime Kiln Road. Mark Behr, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington Gity Hall. March•16, 2011 RUMMAGE SALE: Williston Federated Church, 44 North Williston Road. Friday, March 25, 9 a.m.-6 p.m. and Saturday, March 26, 9 a.m. =12 p.m.. with a bake sale on Saturday as well. RUMMAGE SALE: First Baptist Church, 81 St. Paul Street, Burlington. 864-6515. Thursday, April 7, 9 a.m. 4 p.m., Friday, April 8, 9 a.m.-4 p.m. and 6:30-8 p.m., Sat= urday, April 9,. 9-11 a.m. WIM Silver Pandora bracelet with charms. Lost on Dorset Street on February 14. Call.233-. 5149 if found. FOR SALE 12' x 12' Otter Creek three -season room. Available soon. Best offer. 862-5098 (03/ 10) a� f City of South Burlington L 6VF iS CAFE C re i, 44th a heart �3 vVe trE al } wi like famil�r and errands? i ? F.st ort to cltf7(itfilt�EPf7t4=,` iir?:�C'Z�:�;�"i(il;jJli� ami (.00ki g? Li to i-ousekeepin :iMJ Ida ndry? Nu; 4€Yi 1_Eome visi 13,143anions4ip and recr6at an, tirel coznpaziions? Basic pet ca ot ANIMAL LEAD CRYSTAL COLLECTOOT Several pieces with two (2) barrister boc case, glass doors.. $1,300. 86275261 (0: 17) BAR STOOLS: 7Lvo (2). Walnut finish sea with. black- backs and legs. $200 for th pair. 399-2127 (03/17) DRYER: Whirlpool Gold electric. 6. terr. perature settings, 1/3 HP motor, remox able dry rack, wide-open inghamper doo white, 43" H, 27" W, 28-1/4" D. Exceller condition. $85. 23371748 (03/17) HUTCH: With glass. doors and sideE Could also be used as display. Good con dition. $500. 862-5261 (03/17) ICE SKATES: Riddell figure skates. Men: size 10. Strauss 5-star finalist blades witl case. $75. 862-6028 (03/ 10) INDIAN COLLECTION: Includes a vari ety of Indian stuff, .dolls, statues mandelas, lights, etc. $1,200. 862-526- (03 / 17) , ITEMS: Bikers: Road bike, Off -road bike: Teak stereo home entertainment system Indoor exercise: Air resistanc. Rower, programmable jogging -track, bike Hobbyists: 38 gallon bowed front,.70, 1, gallorf aquariums with equipment. Fo your Ford truck: truck cab. For home com fort or camp: Garrison wood burnin Responsible for Weekly payroll starry and accounts payable. gym_-J§: a-- 01 fA^fr3^Aw set v#ce for 5ott Please Ch, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 AUGUST 2010 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17 August 2010, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Dinklage, Chair; M. Behr, G. Quimby, R. Farley, B. Stuono Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; C. LaRose, Associate Planner, S. McClellan, B. Merrill, P. Cassavet, S. Mullin, S. Freeland, A. Rowe, D. Marshall, R. Jeffers, E. Farrell 1. Other Business & Announcements: Mr. Belair advised that due to staffing issues, no motions were available at this meeting. Motions will be prepared and presented for approval a future meeting. Mr. Belair noted the possibility of a meeting with Green Mountain Power and other utilities regarding placement of utility cabinets, etc. 2. Minutes of 6 July and 20 July 2010: Ms. Quimby moved to approve the Minutes of 6 July 2010 as written. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Quimby moved to approve the Minutes of 20 July 2010 as written. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Consent Agenda: A. Design Review Application #DR-10-04 of C Dennis Hill for a new master sign permit for a property in the Dorset Street/City Center Design District. The master signage permit would establish the design scheme for the freestanding and wall signs on the property, 333 Dorset St. No issues were raised. Ms. Quimby moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-10-18 of John Larkin and Ralph DesLauriers, Jr., to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) five multi -family dwellings totaling 160 units, 2) a 40 unit congregate housing facility, and 3) a 100 unit assisted living facility. The amendment consists of. 1) altering the grade of Larkin Parcel #1 by adding fill, 2) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD In the Matter of: Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 of Farrell Real Estate for a Planned Unit Development on 25.91 Acres, Etc. APPELLANTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR NOTICE OF APPEAL AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 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, "Neighbors" or "Appellants"), 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 Reply Memorandum in support of their July 29, 2011 Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 (the "Applications") for lack of jurisdiction. The Neighbors state as follows: REPLY MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION On July 29, 2011, the Neighbors filed their Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. On or about August 2, 2011, Applicants Spear Meadows, Inc., Gary N. Farrell and Jane G. Farrell, and Farrell Real Estate ("Applicants") filed their Memorandum in Opposition to Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss (the "Opposition"). On August 3, 2011, the City of South Burlington Development Review Board ("DRB") set a September 20, 2011 hearing date for the Neighbors' Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (hereafter, the "Motion to Dismiss" or the "Motion"). REPLY ARGUMENT A. Applicants Tacitly Admit that the Sketch Plan Proceeding was Fatally Defective and Void, that the Property now at Issue is Different from Prior Applications, and that Simply Reviewing the Record of the Prior Sketch Plan Hearings Would be Insufficient. Applicants' Opposition does not even attempt to refute or rebut the following assertions set forth in the Neighbors' Motion to Dismiss: C. The prior Sketch Plan proceeding was fatally defective and void (Motion, at 5); D. The property now at issue is different from prior applications (Motion, at 5); and E. Simply reviewing the record of the prior sketch hearings would be insufficient (Motion, at 6). Applicants' silence on each of these points is tantamount to an admission by silence or acquiescence. Therefore, the Neighbors suggest respectfully that the DRB should accept these un-rebutted points as admitted. B. Applicants Misstate the History of the DRB's Spear Meadows Proceedings. Applicants argue that all of the previous DRB proceedings, regardless of Docket number, constitute the "Application." Opposition, at 4-5. And yet, the DRB meeting minutes and agendas reflect a far different procedural record than the one Applicants purport to describe in their Opposition. For example, Applicants represent that there was an "oral decision" to approve a sketch plan application during the July 6, 2010 DRB meeting (Opposition, at 3), but the Minutes and video of that July 6th meeting establish that there was no such decision. 2 Moreover, even if there had been an "oral decision" that evening, it would not be valid or binding. See 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a), which requires written minutes of DRB votes "showing. the vote of each member upon each question....") (emphasis added). 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). In addition, Applicants assert (at 3) that the DRB's supposed approval of their most recent sketch plan application took place on August 17, 2010 when the July 6, 2010 DRB meeting Minutes were approved. But the Minutes of August 17, 2010 DRB meeting (like those of the July 6, 2010 meeting) contain absolutely no record of a DRB vote, decision or `determination' on Applicants' sketch plan application. That is because there was no decision or vote on July 6, 2010 (or any other date), as the video record of that DRB meeting demonstrates. Hence, the approval of the July 6, 2010 meeting Minutes on August 17, 2010 cannot cure the fatal problem that there is no indication of a recorded vote anywhere in those July 6th Minutes. In short, the conclusion is irrefutable that the DRB never approved Applicants' most recent sketch plan application. And without the required recorded DRB determination mandated by § 4461(a) and SBLDR § 15.05(C)(3), the DRB lacks jurisdiction to proceed on the present Applications. Accordingly, those Applications should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. C. The Current Applications are New and They Differ Substantially from Past Applications, Hence Sketch Plan Review is Required. Applicants admit that their latest Applications contain different plans, different parties, and different real estate from their past applications. See Opposition, at 4. Indeed, on the same day (January 27, 2011) that Applicants filed their current Applications, they knowingly withdrew, in writing, their previous application. Hence, 3 Applicants cannot seriously argue in the current Docket that their entirely new Applications were really just a continuation of the old application or an amendment of that prior application. Accordingly, the only active Applications before this DRB at this time are in Dockets MP 11-01 and SD 11-07. These new Applications differ substantially from prior applications in that the current Applications involve: • Different lands; • Several dozen new parties; • Different DRB membership; and • A new DRB Chair. Therefore, the Neighbors respectfully suggest that the current Applications must be treated as new in all respects, including the need for sketch plan review. D. The Appeal and the Motion to Dismiss are Timely. Applicants assert (at 2) that the Administrative Officer's preliminary action of accepting the January 27, 2011 filing took place January 28, 2011. However that `action' was hardly the Administrative Officer's final determination in these Dockets. Nonetheless, Applicants claim the Administrative Officer decided on January 28, 2011 that the Application was complete as of that date, and that the Neighbors' appeal is therefore untimely.' Moreover, "Any interested party may appeal a decision of the Administrative Officer to the Development Review Board within fifteen (15) days of the date the Director's or Administrative Officer's decision is reported to the Development Review Board...." SBLDR § 17.13 (emphasis added). 1 As explained in detail below, the Neighbors' appeal is certainly timely. But even if the appeal were somehow untimely, the Neighbors' Motion to Dismiss would still be timely. 4 E These SBLDR procedures are only fair given that the Administrative Officer interacts in private with applicants, hence interested parties may never learn of such private `office rulings.' The SBLDR mandates that the next necessary step is a formal notice to the DRB by the Administrative Officer. These actions -- if duly reported to the DRB as required -- would appear in the DRB meeting minutes and would trigger the appeal period. In this case, the Administrative Officer himself determined at some later date that the January 27th application was defective and incomplete (because Applicants' list of abutting land owners omitted literally dozens of abutters). Accordingly, on January 28th, the Administrative Officer determined erroneously that the January 27th incomplete filing was complete. In the absence of the SBLDR § 1409(c) required public report to the DRB, each of these decisions by the Administrative Officer were nothing more than private `office rulings' that do not constitute legally binding determinations. As such, they could not and therefore did not start any appeals clocks running. Moreover, the DRB hearing originally intended to take place on April 5, 2011 was cancelled by the Administrative Officer. Applicants did not appeal from the administrative ruling that their January 27th filing was incomplete, and no report of this action appears in any DRB meeting minutes. Some weeks later, Applicants filed supplementary information required by the Administrative Officer listing all abutting owners whom Applicants previously failed to identify.2 2 As detailed in the Motion to Dismiss, the Administrative Officer's eventual `re -approval' of the Applications as complete constituted reversible error for at least one of two alternative reasons. First, such re -approval was fatally premature because the Spear Meadows project never received the required SBLDR § 15.05(C)(3) sketch plan approval. See Motion to Dismiss, at 2-4. And second, even assuming the project had received sketch plan approval on July 6, 2010 (which, as explained above, it did not), the (Continued...) 5 } In short, the appeal period cannot run from the January 28, 2011 `office approval' date or from the subsequent `office disapproval' or `office re -approval,' as there was never any formal report of those actions to the DRB reflected in the DRB minutes. Lastly, contrary to the Applicants' representations (at 2-3), prior to the publication of the August 3, 2011 DRB meeting agenda, these Dockets were not "announced" in any final DRB agenda for hearing, were never "continued" by the DRB, and never appeared in any DRB meeting minutes. In sum, the Neighbors' appeal is timely, as is their Motion to Dismiss. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above and in the Neighbors' July 29, 2011 Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, the DRB should dismiss Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 for lack of jurisdiction. Applicants may thereafter determine if they wish to file for sketch plan review of their new project plans. Applicants' filing in late January 2011 of the Applications for Preliminary Plat and Master Plan approval was fatally late because more than six months had passed since the (assumed) sketch plan approval, all in violation of SBLDR § 15.08(A). See Motion to Dismiss, at 4-5. 0 Dated: September 14, 2011 Stowe, Vermont Respectfully submitted, BARR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: -4� Daniel A. Seff Attorneys for Neighbors -Appellants 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. Ray Belair, Administrative Officer (via electronic mail) Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via electronic mail) Ms. Donna Kinville, City Clerk (via electronic mail) Robert H. Rushford, Esq., counsel for the Applicants (via electronic mail) 7 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD In the Matter of: Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 of Farrell Real Estate for a Planned Unit Development on 25.91 Acres, Etc. RECEIVED SEP 14 2011 City of So. Burlington APPELLANTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR NOTICE OF APPEAL AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 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, "Neighbors" or "Appellants"), 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 Reply Memorandum in support of their July 29, 2011 Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 (the "Applications") for lack of jurisdiction. The Neighbors state as follows: REPLY MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION On July 29, 2011, the Neighbors filed their Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. On or about August 2, 2011, Applicants Spear Meadows, Inc., Gary N. Farrell and Jane G. Farrell, and Farrell Real Estate ("Applicants") filed their Memorandum in Opposition to Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss (the "Opposition"). On August 3, 2011, the City of South Burlington Development Review Board ("DRB") set a September 20, 2011 hearing date for the Neighbors' Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (hereafter, the "Motion to Dismiss" or the "Motion"). REPLY ARGUMENT A. Applicants Tacitly Admit that the Sketch Plan Proceeding was Fatally Defective and Void, that the Property now at Issue is Different from Prior Applications, and that Simply Reviewing the Record of the Prior Sketch Plan Hearings Would be Insufficient. Applicants' Opposition does not even attempt to refute or rebut the following assertions set forth in the Neighbors' Motion to Dismiss: C. The prior Sketch Plan proceeding was fatally defective and void (Motion, at 5); D. The property now at issue is different from prior applications (Motion, at 5); and E. Simply reviewing the record of the prior sketch hearings would be insufficient (Motion, at 6). Applicants' silence on each of these points is tantamount to an admission by silence or acquiescence. Therefore, the Neighbors suggest respectfully that the DRB should accept these un-rebutted points as admitted. B. Applicants Misstate the History of the DRB's Spear Meadows Proceedings. Applicants argue that all of the previous DRB proceedings, regardless of Docket number, constitute the "Application." Opposition, at 4-5. And yet, the DRB meeting minutes and agendas reflect a far different procedural record than the one Applicants purport to describe in their Opposition. For example, Applicants represent that there was an "oral decision" to approve a sketch plan application during the July 6, 2010 DRB meeting (Opposition, at 3), but the Minutes and video of that July 6th meeting establish that there was no such decision. W Moreover, even if there had been an "oral decision" that evening, it would not be valid or binding. See 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a), which requires written minutes of DRB votes "showing the vote of each member upon each question....") (emphasis added). 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). In addition, Applicants assert (at 3) that the DRB's supposed approval of their most recent sketch plan application took place on August 17, 2010 when the July 6, 2010 DRB meeting Minutes were approved. But the Minutes of August 17, 2010 DRB meeting (like those of the July 6, 2010 meeting) contain absolutely no record of a DRB vote, decision or `determination' on Applicants' sketch plan application. That is because there was no decision or vote on July 6, 2010 (or any other date), as the video record of that DRB meeting demonstrates. Hence, the approval of the July 6, 2010 meeting Minutes on August 17, 2010 cannot cure the fatal problem that there is no indication of a recorded vote anywhere in those July 6th Minutes. In short, the conclusion is irrefutable that the DRB never approved Applicants' most recent sketch plan application. And without the required recorded DRB determination mandated by § 4461(a) and SBLDR § 15.05(C)(3), the DRB lacks jurisdiction to proceed on the present Applications. Accordingly, those Applications should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. C. The Current Applications are New and They Differ Substantially from Past Applications, Hence Sketch Plan Review is Required. Applicants admit that their latest Applications contain different plans, different parties, and different real estate from their past applications. See Opposition, at 4. Indeed, on the same day (January 27, 2011) that Applicants filed their current Applications, they knowingly withdrew, in writing, their previous application. Hence, 3 Applicants cannot seriously argue in the current Docket that their entirely new Applications were really just a continuation of the old application or an amendment of that prior application. Accordingly, the only active Applications before this DRB at this time are in Dockets MP 11-01 and SD 11-07. These new Applications differ substantially from prior applications in that the current Applications involve: • Different lands; • Several dozen new parties; • Different DRB membership; and • A new DRB Chair. Therefore, the Neighbors respectfully suggest that the current Applications must be treated as new in all respects, including the need for sketch plan review. D. The Appeal and the Motion to Dismiss are Timely. Applicants assert (at 2) that the Administrative Officer's preliminary action of accepting the January 27, 2011 filing took place January 28, 2011. However that `action' was hardly the Administrative Officer's final determination in these Dockets. Nonetheless, Applicants claim the Administrative Officer decided on January 28, 2011 that the Application was complete as of that date, and that the Neighbors' appeal is therefore untimely. I Moreover, "Any interested party may appeal a decision of the Administrative Officer to the Development Review Board within fifteen (15) days of the date the Director's or Administrative Officer's decision is reported to the Development Review Board...." SBLDR § 17.13 (emphasis added). As explained in detail below, the Neighbors' appeal is certainly timely. But even if the appeal were somehow untimely, the Neighbors' Motion to Dismiss would still be timely. I These SBLDR procedures are only fair given that the Administrative Officer interacts in private with applicants, hence interested parties may never learn of such private `office rulings.' The SBLDR mandates that the next necessary step is a formal notice to the DRB by the Administrative Officer. These actions -- if duly reported to the DRB as required -- would appear in the DRB meeting minutes and would trigger the appeal period. In this case, the Administrative Officer himself determined at some later date that the January 27th application was defective and incomplete (because Applicants' list of abutting land owners omitted literally dozens of abutters). Accordingly, on January 28th, the Administrative Officer determined erroneously that the January 27th incomplete filing was complete. In the absence of the SBLDR § 1409(c) required public report to the DRB, each of these decisions by the Administrative Officer were nothing more than private `office rulings' that do not constitute legally binding determinations. As such, they could not and therefore did not start any appeals clocks running. Moreover, the DRB hearing originally intended to take place on April 5, 2011 was cancelled by the Administrative Officer. Applicants did not appeal from the administrative ruling that their January 27th filing was incomplete, and no report of this action appears in any DRB meeting minutes. Some weeks later, Applicants filed supplementary information required by the Administrative Officer listing all abutting owners whom Applicants previously failed to identify.2 ` As detailed in the Motion to Dismiss, the Administrative Officer's eventual `re -approval' of the Applications as complete constituted reversible error for at least one of two alternative reasons. First, such re -approval was fatally premature because the Spear Meadows project never received the required SBLDR § 15.05(C)(3) sketch plan approval. See Motion to Dismiss, at 24. And second, even assuming the project had received sketch plan approval on July 6, 2010 (which, as explained above, it did not), the (Continued... ) W1 In short, the appeal period cannot run from the January 28, 2011 `office approval' date or from the subsequent `office disapproval' or `office re -approval,' as there was never any formal report of those actions to the DRB reflected in the DRB minutes. Lastly, contrary to the Applicants' representations (at 2-3), prior to the publication of the August 3, 2011 DRB meeting agenda, these Dockets were not "announced" in any final DRB agenda for hearing, were never "continued" by the DRB, and never appeared in any DRB meeting minutes. In sum, the Neighbors' appeal is timely, as is their Motion to Dismiss. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above and in the Neighbors' July 29, 2011 Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, the DRB should dismiss Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 for lack of jurisdiction. Applicants may thereafter determine if they wish to file for sketch plan review of their new project plans. Applicants' filing in late January 2011 of the Applications for Preliminary Plat and Master Plan approval was fatally late because more than six months had passed since the (assumed) sketch plan approval, all in violation of SBLDR § 15.08(A). See Motion to Dismiss, at 4-5. 2 Dated: September 14, 2011 Stowe, Vermont Respectfully submitted, BARR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Daniel A. Seff Attorneys for Neighbors -Appellants Mr. William Gilbert and Ms. Maurene Gilbert, Dr. Thomas Kleh and Ms. Louise Kleh, Dr. Michael Scollins and Dr. Mary Scollins, Dr. Robert Sk ff 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. Ray Belair, Administrative Officer (via electronic mail) Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via electronic mail) Ms. Donna Kinville, City Clerk (via electronic mail) Robert H. Rushford, Esq., counsel for the Applicants (via electronic mail) 7 GRAVEL AND SHd PC Attorneys at Law 76 St. Paul Street Post Office Box 369 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0369 Telephone 802.658.0220 Facsimile 802.658.1456 www.gravelshea.com HAND DELIVERED Mr. Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer City of South Burlington City Hall 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 August 2, 2011 -4 AUG 0 2 2011 City of So. Burlington Writer's E-Mail: nushford@gravelshea.com Re: Master Plan Application #MP 11 -0 1 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 of Farrell Real Estate for a Planned Unit Development on 25.91 Acres Dear Ray: Enclosed for filing with the Development Review Board is an original and eight copies of Applicants' Memorandum in Opposition to Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss. Thank you for your assistance. Please be in touch with any questions. Very truly yours, GRAVEL AND SHEA PC Zobert. ushford RHR:jar Enclosures cc: Mr. Paul Connor, Planning and Zoning Director (w/enclosure) Ms. Donna Kinville, City Clerk (w/enclosure) Daniel A. Seff, Esq. (w/enclosure) N I CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD RECEIVED In re: Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and AUG 0 2 2011 Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 of Farrell Real Estate for a Planned Unit City Of SO. Buffington Development on 25.91 Acres APPLICANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF APPEAL AND MOTION TO DISMISS NOW COME the Applicants, Spear Meadows, Inc., Gary N. Farrell and Jane G. Farrell, and Farrell Real Estate, by and through their attorneys, Gravel and Shea PC, and hereby submit this Memorandum in Opposition to Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss. The appeal that has been filed by the Appellant -Neighbors should be rejected because: (1) the appeal was not filed within the statutory time period; and (2) the appeal is without merit because Applicants' master plan and preliminary plat applications were filed within the required six-month period. Each issue is described below in further detail. I . Appellant -Neighbors' Appeal was not Filed within the Statutory Time Period An appeal from an act or decision of an administrative officer must be filed within fifteen days of the date of the decision or act. See 24 V.S.A. § 4465(a) (appeal from a "decision or act taken by the administrative officer ... must be filed within 15 days of the date of the decision or act"). Where, as here, an appellant fails to appeal and act or decision within the required fifteen day period, that party is bound by the act or decision and may not attempt to appeal or collaterally attack that decision at a later date. See In re Taft Corners Associates, 162 Vt. Vt. 638, 639, 650 A.2d 520 (1994) ("[a]n appeal from the zoning administrator to the board . . . is the exclusive remedy for a party aggrieved by the administrator's decision. If a timely appeal is not taken to the board ... the superior court is barred under § 4472(d) from asserting jurisdiction"); Boutwell v. Town of Fair Haven, 148 Vt. 8, 10, 527A.2d 225 (1987) (failure to appeal extinguishes subject matter jurisdiction). Therefore, when a party fails to file an appeal of an administrative officer's decision to the DRB within the required time period, the DRB does not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Appellant -Neighbors claim that an act or decision was made by the Administrative Officer on July 14, 2011 to "announce" the applications for a hearing. However, this decision was not made by the Administrative Officer on July 14, 2011 as Appellant -Neighbors allege. Rather, this decision was made on several separate occasions long before July 14, 2011. The decision to refer Applicants' master plan and preliminary plat applications to the DRB for a hearing was first made on January 28, 2011 when the Administrative Officer confirmed in writing that the Applicants had filed complete applications. By confirming that the Applicants had filed complete applications on January 28, 2011, the Administrative Officer necessarily determined that the Applicants had satisfied all of the filing requirements, including the requirement that the applications be filed within six months of the sketch plan approval.' Appellant -Neighbors failed to appeal the Administrative Officer's ruling that the applications were complete within fifteen days (or by February 12, 2011). Therefore, Appellant -Neighbors should be barred from contesting the adequacy of the applications, or the Administrative Officer's determination that the Applicants satisfied all prerequisites for the consideration of the applications. Note that under the ruling in the Taft Corners Associates case, an unappealed decision is final, even if it was incorrect or made without authority. Id. at 639 (court lacks jurisdiction to hear appeal "even if decision is ultra vires").Z The decision to refer the master plan and preliminary plat applications to the DRB for a hearing was also made on at least two other occasions. The Administrative Officer first announced the applications for a hearing on March 16, 2011—well before the July 14, 2011 announcement for this hearing. The March 16, 2011 announcement was made through a public notice that was published in the Other Paper. That notice called for an initial hearing for the applications on April 5, 2011. See Exhibit ' An administrative officer's determination that an application is complete is an appealable decision. See 24 V.S.A. § 4465(a); see also 10 V.S.A. § 6083(d); Environmental Board Rule 10(D) (Act 250 Coordinator's determination that an application is incomplete may be appealed in the same manner as a jurisdictional opinion and a determination that an application is complete will initiate the time and notice requirements for processing the application). 2 Ultra vires is defined as "beyond, outside of, in excess of powers; that which is beyond the power authorized by law for an entity." Barron's Law Dictionary at 495 (1984). -2- 1. That hearing was continued. The Administrative Officer again announced the applications for a hearing when the April 5, 2011 hearing was rescheduled for May 17, 2011. The May 17, 2011 hearing was also continued. The Appellant -Neighbors failed to appeal either the March 16, 2011 notice or the rescheduling for the May 17, 2011 hearing. Therefore, the Administrative Officer's determination is final, the Appellant -Neighbors may not collaterally attack the finality of that decision, and the DRB does not have jurisdiction to consider the Applicant -Neighbors' appeal. Accordingly, the Appellant - Neighbors' appeal should be dismissed because it was filed out of time. 2. Applicants' Applications Were Filed Within Six Months of Sketch Plan Approval Appellant -Neighbors substantive claim is that Applicants failed to file their Master Plan and Preliminary Plat applications within the six month time period required by Section 15.06(C) and 15.08(A) of the Land Development Regulations ("LDR's"). However, as described below in further detail, the Appellants' applications were filed within the six month time period. 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). No formal written decision is issued for sketch plan review. Rather, consistent with 24 V.S.A. § 4464(b)(1), the decision is made by the minutes of the meeting. As noted by staff in the staff notes, this application was reviewed by the DRB through a series of sketch plan meetings "beginning on October 6, 2009 and ending on July 6, 2010." Although July 6, 2010 was the date of the last sketch plan hearing where the DRB announced its oral decision to allow the Applicants to proceed with their master plan and preliminary plat applications, July 6, 2010 is not the date that the decision was made. Rather, the decision was officially made on August 17, 2010 when the minutes of the July 6, 2010 hearing were approved. See Exhibit 2. The Vermont Supreme Court has held that the time for an appeal "does not commence at the time of the oral decision of the planning commission, but instead at the time of `some ministerial act we can -3- regard as a written decision."' In re Miller, 170 Vt. 64, 76, 742 A.2d 1219 (1999) (citations omitted). According to the Vermont Environmental Court, "[i]n a town which does not issue a written decision separate from that shown in the minutes of the ZBA proceedings, the appeal period may be measured from the approval and signing of the minutes of the meeting at which the decision was made." In re Appeal of Guerette and Paquette, Docket No. 266-12-02 Vtec, slip op. at 2 (Apr. 14, 2003) (emphasis added). Therefore, the proper time period to calculate the six month period for filing a master plan and preliminary plat application under LDR §§ 15.06(C) and 15.08(A) is from August 17, 2010, the date that the DRB approved the minutes of the July 6, 2010 hearing. Because Applicants filed their complete applications by January 28, 2011, their applications were filed within six months after sketch plan approval.3 In addition, the January 28, 2011 applications cannot be viewed in isolation. The January 28, 2011 applications were not the first applications that were filed by the Applicants. The Applicants filed an earlier set of master plan and preliminary plat applications on August 11, 2011. Because the project involved proposed boundary line adjustments with neighboring property owners and because the Applicants did not want to subject these parties to protracted appeals, the Applicants amended their applications in January, 2011 to remove these boundary line adjustments from their applications so they could be processed as separate applications. The resubmission of the January, 2011 applications was made in consultation with staff and was intended as an amendment to the applications that were previously submitted in August. As a technical matter, the January, 2011 applications were given new docket numbers and were treated as new applications. However, as a functional matter, the January, 2011 applications are part of the same continuous application process that started with the August 11, 2010 3 Appellant -Neighbors also question whether the sketch plan review was conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.05 of the LDRs. However, by failing to appeal the final sketch plan hearing, Appellant - Neighbors are barred from questioning the merits of that decision. Moreover, the record shows that the DRB did meet its obligations for sketch plan review. The DRB conducted several sketch plan hearings and provided comments and suggestions to the Applicants. During the last hearing: "Mr. Skiff asked when the DRB will see the plan they are going to decide on. Mr. Dinklage explained that sketch plan review is to alert the developer to any problems the DRB sees. The formal hearing occurs at preliminary plat." Minutes of July 6, 2010 Hearing at 4. -4- applications. See e.g., In re Molgano, 163 Vt. 25, 32-33, 653 A.2d 772 (1994) (where developer diligently pursues proposal through the local and state permitting processes before applying for an Act 250 permit, the developer is entitled to a vested right to zoning laws in effect at the time of a proper zoning permit application). As such, August 11, 2010 should be the actual date that is used for calculating when the Applicants filed a complete application. CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, the Appellant -Neighbors appeal should be dismissed because they failed to appeal either the January 28, 2011 determination that the applications were complete, the March 16, 2011 announcement to proceed with the hearings on these applications, or the rescheduling of that hearing to May 17, 2011. Because these decisions were not appealed, the decisions are final, they may not be challenged and the DRB does not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. In addition, even if the DRB could hear this appeal, the Appellant -Neighbors' legal claim is without merit because the Applicants' master plan and site plan applications were filed within six months of sketch plan approval. Finally, 24 V.S.A. § 4468 requires the hearing on an appeal from a decision of the administrative officer to be heard by the appropriate municipal panel within 60 days of the notice of the filing of the appeal, to be preceded by a 15-day warning notice. To the extent the DRB intends to hear this appeal at a later date, and not as part of the August 3, 2011 hearings for Applicants' master plan and preliminary plat applications, we respectfully request the opportunity to be heard and to submit additional materials. Dated at South Burlington, Vermont this 2 J day of August, 2011. Robert H. Rus ord, Esq. Attorney for Applicants Gravel and Shea PC P.O. Box 369 Burlington, VT 05401 -5- 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 April 5, 2011 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: Master Plan application #MP-11-01 and preliminary plat application #SD-11-07 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 25 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. 2. Final plat application #SD-11-11 of Champlain Housing Trust to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of two (2) 24 unit multi- family dwellings. The amendment consists of the installation of solar panels on the roof of each building requiring the need of height waivers, 378-380 Lime Kiln Road. Mark Behr, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. March 16, 2011 "diet raper iviarcn 17, 2011 PUBLIC NOTICE 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 April 5, 2011 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the,fol- lowing: 1. Master Plan application #MP-11-01 and preliminary plat application.#SD-11-07 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned. unit de- velopment on 25.91 acres developed -with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 25 single_ family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1850 Spear Street, 2. Final plat application #SD=11-11 of Champlain Housing Trust to amend a previ- ously approved planned unit development consisting of two (2) 24 unit multi -family dwellings. The amendment consists of the installation of solar panels on the roof of each building requiring the, need of height waivers, 378-380 Lime Kiln Road. Mark Behr, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington Oty Hall, March•16, 2011 hill AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS Pines `senior Living Community in South Burlington offers I & 2 bedroom apartments. Rent includes all utilities: Optional living and health services. C:ornrnunity tour every Wednesday at 12:30 p,m, 865-1109 TAG SALE RUMMAGE SALE: Williston Federated Church, 44 North Williston Road. Friday, March 25, 9 a.m.-6 p.m. and Saturday, March 26, 9 a.m. -12 p.m. with a bake sale on Saturday as well.: RUMMAGE SALE: First Baptist Church, 81 St. Paul Street, Burlington. 864-6515. Thursday, April 7, 9 a.m. 4 p.m., Friday, April 8, 9 a.m.-4 p.m. and 6:30-8 p.m., Sat- urday, April 9,. 9-11 a.m. LOST, Silver Pandora bracelet with charms. Lost on Dorset Street on February 14. Call.233 5149 if found. FOR SALE 12' x 12' Otter Creek three -season room. Available soon. Best offer. 862-5098 (03/ 10) Gitr of South Burlington Part -Time Temporary. . ccounts Payable/Payroll Clerk Responsible for Weekly payroll entry and accounts payable, LOVE'S CARE Care with a heart. We treat you like family. Need help with trai i sportati oil and errands? Escort to appointments? Grocery shopping: and cooking? Light housekeeping and laundry? Nursing horne visit? Companionship and recreation? Travel companions? Basic pet care' Medication reminders? Outings an( travel assistance? Exercise and aid with physical therapy? Or any other task? Reasonable rates. Call 657-3357 or 881-1188. ANIMAL LEAD CRYSTAL COLLECTIOr Several pieces with two (2) barrister boc case, glass doors.. $1,300.. 862-5261 (0� 17) BAR STOOLS: Two (2). Walnut finish seal with, black backs and legs. $200 for th pair. 399-2127 (03/17) DRYER: Whirlpool Gold electric. 6. tem perature settings, 1/3 HP motor, remov able dry rack, wide-openinghamper dou white, 43" H, 27" W, 28-1/4" D. Excellen condition. $85. 238-1748 (03/17) HUTCH: With glass doors and sides Could also be used as display. Good con dition. $500. 862-5261 (03/17) ICE SKATES: Riddell figure skates. Mens size 10. Strauss 5-star finalist blades witl case. $75.862-6028 (03/10) INDIAN COLLECTION: Includes a vari ety of Indian stuff, .dolls, statues mandelas, lights, etc. $1,260. 862-526- (03 / 17) , ITEMS: Bikers: Road bike, Off -road bikeE Teak stereo home entertainment system Indoor exercise: Air resistant Rower, programmable jogging.track, bike Hobbyists: 38 gallon bowed front,.70, 1, gallon aquariums with equipment. Fo your Ford truck: truck cab. For home com fort or camp: Garrison wood burnin CLASSIR A service for Souti Please Ch DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 AUGUST 2010 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17 August 2010, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Dinklage, Chair; M. Behr, G. Quimby, R. Farley, B. Stuono Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; C. LaRose, Associate Planner, S. McClellan, B. Merrill, P. Cassavet, S. Mullin, S. Freeland, A. Rowe, D. Marshall, R. Jeffers, E. Farrell 1. Other Business & Announcements: Mr. Belair advised that due to staffing issues, no motions were available at this meeting. Motions will be prepared and presented for approval a future meeting. Mr. Belair noted the possibility of a meeting with Green Mountain Power and other utilities regarding placement of utility cabinets, etc. 2. Minutes of 6 July and 20 July 2010: Ms. Quimby moved to approve the Minutes of 6 July 2010 as written. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Quimby moved to approve the Minutes of 20 July 2010 as written. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Consent Agenda: A. Design Review Application #DR-10-04 of C Dennis Hill for a new master sign permit for a property in the Dorset Street/City Center Design District. The master signage permit would establish the design scheme for the freestanding and wall signs on the property, 333 Dorset St. No issues were raised. Ms. Quimby moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-10-18 of John Larkin and Ralph DesLauriers, Jr., to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) five multi -family dwellings totaling 160 units, 2) a 40 unit congregate housing facility, and 3) a 100 unit assisted living facility. The amendment consists of. 1) altering the grade of Larkin Parcel #1 by adding fill, 2) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD In the Matter of Master Plan Application #MP I1-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 of Farrell Real Estate for a Planned Unit Development on 25.91 Acres, Etc. APPELLANTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR NOTICE OF APPEAL AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 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, "Neighbors" or "Appellants"), 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 Reply Memorandum in support of their July 29, 2011 Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 (the "Applications") for lack of jurisdiction. The Neighbors state as follows: REPLY MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION On July 29, 2011, the Neighbors filed their Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. On or about August 2, 2011, Applicants Spear Meadows, Inc., Gary N. Farrell and Jane G. Farrell, and Farrell Real Estate ("Applicants") filed their Memorandum in Opposition to Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss (the "Opposition"). On August 3, 2011, the City of South Burlington Development Review Board ("DRB") set a September 20, 2011 hearing date for the Neighbors' Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (hereafter, the "Motion to Dismiss" or the "Motion") REPLY ARGUMENT A. Applicants Tacitly Admit that the Sketch Plan Proceeding was Fatally Defective and Void, that the Property now at Issue is Different from Prior Applications, and that Simply Reviewing the Record of the Prior Sketch Plan Hearings Would be Insufficient. Applicants' Opposition does not even attempt to refute or rebut the following assertions set forth in the Neighbors' Motion to Dismiss: C. The prior Sketch Plan proceeding was fatally defective and void (Motion, at 5); D. The property now at issue is different from prior applications (Motion, at 5); and E. Simply reviewing the record of the prior sketch hearings would be insufficient (Motion, at 6) . Applicants' silence on each of these points is tantamount to an admission by silence or acquiescence. Therefore, the Neighbors suggest respectfully that the DRB should accept these un-rebutted points as admitted. B. Applicants Misstate the History of the DRB's Spear Meadows Proceedings. r Applicants argue that all of the previous DRB proceedings, regardless of Docket number, constitute the "Application." Opposition, at 4-5. And yet, the DRB meeting minutes and agendas reflect a far different procedural record than the one Applicants purport to describe in their Opposition. For example, Applicants represent that there was an "oral decision" to approve a sketch plan application during the July 6, 2010 DRB meeting (Opposition, at 3) , but the Minutes and video of that July 6th meeting establish that there was no such decision. 2 Moreover, even if there had been an "oral decision" that evening, it would not be valid or binding. See 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a), which requires written minutes of DRB votes "showing the vote of each member upon each question....") (emphasis added). 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). In addition, Applicants assert (at 3) that the DRB's supposed approval of their most recent sketch plan application took place on August 17, 2010 when the July 6, 2010 DRB meeting Minutes were approved. But the Minutes of August 17, 2010 DRB meeting (like those of the July 6, 2010 meeting) contain absolutely no record of a DRB vote, decision or `determination' on Applicants' sketch plan application. That is because there was no decision or vote on July 6, 2010 (or any other date), as the video record of that DRB meeting demonstrates. Hence, the approval of the July 6, 2010 meeting Minutes on August 17, 2010 cannot cure the fatal problem that there is no indication of a recorded vote anywhere in those July 6th Minutes. In short, the conclusion is irrefutable that the DRB never approved Applicants' most recent sketch plan application. And without the required recorded DRB determination mandated by § 4461(a) and SBLDR § 15.05 (C) (3), the DRB lacks jurisdiction to proceed on the present Applications. Accordingly, those Applications should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. C. The Current Applications are New and They Differ Substantially from Past Applications, Hence Sketch Plan Review is Required. Applicants admit that their latest Applications contain different plans, different parties, and different real estate from their past applications. See Opposition, at 4. Indeed, on the same day (January 27, 2011) that Applicants filed their current Applications, they knowingly withdrew, in writing, their previous application. Hence, 3 Applicants cannot seriously argue in the current Docket that their entirely new Applications were really just a continuation of the old application or an amendment of that prior application. Accordingly, the only active Applications before this DRB at this time are in Dockets MP 11-01 and SD 11-07. These new Applications differ substantially from prior applications in that the current Applications involve: e Different lands; • Several dozen new parties; Different DRB membership; and • A new DRB Chair. Therefore, the Neighbors respectfully suggest that the current Applications must be treated as new in all respects, including the need for sketch plan review. D. The Appeal and the Motion to Dismiss are Timely_ Applicants assert (at 2) that the Administrative Officer's preliminary action of accepting the January 27, 2011 filing took place January 28, 2011. However that 'action' was hardly the Administrative Officer's final determination in these Dockets. Nonetheless, Applicants claim the Administrative Officer decided on January 28, 2011 that the Application was complete as of that date, and that the Neighbors' appeal is therefore untimely.' Moreover, "Any interested party may appeal a decision of the Administrative Officer to the Development Review Board within fifteen (15) days of the date the Director's or Administrative Officer's decision is reported to the Development Review Board...." SBLDR § 17.13 (emphasis added). ' As explained in detail below, the Neighbors' appeal is certainly timely. But even if the appeal were somehow untimely, the Neighbors' Motion to Dismiss would still be timely. 4 These SBLDR procedures are only fair given that the Administrative Officer interacts in private with applicants, hence interested parties may never learn of such private `office rulings.' The SBLDR mandates that the next necessary step is a formal notice to the DRB by the Administrative Officer. These actions -- if duly reported to the DRB as required -- would appear in the DRB meeting minutes and would trigger the appeal period. In this case, the Administrative Officer himself determined at some later date that the January 27th application was defective and incomplete (because Applicants' list of abutting land owners omitted literally dozens of abutters). Accordingly, on January 28th, the Administrative Officer determined erroneously that the January 27th incomplete filing was complete. In the absence of the SBLDR § 1409(c) required public report to the DRB, each of these decisions by the Administrative Officer were nothing more than private `office rulings' that do not constitute legally binding determinations. As such, they could not and therefore did not start any appeals clocks running. Moreover, the DRB hearing originally intended to take place on April 5, 2011 was cancelled by the Administrative Officer. Applicants did not appeal from the administrative ruling that their January 27th filing was incomplete, and no report of this action appears in any DRB meeting minutes. Some weeks later, Applicants filed supplementary information required by the Administrative Officer listing all abutting owners whom Applicants previously failed to identify.Z z As detailed in the Motion to Dismiss, the Administrative Officer's eventual 're -approval' of the Applications as complete constituted reversible error for at least one of two alternative reasons. First, such re -approval was fatally premature because the Spear Meadows project never received the required SBLDR § 15.05 (C) (3) sketch plan approval. See Motion to Dismiss, at 2-4. And second, even assuming the project had received sketch plan approval on July 6, 2010 (which, as explained above, it did not), the (Continued...) R� In short, the appeal period cannot run from the January 28, 2011 `office approval' date or from the subsequent `office disapproval' or `office re -approval,' as there was never any formal report of those actions to the DRB reflected in the DRB minutes. Lastly, contrary to the Applicants' representations (at 2-3), prior to the publication of the August 3, 2011 DRB meeting agenda, these Dockets were not "announced" in any final DRB agenda for hearing, were never "continued" by the DRB, and never appeared in any DRB meeting minutes. In sum, the Neighbors' appeal is timely, as is their Motion to Dismiss. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above and in the Neighbors' July 29, 2011 Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, the DRB should dismiss Master Plan Application #MP I1-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 for lack of jurisdiction. Applicants may thereafter determine if they wish to file for sketch plan review of their new project plans. Applicants' filing in late January 2011 of the Applications for Preliminary Plat and Master Plan approval was fatally late because more than six months had passed since the (assumed) sketch plan approval, all in violation of SBLDR § 15.08(A), See Motion to Dismiss, at 4-5. +, Dated: September 14, 2011 Stowe, Vermont Respectfully submitted, BARR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: Daniel A. Seff Attorneys for Neighbors Appellants Mr. William Gilbert and Ms. Maurene Gilbert, Dr. Thomas Kleh and M. 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. Ray Belair, Administrative Officer (via electronic mail) Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via electronic mail) Ms. Donna.Kinville, City Clerk (via electronic mail) Robert H. Rushford, Esq., counsel for the Applicants (via electronic mail) 7 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING &ZONING 575 DORSET � �� .•T•. STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON V 05403 e E4jy p - - 017Ey�R CHAMPL $EF --' WATER DISTRICT S OUTH By vGT ON, VT 05403 -'=ilsss!;sfssis!��jsesfss!!s!is�;7sssfss;sisE!)ss�ss)sls2��ts PLANNING & ZONING September 2, 2011 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a notice for an upcoming public hearing of the South Burlington Development Review Board. It includes an application for development that abuts property you own. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. You will not receive this notice if any subsequent or continued public hearings for the same applications are required. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public hearing. Sinc ely, Yymond J. Belair Administrative Officer Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com 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 September 20, 2011 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1. Appeal #AO-11-04 of William & Maurene Gilbert et al appealing the decision of the Administrative Officer to announce Master Plan Application #MP-11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD-11-07 for hearing on August 3, 2011 before the City of South Burlington Development Review Board. 2. Final plat application #SD-11-26 of Allen Road Land Co., Inc. to amend a previously approved plan for a planned unit development consisting of 30 dwelling units in four (4) buildings, with an existing single family dwelling to remain. The amendment consists of: 1) adding a roofed entry and first and second floor decks to the six (6) unit and 10 unit buildings, 2) adding basements to the buildings, and 3) adding a utility cabinet (transformer), 725 Hinesburg Road. 3. Final plat application #SD-11-30 of Vermont Air National Guard to amend a previously approved plan for a two (2) lot subdivision. The amendment consists of requesting the waiving of condition #8 in #SD-11-19 requiring the posting of a bond for the value of the new portion of National Guard Avenue to be constructed. Mark Behr, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. September 1, 2011 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 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 BLA TTSPIELER 29 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 PETER A & KAREN SHANDY 31 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DAVID M & PATRICIA M WARSHAW 35 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 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 RIPP A S TRUSTEE 43 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KIRSTEN L & DANIEL J BERTGES 44 PINNACLE DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 KA THLEEN Y ANDOW 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 MICHAEL & HEIDI GAGNON 49 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 RAHUL & AP ARNA 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 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 & NA T ALIE 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 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 BURLINGTOJ\.J, 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 GROSSE POINT, MI 48230 ROBERT E & ESTALEEN R LAVIGNE 1331 SPEAR STREET S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GARY N &JANE FARRELL 1350 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WILLIAM A & MAUREEN G GILBERT 1400 SPEAR ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 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 MARGARET A D DENCKER POBOX 1682 OLNEY, MD 20830-1682 BRETT GRABOWSKI 23 DOREYRD 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 LARKIN MILOT PARTNERSHIP PO BOX4193 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 V ALE DR SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WILLIAM EDW ARDS 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 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 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 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 JENNIFER MILOT 23 DOREY RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MICHAEL & SUSAN VANKOEVERING 24 DOREY RD V' S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT BOX 2085 S BURLINGTON, VT 05407 DAVID G JR & ELIZABETH A H BAKER 1 PINNACLE DR L S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LAWRENCE R & SHIRLEY T ROBERTS PO BOX2037 BURLINGTON, VT 05407 i KI'SHORE KHANDAVALLI \..4 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 BRETT �, AISHA BROSSEAU 3,38 BONANZA PARK `COLCHESTER, VT 05446 MICHAEL T & MARGARET M LONERGAN 7 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CHARLES & PENNY PIZER 8 PINNACLE DR 'YBURLINGTON, VT 05403 PAUL & JEAN BRANA 10 PINNACLE DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 STANLEY D CHESS 330 EAST 75TH ST NEW YORK, NY 10021 GRAVEL AND SHE) PC Attorneys at Law 76 St. Paul Street Post Office Box 369 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0369 Telephone 802.658.0220 Faceirnile 802.658.1456 www. gravelshea.com August 2, 2011 HAND DELIVERED Writer's E-Mail: rrushford@gravelshea.com Mr. Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer City of South Burlington City Hall 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 0 of Farrell Real Estate for a Planned Unit Development on 25.91 Acres Dear Ray: Enclosed for filing with the Development Review Board is an original and eight copies of Applicants' Memorandum in Opposition to Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss. Thank you for your assistance. Please be in touch with any questions. Very truly yours, GRAVEL AND SHEA PC Robert H. Rushford RHR:jar Enclosures cc: Mr. Paul Connor, Planning and Zoning Director (w/enclosure) Ms. Donna Kinville, City Clerk (w/enclosure) Daniel A. Seff, Esq. (w/enclosure) 9 Application #AO - - 0 (office use only) NOTICE OF APPEAL All information requested below must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information on this notice will result in rejection of your application and delay in the review of the appeal before the Development Review Board. I understand: • the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act); • that the Development Review Board holds regular meetings twice a month; • that a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing on my appeal. • I agree to pay the required fee to offset the cost of the hearing on my appeal. 1) NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPELLANT(S): Sec Of po'l a4 /'�►a�4�, fA o�,'s�,ss���' (�c�' of la) EMAIL ADDRESS OF APPELLANT(S) �Qn �4rrIgV �'� %Se1 2) LOCATION AND BRIEF ^D/ESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL:_ 5e e. / �+ o4, c / o / A ODep1, 3) WHAT ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ARE YOU APPEALING? Se e /V a I'm of A mca) • 4) WHAT PROVISIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THI APPEAL, IF PPEAL,,IF ANY? See /V4f;cc,, r:5j" n� e-a - 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com 5) WHAT RELIEF DO YOU WANT THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD TO GRANT? Sew NA. -ee, of G) WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN NUMBER 5, ABOVE, IS PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES? s�_,c IM, �_z o-f 7) 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 r turn address). Pre V ,,o tls _5v6 /%v- � L-/ A PO40, 6.16c_4. I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this notice of appeal has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. SIGNATURE OF APPELL T ' cejVIN,SZ�, ,0A4/0L, A. SIC�� Z Zo1% ATE Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: I have reviewed this preliminary plat application and find it to be: 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. Appeal Form. Rev. 12-2010 Agenda item #7 MEMORANDUM TO: Development Review Board FROM: Raymond I Belair, Administrative Office RE: Spear Meadows Appeal #AO-11-04 DATE: September 15, 2011 Per recommendation of the City Attorney, I will not be submitting my testimony on this appeal in writing before the meeting. I will make a brief statement at the meeting stating my position. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD In the Matter of Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 of Farrell Real Estate for a Planned Unit Development on 25.91 Acres, Etc. APPELLANTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR NOTICE OF APPEAL AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 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, "Neighbors" or "Appellants"), 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 Reply Memorandum in support of their July 29, 2011 Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 (the "Applications") for lack of jurisdiction. The Neighbors state as follows: REPLY MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION On July 29, 2011, the Neighbors filed their Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. On or about August 2, 2011, Applicants Spear Meadows, Inc., Gary N. Farrell and Jane G. Farrell, and Farrell Real Estate ("Applicants") filed their Memorandum in Opposition to Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss (the "Opposition") On August 3, 2011, the City of South Burlington Development Review Board ("DRB") set a September 20, 2011 hearing date for the Neighbors' Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (hereafter, the "Motion to Dismiss" or the "Motion"). REPLY ARGUMENT A. Applicants Tacitly Admit that the Sketch Plan Proceeding was Fatally Defective and Void, that the Property now at Issue is Different from Prior Applications, and that Simply Reviewing the Record of the Prior Sketch Plan Hearings Would be Insufficient. Applicants' Opposition does not even attempt to refute or rebut the following assertions set forth in the Neighbors' Motion to Dismiss: C. The prior Sketch Plan proceeding was fatally defective and void (Motion, at 5); D. The property now at issue is different from prior applications (Motion, at 5); and E. Simply reviewing the record of the prior sketch hearings would be insufficient (Motion, at 6). Applicants' silence on each of these points is tantamount to an admission by silence or acquiescence. Therefore, the Neighbors suggest respectfully that the DRB should accept these un-rebutted points as admitted. B. Applicants Misstate the History of the DRB's Spear Meadows Proceedings. Applicants argue that all of the previous DRB proceedings, regardless of Docket number, constitute the "Application." Opposition, at 4-5. And yet, the DRB meeting minutes and agendas reflect a far different procedural record than the one Applicants purport to describe in their Opposition. For example, Applicants represent that there was an "oral decision" to approve a sketch plan application during the July 6, 2010 DRB meeting (Opposition, at 3), but the Minutes and video of that July 6th meeting establish that there was no such decision. 2 E Moreover, even if there had been an "oral decision" that evening, it would not be valid or binding. See 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a), which requires written minutes of DRB votes "showing the vote of each member upon each question....") (emphasis added). 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). In addition, Applicants assert (at 3) that the DRB's supposed approval of their most recent sketch plan application took place on August 17, 2010 when the July 6, 2010 DRB meeting Minutes were approved. But the Minutes of August 17, 2010 DRB meeting (like those of the July 6, 2010 meeting) contain absolutely no record of a DRB vote, decision or `determination' on Applicants' sketch plan application. That is because there was no decision or vote on July 6, 2010 (or any other date), as the video record of that DRB meeting demonstrates. Hence, the approval of the July 6, 2010 meeting Minutes on August 17, 2010 cannot cure the fatal problem that there is no indication of a recorded vote anywhere in those July 6th Minutes. In short, the conclusion is irrefutable that the DRB never approved Applicants' most recent sketch plan application. And without the required recorded DRB determination mandated by § 4461(a) and SBLDR § 15.05(C)(3), the DRB lacks jurisdiction to proceed on the present Applications. Accordingly, those Applications should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. C. The Current Applications are New and They Differ Substantially from Past Applications, Hence Sketch Plan Review is Required. Applicants admit that their latest Applications contain different plans, different parties, and different real estate from their past applications. See Opposition, at 4. Indeed, on the same day (January 27, 2011) that Applicants filed their current Applications, they knowingly withdrew, in writing, their previous application. Hence, 3 Applicants cannot seriously argue in the current Docket that their entirely new Applications were really just a continuation of the old application or an amendment of that prior application. Accordingly, the only active Applications before this DRB at this time are in Dockets MP 11-01 and SD 11-07. These new Applications differ substantially from prior applications in that the current Applications involve: Different lands; • Several dozen new parties; • Different DRB membership; and • A new DRB Chair. Therefore, the Neighbors respectfully suggest that the current Applications must be treated as new in all respects, including the need for sketch plan review. D. The Appeal and the Motion to Dismiss are Timely. Applicants assert (at 2) that the Administrative Officer's preliminary action of accepting the January 27, 2011 filing took place January 28, 2011. However that `action' was hardly the Administrative Officer's final determination in these Dockets. Nonetheless, Applicants claim the Administrative Officer decided on January 28, 2011 that the Application was complete as of that date, and that the Neighbors' appeal is therefore untimely.' Moreover, "Any interested party may appeal a decision of the Administrative Officer to the Development Review Board within fifteen (15) days of the date the Director's or Administrative Officer's decision is reported to the Development Review Board...." SBLDR § 17.13 (emphasis added). 1 As explained in detail below, the Neighbors' appeal is certainly timely. But even if the appeal were somehow untimely, the Neighbors' Motion to Dismiss would still be timely. 4 E These SBLDR procedures are only fair given that the Administrative Officer interacts in private with applicants, hence interested parties may never learn of such private `office rulings.' The SBLDR mandates that the next necessary step is a formal notice to the DRB by the Administrative Officer. These actions -- if duly reported to the DRB as required -- would appear in the DRB meeting minutes and would trigger the appeal period. In this case, the Administrative Officer himself determined at some later date that the January 27th application was defective and incomplete (because Applicants' list of abutting land owners omitted literally dozens of abutters). Accordingly, on January 28th, the Administrative Officer determined erroneously that the January 27th incomplete filing was complete. In the absence of the SBLDR § 1409(c) required public report to the DRB, each of these decisions by the Administrative Officer were nothing more than private `office rulings' that do not constitute legally binding determinations. As such, they could not and therefore did not start any appeals clocks running. Moreover, the DRB hearing originally intended to take place on April 5, 2011 was cancelled by the Administrative Officer. Applicants did not appeal from the administrative ruling that their January 27th filing was incomplete, and no report of this action appears in any DRB meeting minutes. Some weeks later, Applicants filed supplementary information required by the Administrative Officer listing all abutting owners whom Applicants previously failed to identify.z 2 As detailed in the Motion to Dismiss, the Administrative Officer's eventual `re -approval' of the Applications as complete constituted reversible error for at least one of two alternative reasons. First, such re -approval was fatally premature because the Spear Meadows project never received the required SBLDR § 15.05(C)(3) sketch plan approval. See Motion to Dismiss, at 2-4. And second, even assuming the project had received sketch plan approval on July 6, 2010 (which, as explained above, it did not), the (Continued... ) 5 In short, the appeal period cannot run from the January 28, 2011 `office approval' date or from the subsequent `office disapproval' or `office re -approval,' as there was never any formal report of those actions to the DRB reflected in the DRB minutes. Lastly, contrary to the Applicants' representations (at 2-3), prior to the publication of the August 3, 2011 DRB meeting agenda, these Dockets were not "announced" in any final DRB agenda for hearing, were never "continued" by the DRB, and never appeared in any DRB meeting minutes. In sum, the Neighbors' appeal is timely, as is their Motion to Dismiss. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above and in the Neighbors' July 29, 2011 Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, the DRB should dismiss Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 for lack of jurisdiction. Applicants may thereafter determine if they wish to file for sketch plan review of their new project plans. Applicants' filing in late January 2011 of the Applications for Preliminary Plat and Master Plan approval was fatally late because more than six months had passed since the (assumed) sketch plan approval, all in violation of SBLDR § 15.08(A). See Motion to Dismiss, at 4-5. C1 Dated: September 14, 2011 Stowe, Vermont Respectfully submitted, BARR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: Daniel A. Seff Attorneys for Neighbors -Appellants 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. Ray Belair, Administrative Officer (via electronic mail) Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via electronic mail) Ms. Donna Kinville, City Clerk (via electronic mail) Robert H. Rushford, Esq., counsel for the Applicants (via electronic mail) 7 ae Other Paper www.otherpapervt dz PUBLIC NOTICE 1 ' >, PRAYER OF 21IR SB APART i'VI,ENT -PUBLIC HEARING SUPPLICATION FOR RENT (NIA RAIRPORT) SOUTH BURLINGTON TO TAL HOLY SPIRIT Newly remodeled twohedrootn, one DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD "IjolySpirit, You whoso[veall prob- bath duplex apartmr�ntfor re,itin yirit~t ,,, The South Burlington -Development. Review lams, who lightsallroads so that I can neighborhood. Incitides Oft street 77 Board will hold a public .hearing in t_he South attain my goal. You who give the the ;larking, lawn) care, snow removal, Burlington City- HaII.Conference Room, 575 divine gift to forget all evil against me,' Washer/dryer hookup, and full base - Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on and that in all instances of inylifeyou nrent. U tiiities not included. N' pets or ' ' September20, 2011,.at 7:30-p.m. to considerthe are with Ine, I wall[ this shortprayer to smoking (firm).Reduires first month's -following: thank You for allthings and to confess rent,securit security deposit, and references. 1. A ppead #AO 11-04 of William &;Maurene Gil- once again that 1 never want to be $1-,200/trio. Call 862.6353 if interested. bert et al appealing the decision d'f the Admin- WP,1rated.from You, even and in spite istrative Officer to annqunce Master"flan Appl = of all material illusion; I Wish to be with cation #MP-11-01 and Preliminary Plat Applica- You in eternal Glory, Thank you for AFFORDABLE tion #SD-11-07 for hearing on August 3, 2'011, before the City of South Burlington Your mercy toward me and mine" L1 APARTMENT'S Development Review Board. person must say this Prayer for three Pirws Senior Living CommunitV in cOI)SCCUtive days, After days the y y South Burlington offers 1& 2) bedroom 2. Final plat application #SD-11-26 of Allen' Road Prayer requested will he granted, even apartments. Rent includes all utilities` z Land Co., Inc. to amend a previously, approved if it may appear difficult. 'I-11iSpra'yet'_ Optional living and health services. '1 t. plan for a planned unit development consisting must be J)ublislhed immediately after Community tour everyWednesday , of 30 dwelling: units in four (4) buildings, with theprayer'is granted without mention- at12:30 p.m. 865- 1109 anexisting'singl farnFby dielling to remain. The ing the favor. And only your initials amendment consists of 1) adding-a'roofed en- try andlirst and-secorid floor decks to. the six (6) shuu]d appear at the bottom, -CAR rubberize ground cover to protect from unit and 10 unifbuildi:ngs, 2)'adding basements falls. Can be disassembled easily. A must to the buildings, and 3) adding a utility cabinet coming season, singing music from the see, asking $2,200. 310-9837 (09/01) (transformer), 725 Hinesburg Road. 15th to 21st centuries. Openings for all Ij voice parts. Auditions held at Cathedral pOOLVACUUMHOSE: 50'. Used one sear 3. Final plat application #SD-1130 of Vermont Air National Guard to amend a previously ap of the Immaculate Conception,20 Pine son. $40.862-6181 (0`8/18) . '� ` proved plan"'fora two (2) lot subdivision. The amendment consists of requesting the waiving St., Burlington on':Thursday, Se tern ! 8 from 5.30'p:m;8'p.m., and on Sant,; pRTIVTER: 1IP6500 OffieeJet. All -in -one. of condition #S in #SD-11-19 requiring the post- .day, September 10; from 9:30 a.;m.— Print; fax, scan, art.-topj Wireless. $65. Q ing of a'nond for the value of the new portion of "noon, Please contact Director Jeff 489-5196 (08/18) National Guard Avenue to be constructed. Rehbach at 989-7355 or, b rehbach@middlebury.edu to schedule PULSE KICK `N GO SCOOTER`. For riders X Mark Behr, chairman an audition time. Further information 8 & up. Used just a few times and pur- ' South Burlington Development Review Board is found at www.vtchoralunion.org. chased at Dicks -Sporting Goods. Cash 0 Copies of the applications are available for pub- only. 922-6309 (08/18) lic inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. TIRES: 4 Michelin Weatherwise, 2 all -sea - September 1, 2011 BUREAU: 4-drawer bureau (dresser) with son tires on wheels (51u) 205/65 R15. Low lug), n d mirror. $50 or best offer. 863-1548 (08/ 18) mileage on tires. $200. 864-5567 (09/01) TAG SALE e INTERIOR FRENCH DOORS: (2) 65" to- VEHICLES: CARS, TRUCKS, h A A N A TT�T T „. ,�. tal width, 80" high to top of doors. 15 R0ATC_ (AMPFRC. FT(- rl September 2, 2011 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a notice for an upcoming public hearing of the South Burlington Development Review Board. It includes an application for development that abuts property you own. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. You will not receive this notice if any subsequent or continued public hearings for the same applications are required. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public hearing. yyvmo ely, nd J. Belair Administrative Officer Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com RUSSELL D. BARR•' JESSE M. GOLDFINE+ JENNIFER J. LAJOIE* DANIEL A. SEFF** ALLEN C.B. HORSLEY, OF COUNSEL# •• MEMBER VT AND NY BARS *MEMBER VT BAR +MEMBER VT, MA AND RI BARS #MEMBER VT AND MA BARS VIA HAND DELIVERY BARR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 125 MOUNTAIN ROAD STOWE, VERMONT 05672 Ms. Donna Kinville, City Clerk City of South Burlington City Hall 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 TEL: (802) 253-6272 FAX: (802) 253.6055 www.barrlaw.com August 12, 2011 NEW YORK OFFICE 100 PARK AVENUE SUITE 1600 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017 TEL: (212) 486-3910 FAX: (212) 486-7688 SCOTT L. KEYES, LAW CLERK Re: Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 of Farrell Real Estate for a Planned Unit Development on 25.91 Acres, Etc. (S. Burl. Dev. Rev. Bd.) Dear Ms. Kinville: I represent 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, "Appellants") in the above -referenced City of South Burlington Development Review Board matter. On July 29, 2011, Appellants' original Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction was filed by hand. At the request of Mr. Raymond Belair, and as a supplementation of that July 29" filing, enclosed please find a completed South Burlington Planning and Zoning "Notice of Appeal" form as well as a check for $233.00 made payable to the City of South Burlington. (Per my August 5' telephone conversation with City outside counsel Joseph McLean, Esq., the enclosed Notice of Appeal form incorporates by reference Appellants' July 291" Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.) Thanks very much for your assistance. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, Daniel A. Seff Enclosures (2) cc: Above -listed clients (via e-mail) (w/enclosures) Mr. Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer (via e-mail) (w/enclosures) Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via e-mail) (w/enclosures) Joseph McLean, Esq. (via e-mail) (w/enclosures) RUSSELL D. BARR"' JESSE M. GOLDFINE+ JENNIFER J. LAJOIE• DANIEL A. SEFF•` ALLEN C.B. HORSLEY, OF COUNSEL# '* MEMBER VT AND NY BARS *MEMBER VT BAR +MEMBER VT, MA AND RI BARS #MEMBER VT AND MA BARS VIA HAND DELIVERY BARR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 125 MOUNTAIN ROAD STOWE, VERMONT 05672 Ms. Donna Kinville, City Clerk City of South Burlington City Hall 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 TEL: (802) 253-6272 FAX: (802) 253.6055 www.barrlaw.com July 29, 2011 NEW YORK OFFICE 100 PARK AVENUE SUITE 1600 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017 TEL: (212) 4863910 FAX: (212) 4864688 SCOTT L. KEYES, LAW CLERK RECEIVED Jul. 2 9 2011 CiiY of So. Burlington Re: Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 of Farrell Real Estate for a Planned Unit Development on 25.91 Acres, Etc. (S. Burl. Dev. Rev. Bd.) Dear Ms. Kinville: I represent 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, "Appellants") in the above -referenced City of South Burlington Development Review Board ("DRB") matter. Enclosed for filing pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4465(a) please find Appellants' original Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. I am filing the enclosed document with you per Section 4465(a) because Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner informed me on July 27th that the DRB does not have an elected secretary. The enclosed filing is time -sensitive — it concerns a matter that is on the DRB agenda for this coming Wednesday, August 3rd. Hence, I would be grateful if you would make the enclosed filing available to the DRB membership at your earliest convenience. Thank you very much for assistance. Please contact my office if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, Daniel A. Seff Enclosure cc: Mr. Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer (via hand delivery) (w/enclosure) Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via e-mail) (w/enclosure) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD In the Matter of. Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 of Farrell Real Estate for a Planned Unit Development on 25.91 Acres, Etc. NOTICE OF APPEAL AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 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, "Appellants"), 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 appeal pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4465 from the Administrative Officer's July 14, 2011 decision to announce the above - referenced Master Plan Application #MP 11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD 11-07 (the "Applications") for a hearing on August 3, 2011 before the City of South Burlington Development Review Board ("DRB") In addition, Appellants hereby move to dismiss the scheduled August 3d Preliminary Plat and Master Plan hearing before the DRB for lack of jurisdiction and they respectfully request an Order dismissing the Applications and remanding the matter back to sketch plan review. This Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss is based on the following Memorandum of Law. Appellants state as follows: MEMORANDUM OF LAW This matter has a very short procedural history before this DRB. The Applications were filed on January 27, 2011 and this is the first time that either docket application has appeared on a DRB Agenda. Recently, the Administrative Officer decided to announce that the Applications would be heard at an August 3, 2011 DRB hearing. See The Other Paper, July 14, 2011, at 27, col. 1 (announcing an August 3d DRB hearing on the Applications). It is from this decision that Appellants are appealing pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4465.1 As explained in detail below, the DRB lacks jurisdiction to hear the Applications, hence the scheduled August 3d hearing should be canceled, the Applications should be dismissed, and the matter should be remanded back to sketch plan review. A. The Applications Have Not Gone Through the Required Sketch Plan Review or Received the Required Sketch Plan Approval. Section 15.05(A) of the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations ("SBLDR") mandates that sketch plan review is required for all subdivisions or PUD's. The SBLDR set forth a similar requirement for Master Plan approval. See SBLDR § 15.07(C)(1). Section 15.05(C)(2) states that a DRB meeting is "required" for sketch plan review, and Section 15.05(C)(3) states that during sketch plan review the DRB "shall determine if the proposed application meets the purposes of the SBLDR. See SBLDR § 15.05(C)(3) (emphasis added). 1 Upon information and belief, the Administrative Officer approved the Applications as complete sometime in January 2011. While it might appear at first glance that Appellants' Section 4465 window to appeal that earlier decision has closed, this would only be the case if such decision met the requirements of SBLDR § 1409(c) ("All administrative approvals shall be reported by the Administrative Officer to the Development Review Board at its next meeting following the date of the approval, and all such decisions of the Administrative Officer shall state that the decision may be appealed in accordance with State law."). Hence, to the extent that the Administrative Officer's January 2011 approval of the Applications as complete did not comply with Section 1409(c), Appellants hereby appeal from that decision, as well. F) There has never been a DRB sketch plan review of the Applications. Nor has the DRB ever made the required sketch plan determination concerning them. Therefore, on their face, the Applications for which the August 3, 2011 DRB Agenda has been set by a notice dated July 14, 2011 cannot proceed. Without the required sketch plan meeting or DRB determination mandated by the SBLDR, the DRB simply lacks jurisdiction to proceed on the Applications. The Applicant may attempt to argue that DRB review of a prior sketch plan application constitutes compliance with the required sketch plan review. However, such an argument would be unavailing, as no DRB action was ever taken on the Applicant's most recent sketch plan application. The last DRB hearing on the most recent proposed Spear Meadows sketch plan (#SD-10- 20) was held more than one year ago, on July 6, 2010. (See Agenda item 5, Sketch Plan Application #SD-10-20 of Eric Farrell). The Minutes of that DRB meeting confirm that the DRB did not make the required Section 15.05(C)(3) determination on this sketch plan application. As set forth above, Section 15.05(C)(3) mandates that during sketch plan review the DRB 'shall determine if the proposed application meets the purposes of the SBLDR (emphasis added). No such determination appears in the Minutes of the July 6, 2010 DRB meeting. The July 6, 2010 Minutes' lack of any mention of a DRB vote or determination is dispositive as a matter o f law regarding: (A) the DRB's failure to act on the #SD-10-20 sketch application that evening; and (B) the resulting lack of jurisdiction for the DRB to hear the present Applications. See 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a), which mandates in pertinent part as follows: The [development review board] panel shall keep minutes of its proceedings, showing the vote of each member upon each question, or, if absent or failing to vote, indicating this, and shall keep records of its examinations and other official 3 actions, all of which shall be filed immediately in the office of the clerk of the municipality as a public record.... 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a) (emphasis added). B. The Applications Were Filed Out of Time and are Therefore Null and Void. Section 15.08 of the SBLDR, entitled, "Major Subdivision or PUD Approval Procedure," provides in pertinent part as follows: "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...." SBLDR § 15.08(A) (emphasis added). As detailed in Section A, above, the last DRB sketch plan review meeting concerning Spear Meadows took place way back on July 6, 2010. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the DRB made the required Section 15.05(C)(3) determination on July 6, 2010 (which, according to the meeting Minutes, it did not), then January 6, 2011 was the deadline to file the "application" under Section 15.08. And yet, on January 27, 2011, Mr. Eric Farrell of Farrell Real Estate formally withdrew his prior Spear Meadows Preliminary Plat Review and Master Plan Review applications, both of which were dated August 11, 2010. There is no provision in the SBLDR that entitles the Applicant or the DRB to waive the Section 15.08(A) six-month deadline to file a Preliminary Plat application. As no DRB action was taken in July 2010 on the earlier sketch plan review application, the Applicant would still be in sketch today waiting for the motion and required sketch determination by the DRB (if the application had not been withdrawn). However, on January 27, 2011, the Applicant submitted the new Applications (and paid the fees) for: (A) Subdivision Plat rd Review/Preliminary, and (B) Master Plan Review. Also on that date, the Applicant withdrew the old applications for Preliminary Plat and Master Plan. It is these new January 27, 2011 Applications (#MP 11-01 and #SD 11-07) that are the subject of the DRB's August 3d Agenda. However, as detailed above, well over six months have passed since the last DRB sketch hearing (at which no vote was taken). Hence, these Applications may not now be considered by the DRB. C. The Prior Sketch Proceedinp-s Were Fatally Defective and are Void. Contrary to clear legal requirements, the Applicant failed at every stage of each of the prior sketch plan review proceedings to provide a complete list of abutting landowners. In particular, numerous co -owners of the abutting Pinnacle at Spear common land were left off of the Applicant's list of abutters. In other words, the DRB proceeded with sketch plan review hearings on the SBLDR property interests of abutting landowners who never got notice of those hearings. As a matter of law, then, the prior proceedings without notice to necessary parties were fatally defective and are void. D. The Property Now at Issue is Different from Prior Applications. The current Applications involve property that is similar but not identical to prior applications. The Applicant has apparently transferred some portion of his previously described parcels out of the Applicant's holdings. Therefore, the new January 27, 2011 Applications involve different real estate and must be treated as a new application in all respects, including the need for sketch plan review. E. Simply Reviewing the Record of the Prior Sketch Hearings Would Be Insufficient. The prior sketch proceedings cannot be considered as part of the record in this new proceeding on the new Applications. On the record, the new Applications: 1. Involve different lands; 2. Involve numerous new abutting landowners as parties; and 3. Are before a substantially different DRB membership with a new DRB chairperson. Neither the new DRB members nor the newly notified abutting landowners will have had the benefit of the sketch plan discussions held before the previous DRB members and chairperson. These former discussions are only summarized in the DRB meeting minutes and are now more than one year old. The wisdom of the SBLDR in mandating that a preliminary plat application be filed within six months after the DRB's sketch plan determination (which, as explained above in Section A, the DRB never made in the instant case) should not be ignored by an attempt to review the prior record. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Appellants hereby appeal pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4465 from the Administrative Officer's decision to announce the Applications for a hearing on August 3, 2011 before the DRB. In addition, for the reasons stated above, Appellants hereby move to dismiss the scheduled August 3d Preliminary Plat and Master Plan hearing before the DRB for lack of jurisdiction and they respectfully request an Order dismissing the Applications and remanding the matter back to sketch plan review. G Dated: July 29, 2011 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. Ray Belair, Administrative Officer (via hand delivery) Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via e-mail) FA