Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BATCH 5 - Supplemental - 1302 1340 1350 1404 1406 Spear Street
Mum1R SjG� TRANSPORTATION Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study South Burlington, VT August 2010 IDATA W ANALYSIS 0 SOLUTIONS RSG,NC. TRANSPORTATION 60 Lake Street, Unit 1E • Burlington, Vermont 05401 r Eu.802.383.0118 • � nx 802.383.0122 • www.rsginc.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..............................................................................1 3.0 SCOPE OFSTUDY......................................................................................2 3.1 Local Highway Network, Traffic & Conditions.......................................................................................... 3 3.2 Other Development Volumes.................................................................................................................. 4 3.3 Volume Adjustment Factors.................................................................................................................... 6 3.4 Trip Generation........................................................................................................................................6 3.5 Trip Distribution.......................................................................................................................................7 3.6 Scenario Volume Graphics.....................................................................................................................10 4.0 CONGESTION ANALYSIS...........................................................................20 I4.1 Level -of -Service Definition.....................................................................................................................20 4.2 Level -of -Service Results......................................................................................................................... 20 I 5.0 QUEUING ANALYSIS...............................................................................22 6.0 SAFETY ANALYSIS...................................................................................23 6.1 High Crash Locations.............................................................................................................................. 23 6.2 Crash Histories.......................................................................................................................................24 6.3 Sight Distances.......................................................................................................................................27 7.0 DESIGN REVIEW.....................................................................................30 7.1 Spear Street Southbound Left -Turn Lane.............................................................................................. 30 7.2 Spear Meadows Road Westbound Turn Lanes...................................................................................... 30 8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................................................................31 Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 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 Figure8: 2016 AM Peak Hour No Build.............................................................................................................. 12 Figure9: 2016 PM Peak Hour No Build............................................................................................................... 13 Figure 10: 2016 AM Peak Hour Build.................................................................................................................. 14 Figure11: 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 (2003-2007)............................................................................. 25 Figure 17: Summary of Crash Types within Study Area (2003-2007).................................................................. 25 Figure 18: Location of Crashes by Type(2003-2007)........................................................................................... 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 22: Sight Distance Looking South (measured 10' from edge of pavement) Reaches Approximately to CedarGlen Drive.........................................................................................................................................29 Figure 23: 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 Table 5: PM Peak Hour LOS Results..................................................................................................................... 21 Table 6: Estimated AM Peak Hour Queues......................................................................................................... 22 Table 7: Estimated PM Peak Hour Queues......................................................................................................... 23 9 August 2010 Page ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION This study evaluates the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Spear Meadows residential development located east of Spear Street between Swift Street and Nowland Farm Road in the Southeast Quadrant of South Burlington, Vermont. The development consists of 69 new residential units: ■ 25 single-family dwellings ■ 29 flats ■ 15 townhouses Two accesses to the site will be provided at Spear Street and at Nowland Farm Road via Vale Drive. The proposed development includes a southbound left -turn lane at the Spear Street access. This study considers impacts at the following intersections: ■ Spear Street -Swift Street ■ Spear Street -Spear Meadows Road (proposed) ■ Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road/Deerfield Drive ■ Nowland Farm Road -Vale Drive This traffic impact study includes the following items: ■ The project description and study scope ■ Traffic volumes in 2011, 2016, and 2021 with and without the project ■ Estimated congestion in 2011, 2016, and 2021 with and without the project ■ Estimated queue lengths in 2011, 2016, and 2021 with and without the project ■ A safety analysis of the adjacent highway network • A summary with conclusions and recommendations This study relies upon design standards and analysis procedures documented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual,' Trip Generation,z A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,' Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),4 Traffic Impact Evaluation: Study and Review Guide,s 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). 2Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 81h Edition (Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008). 3 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 4`h 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 L100 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.' 1 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). 9 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 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 S' 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 N Y z wr 41 t 4 crosswalk 1 �► CL Proposed Project Site 414 o ID 'L o Spear Street 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. 9 August 2010 Page 4 We have spoken with the South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department and the Shelburne Town Planner to identify developments that should be included in the background traffic volumes (Figure 4). They are as follows: ■ Cider Mill Phase 1 (approximately 50% built out): 149 single-family detached houses; since this project is already half -complete and trips are reflected in the existing traffic data, we calculated this ODV based on 75 units. (ITE Land Use Code #210) ■ Cider Mill Phase 2: 66 single-family detached houses; 13 carriage houses (estimated as single-family detached houses); 30 townhouses. (ITE Land Use Codes #210 & #230, respectively) ■ South Village: 330 units of mixed residential (single-family detached houses, apartments, townhouses and condominiums) estimated as a Residential Planned Unit Development; build -out schedule is for approximately 45-50 units per year, but full build -out of the 330 units is assumed for this study. (ITE Land Use Code #270) ■ Goldberg: 12 townhouses and 2 single-family detached houses. (ITE Land Use Codes #230 & #210, respectively) ■ Shelburne -O'Brien: 22 single-family detached houses. (ITE Land Use Code #210) Figure 4: Locations of Other Developments 2000,1,000 0 2,000 Feet Jo r- ( ®r j .�-•------- —_�- sT_ ar- �Ce' Yli 11 "I ( pit fj , Spear �..- ... j Meadows -'1 —`"`South Burlin on i�' rN6wLANDFARMR ! ��� J7 'LL Cider Mill 1&2 ' 1 South , -- --1 Y` w rf, i ii1, Goldberg - Shelburne Shelburne- O'Brien1 , 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)1 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 56 76 Tota I 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. 1 The DHV is the 30th highest hour of traffic for the year and is used as the design standard in Vermont. 2 Typically, continuous traffic counters, which collect data year round, are used in calculating the design hour adjustment factors. It was determined that there were no appropriate continuous traffic counters, so VTrans short term counters were used instead, as prescribed in the VTrans Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. 3 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 8`h Edition (Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008). 9 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 S: Trip Distribution of AM and PM Site -Generated Traffic and Diverted Trips Site -Generated Traffic Weekday AM Spear Street 0 3 0 d i L 0 R 0 0 0 2 2 `r 14 7 21 7 7 ,. e R 40 3 v Cv c0 O a m p a � a 8 5 0 7 1 1 i tA 0 m 0 .� m a 0 0 0 '1 t F 0 5 1 Spear Street R 2 F 0 Ir 2 iosed Project Site Vale Drive 5 2 to L f0 c 1 R 2 E 0 .0 ♦ 0 m v c 3 0 z 9 August 2010 Page 8 Site -Generated Traffic Weekdav PM Spear Street 0 14 0 J 4 1A F 0 R 0 0 0 .�tD+ 9 j 5 �n � t r 7 7 3 R 16 o o �+ a _0o n Ln v ocer o $ a Proposed Project Site 15 0 7 4 d i U v � 1 R z m n 1 ♦ 0 v 0 7 Ir 1 1 0 r � 0 14 3 Spear Street d015 7 1 0 Vale Drive 2 4 R 4 E ♦ 0 LL v c 3 z Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 9 3.6 Scenario Volume Graphics No Build volumes represent the raw volumes' adjusted to the respective scenario year (Section 3.3), plus the Other Development Volumes (Section 3.2). Adding the site -generated traffic (Section 3.4) results in the Build volumes. Figure 6 through Figure 15 show the scenario volumes during the peak hours. Figure 6: 2011 AM Peak Hour No Build Weekday AM Spear Street 48 111 13 d i L i 45 -0 R 73 w X' 58 -► 4- 250 x 969 r 87 u3 `9 t IF 227 325 116 253 0 It '. 16 t IF 669 0 12 230 11 0 � 33 1 n 5 y O 1 509 16 Spear Street R 0 0 v v O 0 0 r a v7 y o 0 ^ � a R 26 1 r 1 24 �► i 21 iosed Project Site Vale Drive 15 7 AP U R 2 E 4- 42 LL v c 3 0 z 1 On -street bicycle travel accounts for roughly 5% of the turning movement counts at the Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road intersection. 9 August 2010 Page 10 Figure 7: 2011 PM Peak Hour No Build Weekday PM Spear Street 74 347 78 .� ♦ L F 48 34 x 208 141 ro 231 - 131 n t 255 244 106 644 0 ♦ '10 R 0 3 �o o n m O a N o � a Ir 0 t IF 604 0 32 577 35 d ♦ %, v Pror 22 19 11 ro' n 6 ♦ ♦ 9 72 v 3 30 '1 t r 5 548 38 Spear Street osed Project Site Vale Drive 4 6 Al 1 R 6OC E ♦ 53 M 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 Al ♦ %L f 45 R 74 y 59 ♦ ♦ 253 .�D. 69 jr 88 n 'i t r 229 328 117 255 0 ♦ to R. 0 3 v v a m O n 0)w - o � n I< 0 t r 675 0 12 232 11 .� 1;%, 0 iosed Project Site Vale Drive 15 7 �v 0 q 33 R 26 1 1 R 2 a 5 ♦ 1 24 ♦ ♦ 43 LL v � 5 7 21 3 �o `1 t IF z 1 513 16 Spear Street 9 August 2010 Page 12 Figure 9: 2016 PM Peak Hour No Build Weekday PM Spear Street 75 350 79 Al ♦ L 48 - 34 v 210 -► a 142 233 Ir 132 n t r 257 246 107 v ER 22 m a 6 v 3 'y 650 0 ♦ L 0 t r 610 0 32 582 36 .1 ♦ ti `1 t r 5 553 39 Spear Street 116. 0 3 v v a rho o °o Ln W o � n Jr 0 19 12 1 ♦ 9 73 30 osed Project Site Vale Drive 4 6 'i %k -a 6Cr E ♦ 54 M v M 3 0 z Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 13 Figure 10: 2016 AM Peak Hour Build Weekdav AM Spear Street 48 115 13 .d ♦ 'A 45 R 74 v 59 253 71 r 90 vi `i t r 244 349 124 264 7 ♦ i, R 40 3 �0 0 o_ CO 0 0- N y - o a � 8 t f 717 5 12 239 12 .r ♦ 1. v osed Project Site Vale Drive 19 9 J ' 0 0 34 -0 R 28 2 1 R 4 n 5 -► ♦ 1 24 ♦ 43 LL v � 5 W- 23 3 8 r F z 1 518 17 Spear Street 9 August 2010 Page 14 Figure 11: 2016 PM Peak Hour Build Weekdav PM Spear Street 75 364 79 48 46 34 v i 210 ♦ 142 242 Ir 138 V)i t P 264 253 110 v rD 23 m n 7 mW v m 3 662 29 R. 16 3 0 o a m 0 n N w s 0 a � 8 t I 627 15 33 589 39 .S ♦ 1. `9 t r 5 567 42 Spear Street R 20 F 10 r 31 Pror 19 -0 73 -0 osed Project Site Vale Drive 7 10 0 cc R 10 E ♦ 54 M 0 0 z Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 15 Figure 12: 2021 AM Peak Hour No Build Weekdav AM Spear Street 49 113 13 .t ♦ S. g 46 -0 R 74 6 x 59 ♦ 255 ,5 mm+ 70 I" 89 VI t IF 231 331 118 258 0 ♦ L t IF 681 0 12 234 11 0 m 34 iu n 5 �► 0 < 5 m 1 518 16 Spear Street R 26 1 -0 46 2 4- 1 24 ♦ ♦ 43 pr 21 9 August 2010 Page 16 Figure 13: 2021 PM Peak Hour No Build Weekdav PM Spear Street 75 353 80 .d ♦ 1A f 49 t 35 v N 212 ♦ ♦ 144 235 W- 134 v3i ♦ 259 248 108 v m 22 1 m a 6 .0 v 3 656 0 ♦ L 0 t IF 616 0 33 588 36 r ♦ %L W, t r 6 559 39 Spear Street 0 3 CU �0 0 Q m o a N v - o n or 0 19 12 -0 r 9 74 -► r 30 iosed Project Site Vale Drive 4 6 A$ V a 6 E ♦ 54 LL a c 3 0 Z Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 17 Figure 14: 2021 AM Peak Hour Build Weekday AM Spear Street 49 116 13 .1 ♦ %L F 46 R 74 v 59 ♦ ♦ 255 x �D. 72 r 91 n � 24 t 6 352 12525 266 7 ♦ ti 0 R. 40 3 L ro O a v i1 f9 O a In a ° a � 8 t f 723 5 13 241 12 v iosed Project Site Vale Drive 19 9 rD 34 J 4-29 2 - R 4 Cr n 5 -1- ♦ 1 24 ♦ ♦ 43 LL v � m 5 77 Ir 23 3 t P F z 1 522 17 Spear Street 9 August 2010 Page 18 Figure 15: 2021 PM Peak Hour Build Weekdav PM Spear Street 75 367 80 .� ♦ 1. f 49 35 N .�. 212 ♦ ♦ 144 � 245 g- 139 in t IF 267 255 111 668 29 ♦ 1. 10 t r 633 15 33 595 40 .d ♦ ti 3 e -1 t IF 6 572 42 Spear Street t 16 3 v � m 0 n M 0 a LA - o 2 a � 8 21 19 1 ♦ 10 74 -0 r 32 osed Project Site Vale Drive 7 10 'A a. 0 R 10 E ♦ 54 LL a c 0 0 Z Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study 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 <_ 10.0 5 10.0 B Short delays 10.1-15.0 10.1-20.0 C Average delays 15.1-25.0 20.1-35.0 D Long delays 25.1-35.0 35.1-55.0 E Very long delays 35.1-50.0 55.1-80.0 F Extreme delays > 50.0 > 80.0 The delay thresholds for LOS at signalized and unsignalized intersections differ because of the driver's expectations of the operating efficiency for the respective traffic control conditions. According to HCM procedures, an overall LOS cannot be calculated for two-way stop -controlled intersections because not all movements experience delay. In signalized and all -way stop -controlled intersections, all movements experience delay and an overall LOS can be calculated. The Wrans policy on level of service is: ■ Overall LOS C should be maintained for state -maintained highways and other streets accessing the state's facilities ■ Reduced LOS may be acceptable on a case -by -case basis when considering, at minimum, current and future traffic volumes, delays, volume to capacity ratios, crash rates, and negative impacts as a result of improvement necessary to achieve LOS C. ■ LOS D should be maintained for side roads with volumes exceeding 100 vehicles/hour for a single lane approach (150 vehicles/hour for a two-lane approach) at two-way stop - controlled intersections. 4.2 Level -of -Service Results The HCM reports from Synchro (v7), a traffic analysis software package from Trafficware, were used to assess congestion at the study intersections. Table 4 and Table 5 present the LOS results during the weekday AM & PM peak hours, respectively. The volume to capacity ratio (v/c) is also shown, indicating the ratio of the hourly traffic flow rate to the capacity of the given lane group to process vehicles. A ratio of 1.0 (or higher) indicates the facility is at (or over) capacity for the study period. Detailed Synchro LOS worksheets are available in Appendix B. 9 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 16 0.65 B 17 0.67 B 16 0.65 B 17 0.67 EB approach C 20 - C 21 - C 21 - C 21 - C 21 - WBapproach B 16 B 16 B 16 B 16 B 16 NB approach B 15 B 15 B 17 B 16 B 17 SB approach B 16 B 16 B 16 B 16 B 16 EB LT C 21 0.43 C 21 0.44 C 22 0.47 C 21 0.44 C 22 0.46 EB R B 19 0.04 B 19 0.04 C 20 0.04 B 19 0.04 C 20 0.04 WB L B 14 0.29 B 14 0.30 B 14 0.29 B 14 0.30 B 14 0.29 WB TR B 16 0.53 B 16 0.54 B 16 0.53 B 16 0.54 B 16 0.53 NB L B 11 0.46 B 11 0.47 B 12 0.50 B 11 0.47 B 12 0.50 NB TR B 17 0.66 B 18 0.67 B 19 0.71 B 18 0.67 B 19 0.71 SB L B 14 0.05 B 14 0.06 8 15 0.06 B 14 0.05 B 15 0.06 SB TR B 16 0.26 B 16 0.27 B 16 0.27 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 L05 Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c Spear Street -Spear Meadows Road (proposed) WBL C 19 0.03 C 19 0.03 WBR 8 14 0.10 8 14 0.09 SBL A 9 0.01 A 9 0.01 Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road EB LTR C 18 0.13 C 18 0.15 C 19 0.15 C 18 0.14 C 19 0.14 WB LT B 14 0.07 8 15 0.08 B 15 0.09 B 15 0.07 B 15 0.08 NB LTR A <1 0.00 A <1 0.00 A <1 0.00 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 25 0.76 EB approach C 26 - C 26 - C 27 - C 27 - C 27 - WBapproach B 16 B 16 B 17 6 16 B 17 NB approach C 26 C 26 C 29 C 27 C 31 SB approach C 22 C 22 C 22 C 22 C 22 EB LT C 30 0.72 C 31 0.73 C 31 0.74 C 32 0.74 C 32 0.74 EB R C 21 0.18 C 22 0.19 C 22 0.19 C 22 0.19 C 22 0.20 WBL B 17 0.48 B 17 0.49 B 18 0.52 B 18 0.51 B 18 0.53 WBTR B 15 0.26 B 16 0.27 B 16 0.27 B 16 0.27 B 16 0.27 NB L D 36 0.84 D 36 0.85 D 44 0.89 D 38 0.85 D 47 0.91 NB TR B 19 0.56 B 19 0.56 B 19 0.57 B 19 0.56 B 19 0.57 SB L B 14 0.22 8 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 WB LT D 30 0.26 D 30 0.27 D 32 0.30 D 31 0.28 D 33 0.31 NB LTR A <1 0.01 A <1 0.01 A <1 0.01 A <1 0.01 A <1 0.01 SB L A 9 0.04 A 9 0.04 A 9 0.04 A 9 0.04 A 9 0.04 Nowland Farm Road -Vale Drive A <3 0 A <1 0 A <1 0 A <3 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. 501h and 951h 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 501h 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 951h 50`h 95`h 50`h 95`h 501h 95th 501h 95`h Spear Street -Swift Street EB LT 26 88 27 91 27 95 27 90 27 94 EB R 0 32 0 32 0 33 0 32 0 33 WBL 15 60 16 61 16 66 16 62 16 66 WBTR 60 191 62 197 62 207 62 197 62 208 NB 43 92 44 94 47 100 44 95 48 100 NBTR 89 241 91 247 99 264 92 248 100 265 SB L 2 10 2 11 2 11 2 11 2 10 SBTR 32 76 33 78 34 78 33 78 34 78 Unsi nalized Intersections Spear Street -Spear Meadows Road (proposed) WBL 3 2 WBR 8 8 SB L 1 1 IV Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road EBLTR 11 13 13 12 13 WB LT 6 6 7 6 7 NB LTR 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 1 1 1 1 1 Nowland Farm Road -Vale Drive EBL 0 0 0 0 0 SB Ll 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 N overcapacity -queues may be longer Storage Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 50 50 125 50 150 9 August 2010 Page 22 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 (it) Queue (ft) Signalized Intersections 50`h 95th soth 95th soth 95th 50th 95th 50th 95th Spear Street -Swift Street EB LT 94 191 95 191 96 191 97 194 98 194 EB R 4 59 5 60 5 62 6 62 6 63 WB L 34 82 35 82 37 85 35 84 37 86 WBTR 42 99 42 99 43 99 43 100 44 100 NB 62 #179 62 #183 6S #196 63 #186 66 #201 NBTR 108 203 110 206 114 213 111 207 116 214 SBL 17 42 17 43 17 43 17 43 18 43 SBTR 144 259 147 263 154 274 149 26S 157 276 Unsi nalized Intersections }' Spear Street -Spear Meadows Road (proposed) WBL 4 4 WBR 3 3 5B L 2 2 0 Spear Street-Nowland Farm Road EB LTR 20 20 23 21 24 WBLT 26 26 30 27 32 NB LTR 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 3 3 3 3 3 �,.' Nowland Farm Road -Vale Drive EBL 1 1 1 1 1 SB LI 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 # overcapacity -queues maybe longer Storage Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 50 50 125 50 150 During the AM peak hour scenarios, the westbound through -right lane of the Spear Street -Swift Street intersection has an average queue length of approximately 2-3 vehicles. About 5% of the time, this lane experiences queues of 4-8 vehicles. The northbound through -right lane has an average queue of 2-4 vehicles and a maximum/951h percentile queue of about 10 vehicles. The eastbound approach at the Spear Street -Deer Field Drive-Nowland Farm Road intersection experiences average queues of approximately 2-3 vehicles. During the PM scenarios, the eastbound approach at the Spear Street -Swift Street intersection has an average queue of approximately 4 vehicles, and about 5% of the time experiences queues of about 8 vehicles. The northbound lanes have 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 VTrans (2003-2007), the 0.3 mile section of Spear Street that includes the Swift Street intersection is a HCL. This location is ranked 521 out of 653 HCL's in Vermont. The actual to critical rate ratio is 1.11. The project access road is not within this HCL section. 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 2007). Mans 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 on Spear St. in the study area between 2003 and 2007, and 12 just east of Spear on Swift St. in the same period; of these, nine involved injuries and there were no fatalities. Figure 16 shows the number of reported crashes by location between 2003 and 2007. 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 (78% of the reported crashes were either at the Nowland Farm Rd., Cedar Glen Dr. or Swift St. 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. 1 This data is exempt from Discovery or Admission under 23 U.S.C. 409. 9 August 2010 Page 24 Figure 16: Reported Crashes in the Study Area (2003-2007) Crashes and HCLs: 2003-2007 0 250 500 1,000 Number of crashes v Fee 1-2 • 3-4 0 O 5-8 9-12 01316 i �CL Sections 11 = M o £ Z 0 0 0 0 P sroaE"� E--°GE°RSpear / Meadows ��RGlEND h 3 EYRD g A O 1C P �y N OVERIAOK OR � DEERFIEIDOR NOW, DF4 MRD Figure 17. Summary of Crash Types within Study Area (2003-2007) Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study Page 25 Figure 18: Location of Crashes by Type (2003-2007) Crashes and HCLs: 2003-2007 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Crash Type Rear End N Single Vehicle Crash '� m Broadside c Involving Left -Turn 0 z SWIF O Sideswipe m HCL Sections T z z o m OC p m O LL s:A' O 00 O O O O A Z STONEHEOGEDR Spear Meadows CEDAR GLE, DRt H W h v DOREYRD Z rZDi O m j0 O v' 70 A N A O C r DE£RFlfL m 'pIOO� D DR NOWLAND Fq M RD s g pWNELL Y 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). 9 August 2010 Page 26 Figure 19: Weather as a Factor in Study Area Crashes Sleet or Hail Fog, Smog, c—L- _.. 2% Not Figure 20: Contributing Factors in Study Area Crashes 30 25 20 10 5 0 27 13 10 a 5 4 4 3 3 2 1 1 Inattention Followedtoo Failed to Unknown Maclean Drivingtoo Failure to Other Swervingor Distracted Disregarded Visibility closely yield right of improper fast for keepin improper avoiding traffic signs obstructed way turn conditions properlane action or running off road 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."' 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.' 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.¢ 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. 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. 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. '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. 9 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 I � _ OF EXISTING PAVEMENT EXISTN HOUSE AND MINIMUM OF 1 FT. CLEAN GARAG TO BE REMOVED T WITH EMULSION PRIOR i ____ — ---I t EXISTI G DRIVE IG (SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET) TO BE .REMOVED )VE EXISTING 12' CMP ERT AND REPLACE WITH 15' HOPE STORM LINE 5' OFF NEW EDGE OF :MENT) NEW 15' HDPE INV. - 382.0'� I EDGE OF EMENT NTE-� _ 8' YEILOW�I RELOCATE RESTORE EXISTING Z —� EXISTING MAILBOX - DRIVEWAYS AFTER INSTALLATION OF RELOCATE NEW STORM LINE EXISTING GMP POLE NEW 15' HDF RELOCATE INV. s 384.2 EXISTING MAILBOX- �- — r ��IS71NC EDGE \ OF PAVEMENT \ TO REMAIN 7.0 DESIGN REVIEW 390' Tree does not appear to interfere with sight distance REMOVE EIaSTWG O D T D 4' ® O PAVEMENT MARKINGS EXISTING EDGE \ WHITE LANE 4' WHITE AS REOUIRED OF PAVEMENT \ PEDESTRIAN ADVANCE LINE PEDESTRIAN EXISTING HEDGE TO BE """WARNING CROSSING SIGN � CROSSING SIGNS REMOVED AS NECCESARY \(PER MUTCO STANDARD) \005 ER MUTCO) FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS E PEDESTRIAN 8' 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 50' long. Although the amount of traffic using these lanes is not expected to be large, the two lane approach ' National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 457 Evaluating Intersection Improvements: An Engineering Study Guide (Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001), pg. 24. 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. 9 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 l A Raw Volumes Adjustments Trip Generation 08/08/10 09:35 AM Synchro Node Raw Count Data EB WB NB SB 1 Spear St/Swift St L 48 124 236 78 South Burlington, VT T 208 141 226 328 7/30/2009 R 228 34 98 74 1823 5th Thursday Enter 484 299 560 480 1823 CCMPO Exit 384 451 308 680 1823 % Trucks 0.4% 1.7% 0.5% 0.4% Peds 4 1 1 1 PHI Peak Hour 3:45 PM -4:45 PM Peak 0.92 EB WB NB SB 2 Spear St/Nowland Farm Rd L 22 27 5 34 South Burlington, VT T 6 9 504 538 7/22/2010 R 3 18 34 32 1232 4th Thursday Enter 31 54 543 604 1232 RSG Exit 74 46 544 568 1232 %Trucks 0.0% 1.9% 1.7% 1.0% Peds 4 1 1 18 PHI Peak Hour 4:45 PM - 5:45 PM Peak 0.93 EB WB NB SB 3 Nowland Farm Rd/Vale Dr L 11 0 0 6 South Burlington, VT T 67 50 0 0 7/22/2010 R 0 6 0 4 144 4th Thursday Enter 78 56 0 10 144 RSG Exit 73 54 17 0 144 %Trucks 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% Peds 0 0 0 13 PHI Peak Hour 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM Peak 0.88 PM DHV & Annual Adjustments (1) to 2011 DHVATR/CTC S6D086 SBudington:Spear St0.3miNofSwift DHV Calculations DHV Poll Group Urban ATR/CTC Year 2009 AnnlGrwthATR/CTCID S6D086 SBurlington:SpearSt0.3miNofSwift ATR/CTCAADT 4,900 Annl Grwth Poll Group Urban 2009-2009 Growth 1.00 TM Count Year 2009 Corr. AADT 4,900 DHV Adjustment 0.65 DHV (Equation) n/a 2009-2011 Growth! 0.96 Calulcated Adjustment DHV (K-Factor) 510 Total Adjustment t t Corr. Count 788 DHVATR/CTC S613086 5 Burlington: 5pear5t0.3 mi Nof SM DHV Poll Group Urban AnnlGrwthATR/CTCID S60086 SBurlington:Spear St0.3miNofSM Annl Grwth Poll Group Urban TM Count Year 2010 DHV Adjustment 0.44 2010-2011 Growth 0.98 Calulcated Adjustment Total Adjustment DHV ATR/CTC DHV Poll Group Annl Grwth ATR/CTC ID Annl Grwth Poll Group TM Count Year DHV Adjustment 2010-2011 Growth Total Adjustment 723 Hardwick: VT15- 0.1 mi N of Granite St Primary and Secondary 307 Hardwick: VT15 700ft W of Vr14 DHV Calculations ATR/CTC Year 2009 ATR/CTC AADT 4,900 2009-2010 Growth 0.98 Corr. AADT 4,802 DHV (Equation) n/a DHV (K-Factor) 500 Page 1 of 6 Adjusted Raw Counts ODVs 2011 Cider Mill Phase 1 Enter Exit PM 1 51 30 81 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L 48 124 231 78 L T 208 141 226 328 T R 228 34 98 74 1823 R 0 Enter 484 299 560 480 1823 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 384 451 308 680 1823 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L 22 27 5 34 L 0 1 T 6 9 504 S38 T 0 0 R 3 18 34 32 1232 R 0 1 2 Enter 31 54 543 604 1232 Enter 0 1 1 1 2 Exit 74 46 544 568 1232 Exit 1 0 0 0 2 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L 11 0 0 6 L T 67 50 0 0 T 1 1 R 0 6 0 4 144 R 2 Enter 78 56 0 10 144 Enter 1 1 0 0 2 Exit 73 54 17 0 144 Exit 1 1 0 0 2 T--iiina thrni inh Nnwlan�i/nnrcpt SB exiting intersection NB entering 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 �Enter Exit PM l 69 39 1 107 Trip distribution based on AM EB WB NB SB RF 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WS NB SB L 0 1 T 0 0 R 0 1 3 Enter 0 1 1 1 3 Exit 2 0 0 0 3 EB WB NB SB L T 2 1 RF 3 Enter 2 1 0 0 3 Exit 2 1 0 0 3 Tra—I ina thrnuoh Nnwland/r)nrcpt 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 COMP SBOR83 PM peak hoi Page 2 of 6 PM ODVs ODVs South Village Goldberg Enter Exit Enter Exit PM 1 157 85 242 PM 1 9 5 1 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 1 R 3 8 73 Enter 3 7 44 19 73 Exit 8 19 18 29 73 EB WB NB SB L 2 0 T 44 39 R 0 3 89 Enter 0 2 48 39 89 Exit 3 0 44 41 89 EB WB NB SB L 0 T 3 2 j R 0 5 Enter 3 2 0 0 5 Exit 3 2 0 0 5 Travelling through Nowland/Spear NB entering 5B exiting intersection intersection 41 48 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 thrnuoh Nnwland/DnmPt 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 -Spear-Allen T 0 0 558 197 jr May 2004 R 37 0 0 114 1194 Enter 153 0 730 311 1194 Exit 0 286 674 234 1194 Page 3 of 6 ODVS Shelburne -O'Brien Enter Exit PM 17 10 27 EB WB NB SB L T R Enter 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 PM No Build 2011 EB WB NB SB L 48 111 255 78 T 208 141 244 347 R 231 34 106 74 1896 Enter 487 306 604 499 1896 Exit 392 470 326 709 1896 Trip Generation Enter Exit PM 1 49 27 76 EB WB NB SB L 5 7 T 7 14 1 R 9 3 46 Enter 9 5 17 14 46 Exit 3 7 7 29 46 Spear Meadows Road WBL WBR NBR SBL 8 16 15 29 EB WB NB SB L 22 30 5 35 T 6 9 548 577 1 R 3 19 38 32 1325 Enter 31 58 592 644 1325 Exit 80 47 589 610 1325 EB WB NB SB L 1 1 4 T 1 0 14 7 1 R 2 3 0 33 Enter 1 3 17 11 33 Exit 8 1 16 9 33 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L L 11 0 0 6 L 7 4 T T 72 53 0 0 T 1 RF 0 R 0 6 0 4 153 R 4 2 17 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Enter 84 59 0 10 153 Enter 7 4 0 6 17 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 78 58 17 0 153 Exit 4 2 11 0 17 Travelling through Nowland/Dorset Assumptions NB entering 60% of veh to/from south use Spear and remaining 40% SB exiting intersection intersection use Vale Drive 10 4 9S% of veh to/from north use Spear and remaining 5% per CCMPO TM counts 4% are EBR 6% are NBL EB WB NB SB 1. Directional rN13 enter SB enter NB exit SB exit based on Sr ting vol at Nowland/Vale 0 exit EB 0 enter WB L 0 0 0 0 distribution 25 25 14 14 T 0 0 604 644 Spear enter enter R 0 0 0 0 2. Internal Meado from 5 from N exit to N exit to S Assumed distribution w Rd 15 23 13 8 Vale Dr 10 1 1 5 Diverted trips to Spear Meadows from Vale and Four Sisters neighborhoods 4 3 1 entering PM trip to the existing SF home on the site is included at Spear Meadows Road Page 4 of 6 Build 2011 EB WB NB SB L 48 116 161 78 T 208 141 251 361 R 240 34 109 74 1942 On ter 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 R 3 20 42 32 1359 ter 33 61 609 655 1359 Exit 88 48 605 618 1359 EB WB NB SB L 19 0 0 10 T 72 53 0 0 R 0 10 0 7 171 Minter 91 63 0 16 171 Exit 82 60 29 0 171 )ear St N-S directional split (see ODVs) PM Annual Adjustment Adjusted Raw Counts 2016 2016 1.01 2011to 2016 EB WB NB 58 L 48 1238 3 T 210 14242 228 31 R 230 34 99 75 1 1841 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 R 3 18 34 32 1244 Enter 31 55 548 610 1244 Exit 75 46 549 574 1244 EB WB NS SB L 11 0 0 6 T 68 51 0 0 R 0 6 0 4 1 145 Enter 79 57 0 10 145 Exit 74 55 17 0 145 Spear Meadows Road No Build 2016 EB WB NB SB L 48 132 257 79 T 210 142 246 350 R 233 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 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 73 54 0 0 1 R 0 6 0 4 155 Enter 85 60 0 10 155 Exit 79 58 18 0 155 EB WB NB SB 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 R 242 34 110 75 1960 Enter 501 314 627 518 1960 Exit 399 481 336 744 1960 EB WB NB SB L 23 31 5 T 7 10 567R 75083 3 20 421371 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 �4 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 11 R 0 16 15 0 Page 5 of 6 PM Annual Adjustment No Build Build 2021 2021 2021 1.01 2016to 2021 EB WB NB SB E8 WB NB SB L 49 134 259 80 L 49 139 267 80 T 212 144 248 353 T 212 144 255 367 R 235 35 108 75 193 R 245 35 111 75 1979 Enter 496 312 616 508 193 Onter 506 317 633 523 1979 Exit 399 479 332_: 722 1933 Exit 403 486 339 751 1979 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB 5B L 22 30 6 36 L 23 32 6 40 T 6 9 559 588 T 7 10 572 595 R 3 19 39 33 1350 R 3 21 42 33 1383 Enter 32 59 603 656 1350 'Enter 33 62 620 668 1383 Exit 81 48 600 621 1350, Exit 89 48 616 630 1383 EB WB NB 5B EB WB NB SB L 12 0 0 6 L 19 0 0 10 T 74 54 0 0 T 74 54 0 0 R 0 6 0 4 156 R 0 10 0 7 174 Enter 85 61 0 10 156 Enter 93 64 0 16 174 Exit 80 59 18 0 156 Exit 84 61 29 0 174 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB 5B L 0 0 0 0 L 0 8 0 29 T 0 0 616 656 T 0 0 633 668 R 0 0 0 0 R 0 16 15 0 Page 6 of 6 08/08/10 09:32 AM Synchro Node 1 Spear St/Swift St South Burlington, VT 7/30/2009 Sth Thursday CCMPCI 2 Spear St/Nowland Farm Rd South Burlington, VT 7/23/2010 4th Thursday RSG AM Raw Count Data DHV & Annual Adjustments (1) to 2011 EB WB NB SB L 45 79 206 13 DHVATR/CTC S61D086 SB1rlington:SpearStB.3miNofSwift DHV Calculations T 58 250 295 101 DHV Poll Group Urban ATR/CTC Year 2009 R 64 73 105 48 1337 Annl Grwth ATR/CTC ID S613086 S Burlington: Spear St 0.3 mi Nof Swift ATR/CTCAADT 4,900 Enter 167 402 606 162 1337 Annl Grwth Poll Group Urban 2009-2009 Growth 1.00 Exit 176 504 413 244 1337 TM Count Year 2009 Corr. AADT 4,900 %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 DHV (K-Factor) 510 Peak Hour 6:45 AM - 7:45 AM Peak 0.85 Total Adjustment g Corr. Count 788 EB WB NB SB L 33 18 1 11 DHVATR/CTC 56DO86 S Burlington: Spear St 0.3 mi Nof Swift DHV Calculations T 5 1 446 205 DHV Poll Group Urban ATR/CTC Year 2009 R 4 25 14 12 774 AnnlGrwthATR/CTCID S6D086 SBurlington: Spear St0.3miNofSwift ATR/CTCAADT 4,900 Enter 42 44 460 228 774 Annl Grwth Poll Group Urban 2009-2010 Growth 0.98 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 (Equation) 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 Corr. Count 1,148 EB WB NB SB 3 Nowland Farm Rd/Vale Dr L 1 0 0 7 DHV ATR/CT( South Burlington, VT T 22 39 0 0 DHV Poll Groul 7/23/2010 R 0 2 0 14 84 Annl Grwth ATR/CTC K 4th Thursday Enter 22 41 0 21 84 Annl Grwth Poll GrouF RSG Exit 29 53 2 0 84 TM Count Yea %Trucks 4.5% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% DHV Adjustmen Pedsl 0 0 0 10 1 PHF 2010-2011 Growtl Peak Hour 7:15 AM - 8:15 AM Peak 0.91 Total Adjustmen Page 1 of 6 AM Adjusted Raw Counts ODVs 2011 Cider Mill Phase 1 Enter Exit 15 46 1 62 EB WB NB 58 EB WB NB SB L 45 79 206 13 L T 58 250 295 101 T R 64 73 105 48 1337 RF 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 5 1 446 205 T 0 R 4 25 14 12 775 R 0 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 T 22 39 0 0 T 1 R 0 2 0 14 85 R 1 Enter 23 41 0 21 85 Enter 0 1 0 0 1 Exit 29 53 3 0 85 Exit 0 1 0 0 1 per CCMPO TM counts resulting vol at Nowland/Vale Travellino thr—oh Nnwland/nnrcat NB entering SB exiting intersection intersection 4 35 4% are EBR 2% are NBL 0 exit EB 1 enter WB ODVs Cider Mill Phase 2 Enter Exit 20 65 1 85 Assumed directional splits for AM peak: Dorse EB WB NB SB L T R 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB L 0 T 0 R 1 1 Enter 0 1 0 0 1 Exit 0 0 1 0 1 EB WB NB 58 L T 1 RF 1 Enter 0 1 0 0 1 Exit 0 1 0 0 1 Travellin¢ throueh Nowland/Dorset NB entering 56 exiting intersection intersection 5 49 per CCMPO TM counts 4% are EBR 2% are NBL resulting vol at Nowland/Vale 0 exit EB 1 enter WB CCMP SBOR83- AM peak hog Page 2 of 6 AM ODVs ODVs South Village Goldberg Enter Exit Enter Exit 53 188 1 241 4 16 1 21 )rset Street: 75% NB, 25% SB (per Figure 13 of Dorset Street Corridor Study; Spear Street: 70% NB, 30% SB (per RSG's July 2010 TM counts at Spear-Nowland Farn EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L 8 21 L T 30 30 T R 5 11 86 RF 0 Enter 5 8 63 10 86 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 11 21 30 23 86 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB L 2 0 T 63 25 R 0 2 92 Enter 0 2 65 25 92 Exit 2 0 63 28 92 EB WB NB SB L 0 T 2 2 R 1 4 Enter 2 2 0 1 4 Exit 2 2 0 0 4 T—Pilinothrnuoh N-1—ri/in- NB entering 513 exiting intersection 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 T-vollino thr—oh N-1—l/rinrcot SB exiting intersection NB entering 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) O TM count L 169 0 66 0 Spear -Allen T 0 0 327 534 hour May 21 R 124 0 0 218 1438 Enter 293 0 393 752 1438 Exit 0 284 496 658 1438 Page 3 of 6 ODVs Shelburne Enter Exit 6 199 25 EB WB NB SB LF T R Enter 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB L T R Enter 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB L T RF 0 Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 Travelling through Nowland/Dorset NB entering 5B exiting intersection intersection 2 14 per CCMPO TM counts 4% are EBR 2% are NBL ing vol at Nowland/Vale 0 exit EB 0 enter WB AM No Build 2011 EB WB NB SB L 45 87 227 13 T 58 250 325 111 1 R 69 73 116 48 1423 Enter 172 410 669 172 1423 Exit 187 525 443 267 1423 Trip Generation Enter Exit 12 447 56 EB WB NB SB L 2 14 T 21 3 1 R 2 49 Enter 2 2 43 3 49 Exit 7 14 21 7 49 Spear Meadows Road WBL WBR NBR SBL 8 40 5 7 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB L 33 21 1 11 L 0 2 1 1 T 5 1 509 230 T 0 0 5 R 4 26 16 12 869 R 2 1 0 19 Enter 42 48 526 253 869 Enter 1 4 5 8 19 Exit 32 14 568 255 869 Exit 2 0 7 9 19 EB WB NB SB L 1 0 0 7 T 1 24 42 0 0 R 0 2 0 15 Enter 25 44 0 22 Exit 31 57 3 0 EB WB NB SB L 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 669 253 EB WB NB SB L 1 2 T 91 R 2 5 10 91 Enter 1 2 0 7 10 91 Exit 2 5 4 0 10 Assumptions 60% of veh to/from south use Spear and remaining 40% use Vale Drive 95% of veh to/from north use Spear and remaining 5% 1. Directional NB enter SB enter NB exit SB exit based on Spe distribution 1 9 4 31 13 R 0 0 0 0 Spear enter enter exit to N exit to S Assumed Meado 5 4 29 8 Vale DrI 3 0 2 5 Diverted trips to Spear Meadows from Vale and Four Sisters neighborhoods 3 10 1 exiting AM trip from the existing SF home on the site is included at Spear Meadows Road Page 4 of 6 Build 2011 EB WB NB SB L 45 89 241 13 T 58 250 346 114 R 70 73 123 48 1472 !r 173 412 711 175 1472 it 194 540 464 274 1472 mA EB WB NB SB L 33 23 1 12 T 5 1 513 237 R 4 28 17 12 888 titer 43 52 531 261 888 :Exit 34 15 575 265 888 EB WB NB L 2 0 0 9 T 24 42 0 0 R 0 4 0 19 101 Enter 26 47 0 28 101 Exit 33 61 7 0 101 7. Spear St N-S directional split (see OE AM Annual Adjustment Adjusted Raw Counts 2016 L— 2016 1.01 2011 to 2016 EB WB NB 58 L 45 80 208 13 T 59 253 298 102 1 R 65 74 06 48 1350 Enter 169 406 612 164 1350 Exit 178 509 417 246 1350 EB WB NB SB L 33 18 1 11 T 5 1 450 207 R 4 25 14 12 783 Enter 42 44 466 230 783 Exit 30 14 509 229 783 EB WB NB SB L 1 0 0 7 T 22 39 0 0 R 0 2 0 14 1 86 Enter 23 41 0 21 86 Exit 29 54 3 0 86 Spear Meadows Road No Build 2016 EB WB NB SB L 45 88 229 13 T 59 253 328 112 R 69 74 117 48 1436 Enter 173 414 675 174 1436 Exit 189 530 448 270 1436 EB WB NB SB L 33 21 1 11 T 5 1 513 232 R 5 26 16 12 877 Enter 43 48 530 255 877 Exit 32 14 573 258 877 EB WB NB 5 L 1 0 0 7 T 24 43 0 0 R 0 2 0 15 92 Enter 25 45 0 22 92 Exit 31 57 3 0 92 EB WB NB SB L 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 675 255 R 0 0 0 0 Build 2016 EB WB NB SB L 45 90 244 13 T 59 253 349 115 R 71 74 124 48 1485 Enter 175 416 717 177 1485 Exit 196 545 468 276 1485 EB WB NB SB L 34 23 1 12 T 5 1 518 239 R 5 28 17 12 895 Enter 43 53 536 264 895 Exit 34 15 580 267 895 m EB WB NB SB L 2 0 0 9 T 24 43 0 0 R 0 4 0 19 102 Enter 26 47 0 29 102 Exit 33 62 7 0 102 0 EB WB NB SB L 0 8 0 7 T 0 0 717 264 R 0 40 5 0 Page 5 of 6 Annual Adjustment_ 2021 1.01 2016 to 2021 No Build 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 EB WB NB SB L 1 0 0 7 T 24 43 0 0 R 0 2 0 15 93 I Enter 25 45 0 22 93 Exit 31 58 3 0 93 EB WB NB SB L 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 681 258 R 0 0 0 0 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 R 5 29 17 13 903 Enter 44 53 540 266 903 Exit 34 15 585 269 903 EB WB NB SB L 2 0 0 9 T 24 43 0 01 R 0 4 0 19 103 Enter 27 47 0 29 103 Exit 34 63 7 0 103 EB WB NB SB L 0 8 0 7 T 0 0 723 266 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 Intersection Summary 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2011 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations #' r T. T T Volume (vph) 45 58 69 87 250 73 227 325 116 13 111 48 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 At Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1859 1615 1805 1836 1805 1825 1805 1814 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.44 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1353 1615 817 1836 1006 1825 839 1814 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 45 58 69 87 250 73 227 325 116 13 111 48 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 57 0 13 0 0 18 0 0 24 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 103 12 87 310 0 227 423 0 13 135 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.9 9.9 18.0 18.0 24.0 19.7 16.4 15.9 Effective Green, g (s) 9.9 9.9 18.0 18.0 24.0 19.7 16.4 15.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.32 0.32 0.43 0.35 0.29 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 238 284 299 588 491 640 253 513 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.17 c0.04 c0.23 0.00 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.16 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.04 0.29 0.53 0.46 0.66 0.05 0.26 Uniform Delay, dl 20.6 19.2 14.0 15.6 10.9 15.4 14.2 15.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.3 2.0 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 21.1 19.2 14.2 16.0 11.2 17.4 14.3 15.7 Level of Service C B B B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 20.4 15.6 15.3 15.6 Approach LOS C B B B Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 16.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.2 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.1 % ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2011 NB 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street I Baseline ♦ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +T+ +T r +1;4 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) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 89 98 100 93 100 95 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 292 323 808 308 324 562 1336 1052 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SIB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 42 48 526 11 242 Volume Left 33 21 1 11 0 Volume Right 4 26 16 0 12 cSH 315 674 1336 1052 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 6 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 18.2 14.4 0.0 8.5 0.0 Lane LOS C B A A Approach Delay (s) 18.2 14.4 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2011 NB 3: Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations +' T Y Volume (veh/h) 1 24 42 2 7 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 24 42 2 7 15 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 44 69 43 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 44 69 43 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (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 r- *-- t �` �► Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r T t 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 SIB 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 Sum 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 ---► 1- 4\ i Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 106 70 89 329 230 447 14 162 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.18 0.26 0.56 0.48 0.60 0.04 0.40 Control Delay 26.0 8.4 15.9 18.6 14.8 16.6 9.9 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 14.8 16.6 9.9 16.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 0 16 62 44 91 2 33 Queue Length 95th (ft) 91 32 61 197 94 247 11 78 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 411 540 340 966 484 1355 331 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 8/9/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline --* --1' T 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +1 r 1 I. Volume (vph) 46 60 70 89 254 75 230 329 118 14 113 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) 1860 1615 1805 1835 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) 1350 1615 818 1835 1006 1825 822 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 60 70 89 254 75 230 329 118 14 113 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 58 0 13 0 0 18 0 0 24 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 106 12 89 316 0 230 429 0 14 138 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) 239 286 299 588 492 643 250 517 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 0.16 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.04 0.30 0.54 0.47 0.67 0.06 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 20.8 19.3 14.1 15.8 11.0 15.5 14.2 15.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.3 2.0 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 21.2 19.3 14.3 16.2 11.2 17.5 14.3 15.7 Level of Service C B B B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 20.5 15.8 15.4 15.6 Approach LOS C B B B Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 16.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/9/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 NB 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street * Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ,+ +T r +T+ 11� Volume (veh/h) 34 6 6 22 2 27 2 514 17 12 233 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 6 6 22 2 27 2 514 17 12 233 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 804 798 240 792 796 522 246 531 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 804 798 240 792 796 522 246 531 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 99 95 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 284 317 804 299 318 558 1332 1047 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SIB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 46 51 533 12 246 Volume Left 34 22 2 12 0 Volume Right 6 27 17 0 13 cSH 315 639 1332 1047 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 13 6 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 18.4 14.7 0.0 8.5 0.0 Lane LOS C B A A Approach Delay (s) 18.4 14.7 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/9/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 NB I Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations T 114 Y Volume (veh/h) 2 25 44 3 8 16 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 25 44 3 8 16 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 74 46 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 47 74 46 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 933 1030 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 27 47 24 Volume Left 2 0 8 Volume Right 0 3 16 cSH 1573 1700 995 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.03 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.5 0.0 8.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.0 8.7 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/9/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 NB 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline ,or � t f' `0* Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r T + Volume (veh/h) 1 1 676 1 1 256 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) 1 1 676 1 1 256 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 934 676 677 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 934 676 677 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) 297 457 924 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 1 1 677 257 Volume Left 1 0 0 1 Volume Right 0 1 1 0 cSH 297 457 1700 924 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 17.2 12.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B A Approach Delay (s) 15.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/9/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 B 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline f, '~ 1\ t �► 1 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 106 72 91 329 245 475 14 165 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.20 0.26 0.52 0.52 0.65 0.05 0.40 Control Delay 28.1 8.7 16.1 18.0 16.2 18.3 9.7 17.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 28.1 8.7 16.1 18.0 16.2 18.3 9.7 17.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 0 16 62 47 99 2 34 Queue Length 95th (ft) 95 33 66 207 100 264 11 78 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 390 517 354 917 470 1288 303 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 0.05 0.13 Intersection Summary 8/9/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 B 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r T." T T Volume (vph) 46 60 72 91 254 75 245 350 125 14 116 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) 1860 1615 1805 1835 1805 1825 1805 1815 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.39 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1350 1615 808 1835 1008 1825 732 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 60 72 91 254 75 245 350 125 14 116 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 60 0 13 0 0 18 0 0 24 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 106 12 91 316 0 245 457 0 14 141 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) 227 272 317 599 490 643 225 520 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.17 c0.04 c0.25 0.00 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.18 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.04 0.29 0.53 0.50 0.71 0.06 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 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 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.3 3.1 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 22.2 20.1 14.3 16.2 11.9 19.2 14.6 16.0 Level of Service C C B B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 21.3 15.8 16.7 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 77.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/9/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 B 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street Baseline --* --t t �► 1 -4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4-1 14 r +T. T+ Volume (veh/h) 35 6 6 24 2 29 2 519 18 13 240 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) 35 6 6 24 2 29 2 519 18 13 240 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 820 814 246 807 811 528 253 537 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 820 814 246 807 811 528 253 537 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 % 87 98 99 92 99 95 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 276 310 797 292 311 554 1324 1041 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SIB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 47 55 539 13 253 Volume Left 35 24 2 13 0 Volume Right 6 29 18 0 13 cSH 306 622 1324 1041 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 13 7 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 18.9 15.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 Lane LOS C B A A Approach Delay (s) 18.9 15.0 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/9/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 B 3: Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline __,, 4�, \*� ,/ Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations # T Y Volume (veh/h) 3 25 44 5 10 20 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) 3 25 44 5 10 20 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 49 78 46 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 49 78 46 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) 1571 929 1029 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 28 49 30 Volume Left 3 0 10 Volume Right 0 5 20 cSH 1571 1700 993 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.03 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.8 0.0 8.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.8 0.0 8.7 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/9/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2016 B 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline ,Ir 4-- t l Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r 1, t Volume (veh/h) 9 41 718 6 8 265 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) 9 41 718 6 8 265 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 1002 721 724 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1002 721 724 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 90 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 269 431 888 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 9 41 724 8 265 Volume Left 9 0 0 8 0 Volume Right 0 41 6 0 0 cSH 269 431 1700 888 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.10 0.43 0.01 0.16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 8 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 18.9 14.2 0.0 9.1 0.0 Lane LOS C B A Approach Delay (s) 15.1 0.0 0.3 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/9/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline I 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 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +1 r 1, 1� T Volume (vph) 46 59 70 89 255 74 231 331 118 13 113 49 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 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 At Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.43 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1347 1615 818 1836 1006 1825 816 1814 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 46 59 70 89 255 74 231 331 118 13 113 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 58 0 13 0 0 18 0 0 24 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 105 12 89 316 0 231 431 0 13 138 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 10.0 18.1 18.1 24.2 19.9 16.6 16.1 Effective Green, g (s) 10.0 10.0 18.1 18.1 24.2 19.9 16.6 16.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.32 0.32 0.43 0.35 0.29 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 238 286 299 588 492 643 248 517 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.17 c0.04 c0.24 0.00 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.17 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.04 0.30 0.54 0.47 0.67 0.05 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 20.8 19.3 14.1 15.8 11.0 15.5 14.2 15.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.3 2.2 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 21.2 19.3 14.3 16.2 11.3 17.7 14.3 15.7 Level of Service C B B B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 20.5 15.8 15.5 15.6 Approach LOS C B B B Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 16.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 NB 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street Baseline _,* __,, 4-_ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +1� +T r 4 � Volume (veh/h) 34 5 5 21 1 26 1 518 16 11 234 12 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 34 5 5 21 1 26 1 518 16 11 234 12 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 804 798 240 792 796 526 246 534 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 804 798 240 792 796 526 246 534 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 88 98 99 93 100 95 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 286 318 804 301 319 556 1332 1044 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SIB 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 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations f' Ir. 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 ,or, t Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r 1� t Volume (veh/h) 0 0 675 0 0 255 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 675 0 0 255 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 930 675 675 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 930 675 675 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 299 457 926 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SIB 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 --P� ')V 4�, 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 - �*-- I,- 4\ r Is. A/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 1 T 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 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.17 c0.04 c0.25 0.00 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.18 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.04 0.29 0.53 0.50 0.71 0.06 0.27 Uniform Delay, dl 21.6 20.1 14.1 15.8 11.6 16.1 14.5 15.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.3 3.1 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 22.1 20.1 14.3 16.2 11.9 19.3 14.6 16.0 Level of Service C C B B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 21.3 15.8 16.8 15.9 Approach LOS C B B B Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 16.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 57.6 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8l8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 B 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street Baseline -,11 - , ~ 4\ I ♦ !� I i '/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4 r 4 Vi 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 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 SIB 1 Volume Total 26 47 28 Volume Left 2 0 9 Volume Right 0 4 19 cSH 1573 1700 998 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.03 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 8.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 8.7 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS AM 2021 B 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline 4-- t 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r T+ t 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 SIB 1 SIB 2 Volume Total 8 40 722 7 264 Volume Left 8 0 0 7 0 Volume Right 0 40 5 0 0 cSH 271 432 1700 889 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.09 0.42 0.01 0.16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 8 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 18.7 14.2 0.0 9.1 0.0 Lane LOS C B A Approach Delay (s) 14.9 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2011 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline --lip � "r 4\ I i 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 4179 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 * II Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +' r ►j 1 ►j 1 T. Volume (vph) 48 208 231 131 141 34 255 244 106 78 347 74 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1882 1579 1769 1801 1786 1784 1804 1841 Flt Permitted 0.89 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.46 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1695 1579 632 1801 568 1784 875 1841 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 208 231 131 141 34 255 244 106 78 347 74 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 172 0 11 0 0 21 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 256 59 131 164 0 255 329 0 78 411 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 1 % 1 % 1 % 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.6 13.6 22.6 22.6 25.6 21.4 23.2 20.2 Effective Green, g (s) 13.6 13.6 22.6 22.6 25.6 21.4 23.2 20.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.35 0.35 0.39 0.33 0.36 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 355 330 272 626 302 587 355 572 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.09 c0.05 0.18 0.01 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.04 0.15 c0.28 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.18 0.48 0.26 0.84 0.56 0.22 0.72 Uniform Delay, d1 23.9 21.1 16.3 15.2 17.7 17.9 14.1 19.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 18.3 0.7 0.1 3.6 Delay (s) 29.9 21.2 16.8 15.3 35.9 18.7 14.3 23.5 Level of Service C C B B D B B C Approach Delay (s) 25.8 15.9 25.9 22.0 Approach LOS C B C C Int?R9ffl8R%WWMNb� AL 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 -.* --,, ---* f- 4-- *-- .4\ * I I i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +T+ +' 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 8/812010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2011 NB I Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations + T. Y Volume (veh/h) 11 72 53 6 6 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 72 53 6 6 4 Pedestrians 13 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) I pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 72 163 69 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 72 163 69 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.4 p0 queue free % 99 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1518 795 962 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 83 59 10 Volume Left 11 0 6 Volume Right 0 6 4 cSH 1518 1700 854 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.03 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 Control Delay (s) 1.0 0.0 9.3 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.0 0.0 9.3 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.1 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 I8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2011 NB 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline *-- t II i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations 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 NB 1 SB 1..-.. Volume Total 0 0 604 644 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.38 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline 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. 8l8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 NB 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +T r 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 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 0.33 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 Summa HCM Average Control Delay 23.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 NB 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +T. +T r 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) tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.4 p0 queue free % 99 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1517 790 960 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 85 60 10 Volume Left 12 0 6 Volume Right 0 6 4 cSH 1517 1700 850 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.04 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 Control Delay (s) 1.1 0.0 9.3 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.1 0.0 9.3 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 NB 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline ,or *-- t �► 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations 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 1250 610 610 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 185 498 979 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 0 0 610 650 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.38 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 B 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline --* or 4-- 1p� i 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 ♦ I Baseline ---* -1, --* I i 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 11� T., T Volume (vph) 48 210 242 138 142 34 264 253 110 79 364 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1882 1579 1769 1801 1786 1784 1804 1843 Flt Permitted 0.89 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.45 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1695 1579 620 1801 542 1784 847 1843 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 210 242 138 142 34 264 253 110 79 364 75 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 178 0 11 0 0 20 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 258 64 138 165 0 264 343 0 79 429 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 1 % 1 % 1 % 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.7 13.7 22.7 22.7 26.6 22.4 24.2 21.2 Effective Green, g (s) 13.7 13.7 22.7 22.7 26.6 22.4 24.2 21.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.34 0.34 0.40 0.34 0.37 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 351 327 265 618 297 605 354 591 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.09 c0.06 0.19 0.01 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.04 0.16 c0.30 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.19 0.52 0.27 0.89 0.57 0.22 0.73 Uniform Delay, d1 24.5 21.6 17.3 15.7 18.3 17,9 14.0 19.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.7 0.1 0.9 0.1 25.3 0.7 0.1 3.8 Delay (s) 31.2 21.7 18.2 15.8 43.5 18.6 14.1 23.6 Level of Service C C B B D B B C Approach Delay (s) 26.6 16.8 29.1 22.2 Approach LOS C B C C 14911MMummary 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 I Baseline ---* --,, � � I '-M f" * l i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +T+ +T r 4� Vi T Volume (veh/h) 23 7 3 31 10 20 5 567 42 39 589 33 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 23 7 3 31 10 20 5 567 42 39 589 33 Pedestrians 4 1 1 18 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 2 Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1318 1308 610 1274 1303 607 626 610 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1318 1308 610 1274 1303 607 626 610 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 80 95 99 77 93 96 99 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 117 153 496 133 153 488 952 973 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 33 61 614 39 622 Volume Left 23 31 5 39 0 Volume Right 3 20 42 0 33 cSH 133 205 952 973 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.25 0.30 0.01 0.04 0.37 Queue Length 95th (ft) 23 30 0 3 0 Control Delay (s) 40.9 32.3 0.1 8.9 0.0 Lane LOS E D A A Approach Delay (s) 40.9 32.3 0.1 0.5 Approach LOS E D Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2016 B I Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline ,A --,, *' *,, \* Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 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- t Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r T t Volume (veh/h) 8 16 627 15 29 662 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 16 627 15 29 662 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked 0.96 vC, conflicting volume 1354 634 642 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1348 634 642 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 95 97 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 156 482 952 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 8 16 642 29 662 Volume Left 8 0 0 29 0 Volume Right 0 16 15 0 0 cSH 156 482 1700 952 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.03 0.38 0.03 0.39 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 3 0 2 0 Control Delay (s) 29.3 12.7 0.0 8.9 0.0 Lane LOS D B A Approach Delay (s) 18.3 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 ---► -,* t II i Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 261 235 134 179 259 356 80 428 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.46 0.48 0.29 0.85 0.56 0.21 0.76 Control Delay 36.6 8.3 22.2 15.6 45.8 21.7 12.7 30.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.6 8.3 22.2 15.6 45.8 21.7 12.7 30.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 97 6 35 43 63 111 17 149 Queue Length 95th (ft) 194 62 84 100 #186 207 43 265 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 535 647 282 879 303 848 378 867 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 0.36 0.48 0.20 0.85 0.42 0.21 0.49 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. I 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 4 r T T 1� 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 At 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, dl 24.4 21.5 17.0 15.6 17.9 17.9 14.1 19.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.2 0.1 0.6 0.1 19.6 0.6 0.1 3.4 Delay (s) 31.6 21.6 17.5 15.6 37.5 18.5 14.2 23.3 Level of Service C C B B D B B C Approach Delay (s) 26.8 16.4 26.5 21.8 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summa 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 8l8/2010 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 r 4� ►j 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 I Nowland Farm Road & Vale Drive Baseline Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations +' T Y Volume (veh/h) 12 74 54 6 6 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 12 74 54 6 6 4 Pedestrians 13 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 73 168 70 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 73 168 70 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.4 p0 queue free % 99 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1517 789 960 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 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 Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 NB 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street I Baseline 1- 4-- I i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r I t Volume (veh/h) 0 0 610 0 0 650 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 610 0 0 650 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked 0.96 vC, conflicting volume 1260 610 610 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1251 610 610 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 185 498 979 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 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 --1' "'r A--- 4\ ♦ I I t Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 261 245 139 179 267 366 80 442 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.47 0.50 0.29 0.90 0.56 0.21 0.77 Control Delay 36.9 8.4 23.1 15.8 53.9 21.9 12.7 30.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.9 8.4 23.1 15.8 53.9 21.9 12.7 30.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 98 6 37 44 66 116 18 157 Queue Length 95th (ft) 194 63 86 100 #201 214 43 276 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1628 1765 1160 1060 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 125 100 80 Base Capacity (vph) 531 650 280 872 296 842 374 860 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 0.38 0.50 0.21 0.90 0.43 0.21 0.51 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 B 1: Swift Street & Spear Street Baseline --* -0, --t t 4\ T �- 1 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +T r T T % Volume (vph) 49 212 245 139 144 35 267 255 ill 80 367 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1882 1579 1769 1801 1786 1784 1804 1843 Flt Permitted 0.89 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.44 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1692 1579 613 1801 536 1784 839 1843 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 49 212 245 139 144 35 267 255 ill 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 Summa HCM Average Control Delay 25.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.3 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 B 2: Deer Field Drive & Spear Street Baseline Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +T+ 4 r +T+ 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 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 80 95 99 75 93 96 99 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 113 150 492 129 149 485 948 969 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SIB 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 +' 1r+ 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 SIB 1 Volume Total 93 64 17 Volume Left 19 0 10 Volume Right 0 10 7 cSH 1512 1700 837 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.04 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 2 Control Delay (s) 1.6 0.0 9.4 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 1.6 0.0 9.4 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8/8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 SPEAR MEADOWS PM 2021 B 4: Spear Meadows Road & Spear Street Baseline 'r- A" t � \,, l Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r T t Volume (veh/h) 8 16 627 15 29 662 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 16 627 15 29 662 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1240 pX, platoon unblocked 0.96 vC, conflicting volume 1354 634 642 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1348 634 642 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 95 97 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 156 482 952 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 8 16 642 29 662 Volume Left 8 0 0 29 0 Volume Right 0 16 15 0 0 cSH 156 482 1700 952 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.03 0.38 0.03 0.39 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 3 0 2 0 Control Delay (s) 29.3 12.7 0.0 8.9 0.0 Lane LOS D B A Approach Delay (s) 18.2 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 8l8/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 E ' E f I i40 T 4 w C PiA t� _ w- , .:1. V I .., .; RIDE 1 -T .r� IF 'is 1A LOT 5 - ► r_ r - ----- �. LOT 3 _ — fi LOT 2 y 1 -- r K / LOT 6 / I NEIGHBORHOOD : QQ� PARK aP t 2.7 ACRES. LOT 1 4 .. LOT 7 COMMUNITY • � ` `` `I `� w: 1 I GARDENS�� �. 6 ACRES F\ I I 1 i 40 I I I i T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC I — _ Applicant: Eric landscape architects .planning consultants leg n03 05 2Q10 SPEAR MEADOWS D PO Boxx 13 t335 it 1 - ---- Burlington, VT 05402 301 cdiege street . bu iington . vermont .05a01 802.658.3555 hnp ii—Ilboy a cam 1. = 60, Rendered Concept Plan O l .► 41� south PUBLIC WORKS MEMO TO: Cathyann LaRose From: Justin Rabidoux, Director Date: September 28, 2010 Re: Preliminary Plat #SD-10-20 and Master Plan #MP-10-01, Farrell Real Estate, 70 Unit PUD, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street —Spear Meadows Project Public Works staff reviewed plans for the referenced project ("SPEAR MEADOWS", dated 8/6/10, prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.) and has the following comments to offer. Water 1. An Application for Water Allocation must be completed and returned to the South Burlington Water Department as soon as possible. A CWD Wholesale tapping application must also be completed and returned in order to tap the 24" CWD transmission main. All tapping fees must be paid prior to scheduling any work. 2. Based upon the final water allocation request, water service fees shall be applied to the project based on the current Rate and Fee Schedule. It must be recognized by all developers that the Rate and Fee Schedule established by the South Burlington City Council may be modified by resolution at an open meeting of the City Council, and therefore subject to change prior to completion of the project. 3. All construction drawings and plans shall have a note saying "All water line and related 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, dated February, 2007, henceforth "CWD Specification." 4. All water installation work and water distribution material must comply with the CWD Specifications. Details for this project must be the same as those within the above referenced CWD Specifications. 5. All domestic services and fire sprinkler systems that are connected to the public water system shall be protected with a backflow prevention assembly and an appropriate thermal expansion system in compliance with the Ordinance for the Control of Cross Connections within the Water System of the City of South Burlington, henceforth the "Backflow Ordinance." Please contact this department for more information on backflow protection devices. 6. Page specific comments: a. Sheet C4.0 — The valve cluster at the waterline tee (Sta. 107+80 LT) should include valves on all legs of the tee, and should connect to the tee via Foster Adapters. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.658.7961 fax 802.658.7976 www.sburl.com Physical Address: 104 Landfill Road South Burlington Spear Meadows Project Public Works Review Comments September 29, 2010 b. Sheet C4.0 — The 90' bend shown in the waterline in front of Lot #6 shall be replaced with two (2) 450 bends. c. Sheet C4.2 — Please delete the two (2) valves that are shown on either side of the tapping sleeve on the 24" ductile iron line. d. Sheet C6.2 — Details show a check valve vault and an air release manhole. Previous plan reviews indicate that they are necessary. Please show these respective locations on the waterline plan and profile views. e. Sheet C7.2 — Please update all specifications regarding waterline work to reflect the February 2007 edition of the CWD Specifications. 7. CWD Specifications state 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 I during adverse weather conditions. 8. Looping of all water lines shall be a design requirement. As presently designed, the project loop is generated by connecting the CWD High Service via the 24" line tap on Swift Street, and connecting to the Reduced Pressure Zone via the 8" connection at Vale Drive. This interconnection of distinctly different pressure zones is not allowed. The best possible solution would be to change the Vale Drive connection to Meadowood Drive (via easement), thus creating a loop entirely within the High Service pressure zone. 9. Eight -inch and larger ductile iron (DI) water pipe shall have no less than three (3) brass wedges installed at each joint. Bury depth to the new main shall be six feet (6') to the top of the pipe. 10. All DI pipe and fittings shall be poly -wrapped and sealed with tape approved by the poly - wrap manufacturer. 11. Mechanical joint restraints with twist off nuts shall be EBAA or Sigma, or a Department approved equal. 12. Fire hydrants shall be placed at each intersection, with a maximum of 500' between hydrants. Fire hydrant assemblies shall consist of an anchor tee connected directly to a six-inch RW gate valve, the appropriate length of 6" DI pipe, the fire hydrant, and appropriate thrust block. All hydrants shall meet the CWD Specifications, and a hydrant flag shall be supplied with each hydrant. Hydrant shall have all drains plugged prior to installation. Fire hydrants may be Kennedy K81A, Mueller Centurion or Waterous Pacer. The same brand hydrant shall be used throughout the entire project. Note: Waterous fire hydrants must be installed with a "Boston Operating Nut." 13. All curb boxes shall be installed with a stainless steel rod. 14. 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 CWD Specifications. Generally, trees shall not be placed over any water main or service line, nor placed within 20' of any appurtenance, including fire hydrants. 15. Separation between the water main and service line and nearby sanitary and storm sewer lines shall comply with the VT WSR requirements and CWD Specifications. 16. The SBWD shall be sent any future hard copy plans involving this project for review. Future plans must include details and specifications as required in the CWD Specifications. 17. The SBWD shall be notified prior to backfilling to inspect all joints, fittings, main line taps, appurtenances, water line crossings, and testing. 18. A hard copy set of As-Builts as well as one electronic copy in AutoCAD.dwg Version 14 or newer shall be supplied to Public Works upon completion of the water system improvements. 19. The water service to the community gardens shall have a vault for a meter and shut off. Page 2 of 6 Spear Meadows Project Public Works Review Comments September 29, 2010 Highway 20. Sheet C4.1 — Existing sewer main in Vale Drive cul-de-sac — should the main be extended now for the existing building lot rather than having road completely dug up later for a new service and main extension? 21. Sheet C6.0 — Typical Sanitary Sewer Manhole, Note #1, why would inverts be constructed after? SMH's shall be purchased with shelves and inverts already in place. This practice is better for the long term maintenance of the structure. 22. Sheet C6.3 — Typical Concrete Sidewalk Detail, the sidewalk shall be 8" through driveways. Expansion Joints shall be every 10' not every 20' as called for in Note 1. 23. Sheet C6.3 — Typical Roadway Section, all underground utilities are shown except for natural gas. 24. Sheet C6.4 — Detectable Warning Details, Note 6 should read "See the City of South Burlington ..." 25. Sheet C6.4 — Crosswalk Detail, Intersection grade 3M tape is preferred over thermoplastic with the only allowable provision being thermoplastic is would be required to be set in routed groves and be flush with finished pavement surface. Please revise the detail accordingly. 26. There are multiple "roundabouts" shown in the bike path. Without knowing the function of these, we recommend removing them from the plan. 27. If the city is to plow Park Street, the parking spaces adjacent to the Neighborhood Park shall be paved. 28. All references to pavement thickness, be it the replacement of existing or new pavement sections, shall consist of at a minimum, 2 ''/z" Type II base and 1 ''/z" Type III wearing. 29. Are any stop signs proposed for the two new three way intersections at each Vale Drive intersection? What about crosswalks or other pavement markings? 30. The proposed left turn lane and associated taper on Spear Street shall be reviewed in further detail with the city. Stormwater 31. It appears that this project will disturb greater than 1 acre of land and create greater than 1 acre of impervious area. Therefore, this project will need both a construction stormwater permit (3-9020 or individual permit) and an operational stormwater permit (3-9015 or individual permit) from the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Stormwater Division. Obtaining these two permits shall be a condition of approval for this project. 32. Final hydrologic modeling information submitted to DEC should also be submitted to Public Works for review, comment, and inclusion in a Potash Brook watershed model maintained by the Stormwater Utility. 33. Sheet C 1.2 shows a phasing plan for development. Will this same phasing plan be part of the stormwater construction permit submitted to the DEC stormwater section in order to obtain a 3-9020 permit? The DRB may want to consider a condition requiring the applicant to stabilize the soil on the previous project phase prior to starting construction on the next phase of development. 34. The erosion control plan (sheets C5.0 through C5.2) should show the location(s) of the stabilized construction entrance. 35. Silt fence shall be installed down gradient of the detention basin to the south of Spear Meadow Road 36. The proposed project crosses a Class 2 wetland in two locations. This project will need a conditional use determination from the DEC Wetlands Division. Obtaining this permit shall be a condition of approval for this project. Page 3 of 6 Spear Meadows Project Public Works Review Comments September 29, 2010 37. Some of the proposed units back up to the class 2 wetland and associated buffer (e.g. units 7, 8, 32, 36, 38, 41, 43, 46 and 48). Use of this buffer area is regulated under section 12.02 of the City's Land Development Regulations (LDRs). The DRB should pay particular attention to section 12.02.E(1) through 12.02.E(3) of the LDRs and my want to include a condition that this buffer area not be turned into lawn. 38. The plans show stormwater detention basins inside easements in favor of the City. The applicant should be aware that the City has a process for taking over stormwater facilities in residential neighborhoods. This policy is outlined in a City Council resolution dated August 21, 2006. For new development, the City takes over eligible stormwater infrastructure (pipes, basins, etc) at the same time that it accepts roadways. 39. The City uses a minimum 15" pipe for stormwater drainage in public ROW or in easements proposed for future City ownership. 40. In order to minimize the total amount of runoff generated, the project designers are encouraged to implement Low Impact Development (LID) as described in the City's Low Impact Development Guidance Manual. This document can be found on-line at http://www.sburlstonnwater.com/downloads/manuals/SB Low Impact Development M anual.pdf or by contacting the city's stormwater superintendent. 41. The plans shall include appropriate maintenance access to the stormwater detention basins, to be reviewed and approved in the future. 42. At wetland crossings on the Spear Meadows site the applicant is proposing to use four (4) 15" HDPE culverts. The applicant should discuss how they arrived at this pipe size and configuration and discuss any other possible culvert size/types that were considered for these locations. 43. Directly downstream of the Spear Meadows development there are three (3) existing culverts. The first is a City -owned 18" HDPE pipe that crosses under Spear Street (the culvert location would be on page C4.2 at roughly station 2+50). The second is a 24" corrugated metal pipe owned by UVM on the Wheelock farm. The third is a 36" HDPE pipe under the bike path owned by the City on the Wheelock Farm. As per section 15.13(F)(3) of the LDRs, the applicant should provide hydrologic modeling to show that development of the Spear Meadows project will not increase flow and overwhelm the existing downstream culverts and the drainage swales between them. This analysis should be conducted using the 25 year, 24 hour storm event and submitted to the stormwater superintendent for review and approval. 44. Sheet C6.5 — Typical Storm Manhole, the minimum sump shall be 18". Landscaping 45. All cultivars of Ash are unacceptable species in South Burlington due to over planting. A substitute species shall be used. 46. I would recommend species other than Viburnum dentatum and Viburnum trilobum. Both of these are very susceptible to damage from Viburnum leaf beetle, which is becoming a problem in South Burlington. The following species are much less susceptible to attack: a. V. carlesii, Koreanspice Viburnum b. V. plicatum, Doublefile Viburnum c. V. plicatum var. tomentosum, Doublefile Viburnum d. V. rhytidophylum, Leatherleaf Viburnum e. V. sieboldii, Siebold Viburnum 47. Tsuga canadensis is listed in the planting schedule, and is incorrectly identified as Canadian Hawthorn; it should be Canadian Hemlock. Hemlock is not well adapted to the poorly drained clay soils on this site and a substitute species shall be proposed. Page 4 of 6 Spear Meadows Project Public Works Review Comments September 29, 2010 48. Golden Weeping Willow is a great choice for wetland buffers; however, there are several locations where this species is located in close proximity to sewer lines and storm sewer lines. Due to the invasiveness of willow root systems, this species should not be located within 50' of sewer or storm sewer lines. 49. The Freeman Maples located on the back of lots 16 and 17 are almost directly on top of the sewer line. These trees should be relocated a minimum of 10 feet from the sewer line. 50. There are several locations where trees are located directly over or within a couple of feet of where water services tap into the water main. Tree spacing should be altered to leave maximum clearance as described in the Water section above around these intersections. 51. We recommend reconsidering the use of Hackberry. Locally it does not do very well in clay soils. Some of the disease resistant elm cultivars would be a good substitution 52. Island in the recreation path shows 54 Thuja occidentalis `Nigra' planted in a 10 foot diameter island; this is a lot of plantings in such a small area. Who would maintain these in the future? 53. As a general note, all root wrapping material shall be removed at time of planting. 54. In the landscaping specifications, 3.02 Seeding- eliminate the clause, "when a soil test is not available, the following minimum amounts should be applied". All fertilization and/or lime applications should be based on a soil test. Sewer 55. Drawing sheet C6.1: Sewer Pump Station Pump Detail a. Pump Station and Valve Pit Plan i. Junction box shall be located outside of wetwell otherwise confined space entry is required for access and maintenance. ii. Slide rails shall be stainless steel. iii. Emergency connection needs to be cam and groove female. b. Pump Station Design Data i. Our calculations show the storage requirements shall be 15,552 gallons (EPFP). c. Control Panel Detail i. Control panel will be equipped with the city's SCADA system, not bell and light. Please contact the Sewer Division for more details. 56. If the city is to own the pump station there shall be adequate access for maintenance and service with utility and tanker trucks. Traffic 57. The traffic study submitted by RSG, Inc. dated August 2010 analyzing a 69 unit development was reviewed. Are the number and classification of units in the traffic study consistent with the plans submitted? Also, is Land Use Code #210 appropriate to use given the mixed use nature of the development? Is it consistent with the developer's plans for the ownership of the units? 58. Overall I concur with the study's findings and agree the project will not cause undue adverse traffic or safety conditions on the local roadway network. Of particular note the volume to capacity ratios and levels of service are within acceptable levels and meet state standards. 59. The northern sight distance for vehicles exiting the site and turning left onto Spear Street who look north for southbound Spear Street traffic, continues to be a concern. The study conditionally states it will be sufficient, but finds that more analysis is needed once the hedge row is removed. I agree that it should be re-evaluated in the future. Page 5 of 6 Spear Meadows Project Public Works Review Comments September 29, 2010 60. As mentioned above in the Highway comments, the city will meet with the designer and go over the details of the new Spear Street left turn lane, taper and associated pavement markings prior to its construction. All pavement markings shall be VTrans spec 646.07, Durable Pavement Markings. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and please let me know if you have questions. Page 6 of 6 TO: Cathy Larose, Planning& Zoning g FROM: RINAF ecreation Path Committee RE: Recommendations from meeting 11-01-10 DATE: November 2, 2010 4R4�v� The Recreation Path Committee discussed several items at its meeting last night and submits the following recommendations for City Staff and DRB review: Spear Meadows Project -as recorded in minutes 1. It was suggested that the developer's traffic study be compared to the recommendations or the Spear St. corridor study. 2. If the main road through the development is not completed initially when the building begins, then we assume the rec path would not be completed. We could end up with another "path to nowhere," as we have in South Village. MOTIONS: It was moved and passed that the Rec Path Committee recommend that in the Spear Meadows development the rec path be completed in its entirety before the certificate of occupancy is issued for the first unit. It was moved and passed that the Rec Path Committee recommend to the DRB that any traffic analysis related to this development take into account the Spear St. corridor study. VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL AND ELECTRONIC MAIL Mr. Paul Conner, AICP Director of Planning & Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Email: pconner@sburl.com March 1, 2011 Post -it"" Fax N to 7671 Date pages► To F From Co./Dept. Co. Phone # Phone # Fax # Fax # Re: Inadequacy of Notice of Spear Meadows Proceedings to Pinnacle at Spear Homeowners; City of South Burlington Development Review Board Master Plan Application #MP-10-01 & Preliminary Plat Application #SD-10-28 Dear Paul: According to the Property Owner notice list that is a part of the City Planning Office file in the Spear Meadows matter, notice has been sent throughout these proceedings to one Betsy Carter, "property manager." Betsy Carter is not and has not been associated with Pinnacle at Spear for many years and is not a Pinnacle at Spear owner. It is, of course, the Applicant's duty to provide a proper list of Property Owners to the City as part of its Application. The public notice requirements for all development review hearings before an appropriate municipal panel require providing written notification to "owners of all properties adjoining the property subject to development, without regard to any public right-of-way." 24 V.S.A. §§ 4464(a)(1)(C),(2)(B). This was not done in this case. The Spear Meadows project adjoins large parcels identified on its Plat as "Open Space Pinnacle@Spear." These parcels common land owned by all Pinnacle at Spear homeowners. Accordingly, it is my position that notice must be sent to all individual Pinnacle at Spear homeowners. The Vermont League of Cities and Towns explained in the June 2007 edition of the VLCT News that: ".._ in the case of a common ownership community, notice should be sent to all adjoining apartment, site, or unit owners as well as the association of owners." See http://resources.vlct.org/u/ATL 07-06%20gb2.pdf (last visited Feb. 28, 2011). Accordingly, I would request that the Applicant be instructed to provide a proper list of adjoining Property Owners to the City. I would also request that the March 15, 2011 Spear Meadows DRB hearing be canceled and then rescheduled after the City can provide proper notice. Thanks very much. Sincerely yours, e. Z, �, Cevin Donahue, President Pinnacle at Spear Homeowners Association cc: Mr. William A. Gilbert (via e-mail) Daniel A. Seff, Esq. (via e-mail) To the Honorable Development Review Board, and City of South Burlington Planning Office in care of Paul Connor, Director of Planning and Zoning February 13, 2011 Re: Spear Meadows Development Master Plan and Preliminary Plat Applications The last sketch Plan hearing on the Spear Meadows Plan was on July 6, 2010. That was followed by hearing dates for Master Plan and Preliminary Plat approvals on four separate occasions. Each was continued. Finally, these requests were formally withdrawn by the Applicant. Now a new Master Plan and Preliminary Plat request has been submitted. I understand that the current view of the DRB and of your office is to set the new Spear Meadows Applications for hearing on March 15, 2011. I request that I and other parties be permitted an additional two weeks to review and to prepare for this proceeding. The withdrawal of the prior Plans raises issues of notice and procedure which do require more time for study prior to having a hearing date set. I respectfully request that the hearing be scheduled for a later DRB meeting than March 15th. I have been prepared to attend every one of the meetings that were previously scheduled for DRB review in this matter on October 5th, November 9th, January 4th, and most recently on February 15th. As the owner of the largest single parcel abutting the proposed project I have attended every DRB proceeding in person through the last Sketch Plan hearing back in July. In addition to the need to be adequately prepared, I have a long planned trip with my kids and grandchildren that will have me out of town on March 15th, I respectfully request that the matter be continued at least to the March 29th or later DRB session. Thank you and the DRB for your consideration of this request. I am prepared to attend the February 15 DRB hearing to respond to any question regarding this request if that is thought desirable. Sincerely, William Gilbert 1400 Spear Street South Burlington, Vermont 802 862.4531 cell 802 734.1500 wagvermont@comcast.net 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, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street I hereby withdraw my Preliminary Plat Review and Master Plan Review applications, both dated August 11, 2010, in connection with the above referenced properties. RUG-9-2010 01:29P FRON:CITY OF SOUTH BURLIN 8023464101 TO:98613003 P.1 A-PIC R PLAN REVIEW Permit Number MP - Q- v All informati Ai n is pplicati ust be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested inforri` tion theppla on for " or on the plans will result in your application being deemed incompl e, d a laA in'scheduling for the Development Review Board. ONine cord (Name as own on deed, mailing address, phone and fax v- yy Farr<lld .T� n� FBmLI l — t3Soi 5 �j �S�,v ► 03 Loo`at3on of Last Recorded Deed (Book and page #) ��ar IYIp� dt�,JS. In C , V -7 �� P �ar5 N. Fa�ro,l.l V' (�")"1 P UMI) � ('-.�nT In ,i .T„o F,��. li �( ►u,�I PUS icant (Name, mailing address, phone, fax & e-mail) EJ rl',- I i vaL Fes" k)x I _&_;� P, d U.n a1'or\ VT n(-IO2 Stn-) • 94e1. 3CVU0 (;V0 •9\I 1 - eFa�r-d l( -far -c11 r-e a 6CA"date Vt-. advl Applicant's legal interest in the property (i.e. fee simple, option, etc.) �Ok7rhr �1 Contact Person (Name, mailing address, phone, fax and e-mail) Et- L F,1024C 61, PC) Roy, "1335 '& I l V-TUc�_H D2, t (oI. 3Don . RQ2_- 9 1t l ' 8002. DYIA �Iy CJ j Project Street Address: 1302 Tax Parcel ID # (Assessor's Office): J(QLJ0 — (0I :�;bZ ; 1��r 2�_ 1 I LLi(Z— [)l8Lt o f Project Description: (h I vi© 0I 3S0 Exi=roperty (please describe sizes of each separate use, if applicable) 1 rn `l t. D k oT d ('C. o 1 k) at- -1w --�An CL Proposed uses on property (please describe the size or number of units and nature of proposed uses) O U 3 un—r-oa) b� Maximum total number of residential units and/or square footage of uses to be developed, including an . . w2 r-ML AUa-9-2010 01: 30P FROM: CITY' OF ' ;OI_ITH BURLIN 8028464101 98613003 P.2 APPLICATION for MASTER PLAN REVIEW Maximum proposed building height (if applicable) f� 6� 1 pt,-�u -P-tcDe �.l 3S Proposed phasing (please describe the number of total phases and, if applica le at this time, the n�be of units or SF of uses to b��proposed in the first phase): Sena J& p awe a "Tin:e.L, _n„ /�Il ,,,,-a .r- �- -- -%—� ���AlfA.-�1�-ter MASTER PLAN UMBRELLA CRITERIA Total acreage of involved property(ies) 2 (p. L A�Ar2_S Total acreage of first phase for development (if known at this time) Total number of residential units and/or SF of all uses requested -TO U n I Existing impervious coverage, entire site (SF and %) L . I a o (3 O -1-1 S F Maximum proposed impervious coverage, entire site (SF and %) gSj . 2 0 d V, 2ej, DO 5 F v Maximum existing building coverage, entire site (SF and %) -1 ?j(o� S F Maximum proposed building coverage, entire site (SF and %) < l • B 133, 1 0 2. SF' Estimated number of existing PM peak hour vehicle trip ends ,S2L 1 (,k-ya -Tb& �(, I M Pi& S;v�y Maximum proposed number of PM peak house vehicle trip ends 6s- ci fkJi i,( -P-a I m Pa 6tt Existing or proposed encumbrances on property (easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc.) f, Proposed extension, relocation or modification of municipal facilities (sanitary, sewer, water supply, streets, stormwater, etc.) - please describe briefly _ S-> 47tfa&fy ,C Q lZi Owners of record of all contiguous properties, and mailing addresses (please attach list) &ee. a R-2 cl--ed t OT4. Estimated final project completion year 6Q/ 2(7 0 `b 01:30P FROM:CITY OF YTH BURLIN 8028464101 / 98613003 P. .3 Plans and Fee APPLICATION for MASTER PLAN REVIEW Please submit. plans showing the information listed in Section 15.07(C)(3) of the Land Development Regulations. Five full-sized and one reduced size copy (I 1x17) of the plans must be submitted . The application fee for Master Plan review is $500, plus $13 clerk's fees ($513). I hereby certify that all the information request as part of this Application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my k owledge. .� 4'r' �(GtsS C. by �' /V( f 4411 Signature of Applicant �gna of P pe�y Owner Please do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION *1J111d I have reviewed this application and find it to be: COMPLETE Q INCOMPLETE Di ctor of Planning & onin or designee D e rM 1 r� southburlington PLANNING & ZONING Permit Number SD - - ION FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT REVIEW Preliminary ❑ Final PUD Being Requested? ,KYes ❑ No All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. 1. OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) G' t--) rFA� I O �': �Z g1v5 S8L2 F'. none.. ©V 14Z P05'3 -6 2. LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) C;D- V (o-I -7 p Lty 2 3. APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax#) b rr �_(l 12ezk F,A;) r 4. CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) te a, as. *S a. Contact email address: d-F i sc-iP rrci t nea(e,S tc 4 c, 5. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: t?-,D2- i sLiD knd tstsa iree - 6. TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) P,3rU4 Ib * l ViO - o( 3 0 2 CdrO,j tb lV40 - 013L40 Pd rc e,( [Jj I to L40 - 012050 Subdivison Plat Application 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. General Project Description (describe what you are proposing): (pErnc')liSK cn.a (lJ b. ':Vrn'CJ 1 i)n-Le ' each separate use): -]t) on,-iS, c. Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): d. Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain): (o,ppp SE_ e_V.i&-KAC, e. Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basemenj and mezzanine): �{I4 — n�, �,' L4 i(� --}- f. Number of r sidential units (if applic blej new units and a 'sting units to remain): lTxi � r\ ft el� 1C i l,. — n i lLo j� Q� A l �o t � n , C-1 o) g. Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees): NIk h. Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): i. List any changes to the subdivision, such as property lines, number of units, lot mergers, etc. 'L& 014r�� 2 Subdivison Plat Application 9. LOT COVERAGE (ALL information MUST be provided here, even if no change is proposed) a. Size of Parcel: 2(p . i q dCr2s (acres /sq. ft.) b. Building Coverage: Existing -7 3 square feet % Proposed 133 02_ square feet 1 1 • % c. Overall Coverage (building, parking, outside storage, etc): Existing i 3 — square feet Proposed 285,003 square feet 2S• Z % d. Front Yard Coverage(s) (commercial projects only): mjp� Existing square feet % Proposed square feet % 9. WETLAND INFORMATION a. Are there any wetlands (Class I, II, or III) on the subject property? Yes ❑ No b. If yes, is the proposed development encroaching into any of these wetlands associated 50' buffers (describe) JJo . c. If yes, please submit the following with this application: 1. A site specific wetland delineation of the entire property or a written statement that the applicant is relying on the City's wetland map. 2. Response to the criteria outlined in Section 12.02(E) of the Land Development Regulations (applicant is strongly encouraged to have a wetland expert respond to these criteria) 10. AREA DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION: . oon SQ. FT. * *Projects disturbing more than one (1) acre of land must follow the City's specifications for erosion control in Article 16 of the Land Development Regulations. Projects disturbing more than one (1) acre require a permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. 4 Subdivison Plat Application 11. COST ESTIMATES a. Building (including interior renovations): $ j Z f\,k ; Il Dn b. Landscaping: $ 32-2 Please submit ite em zizi d list of landscaping proposed) hnrjSCjPi(�q scked J I G c. Other site improvements (ple se list with cost) A tt � rl r'a<Sfir'0 ch)re. ( r-va ,I S . I rK L 12. ESTIMATED TRAFFIC a. Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out): t-b ChetlL b. A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): &e. IfAC 6P<1 14- c. P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): ?.� 1 �,hPp(_ ��,� � l rn p&St--dj- 13. PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: N 14. PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: NJ A 15. ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: be am 201 B. 16. PLEASE LIST ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, INCLUDING THOSE ACROSS THE STREET. You may attach on a separate sheet. 4 E Subdivison Plat Application 17. PLANS AND FEE Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (11" x 17") of the plans must be submitted. A subdivision application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the application (see Exhibit A). I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. SPtit- ly lej ouJS, 1Ar—. SICK AY.,1RF Ckae-:y hl. Firrat SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWN Dq hot write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: U & L16 I have reviewed this preliminary plat application and find it to be: Ib Complete ❑ Incomplete J lk\ ❑ ri 1 ctor of PlaKning & Zoning or Designee �?irr �1. Fdrr6t( C-1a"-j M. Fdrrc41 PRINT NAME �Tarle Fdrrc(( to /�6 5 J Page 1 of 1 ray From: Eric Farrell [efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.coml Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:38 PM To: ray; Cathyann LaRose; Paul Conner Cc: Danielle Fisette Subject: RE: Spear Meadows Hi Ray, 9 rzfcojr I request a further continuance of our January 4, 2011 public hearing date before the Development Review Board for Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review and Master Plan Review. We are updating and coordinating the landscaping and engineering plans in response to preliminary comments provided by the Planning Staff and the Department of Public Works. Also, we are amending the plans to reflect the fact that we will separately process the proposed boundary adjustments with the Tarrants and the Fronzonis prior to resubmitting Spear Meadows for review. We hope to have revised plans ready for re -submission within a week or two and will inquire of you at that time about the DRB's schedule. At this point, please ask the DRB to reschedule us for one of its available meeting dates in beyond January 4th Many thanks, Eric Eric F. Farrell efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com farrellrealestatevt.com FARRELL REAL ESTATE Mailing: PO Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402-1335 Physical: 875 Roosevelt Highway, Suite 120, Colchester, VT 05446 P: 802-861-3000 x12 F: 802-861-3003 C: 802-343-7055 12/10/2010 SITE ENGINEER: I II I I I — — 43TRpAgNC II I , I , G4 VffMont 60 R. and IA" 1e45-ODDeD \\ I I J. KeMY Q Farrel 1-01a02 I I I I I I HwW I I I I I I I I CoOxlela Rdey r. c/o L Hadnll 19 MEADOWOODS DRIVE ' I I I I I ' I I I I IM. �o-wz,800lm I T' i1�Do-L Kl SPW Meadows kr- PARCEL 3 1w-1w N \ GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET) V I inch = 100 It- I / I / I •-y.(.µy��__ -'-- , — 20'..ReerosUonpl.EaeM1}.tnpOt_.�_.� Mm er��j�Y` ysr W. end W ClAwl - �w PARCEL 7 / f f64d-D14OO NEIG ORHOOD % i ARK a / i LOT - pq 4 alld J. Farrel 55 /T\ ^T / I I `\�/ �` J PlnnagP a< Spaar / ' \ / \ lea-0115D A / � \ — V MUNITY "I ACL . ,- DRIVE D. Land /' 142, Pepe¢ 4S47 1e40-0 1" �'j'"�-L,�.. ♦ � t � l z2.penma //// i i I I I k 3 / I •^ `� ///// II I RaWT. I I;/ I a1e4o o4roa IADencker Terrell I j I / 1sa mew Tea-014a I I /Y e40-01406 R and E Ill.,. &end T. CMranNtl� I I I I 1sa-mau /J I II 11 I / i I I I I 4Q* CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. 10 MANSFIELD VIEWIANE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 W2-8842323 FA%802-884-2271—wwui.Cea— DRANN � V ACL yti"era Afh, CHECKED A R = SAV 5�(yAE nzx5 f APPROVED %A Dr eTER' PROJECT: SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT LEGEND — — _33 --ESTING CONTOUR 'ONG PROPOUND — —SS— GRA`ATY SEVER LINE — —FMB FORCE MAIN — — W — WATER LINE — —OE— OVERHEAD ELECTRIC — UE — UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC -- — UT— UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE G — GAS LINE --- — ST — STORM DRAINAGE UNE OC 0 GRAVITY SEWER CLEANOUT ® m SEWER MANHOLE ® ® STORM MANHOLE xT HYDRANT ® ® SHUT-OFF ® ® CATCH BASIN w POWER POLE EDGE OF WOODS ® TRANSFORMER CABINET ��e�ryex4a4>.�a:uE/u� MASTER SITE PLAN DATE DRANING NUMBER AUG., 2010 SCALE 11.100, C1.0 PROI. NO. 02250 Page 1 of 1 Paul Conner From: wagvermont@gmail.com on behalf of william gilbert [wagvermont@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 12:53 PM To: Paul Conner Subject: Traffic Report Spear Meadows Paul I went over the Spear Meadows most recent filing yesterday and I am very surprised that Staff (unless I missed it) does NOT recommend an independent Traffic study. We had been told previously by the DRB in the Sketch process that the DRB would order an independent traffic study on a Spear Meadows. We will of course raise this issue when the matter is heard but I had thought the DRB with Staff support had already said there would be an independent study during the sketch process and that I should bring it to your attention directly. Thanks for your consideration. wag william gilbert 802 862.4531 cell 802 734.1500 wap-vermonta,comcast.net 10/19/2010 Page 1 of 1 Cathyann LaRose From: Eric Farrell [efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com] Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 3:51 PM To: ray; Cathyann LaRose; Paul Conner Cc: Danielle Fisette Subject: Spear Meadows Hi Ray, I request a continuance of our November 9th public hearing date before the Development Review Board for Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review and Master Plan Review. We are reviewing many housekeeping items in connection with the plans and need additional time to prepare for our hearing. Please ask the ORB to rechedule us for one of its available meeting dates in December. Many thanks, Eric Eric F. Farrell efarrellna farrellrealestatevt.com FARRELL REAL ESTATE Mailing: PO Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402-1335 Physical: 875 Roosevelt Highway, Suite 120, Colchester, VT 05446 P: 802-861-3000 x12 F: 802-861-3003 C: 802-343-7055 11/4/2010 The UNIVERSITY of VERMONT CAMPUS PLANNING SERVICES October 21, 2010 To: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer Planning & Zoning Department City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington VT 05403 RECEIVED OCT 2 s 2010 City of So. Burlington John Dinklage, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board Re: Master Plan Application # MP-10-01 & Preliminary Plat Application #SD-10-28 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street Dear Ray and John, This is in reference to the above project, scheduled to be reviewed by the South Burlington Development Review Board at a public hearing on November 9, 2010. The University of Vermont is an abutting property owner to this project. As you know, the 2004 Spear Street Corridor Study recommendations (attached) include: 1. Provide a uniform four foot bike lane/shoulder on each side of Spear Street, between Allen Road and Swift Street. 2. Provide a sidewalk or recreation/shared use path along Spear Street between Allen Road and Swift Street. We understand that the South Burlington Recreation Path Committee recommends that the developer comply with this study's recommendations as part of this project. The University also supports these recommendations. The new bicycle and pedestrian facilities would provide an important future connection between Spear Meadows and UVM's Wheelock East property should the University decide to develop that in the future. This will encourage a reduction in number of vehicles on Spear Street, as weii as enhance future bicycle/pedestrian connectivity, especially in light of the new bike lane/shoulders on Spear Street in Shelburne. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Linda eavey, Director, UVM Campus Planning Services Attachments: Executive Summary, Spear Street Corridor Study Letter to Mr. Eric Farrell from Linda Seavey, 11/5/2009 cc: Lani Ravin, Associate Planner, Campus Planning Services, UVM David Jacobowitz, Chair, South Burlington Recreation Path Committee Fuss & ®'Neill Inc. Spear Street Corridor Study SPEAIR STR1ii ET CORRIDOR STUDY South Burlington, VT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose The Spear Street Corridor Study is a transportation study of a four (4) mile corridor of Spear St. in South Burlington, extending from the Shelburne Town Line north to Main St. (Route 2). The study purpose was to identify existing and future deficiencies in this corridor, identify the probable transportation impacts of proposed development and candidate transportation system improvements, and recommend specific actions that the City of South Burlington and developers need to undertake in order to improve the function of the roadway. A key work task was to develop a preliminary improvement plan for the Spear St.- Swift St. intersection. The study was conducted under the direction of the City of South Burlington through the Department of Planning and Zoning, in conjunction with the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization. Work Tasks The project was conducted in two phases: 1. Identification of Issues and Opportunities Relative to existing (year 2003) and future (year 2008) traffic volumes 2. Preparation of a plan with recommendations for feasible solutions that address identified deficiencies. This final report includes a discussion of the following: ■ Project Goals and Objectives ■ Existing Corridor Land Use ■ Summary of Existing Conditions and Issues ■ Programmed Development In The Corridor ■ Future Traffic Conditions and Issues ■ Improvement Strategies Considered ■ Evaluation Of Improvement Strategies ■ Corridor Improvement Recommendations ■ Implementation Plan. Existing and Future Traffic Conditions And Issues The concerns and deficiencies identified along the Spear St. corridor were a result of an evaluation of physical roadway conditions and traffic operations conditions. An evaluation of base year (year 2003) morning (AM) peak hour traffic volumes and design hour traffic volumes (typical of the late afternoon peak hour) as well as a review of the accident history along the corridor revealed the following concerns: 1. Intersection Operation Problems F:\P2003\644\Al Morridor Plan Report.doc Fuss & O'Neill Inc. Spear Street Corridor Study ■ Poor levels of service during peak hours at the Allen Rd, Deerfield Dr. and Spear / Swift intersections; ■ Poor lane alignment, high accident location, old signal equipment, and narrow lane width at the Spear / Swift intersection; 2. Roadside Area Concerns ■ Lack of shoulder area and utility pole clearance at Spear / Swift intersection ■ Lack of protection against bridge abutment in I-189 overpass area; 3. Pedestrian and Bike Accommodation • Lack of shoulder area at Allen Rd. intersection • Bike lane disconnect southbound in area of Overlook Park • Lack of uniform roadway section (i.e. bike lanes) for bike travel in both northbound and southbound directions between Allen Rd. and Swift St. • Unsafe pedestrian crossing area and lack of bike accommodation at Spear / Swift St. intersection • Lack of bike and pedestrian accommodation along Spear St. north of Swift St. • Lack of pedestrian crosswalk in Quarry Hill Rd. area. Analysis of future (year 2008) traffic conditions revealed a worsening of the existing deficiencies as noted above. The expected increase in design hour traffic over the next five years due to normal traffic growth plus programmed corridor development traffic is in the order of 25% at the Spear St. / Swift St. intersection, and about 34% at the Allen Rd / Spear St. intersection. Figure 10 in the report shows the location of the major deficiencies based on the year 2008 design hour traffic. Corridor Improvement Recommendations After considering various improvement strategies (see Section 7. for the four categories of strategies considered) the recommended improvements were developed and are summarized below. See Figure 20 for the location plan, and Section 9. for more detailed descriptions. 1. Traffic Operations Improvements At Intersections 1.1 Spear St. At Allen Rd.: • Complete a traffic signal warrant study • Provide additional shoulder width on Spear St. 1.2 Spear St. at Deerfield Dr/Nowland Farm Rd. • Evaluate impacts of widening the Deerfield Dr. approach to two lanes • Conduct traffic signal warrant study in future 1.3 Spear St. At Swift St. F:\P2003\644\P,10\Corridor Plan Report.doc I Fuss & O'Neill Inc. Spear Street Corridor Study • Make immediate improvements that change the northbound lanes to an exclusive left turn lane, and a combined thru-right lane, move the crosswalk and northbound stop bar, and make other traffic signal equipment upgrades vj\r' • Within 2 years, based on actual traffic demands, reconstruct the intersection with fir new approach lanes on the northbound and eastbound approaches, provide new 011 signal span poles and signal heads, including the addition of pedestrian signals and relocated crosswalks. 1.4 Spear St. at Quarry Hill Rd. • Provide a crosswalk that makes a connection to the UVM bike/pedestrian path 2. Roadway Improvements At Non -Intersection Areas 2.1 Spear St. Between Allen Rd. and Swift St. • Provide a uniform width shoulder on each side, typically providing an eleven (11) foot travel lane with a 4 foot bike lane/shoulder in each direction; 2.2 Spear St. North of Swift • Provide travel lane of minimum eleven (11) feet with a minimum four (4) feet of paved shoulder area for bikes in each travel direction; 2.3 Spear St. At I-189 Overpass Area • Provide marked bike lane along shoulder area, provide guard rail protection at abutment areas on west side and at the brook culvert crossing, provide sidewalk or paved path (shared use) on east side of road, and conduct study of drainage ditches and drainage outlets in order to accommodate roadway shoulder improvements; 2.4 Spear St. North of Quarry Hill Rd • Provide a uniform pavement width of 28 feet (minimum), accommodating 2 travel lanes at eleven (11) feet wide and a paved shoulder of three (3) feet on each side; 3. Pedestrian Improvements ' 3.1 Sidewalk & Pedestrian Path Recommendations • Provide sidewalk or recreation path along Spear St. between Allen Rd. and Swift St.; construct sidewalk or shared use path along east side of Spear St. between the proposed Forest Glen project and USDA Research Center 3.2 Add Pedestrian Crosswalks • Gutterson Field House area (at least 2 crosswalks) • Quarry Hill Rd. Intersection • USDA Research Center Area • Swift St./ Spear St. Intersection • Pinnacle Dr. (or Cedar Glen) Area • Allen Rd. Intersection 4. Bike Accommodation Improvements 4.1 Overlook Park Frontage Area 4.2 Allen Rd. To Swift St. FAP2003\644W10\Corridor Plan Report.doc V Fuss & O'Neill Inc. Spear Street Corridor Provide 4 foot (or 5 foot where roadside curb is present) bike lanes on both sides of Spear St. 4.3 Swift St. To Quarry Hill Rd. • Provide uniform bike lane of 4 feet (minimum) on each side of Spear St. where possible; where shoulder width is less than 4 feet, designate as a bike route. 5. Access Management Actions The City of South Burlington has regulations and guidelines that encourage access management features in development plans submitted to the city. Specific requirements of subdivision plans and PUD projects should be maintained relative to design requirements of access to projects, such as consolidating curb cuts, alignment of access points with other curb cuts or intersections, turn lanes, and other requirements. 6. Transportation Demand Management Actions On -going and planned programs that reduce single -occupant vehicle trips in the Spear St. corridor need to be encouraged, such as CATMA programs . The City needs to support and implement policies and programs such as: • Public transportation subsidies • Flex time at area employers • Improving pedestrian and bicycle facilities and systems • Carpool / vanpool programs and incentives • Ridesharing programs • Educational outreach events 7. Public Transportation Service Improvements Improvements to roadways and intersections that encourage safe pedestrian movement and connection to existing bus transit routes (e.g. in the Shelburne Road corridor) need to be encouraged. The designation of transportation management coordinators at larger developments with the function of promoting and developing ridesharing, carpooling, and other transit related programs can help to reduce peak hour vehicle trip generation. 8. Traffic Calming/Traffic Control Recommendations 8.1 Radar Speed Display Signs 8.2 Speed Enforcement 8.3 Wide Roadway Edge Line Pavement Markings 9. Land Use Planning & Development Policies Continue to encourage policies in place with regard to site plan development and approval procedures for major developments along the Spear St. corridor, as found in the city's Land Development Regulations. These include reviews by the Development Review Board, and traffic impact study requirements. 10. Roadway Maintenance 10.1 Pavement Management 10.2 Winter Maintenance 10.3 Roadside Drainage FAP2003\644\A10\Corridor Plan Report.doc iv 1 The UNIVERSITY of VERMONT CAMPUS PLANNING SERVICES November 5, 2009 Mr. Eric Farrell, Owner, Broker Farrell Real Estate 875 Roosevelt Highway Colchester, VT 05446 Re: Spear Meadows, 1350 Spear Street, South Burlington, VT Dear Eric: Thank you for taking the time to discuss your proposed Spear Meadows project with Julie Barrett, Lani Ravin, Lisa Kingsbury and me on October 14, 2009. As I mentioned in our meeting, in order to protect its long-term interests, the University has a precedent of not providing perpetual easements to third parties. Accordingly, it is our understanding that you will extend water service to your project directly along Spear Street and not across University owned lands. Once you receive the necessary approvals to proceed, we will work directly with our colleagues at the City of South Burlington regarding the recreation path. As you know, in 2004 the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) hired Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. to complete the Spear Street Corridor Study which provided an analysis and recommendations regarding transportation along Spear Street. The University supports the City of South Burlington, Recreation Path Committee's, recommendations that you comply with the Study in conjunction with your project. The new bike lane would provide an important future connection between Spear Meadows and UVM's Wheelock East property should the University decide to develop here in the future. Lastly, I appreciate it if you would forward me your stormwater plans to review once they are available. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Linda Seavey Director, Campus Planning Services cc: -Julie Barrett, Real Estate Manager, Campus Planning Services Lani Ravin, Associate Planner, Campus Planning Services Lisa Kingsbury, Planning Relations Coordinator, Campus Planning Services 109 South Prospect Street, Burlington, VT 05405-0016 Telephone (802) 656-3208, Fax (802) 656-8895 Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer1 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/ a" Date: 9/28/2010 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 SB 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 adjacent to open land affiliated with the Pinnacle at Spear neighborhood to the south. These areas border a Class II wetland that runs through the center of the project site, creating a contiguous open space and wildlife corridor. It is the combination of these contiguous open space elements that present a significant natural area that will enhance the quality of life in the neighborhood. These elements will be preserved in perpetuity. Fencing and landscaping is proposed along the wetlands buffer for its protection. In addition to such barriers, an Open Space Management Plan will be promulgated and administered by the Spear Meadows Homeowners' Association. Agriculture We are studying the feasibility of incorporating the concepts of 'Permaculture' at Spear Meadows as an ecological design for sustainability of human endeavor into the landscape planting plan that will integrate local food production into the proposed development. Edible plantings have been incorporated around the proposed housing units, at the perimeter of wetland buffers, around storm water features and along side of pedestrian paths. A center to this approach will be anchored with a 1.82 acre Community Garden area. The landscape plans as presented include nearly 300 fruit and nut trees including, apples, pears, plums, cherries and hazelnuts and over 600 berry bushes including raspberries, black Berries, juneberries, bush cherries, gooseberries, black currants and red currants. Opportunity also exists to incorporate 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 undesignated that could accommodate expansion of any one or a combination of all three major components of the Community Gardens. A larger orchard is proposed near the storm water management pond along Spear Meadow Road. Other edible plantings are integrated throughout the community. A need to provide a buffer between proposed residential units and the recreational path along the eastern boundary of the project site was accomplished through a mix of fruiting trees and shrubs. As well, a combination of fruit and nut producing plantings line other pedestrian paths, designate the border of wetland buffers and surround storm water retention areas. Harvesting, pruning and other maintenance of the edible plantings will be managed through the Homeowners' Association and may include collaboration with a tenant farmer or maintenance company with added expertise to ensure continued perseverance and care of the plantings. The planting design will provide fresh quality local food for the residents of the Spear Meadows neighborhood and provide an opportunity for them to participate in and appreciate the "work" in growing food sustainably. Public Services and Facilities We have met with officials in the City to determine the validity of the design of Spear Meadows with respect to this section. Comments have been incorporated into the current design. 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 & Parking 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 Adioinina 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 Page 1 of 1 Cathyann LaRose From: Eric Farrell[efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com] Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 3:51 PM To: ray; Cathyann LaRose; Paul Conner Cc: Danielle Fisette Subject: Spear Meadows Hi Ray, I request a continuance of our November 9th public hearing date before the Development Review Board for Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review and Master Plan Review. We are reviewing many housekeeping items in connection with the plans and need additional time to prepare for our hearing. Please ask the DRB to rechedule us for one of its available meeting dates in December. Many thanks, Eric Eric F. Farrell efarrell(a,farrel lrealestatevt.com FARRELL REAL ESTATE Mailing: PO Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402-1335 Physical: 875 Roosevelt Highway, Suite 120, Colchester, VT 05446 P: 802-861-3000 x 12 F: 802-861-3003 C: 802-343-7055 11 /4/2010 71 eel 7��J `5 �I D�// �u Tip Ile al, X�4 —Minor Applications. Copies of the application and proposed permit are available for review at the Colchester Town Of- fice, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission located at 110 West Canal Street, Suite 202, Winooski, and the office listed below. The application and pro- posed permit may also be viewed on the Natural Resources Board's web site (www.nrb.state. vt.us/lup) by clicking on "Act 250 Database" and entering the case number above. No hearing will be held unless, on or.'before Friday, November 12, 2010, a party, notifies the District Commission of an issue or issues requir- ing the presentation of evidence at a hearing or the commission sets the matter for hearing on its own motion. Any hearing request shall be in writ- ing to the address below, shall state the criteria or subcriteria at issue, why a hearing is required and what additional evi- dence will be presented at the hearing. Any hear- ing request by an adjoin- ing property owner or other interested person must include a petition for party status. Prior to submitting request for a hearing, please contact the district coordina- tor at the telephone number listed below for more information. Prior to convening a hearing, the District Commis- sion must determine that substantive issues requiring a hearing have been raised. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law will not be prepared unless the Commission holds a public hearing. Should a hearing be held on this'project and you have a disability for which you are goingto need accommodation, please notify'us by Fri- day, November 12, 2010. Parties entitled to participate are the Mu- nicipality, the Municipal Planning Commission, the Regional Planning Commission, affected state agencies, and adjoining property own- ers and other persons to the extent they have a particularized interest that may be affected by the proposed project under the 10 criteria. Non-party participants may also be allowed under 10 V.Q.A. Section 6085(c)(5). Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont this 18th day of October, 2010. By /s/ Stephanie H. Monaghan 05452 / T/802-879-5662 E/ stephanie.mon- aghan@state.vt.us ACT 250 NOTICE MINOR APPLICATION 10 V.S.A., SECTIONS 6001-6092 On October 6, 2010, Clark & Suzanne Hinsdale III and Numondo America, L.P. filed application # 40240 for a project generally described as The construction of a 5 lot PRO. Lot #1 has an existing house and Lots #2-5 will contain a single family house per lot. All five lots will share a community sep- tic mound on Numondo America's adjoining land. The project is located on State Park Road in the Town of Charlotte, VT. The District 4 Environ- mental Commission will review this application under Act 250 Rule 51 — Minor Applications. Copies of the application and proposed permit are available for review at the Charlotte Town Of- fice, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission located at 110 West Canal Street, Suite 202, Winooski, and the office listed below. The application and pro- posed permit may also be viewed on the Natural Resources Board's web site (www.nrb.state. vt.us/lup) by clicking on "Act 250 Database" and entering the case number above. No hearing will be held unless, on or before Friday, October 29, 2010, a party notifies the District Commission of an issue or issues requir- ing the presentation of evidence at a hearing or the commission sets the matter for hearing on its own motion. Any hearing request shall be in writ- ing to the address below, shall state the criteria or subcriteria at issue, why a hearing is required and what additional evi- dence will be presented at the hearing. Any hear- ing request by an adjoin- ing property owner or other interested person must include a petition for party status. Prior to submitting a request for a hearing, please contact the district coordina- tor at the telephone number listed below for more information. Prior to convening a hearing, the District Commis- sion must determine that substantive issues requiring a hearing have been raised. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law will not be prepared unless the Commission holds a public hearing. need accommodation, please notify us by Fri- day, October 29, 2010. Parties entitled to participate are the Mu- nicipality, the Municipal Planning Commission, the Regional Planning Commission, affected state agencies, and adjoining property own- ers and other persons to the extent they have a particularized interest that may be affected by the proposed project under the 10 criteria. Non-party participants may also be allowed under 10 V.S.A. Section 6085(c)(5). Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont this 8th day of October, 2010. By/s/Stephanie H. Monaghan Stephanie H. Monaghan Natural Resources Board District #4 Coordinator 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 T/802-879-5662 E/ stephanie.mon- aghan@state.vt.us NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETINGS Town of Underhill Development Review Board (DRB) Site Visits & Hearings Monday, October 25, 2010 at 6:00 PM (site visit) Saturday, November 6, 201 Oat 9:00 AM (site visit) Monday, November 8, 2010 at 6:30 PM (hear- ings) Hearings to be Held at the Underhill Town Hall, Underhill Center, VT The DRB will conduct a public site visit as part of the Conditional Use application of Liz Gib- bons for the placement of fill on her property at 241 Pleasant Valley Road (PV241), in Underhill, VT. This property is located in the Rural Residential and Soil and Water Conservation zoning districts. The site visit at this property will begin at 6:00 PM on October 25, 2010. The hearing is scheduled to begin im- mediately following the second hearing (Perline) on November 8, 2010. The DRB will hold a final hearing on the Bound- ary Line Adjustment application for property owned by Johnathan Drew and Miriam Pendleton, located at27 Harvey Road (HA027), and property owned by the University of Vermont, located at 58 Harvey Road (HA058X), in Underhill, VT. These properties are located in the Scenic Preservation Drew/Pendleton lot at 27 Harvey Road (HA027). This hearing is sched- uled to begin at 6:30 PM on November 8, 2010. The ORB will also hold a final hearing on the Con- ditional Use application of Kevin and Kelly Per - line to offer instructional martial arts classes as a home occupation on property they own at 75 Irish Settlement Road (IS075), in Underhill, VT. This property is located in the Water Conserva- tion zoning district. A site visit at this property will begin at 9:00 AM on November 6, 2010. The hearing is scheduled to begin immediately following the first hear- ing (Drew/Pendleton and UVM) scheduled for 6:30 PM on November 8, 2010. A copy of this application and additional Informa- tion may be obtained at the Underhill Town Hall. The site visit and hearing are open to the public. Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §§ 4464(a) (1) (C) and 4471(a), participation in these local proceed- ings is a prerequisite to the right to take any subsequent appeal. If you cannot attend the hearing but would still like to exercise your right to be heard, comments may be made in writing prior to the hearing and mailed to: Zoning Administrator, P.O. Box 32 Underhill Center, VT 05490 or to underhill- zoning@comcast.net. NOTICE OF TAX SALE The resident and non- resident owners, lien - holders and mortgagees of Lands in the City of Burlington, in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, are hereby notified that the real estate taxes assessed by such City for fiscal/ tax year(s) 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 and the rental registration fees assessed by such City for rental registration year(s) 2010 remain either in whole or in part, unpaid and delin- quent on the following described lands and premises in the City of Burlington, to wit: Owner(s) of Record: Leo W. Bushey, Jr. and Lawrence J. Bushey Property Address: 256 North Winooski Ave., Burlington VT. Tax Account/Map Lot Number: # 044-3-151- 000. Deed recorded at: Vol. 680, Pg. 478, on May 18, 2001. Reference may be had to said deed for a more particular descrip- tion of said lands and )so much of the lands will be sold at public auc- tion Conference Room 12, City Hall,149 Church St., Burlington, Vermont 05401 on Novemberl6 at 10:00 o'clock in the forenoon, as shall be requisite to discharge said taxes together with costs and other fees al- lowed by law, unless the same be previously paid or otherwise resolved. Dated at the City of Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont this 14th day of October, 2010. Jonathan P. A. Leopold, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer Burlington, Vermont NOTICE OF TAX SALE The resident and non- resident owners, lien - holders and mortgagees of Lands in the City of Burlington, in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, are hereby notified that the real estate taxes assessed by such City for fiscal/ tax year(s) 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 and the rental registration fees assessed by such City for rental registration year(s) 2010 and the re - inspection fee assessed by such City for the reinsepction year 2009 remain either in whole or in part, unpaid and delinquent on the fol- lowing described lands and premises in the City of Burlington, to wit: Owner(s) of Record: Bushey Property Hold- ings, LLP Property Address: 260- 262 North Winooski Ave., Burlington VT. Tax Account/Map Lot Number: # 039-4-001- 000 Deed recorded at: Vol. 813, Pg. 231, on March 6, 2002. Reference may be had to said deed for a more particular descrip- tion of said lands and premises, as the same appears in the Land Records of the City of Burlington: and so much of the lands will be sold at public auc- tion Conference Room 12, City Hal 1,149 Church St., Burlington, Vermont 05401 on November 16 at 10:00 o'clock in the forenoon, as shall be requisite to discharge said taxes together with costs and other fees al- lowed by law, unless the same be previously paid or otherwise resolved. Dated at the City of Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont this 14th day of October. 2010. Jonathan P. A. Leopold, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer Burlington, Vermont PUBLICHEARING 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 November 9, 2010 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1. Master Plan applica- tion #MP-10-01 and pre- liminary plat application #SD-10-28 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two (2) single fam- ily 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-10-34 of Burlington Properties Limited Part- nership for a planned unit development to subdivide a 77.6 acre parcel developed with a light manufacturing facility into four (4) lots ranging in size from 4.93 acres to 38.55 acres, 85 Meadowland Drive. John Dinklage, Chairman South Burlington Devel- opment Review Board Copies of the applica- tions are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. October 18, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Burlington Compre- hensive Development Ordinance PROPOSED ZA-11-04- Mental Health Crisis Center and ZA-11-05- Tree List (Removal) Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4441 and §4444, notice is hereby given of a public hearing by the Burlington Planning Commission to hear comments on the follow- ing proposed amend- ments to the City of Bur- lington's Comprehensive Development Ordinance. The public hearing will take place on Tuesday, November 9, 2010 begin- ning at 7:00pm in the Conference Room #12, City Hall Ground Floor, Burlington VT. 1 PLANNING & ZONING October 18, 2010 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. Sincer , Flay and 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 November 9, 2010 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1. Master Plan application #MP-10-01 and preliminary plat application #SD-10-28 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel 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-10-34 of Burlington Properties Limited Partnership for a planned unit development to subdivide a 77.6 acre parcel developed with a light manufacturing facility into four (4) lots ranging in size from 4.93 acres to 38.55 acres, 85 Meadowland Drive. John Dinklage, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. October 18, 2010 l FARRELL SUBDIVISION List of Abutters August 9, 2010 Parcel Number Name & Address Subject Property: 1640-1340 Spear Meadows, Inc. c/o Brent Farrell Double Tree Hotel Burlington 1117 Williston Rd So. Burlington, VT 05403 Abutters: 1742-00033 R Larkin/Milot Partnership P.O. Box 4193 Burlington, VT 05401 1640-01350 R Gary N. & Jane G. Farrell 1350 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1645-00112 Brett P. Grabowski & Jennifer L. Milot 23 Dorey Rd So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01260 N UVM & State Agricultural College 85 So. Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05401 1640-01402 R Linda & David Young 1402 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01406 R Douglas J. & Christine Franzoni 1406 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1160-00214 R Michael J. & Mary D. Scollins 214 Meadowood Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01430 R Margareta D. Dencker 1430 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Farrell Subdivision List of Abutters - Page 2 0570-01225 R Ila M. Isham Estate 1225 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1160-00219 R Thomas R. & Louise T. Kleh 219 Meadow Wood Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01302 R Gary N. Farrell 1350 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Open Space Pinnacle at Spear Pinnacle @ Spear c/o Betsy Carter Real Estate Management, Inc. 81 Ethan Allen Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01400 R William A. & Maureen G. Gilbert 1400 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01408 R George A. Sporzynski & Diane I. Muhr 1408 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01317 R St. Clair Group, Inc. 15840 Lakeview Court Crosse Point, MI 48230 1640-01331 R Robert & Estaleen Lavigne 1331 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01393 R William & Tanya Cimmonetti 1393 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01404 R Rich & Tracy Tarrant 1404 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 a Farrell Subdivision List of Abutters - Page 3 1640-01300 R Kim McCoy -Whitten & Kevin Sellon 1300 Spear St. So. Burlington, VT 05403 1645-00089 R Robert A. & Marjorie N. Skiff 89 Springhouse Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01295 R Mark and Sheila Phillippe 1295 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2002\02250\Spear Meadows Adjoiners 8-09-10.doc FARRELL SUBDIVISION List of Abutters August 9, 2010 Parcel Number Name & Address Subject Property: 1640-1340 Spear Meadows, Inc. c/o Brent Farrell Double Tree Hotel Burlington 1117 Williston Rd So. Burlington, VT 05403 Abutters: 1742-00033 R Larkin/Milot Partnership P.O. Box 4193 Burlington, VT 05401 1640-01350 R Gary N. & Jane G. Farrell 1350 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1645-00112 Brett P. Grabowski & Jennifer L. Milot 23 Dorey Rd So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01260 N UVM & State Agricultural College 85 So. Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05401 1640-01402 R Linda & David Young 1402 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01406 R Douglas J. & Christine Franzoni 1406 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1160-00214 R Michael J. & Mary D. Scollins 214 Meadowood Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01430 R Margareta D. Dencker 1430 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 } Farrell Subdivision List of Abutters - Page 2 0570-01225 R Ila M. Isham Estate 1225 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1160-00219 R Thomas R. & Louise T. Kleh 219 Meadow Wood Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01302 R Gary N. Farrell 1350 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Open Space Pinnacle at Spear Pinnacle @ Spear c/o Betsy Carter Real Estate Management, Inc. 81 Ethan Allen Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01400 R William A. & Maureen G. Gilbert 1400 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01408 R George A. Sporzynski & Diane I. Muhr 1408 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01317 R St. Clair Group, Inc. 15840 Lakeview Court Crosse Point, MI 48230 1640-01331 R Robert & Estaleen Lavigne 1331 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01393 R William & Tanya Cimmonetti 1393 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01404 R Rich & Tracy Tarrant 1404 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Farrell Subdivision List of Abutters - Page 3 1640-01300 R Kim McCoy -Whitten & Kevin Sellon 1300 Spear St. So. Burlington, VT 05403 1645-00089 R Robert A. & Marjorie N. Skiff 89 Springhouse Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01295 R Mark and Sheila Phillippe 1295 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2002\02250\Spear Meadows Adjoiners 8-09-1O.doc 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 L- �,- Date: 8/11 /2010 Re: Spear Meadows, 1340 — 1350 Spear Street Attached please find the following materials in connection with the above referenced project: • Application for Master Plan Review • Application Fee - $513.00 • List of Abutters • Master Site Plan — C1.0 (11 x 17) I refer you to the complete set of plans submitted today with our Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review application. I request that the DRB review this application contemporaneously with our Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review. DRB Meeting Please schedule us before the DRB at its convenience and let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information. Attachments 1 r southburt PLANNING a ZONING October 1, 2010 Re: cancellation of October 5, 2010 Development Review Board meeting Please take notice that the public hearing, previously scheduled for October 5, 2010, with the agenda detailed below, has been cancelled. The agenda included the following items: Other business/announcements a. Discuss schedule for Nov. 2, 2010 meeting. b. Discuss date for reorganizational meeting. c. Consider request from Bullrock Corporation for one (1) year extension. Minutes of September 7, 2010 3. Site plan application #SP-10-64 of University Mall, LLC to amend a previously approved plan for a 705,000 sq. ft. shopping center. The amendment consists of installing two (2) shopping cart corals, 155 Dorset Street. 4. Master Plan application #MP-10-01 and preliminary plat application #SD-10-28 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel 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 items included above will be re -scheduled and the public will be notified pursuant to state statute and local ordinance. If you have any questions, please contact staff at 846-4106 or stop by during regular business hours. Sincerely, +Catan LaRose, AICP Associate Planner southburl ton PLANNING & ZONING October 1, 2010 Re: Cancellation of October 5, 2010 Development Review Board Meeting Dear Property Owner: You were recently notified via mail with a copy of a public hearing notice and with respect to an application for development that abuts property you own. This was sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing was to be held on October 5, 2010 regarding the proposed development. This subsequent letter is to notify you that this public hearing, previously scheduled for October 5, 2010, with the agenda detailed below, has been cancelled. The agenda included the following items: Other business/announcements a. Discuss schedule for Nov. 2, 2010 meeting. b. Discuss date for reorganizational meeting. c. Consider request from Bullrock Corporation for one (1) year extension. Minutes of September 7, 2010 3. Site plan application #SP-10-64 of University Mall, LLC to amend a previously approved plan for a 705,000 sq. ft. shopping center. The amendment consists of installing two (2) shopping cart corals, 155 Dorset Street. 4. Master Plan application #MP-10-01 and preliminary plat application #SD-10-28 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel 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 items included above will be re -scheduled and you will receive notification pursuant to state statute and local ordinance. If you have any questions, please contact staff at 846-4106 or stop by during regular business hours. Sincerely, "�� Cathya n LaRose, AICP Associate Planner Spear Meadows, Inc. — Brent Farrell Thomas R. & Louise T. Kleh Robert A. & Marjorie N. Skiff Double Tree Hotel Burlington 219 Meadowood Drive 89 Springhouse Rd. 1117 Williston Rd. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 So. Burlington, VT. 05403 So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Larkin/Milot Partnership P.O. Box 4193 Burlington, VT. 05401 Gary N. & Jane G. Farrell 1350 Spear St. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Brett P. Grabowski & Jennifer Milot 23 Dorey Rd. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 UVM & State Agricultural College 85 So. Prospect St. Burlington, VT. 05401 Linda & David Young 1402 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Douglas J. & Christine Franzoni 1406 Spear St. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Michael J. & Mary D. Scollins 214 Meadowood Drive So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Margareta D. Dencker 1430 Spear St. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Illa M. Isham Estate 1225 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Gary N. Farrell 1350 Spear St. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Pinnacle at Spear -Betsy Carter Real Estate Management, Inc. 81 Ethan Allen Drive So. Burlington, VT. 05403 William A. & Maureen Gilbert 1400 Spear St. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 George Sporzynski & Diane Muhr 1408 Spear St. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 St. Clair Group, Inc. 15840 Lakeview Court Crosse Point, MI 48230 Robert & Estaleen Lavigne 1331 Spear St. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 William & Tanya Cimmonetti 1393 Spear St. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Rich & Tracy Tarrant 1404 Spear St. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Kim McCoy -Whitten & Kevin Sellon 1300 Spear St. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Mark and Sheila Phillippe 1295 Spear St. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Eric Farrell PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT. 05402 Patricia Purdy 26 Brookwood Dr. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Tung T. Phan CoChiHue Thi & Suong Thao 24 Brookwood Dr. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Patricia Sheridan 22 Brookwood Dr. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Dean Draayer & Mao Yang 9 Adirondack St. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Joanne Lalime 18 Brookwood Dr. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Andrew Hill 16 Brookwood Dr. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Poon Yiu & Hap Mui Cheung 14 Brookwood Dr. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Luella Couture 12 Brookwood Dr. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Paul & Ann Joppe-Mercure 10 Brookwood Dr. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Michael & Irene Sauer RW Realty Associates 6 Brookwood Dr. 222 Dorset St. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Jacques P. & Sandra Marchessault Johanna McKenna 4 Brookwood Dr. 200 Dorset St. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Kenneth A. & Susan H. Dattilio Patrick Malone 2 Brookwood Drive 122 Gallison Hill Rd. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Jeffrey Baker Ruth Wood 321 Dorset Street 174 Dorset St. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 So. Burlington, VT. 05403 P&V LLC Dorset Square Associates c/o Alan Overton, Registered Agent c/o Neville Companies 3 Main St. 30 Kimball Ave. Essex Jct., VT. 05452 So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Maurice E. & Theresa M. Paquette AMI Burlington, Inc. 70 Fitzsimon's Rd. c/o David Ramsey Jericho, VT. 05465 108 Dorset St. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 Larkin, Tarrant, Hoehl Partnership 410 Shelburne Rd. Burlington, VT. 05401 Robert & Diane Smith 23 Concord Ave. Plattsburgh, NY 12901 State of Vermont Agency of Transportation Montpelier, VT. 05602 Barnes & Noble 1400 Old Country Rd. Westbury, NY 11590 Tekram Partners 2 Corporate Way So. Burlington, VT. 05403 University of Vermont State Agricultural College 85 So. Prospect St. Burlington, VT. 05401 John Shepard ABJ, VT Horizon Heights - Hickok & Boardman 8 Brookwood Dr. 6 Brownell Way Referral Services, Inc. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 So. Burlington, VT. 05403 346 Shelburne Rd. Burlington, VT. 05401 Cupola Golf Course, Inc. 270 Quarry Hill Rd. So. Burlington, VT. 05403 C i5.o8 Major Subdivision or PUD Approval Procedure A. Preliminary Plat Application. After classification of the proposed subdivision as a major subdivision and within six (6) months of the meeting on the sketch plan, the applicant shall file an application for the approval of a preliminary plat with the Administrative Officer. The preliminary plat application shall consist of one or more maps or drawings, with all dimensions shown in feet or decimals of a foot, drawn to a scale of not more than one hundred (ioo) feet to the inch, or not more than sixty (6o) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (ioo) feet of frontage, showing or accompanied by the following information: (1) Items (i) 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. 6615.05 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 (ioo) feet to the inch, or not more than sixty (6o) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (ioo) feet of frontage. (4) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. (5) Boundaries and area of: (a) All contiguous land belonging to owner of record, (b) The proposed subdivision, and (c) Existing zoning districts (boundaries only). (6) Existing and proposed layout of property lines; type and location of existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and covenants. (7) Type of, location, and size of existing and proposed streets, structures, utilities, and open space. (8) Existing water courses, wetlands, floodplains, wooded areas, ledge outcrops, and other natural features. (9) Location of existing septic systems and wells." (2) For applications including commercial or industrial uses or multifamily dwellings, or applications made as a PUD, all information required for site plan review in Section 14.05 (D) of these Regulations. See response to Section 14.05(D) attached hereto. (3) Plans and profiles showing existing and proposed elevations along center lines of all streets within the subdivision. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (4) Plans and profiles showing location of street pavements, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, manholes, catch basins and culverts. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (5) Plans showing the location, size and invert elevations of existing and proposed sanitary sewers, storm water drains, and fire hydrants and location and size of water, gas, electricity and any other utilities or structures. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (6) Details of proposed connection with the existing sanitary sewage disposal system or adequate provision for on -site disposal of septic wastes. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (7) Preliminary designs of any bridges or culverts which may be required. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (8) The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the Development Review Board to locate readily and appraise the basic layout in the field. Unless an existing street intersection is shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall be shown. Temporary markers will be placed in the field at the request of the Staff or DRB. Pleaserefer to both the plans and the Traffic Impact study submitted as part of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat application. (9) List of waivers the applicant desires from the requirements of these regulations. See attached list of Requested Waivers. (1o) 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. (11) 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. 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 % 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 '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 Z200 sf 4-bedroom, 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 Sheet A1.0 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-a It 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 (1,700 sf) (1,700 sf) 2-bedroom, 2 X bath + 2-bedroom, 2 X bath variations: * P TH-M TH-M 2-car attached garage + 2-car attached garage * Indicates specific Building Type variation illustrated on Sheet Al. Building Orientation and Glazing Through the use of creative design and theme/variation architecture, each and every residential unit in the development is oriented to the street, as depicted on Drawing L001. There is direct access from the sidewalk to each front door. Per the attached Memorandum and Schedules from studio b architecture, our current plan yields 26% "translucent windows and surfaces oriented to the south", and it is likely that it could approach 30%. 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 fagade 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 configurations. There are 7 basic duplex building models, townhouses, flat -over -flats and carriage units (flat over a garage), within which there are several floor plan alternatives. This results indifferent building styles ranging in size from 2,736 sf to 3,400 sf (both units). Within the different building styles, there are 9 variations of individual unit floor plans ranging in size from 1,005 sf to 2,200 sf. The average size of a duplex structure is consistent in scale and massing with the existing single family and duplex structures in the surrounding neighborhoods. 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 streetscope 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 Gory'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 $248,136, plus Park plantings of $17,038. • 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 streetscope 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 � e --- ---------- --r-- 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 t' ' -'r Date: 8/11 /2010 Re: Spear Meadows, 1340 — 1350 Spear Street Attached please find the following materials in connection with the above referenced project: • Application Subdivision Plat Review/Preliminary - Southeast Quadrant • Application Fee - $513.00 • List of Abutters • Full set of Plans — 5 Sets at 24 x 36 • Full set of Plans — 1 Set at 11 x 17 • Traffic Impact Study (3 copies) • Planting Schedule (street trees, project & park) • 14.05 Application, Review, and Approval Procedure - checklist • 15.07 Master Plan Review and Approval - checklist • 15.08 Major Subdivision or PUD Approval Procedure — checklist • List of Requested Waivers • Spear Meadows Building Type Summary • Spear Meadow Modeling (re storm water) Densi The plans depict a revised total of 70 dwelling units in 48 (was 50 at last Sketch) buildings, representing an overall density of 2.67 (was 2.75 at last Sketch) units per acre. 1 memorandum: to: Eric Farrell Farrell Real Estate cc: studio b file from: Susan Coddaire date: 9/28/2010 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 26% "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, passive solar design is a fundamental consideration in designing buildings with ecologically responsible goals in mind, which is our intent. We fully support the City's initiative in addressing the issue of south -facing glazing. While the 35% directive is 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 30% is a reasonable goal given that other measures can be taken to reach a level of performance equal to- or likely even beyond- 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) Minor revisions to Site Plan in order to orient certain elevations with larger glazing percentages so they face south. 3) 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. 4) Design for Passive Cooling: create opportunities for cross -ventilation, and stack -effect cooling. 22 church street #304 burlington, vt 05401 www.studlobvt.com reference: Building:* H-alt No. 2 Tvpe: H SOUTH ELEVATION: SIDE S- GLAZING: 102 TOTAL GLAZING: 411 % SOUTH: 24.8% r `erence h,,ilding: per Aug-6 Site Plan: No. Proposed Building:* SOUTH ELEVATION: % SOUTH: Site Plan Changes to Maximize Solar Orientation: 24.8% H-alt N N 3 N MOTOR 84 415 20.3% 20.3% B2 B2 4 B FRONT 73 241 30.3% 30.3% P P 5 P FRONT 131 529 24.8% 24.8% C1 C2 6 C FRONT 104 251 41.5% 41.5% JX-alt 1X 7 1X FRONT 142 426 33.3% 33.3% BX2 BX2 8 BX MOTOR 77 261 29.6% 29.6% C1 C2 9 C MOTOR 33 251 13.2% Bl C2 9 B2 MOTOR 29.0% replace with Building B2 N N 10 N MOTOR 84 415 20.3% 20.3% HX HX 11 HX SIDE 87 384 22.6% 22.6% C1 C2 12 C MOTOR 33 251 13.2% B2 C2 12 62 MOTOR 29.0% replace with Building B2 CX1 CX2 13 CX REAR 32 220 14.5% 14.5% A2d A2d 14 A SIDE 34 239 14.2% A2d A2d 14 A2d MOTOR 27.0% mirror plan and move to #16 location M M 15 M MOTOR 118 414 28.5% 28.5% B2 62d 16 B MOTOR 70 241 29.0% B2 62d 16 62d SIDE 30.2% mirror plan and move to #14 location HX HX 17 HX SIDE 87 384 22.6% 22.6% H-aft H 18 H MOTOR 153 411 37.4% 37.4% BX2 BX2 19 BX SIDE 73 261 28.0% 28.0% J-alt 1 20 1 MOTOR 139 413 33.7% 33.7% C1 C2d 21 C SIDE 82 251 32.7% 32.7% M M 22 M MOTOR 118 414 28.5% 28.5% B2 132d 23 B MOTOR 70 241 29.0% 29.0% JX-alt 1X 24 1X SIDE 149 426 34.9% 34.9% B2 B2 25 B MOTOR 70 241 29.0% 29.0% BX2 BX2r 26 BX REAR 28 261 10.9% j, BX2r 16 BX2r (less 7, add 26) 18.2% replace 2 windows with garage door, estimate _r Variation J-olt 1 27 1 SIDE 126 413 30.4% 30.4% C1 C1 28 C FRONT 104 251 41.5% 41.5% BX2 BX1 29 BX FRONT 82 261 31.5% 31.5% H-alt H 30 H SIDE 102 411 24.8% 24.8% CX1 CX1 31 CX MOTOR 37 220 16.8% CX1 31 t X j SIDE 43.8% mirror plan and move to #33 location P P 32 P MOTOR 66 529 12.5% 12.5% A2d Al 33 A SIDE 34 239 14.2% Al 33 1 i MOTOR 27.0% mirror plan and move to #31 location H-alt H-alt 34 H MOTOR 153 411 37.4% 37.4% HX HX-alt 35 HX SIDE 87 384 22.6% 22.6% CX1 CX2r 36 CX FRONT 55 220 24.9% 24.9% CX1 CX2 37 CX MOTOR 37 220 16.8% is CX2 37 [it MOTOR 29.0% replace with Building B2, not BX2 because HX next door N N 38 N MOTOR 84 415 20.3% 20.3% A2d A2d 39 A MOTOR 65 239 27.0% 27.0% B2 61 40 B SIDE 73 241 30.2% 13, 61 40 + MOTOR 29.0% mirror plan and move to #42 location N N 41 N SIDE 130 415 31.3% 31.3% CX1 CX2 42 CX MOTOR 37 220 16.8% t CX2 42 CX1 SIDE 43.8% replace w/Bldg CX1 ; mirror plan and move to #40location N N 43 N MOTOR 84 415 20.3% 20.3% C1 C2d 44 C MOTOR 33 251 13.2% r C2d 44 C2d SIDE 32 1% mirror building & garage CX1 CX2 45 CX SIDE 96 220 43.8% 43.8% N N 46 N SIDE 130 415 31.3% 31.3% HX HX-alt 47 HX MOTOR 151 384 39.4% 39.4% B2 132r 48 B REAR 25 241 10.5% 8YZ 132r 48 132r (less 7, add 26) 18.40/( replace 2 windows with garage door; estimate r Variation TOTAL WINDOWS ORIENTED SOUTH: 26.0% 3966 15267 25.6% TOTAL WINDOWS ORIENTED SOUTH: 29.0% with proposed changes outlined above * Building variations listed in bold type represent 'Basic Building Type' from which glazing values have been derived. I Building WINDOWTYPE>1 IAWN2523 IAWN2927 IAWN3735 IAWN3739T ITDH3464 ITDH3668C ITDH3672 ITDH3676 ITDH3876 IIFD3068 IIFD5468 IIFD3080 IIFD5480 FRONT DR. P1=28 P1-30 P1-36 P1-42 SKYLITE GAR-9 GAR-16 ELEVATION I GlazinaArea.- 2.3 3.5 6.5 7.25 10.7 12.25 13 14 15 13 22.7 15.5 27 4.7 3.3 4 6.25 9 15.6 26 A2d 239.2 FRONT 95.5 0 3.5 0 14.5 42.8 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 4.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SIDE 34.0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 REAR 45.0 0 3.5 0 0 0 24.5 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 MOTOR 64.7 0 0 6.5 0 21.4 36.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jai 241.4 FRONT 73.3 0 3.5 0 7.25 42.8 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 4.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MOTOR 70.0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 REAR 25.3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 SIDE 72.9 0 7 0 21.75 21.4 0 0 0 0 0 22.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BX2 au FRONT 82.2 0 3.5 0 14.5 64.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MOTOR 77.3 0 0 0 14.5 32.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 REAR 28.4 0 7 0 0 21.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0! 0 0 0 0 SIDE 73.2 0 7 0 43.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 22.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 250.8 FRONT 104.0 0 0 0 14.5 42.8 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 4.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MOTOR 33.1 0 17.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 15.6 0 REAR 31.8 0 10.5 0 7.25 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SIDE 81.9 0 0 0 0 21.4 0 0 0 45 0 0 15.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ." au FRONT 54.8 0 3.5 0 14.5 32.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MOTOR 37.1 0 17.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 15.6 0 REAR 31.9 0 10.5 0 0 21.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 SIDE 96.4 0 17.5 0 0 21.4 0 0 42 0 0 0 15.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h--& 410.8 FRONT 148.1 0 3.5 0 29 64.2 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 9.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MOTOR 153.5 0 7 0 7.25 74.9 0 0 0 0 0 22.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.6 26 REAR 7.5 0 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0, 0 0 0 0 SIDE 101.7 0 10.5 0 0 64.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HK DIU 3.5 0 0 FRONT 138.2 0 29 64.2 36.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MOTOR 151.2 0 0 7.25 74.9 0 0 0 0 0 22.7 0 0 4.7 0 0 0 0 0 15.6 26 REAR 7.5 0 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 SIDE 86.7 0 10.5 0 29 0 24.5 0 0 0 0 22.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L-Aft 412.8 FRONT 137.1 0 3.5 0 7.25 74.9 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 9.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MOTOR 139.1 0 17.5 0 14.5 42.8 0 0 0 0 0 22.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.6 26 REAR 11.0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 SIDE 125.6 0 10.5 0 0 85.6 0 0 14 0 0 0 15.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1X_alt 426.3 FRONT 141.8 0 7 0 14.5 32.1 36.75 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 9.4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 MOTOR 124.6 0 17.5 0 0 42.8 0 0 0 0 0 22.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.6 26 REAR 11.0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 SIDE 148.9 0 21 0 0 21.4 49 0 42 0 0 0 15.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 414.1 FRONT 135.5 0 28 0 0 42.8 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.4 0 0 6.25 0 0 0 0 MOTOR 117.8 0 0 0 0 53.5 0 0 0 0 0 22.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.6 26 REAR 43.0 0 14 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 MOTOR 117.8 0 0 0 0 53.5 0 0 0 0 0 22.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.6 26 N 9!U FRONT 111.2 0 17.5 0 14.5 42.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 9.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MOTOR 84.4 0 0 0 0 42.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.6 26 REAR 89.5 0 7 0 29 53.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SIDE 129.8 0 3.5 0 14.5 96.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 529.5 FRONT 131.5 0 21 0 0 42.8 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.4 0 0 6.2S 0 0 0 0 MOTOR 66.1 0 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 15.6 26 REAR 265.8 0 0 0 29 42.8 0 0 1 140 0 0 0 0 54 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SIDE 1 66.1 0 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 15.6 26 N 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. We request permission to construct the first 50 units, which would take us up to the intersection of (new) Vale Drive and Park Street, before being required to complete the connect to the existing Vale Drive cul-du-sac. 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 2 Spear Meadows - Spear Street, South Burlington - Planting Schedule Street Trees ON Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Edible Notes 21 AFAB ACER x freeman ii '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 6 CO CELTIS occidentalis Common Hackberry 2.5" Cal. B&B 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. I B&B 3 PAB PLATANUS x acerifolia'Bloodgood' Bloodgood London Planetree 2.5" Cal. B&B 25 PCA PYRUS calleryana'Aristocrat' Aristocrat Flowering Pear 2.5" Cal. B&B 12 PSA PRUNUS sargentti Sargent Cherry 2.5" Cal. B&B 8 QR QUERCUS rubra Red Oak 2.5" Cal. B&B 6 LAID lULMUS americana'Princeton' Princeton American Elm 2.5" Cal. B&B Trees T. J. Boyle and Associates 301 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 Unit $143.00 $143.00 $182.00 $175.00 $175.00 $180.00 $175.00 $220.00 $175, 00 $175.00 $198.00 Street Tree Total Qt . Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Notes 8 ACC1 ABIES concolor White Fir 7' Ht. B&B 29 ACC2 ABIES concolor White Fir 5' Ht. B&B 6 AN1 ABIES nordmanniana Nordman Fir 7' Ht. B&B 7 AN2 ABIES nordmanniana Nordman Fir 5' Ht. B&B 5 AFAB ACER x freemanii 'Autumn 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'Baumannii Double White Horsechestnut 2.5" Cal. B&B 43 AGAB AMALANCHIER grand folia'Autumn Brilliance' Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry 6' Ht. B&B x CLUMP 12 ARH AMALANCHIER'Robin Hill' Robin Hill Serviceberry 2" Cal. B&B x SINGLE -STEM 5 BN BETULA nigra River Birch 10' Ht. B&B CLUMP 4 CO CELTIS occidentalis Common Hackberry 2" Cal. B&B 8 CTH CHAMAECYPARIS thyoides'Hopkinton' Hopkinton White Cedar 5' B&B 20 CRA CORYLUS americana American Hazelnut 30.1 Ht. #5 Cont. x 7 CC CARPINUS caroliniana American Hombeam 2" Cal. B&B 4 CCI CRATAEGUS crusgalli inermis'Crusader Crusader Hawthorn 2" Cal. B&B 25 GTS GLEDITSIA tricanthos inermis'Skyline' Skyline Honeylocust 2" Cal. B&B 1 LD1 LARIX larcina American Larch 7' Ht. B&B 3 LD2 LARIX larcina American Larch 5' Ht. #10 Cont. 21 MCO MALLS 'Cortland' Cortland Apple 1 3/4" Cal. B&B x 16 MDW MALUS'Donald Wyman' Donald Wyman Crabapple 2" Cal. B&B 25 MFI MALUS'Fuji' Fuji Apple 1 3/4" Cal. B&B x 18 MMC MALUS'Mclntosh' McIntosh Apple 1 3/4" Cal. B&B x 12 MS MALUS sargentii Sargent Crab 2" Cal. B&B 12 MSD MALUS'Snowdrift' Snowdrift Crab 2" Cal, B&B 6 NS NYSSA sylvatica Black Gum 2" Cal. B&B 85 OM ORCHARD mix Fruiting Orchard Mix 3 Gal. Cont. x 2 PA1 PICEA abies Norway Spruce 7' Ht. B&B 5 PA2 1PICEA abies Norway Spruce 5' Ht. B&B 29 PG1 I PICEA glauca lWhite Spruce 7' Ht. B&B Unit $150.00 $108.00 $185.00 $135.00 $135.00 $107.00 $144.00 $204.00 $75.00 $140.00 $120.00 $162.00 $50.00 $25.00 $152.00 $133.00 $133.00 $90.00 $27.00 $115.00 $125.00 $115.00 $115.00 $107.00 $107.00 $165.00 $45.00 $135.00 $75.00 $120.00 Installed $7,507.50 $2,860.00 $2, 730.00 $3,937.50 $10,937.50 $2, 700.00 $1,312.50 $13,750.00 $5,250.00 $3, 500.00 $2,970.00 $57,455.00 $3, 000.00 $7,830.00 $2, 775.00 $2, 362.50 $1, 687.50 $2,675.00 $5,760.00 $3,060.00 $8,062.50 $4,200.00 $1, 500.00 $1,620.00 $1,000.00 $1,250.00 $2,660.00 $1,330.00 $8, 312.50 $225.00 $202.50 $6, 037.50 $5,000.00 $7,187.50 $5,175.00 $3,210.00 $3, 210.00 $2,475.00 $9, 562.50 $675.00 $937.50 $8, 700.00 60 PG2 PICEA glauca White Spruce 5' Ht. B&B 1 PAB PLATANUS x acerifolia'Bloodgood' Bloodgood London Planetree 2" Cal. B&B 8 PBG PRUNUS'Blackgold' Blackgold Cherry 1 1/4" Cal. #7 Cont. x 9 PEB PRUNUS'Evans Bali' Evans Bali Cherry 1 1/4" Cal. #7 Cont. x 10 PK PRUNUS'Knstin' Kristin Cherry 1 1/4" Cal. #7 Cont. x 10 PMR PRUNUS'Mount Royal' Mount Royal Plum 1 1/2" Cal. B&B x 3 PNS PRUNUS'North Star North Star Cherry 5 Gal. Cont. x 3 PVC PRUNUS virginiana'Canada Red' Canada Red Chokecherry 2" Cal. B&B 3 PWG PRUNUS'Whitegold' Whitegold Cherry 1 1/4" Cal. #7 Cont. x 1 PCA PYRUS calleryana'Aristocrat' Aristocrat Flowering Pear 2" Cal. B&B 9 PYB PYRUS x'Bartlett' 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 1PYRUS x'Seckel' Seckel Pear 1 1/4" Cal. #7 Cont. x 1 QB IQUERCLIS bicolor Swamp White Oak 2" Cal. B&B 11 OR IQUERCLIS rubra Red Oak 2" Cal. B&B 16 SAT ISALIX alba'Tristis' Golden Weeping Willow 1 3/4" Cal. B&B 6 TO ITAXODIUM distichum Bald Cypress 2" Cal. B&B Shrubs Qty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Sec Notes 21 AAR AMALANCHIER alnifolia'Regent' Regent Serviceberry #3 Cont. x 15 AAB ARONIA arbutifolia'Brilliantissima Red Chokeberry 5' Ht. B&B x 15 COC CEPHALANTHUS occidentalis Buttonbush 30" #3 Cont. 5 CA CLETHRA alnifolia Summersweet 30" #5 Cont. 34 CAH CLETHRA alnifolia 'H u mming bird' Hummingbird Summersweet 24" Ht. #5 Cont. 33 CM CORNUS mas Comelian Cherry 7' Ht. B&B x 1 3-5 Stem Clump 9 CR CORNUS racemosa Grey Dogwood 4' Ht. B&B 8 CSA CORNUS sericea'Allman's Compacta' Allman's Compact Dogwood 3-4' Ht. #5 Cont. 2 CSI CORNUS sericea'lsanti' Isanti Dogwood 3-4. Ht. #5 Cont. 35 FNH FORSYTHIA'New Hampshire Gold' New Hampshire Gold Forsythia 3' B&B 3 HV HAMAMELIS virginiana Witchhazel 5' B&B 51 IGS ILEX gla bra 'Shamrock' Shamrock Inkberry 18" Ht. B&B 2 IVJ ILEX verlicillata'Jim Dandy' Jim Dandy Winterberry 3' B&B 15 IVR ILEX verticillata'Red Sprite' Red Sprite Winterberry 18" Ht. #3 Cont. 25 JCHC JUNIPERUS chinensis'Hetzii Columnaris' Green Columnar Juniper 6' Ht. B&B 2 JCS JUNIPERUS chinensis sargentii'Viridis' Green Sargent Juniper 24" Ht. B&B 38 PBH PRUNUS besseyi'Hansen's' Hansen's Bush Cherry 3 Gal. Cont. x 3' O.C. 20 PCJ PRUNUS x. kerrasis'Carmine 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. x 9 RCA RHODODENDRON catawbiense'Alba' Alba Catawba Rhododendron 36" Ht. 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. B&B 49 RHR RIBES grossularia'Hinnomaki Red' Hinnomaki Red Gooseberry 3 Gal. Cont. x 5 RBS RIBES nigrum'Ben Sarek' Ben Sarek Black Currant 3 Gal. Cont. 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 Cont. x 30 SJLP 1SPIREAjaponica'Little Princess' Little Princess Spirea 18" Ht. #3 Cont. T. J. Boyle and Associates 301 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 $80.00 $12.000.00 $160.00 $400.00 $85.00 $1,700.00 $85.00 $1,912.50 $85.00 $2,125.00 $120.00 $3,000.00 $45.00 $337.50 $107.00 $802.50 $85.00 $637.50 $115.00 $287.50 $85.00 $1,912.50 $85.00 $1,912.50 $85.00 $2,125.00 $180.00 $450.00 $162.00 $4.455.00 $87.00 $3,480.00 $133.00 $1,995.00 Unit $15.00 $787.50 $45.00 $1,687.50 $22.00 $825.00 $22.00 $275.00 $23.50 $1,997.50 $85.00 $7,012.50 $20.00 $450.00 $37.50 $750.00 $25.00 $125.00 $15.00 $1,312.50 $42.00 $315.00 $22.00 $2,805.00 $31.00 $155.00 $17.00 $637.50 $72.00 $4,500.00 $20.00 $100.00 $45.00 $4,275.00 $65.00 $3,250.00 $65.00 $4,387.50 $45.00 $1,462.50 $58.00 $1,305.00 $38.00 $190.00 $58.00 $2,610.00 $30.00 $3,675.00 $30.00 $375.00 $30.00 $1,800.00 $12.00 $5,700.00 $15.00 $7,800.00 $13.50 $1,012.50 14 SB SYRINGA'Bloomerang' Bloomerang Lilac 15" Ht. #1 Cont. 20 Sv SYRINGA vulgaris Purple Lilac 6' Ht. B&B 90 TMD TAXUS x media'Densrformis' Dense Yew 24" Ht. B&B 45 THE TAXUS x media'EverlovJ Everlow Yew 24" Ht. B&B 8 TMH TAXUS x media'Hicksii' Hicks Yew 36" Ht. B&B 46 TOE THUJA occidentalis 'Emerald' Emerald Arborvitae 5' Ht. B&B 30" O.C. 164 TON THUJA occidentalis'Nigra' Dark Green Arborvitae 5' Ht. B&B Grasses Qty Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Sec Notes 79 CAF CALAMAGROSTIS x acutiflora'Karl Foerster Karl Foerster Reed Grass #2 Cont. Clump 7 DC DESCHAMPSIA caespitosa'Goldstaub' Golden Hair Grass #2 Cont. Clump 4 MSS MISCANTHUS s. 'Strictus' Porcupine Grass #5 Cont. Clump 38 SS SCHIZACHYRIUM scoparium'The Blues' The Blues Little Blue Stem #2 Cont. Clump Perennials Qty. I Code I Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Notes PM Perrenial mix JPerrennial Flowering Plants Mix #2 Cont. HM IHOSTA mix Hosta Mix #2 Cont. Park Planting Schedule Street Trees T. J. Boyle and Associates 301 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 $18.00 $630.00 $49.00 $2,450.00 $24.50 $5,512.50 $31.50 $3,543.75 $45.00 $900.00 $42.00 $4,830.00 $37.00 $15,170.00 Unit $7.00 $1,382.50 $7.00 $122.50 $13.75 $137.50 -� $7.00 $665.00 Unit $12.00 Landscape Credit Total Qty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Edible Notes 2 ACC1 ABIES concolor White Fir 7' Ht. B&B 4 ACC2 ABIES concolor White Fir 5' Ht. B&B 7 AR ACER rubrum 'Red Sunset' Red Sunset Maple 2" Cal. B&B 3 ARH AMALANCHIER'Robin Hill' Robin Hill Serviceberry 2" Cal. B&B x SINGLE -STEM 3 BN BETULA nigra'Heritage Heritage River Birch 10' Ht. B&B CLUMP 3 CO CELTIS occidentalis Common Hackberry 2" Cal. B&B 6 GTH GLEDITSIA tricanthos inermis'Halka' Halka Honeylocust 2" Cal. B&B 2 LD1 LARIX larcina American Larch 7' Ht. B&B 6 LD2 LARIX larcina American Larch 5' Ht. #10 Cont. 3 PG1 PICEA glauca White Spruce 7' Ht. B&B 5 PG2 PICEA glauca White Spruce 5' Ht. B&B 3 PSA PRUNUS sargentti Sargent Cherry 2" Cal. B&B 7 OR QUERCUS rubra Red Oak 2" Cal. B&B 3 SA SALIX alba'Tristis' Golden Weeping Willow 1 3/4" Cal. B&B Shrubs Qty. I Code I Scientific Name I Common Name Size Spec Notes 8 1 COC ICEPHALANTHUS occidentalis jButtonbush 30" #3 Cont. 5 1 CR ICORNUS racemosa IGrey Dogwood 4' Ht. B&B Unit $150.00 $108.00 $107.00 $140.00 $125.00 $162.00 $135.00 $90.00 $27.00 $135.00 $75.00 $150.00 $162.00 $87.00 Unit $22.00 $20.00 Park Planting Total $0.00 $0.00 $248,136.25 Installed $750.00 $1.080.00 $1,872.50 $1, 050.00 $937.50 $1, 215.00 $2,025.00 $450.00 $405.00 $1, 012.50 $937.50 $1,125.00 $2, 835.00 $652.50 $440.00 $250.00 $17,037.50 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. Si.o. (d) Streams, drainage ways, and associated stream buffer areas as set forth in Article 12. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing No. C2.0. (e) Reservations, easements and areas dedicated to public use, if known, shall be shown. Depicted on civil engineering plans. (f) Lot dimensions and survey data, and section and lot numbers of the subject property. Depicted on civil engineering Drawing Nos. S1.0, SIA, S1.2, Si.3, S1.4, S1.5, and Si.6. (2) General project description: (a) The title of the development, date, North arrow, scale, name and address of the owner of record and of the applicant, if other than the owner, and of the engineer, architect, landscape architect or surveyor preparing the plan shall be shown on a preliminary site plan map. Where the applicant or owner is a corporation, the Development Review Board may require the names and addresses of all officers, directors and principal stockholders of said corporation. The preferred scale shall be not less than one (1) inch equals thirty (30) feet. Shown in title blocks on all plans, summarized on Spear Meadows plan package cover sheet. (b) Such map shall show the applicant's entire property, adjacent properties, streets within two hundred (200) feet of the site, approximate location and dimensions of all existing structures, and location of all existing structures on adjacent properties and within one hundred (too) 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 Sl.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. Ci.o and Ci.i. (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: 26.23 acres; 1,142,592 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: May 2011 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 L20i and L202. (5) Other: Any other information or data that the Administrative Officer or Development Review Board shall require for a full assessment of the project pursuant to this article. Any additional information necessary will be provided at the instruction/request of the Administrative Officer or Development Review Board. 15.07 Master Plan Review and Approval A. Master Plans Established. For any application involving subdivision for which the applicant has sought Master Plan approval, or for which Master Plan approval is required, the applicant shall follow the procedures outlined in this Section. The applicant may elect to apply simultaneously for preliminary plat and/or preliminary site plan approval for a portion or portions of the affected property. B. Master Plan Optional or Required. As part of the PUD and/or subdivision review process, any applicant for land development involving ten (1o) or more contiguous acres may submit an application for Master Plan. Master plan review also shall be required as a step in the PUD or subdivision review process in the following cases: (1) Development of more than ten (1o) dwelling units in the Southeast Quadrant (2) Development involving more than ten (1o) acres in the Central District (3) Development of more than ten (1o) units in a five (5) year period in the R1- Lakeshore District. Under 15.07 B.(1) we are required to apply for Master Plan. C. Master Plan Review Process. (1) Master Plan. An applicant meeting the criteria in (B) above shall submit a sketch plan for review by the DRB. After identification of the proposed project as requiring a master plan, and within six (6) months after the final DRB meeting on the sketch plan (or a longer period if mutually agreed by the applicant and the DRB, but not exceeding two (2) years in total), the applicant shall file an application for approval of a master plan. The plan shall conform to the layout shown on the sketch plan, incorporating recommendations made by the Development Review Board. Applicant has completed five (5) Sketch Plan Reviews by the Development Review Board and the plans proposed herein reflect the specific recommendations made by the DRB. (2) Combined with Preliminary Site Plan or Preliminary Plat Review. The Master Plan application may, at the applicant's request, be combined with preliminary site plan or preliminary subdivision plat review for a discrete portion or all of the property proposed for development. Any areas of the lands proposed for development for which master plan review is secured but preliminary site plan or preliminary plat review is not shall require preliminary site plan or plat review at a subsequent time prior to receiving final approval. The DRB shall review the master plan and all areas proposed for preliminary plat simultaneously, and shall make separate findings of fact as to the master plan and the areas reviewed for preliminary plan or plat. The findings of fact pertaining to the master plan shall be binding on the DRB and the applicant for all subsequent preliminary site plan or preliminary plat applications made pursuant to the master plan approval. Applicant hereby requests a combined review of the Master Plan with the Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the entire parcel. (g) Master Plan Application. The master plan shall consist of one or more maps or drawings, with all dimensions shown in feet or decimals of a foot, drawn to a scale of not more than one hundred (ioo) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (ioo) feet of frontage, showing or accompanied by the information listed below. The applicant shall submit complete preliminary site plan or preliminary plat applications consistent with the master plan application for any area or phase for which approval is sought simultaneously with the master plan. (a) Accurate and updated Sketch Plan data Reflected on the plans submitted for the Preliminary Subdivision Plat review. (b) The name of the proposed Master Plan or an identifying title Spear Meadows (c) Name and address of the land surveyor and plat designer Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. TJ Boyle Associates, LLC (d) The names of all subdivisions immediately adjacent and the names of owners of record of adjacent acreage See list of abutters in Preliminary Subdivision Plat Application. (e) An overall plan for the property indicating the following: i. the locations and total combined area of the propert(y)(ies) proposed for subdivision and/or site plan phase, either in conjunction with the initial master plan application or in the future, specifying which area or areas are currently proposed for subdivision or development. ii. The location and total area of the propert(y)(ies) currently proposed for subdivision or development that are to be deeded as perpetually open spaces, and which areas proposed to be left open are subject to future evaluation within the parameters of the master plan. iii. the location, total area and nature of any public amenities or facilities other than buildings proposed either in conjunction with the initial master plan application or in the future, specifying which features are currently proposed for development. iv. The maximum impervious coverage proposed for the property or properties subject to the Master Plan. As to i. through iv., please see plans submitted for Preliminary Subdivision Plat review. V. The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and/or number of dwelling units proposed for the property or properties subject to the Master Plan. One (1) existing, plus sixty-nine (69) new, for a total of 70 units. vi. The maximum number of vehicle trip ends (VTEs) and associated parking proposed for the property or properties subject to the master plan. Please see Spear Meadows Traffic Impact Study prepared by RSG, Inc. dated August 2010 for vehicle trip ends and landscape Sheet No. Lool vii. The location and size of any existing sewers and water mains, culverts and drains on the property or serving the property. viii. The location, names and widths of existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts and parking areas and their relationship to existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts and parking areas on surrounding properties ix. Contour lines at intervals of five feet, based on USGS datum of existing grades and also of finished grades. Contour intervals closer than five feet may be required by the Development Review Board in order to properly evaluate specific aspects of the project, such as storm drainage, landscaping, etc. X. A complete survey of any tracts to be subdivided completed by a licensed land surveyor. As to vii. through x., please see plans submitted for Preliminary Subdivision Plat review. xi. The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the DRB to locate readily and appraise the basic layout in the field. Unless an existing street intersection is shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall be shown. C r Temporary markers will be placed in the field at the request of the Staff or DRB. Please refer to both the plans and the Traffic Impact Study submitted as part of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat. xii. A list of waivers the applicant desires from these regulations. See attached list of Requested Waivers. St. Clair Group COPY 15840 Lakeview Court 0 fill Grosse Pointe, NU 48230 313-823-6280 June 29, 2010 The Chair and Members of the South Burlington Design Review Board South Burlington Development Review Board C/O Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 0540 Dear Sirs: This is to express our concern with over the proposed 74 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, since 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 28. We love Vermont. My company purchased the house because my wife and I may want to purchase it and occupy it in the future when we are fully retired. In the meantime, it has been leased to Mr. Rick Hubbard since 2004. The proposed 74 unit development seems excessive in a neighborhood of single family homes on large lots. There is little doubt that a dense development including 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 were willing to go along 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. Seveny-four units would, in our view, be unmanageable. We respectfully request that you do not approve the most recent Spear Meadows proposal. Roger Feidholm President Email: rf@stclairgroup.net To the City of South Burlington Design Review Board July 6, 2oio From William and Maurene Gilbert 1400 Spear Street South Burlington, Vermont Regarding Sketch Plan Application SD-10-20 i. Setback Exceptions Requested by Applicant: The major issue for the July 6th meeting is the street setback waivers that developer Eric Farrell is seeking. The proposal does increase some setbacks but still does not meet the rules set out in the Zoning Bylaws for the SEQ-NR District. Along with dozens of other affected neighboring landowners, we have been assured that design requirements were present and that design requirements would adequately protect our neighborhood from a density that is substantially increased by the use of Transferable Development Rights (TDR). 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 requirements in the SEQ NR district are measured from the back of the sidewalk." Section 9.o8(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 established in Section 9.o8(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.o8(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 (251 from the back of sidewalk. (b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (81 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 9.07 (A) states that the text of 9.o8 has the "force of regulation." We therefore request that the DRB enforce the plain meaning of the LDR § 9.o8(C), Residential Design relating to setback requirements. Spear Meadows asks the DRB to allow reduced street setbacks from back of sidewalk 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 the 51 buildings to be squashed together much more closely to the roads than the LDR regulations 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. 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 criterion by which to allow such reductions. 2. Previously Submitted Material: I request that the DRB specifically rule that the material that I and others have previously submitted to the DRB in regard to the Farrell Spear Meadows Plan which was previously designated SD 09-42 will be considered as part of the record before the DRB in its hearing on Agenda re: SD 10-20 of Eric Farrell scheduled for July 6th DRB hearing. The new Application Memo of Mr. Farrell does make that assumption regarding his new Application by referring in several locations to his previous filing SD o9- 42. The Applicant actually refers to the current Application and materials as being ..."in connection with the continued Sketch Plan Review of the above referenced project." Surely if Mr. Farrell can assume that the new Agenda SD 10-20 can rely on his previously submitted material then all other parties to the SD 09-42 ought to be able to do likewise without the necessity of appearing and/or writing to reiterate the concerns and issues that they have previously made in regard to the proposed Spear Meadows Application. 2 3. MS-09-04 Vermont Land Trust: In a matter heard on July 7, 2009, MS-09-04 Vermont Land Trust (VLT ) the DRB made certain rulings related to the transfer of TDR's by Leduc Farms Inc. to third parties and then by those third parties (including the Applicant Vermont Land Trust) to others. These others include Spear Meadows Inc., which, at the time of the hearing and decision of that case had an Option to purchase those same TDR's from Leduc Farms Inc. Given the complete lack of notice, parties to this Spear Meadows proceeding cannot be bound by the DRB's rulings in MS-o9- 04. For a prior decision to bind parties to a subsequent administrative proceeding, those parties must have participated in the prior proceeding and must have had a "full and fair opportunity" to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding. We have had no such opportunity in either the MS-09-04 Vermont Land Trust matter and have been denied the right to do so in the Spear Meadows matters. Before and since that time the City and the VLT have, advised by the City Attorney, invested substantial sums, including $500,000 of the City Conservation Funds in the acquisition and conservation of the Leduc Farms inc. properties. In SD 09-42 Spear Meadows inc. the DRB has ruled that TDR's and increased density from TDR's cannot be challenged and are off the table. These rulings were later espoused by the Chair of the DRB and set forth in a Memo from which the Chair made these rulings in the January 5th DRB proceeding in this matter. I have previously objected to the off the record meeting with the City Attorney and members of the DRB in the Spear Meadows case relating to these same TDR's. (I was loudly cut off in making that objection by the Chair in one hearing.) The City Attorney has previously given guidance to the DRB and to the Vermont Land Trust on behalf of the City as a Party to MS-09-04 Vermont Land Trust. It is not clear if the Advice was to the City Counsel or to the City Manager or to a Department under the City Manager (each with differing legal duties under the Charter) as the City leaders made their laudable efforts to foster the conservation of the Leduc Farms inc parcels during the spring of 2009. (See Attached Memo) . The DRB is a quasi-judicial body. As the City is and continues to be an interested party in this proceeding, and supported the VLT LeDuc acquisition and was a Party in MS-09-04 Vermont Land Trust, it is inappropriate for the DRB to rely on the view of the City Attorney in formulating its decisions in this and related matters. Respectfully Su itted, \A� William A. Gilbert Kl Attachment City Attorney note to Paul Connor forwarded to William Gilbert on June 1, 2010 I understand that Bill Gilbert has requested copies of documents held by the City concerning "obligations" it may have to the Vermont Land Trust as a result of certain transactions involving the LeDuc farm property. To the best of my knowledge, there are no such documents. It is my recollection and understanding that this project evolved over time largely on a "hand shake" basis. I believe VLT had a purchase and sale agreement with the LeDuc family to acquire the property for an agreed upon price. I did not, however, see such an agreement. VLT approached several sources to obtain funding for the purchase, including the City of South Burlington. In March of 2009, the City Council, by motion, authorized a contribution of $500,000 to be used to preserve the LeDuc farm. I am unaware of any document executed by the City confirming this commitment. A further consideration for VLT in pursuing purchase of the LeDuc property was the possibility of recouping some of the price paid by the sale of TDRs under the City's TDR program. In April of 2009, I met with representatives of VLT to discuss this. It was decided that VLT would seek confirmation of certain matters regarding the TDRs associated with the LeDuc property from the South Burlington Development Review Board. This occurred and the DRB issued a decision on July 7, 2009 (copy attached). Shortly thereafter, I reviewed a proposed Grant of Development Rights from the LeDuc family to VLT, VHCB, VT Department of Agriculture and US Natural Resources Conservation Services. The City was not a party to this Grant. I reviewed it on behalf of the City to provide confirmation that it adequately protected the property from future development and contained provisions allowing continuation of a City recreation path across the property. In late August of 2009, I approved a final form of the Grant of Development Rights. Following that approval and the execution of the Grant, the City made the agreed upon $500,000 payment. To the best of my knowledge the only documents actually "executed" by City officials in connection with this transaction are: (I) the July 2009 DRB Decision, (2) a resolution supporting Common Roots and VLT in their efforts to protect the LeDuc farm approved by the Council in August of 2009, and (3) a check issued by the City in the amount of $500,000. Please feel free to share these comments with Mr. Gilbert. 4 E RECEIVED City of South Burlington NOV 0 4 2010 Development Review Board Master Plan Application #MP-10-01 City of So. Burlington Final Plat Application #SD-10-28 William and Maurene Gilbert are owners of affected neighboring parcels to the lands involved in the aforementioned applications hereinafter "Spear Meadows Development". For the consideration of the Development Review Board (the DRB) we have previously, during Sketch Plan Review, and do hereby raise several objections to the proposed Spear Meadows Development. We request that the DRB take notice of the record in the previous sketch plan review proceedings in this matter as well as the materials and memoranda we have previously submitted to that record. We specifically 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, all as required by the State law and City Land Development Regulations, `By-laws". • City Bylaws on TDR's do not comply with the State enabling Statute: 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 Bylaw does not comply with the many requisites of the State TDR law and the City Bylaw is of no force. Applicants request for TDR approval must therefore be denied. • Density is a core issue and must be reviewed by the DRB: The regulation merely creates a clear procedure by which 1.2 unit zoning may be increased by the DRB allowing TDR's. However, the DRB asserts that the TDR bylaw has already created a 4 unit per acre density zone governing the Applicant's parcel. The DRB has acted as if Applicant is entitled to a total of about 93 units of density on the Spear Meadows site. The Statement read by the DRB Chair at Sketch Plan Review is apparently based upon discussions with the City Attorney (an Attorney for a party to this proceeding). The City itself is also an owner of TDR rights. The position of the City and DRB is that all other bylaw requirements must yield or be waived so that the Applicant may achieve 4 units per acre. This is illegal and self serving of the City corporate interests as a TDR owner. The DRB Chair did consistently rule, without open DRB discussion or vote, that the DRB would not discuss the TDR or the density issue in relation to the Spear Meadows Application. He also ruled that the DRB would not take any public comment on the TDR density issue and cut off discussion of density/TDR. • Bylaw Section 5.18 (5) requires that visual impact of density be compatible: By ruling that Density is not an issue and may not be discussed the DRB has violated City Bylaws which require the DRB to make findings. The general review standards in Section 15.18 of the Land Development Regulations require specific findings of fact by the DRB on numerous very specific design criteria for which the Applicant has provided no information. For example, Section 5.18 (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 and the Applicant admits that fact. The DRB must make such a finding of visual compatibility which it cannot do on the record. • TDRs must be in place Ud2E to permitting: The DRB does not have the authority to grant a waiver or to defer decision on the TDR transfer requested by the Applicant. The transfer must be in place and must occur prior to permit approval. In addition, 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 authorized by the City Bylaws. The Applicant does not prove or even claim that development rights have been "secured" as required by Bylaw Section 9.13 C: (2) Lf the conditions of 9.13(C) (1) above are met, the Development Review Board may then approve the assignment (transfer) of all or a portion of the residential development density calculated for a non- contiguous encumbered parcel to another parcel to satisfy the provisions of Section 9.05 above. (Emphasis added) This is an independent clause imposing on the Applicant the duty to demonstrate to the DRB in 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 if needed during construction. This is not a plan. It 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 design proposed. It defies logic to refer a key legal finding to the Attorney for a party to this proceeding for final determination. The City Attorney is representing a party in this matter, to wit, The City of South Burlington. The DRB is a quasi-judicial body. As the City is a TDR owner and continues to be an interested party in this proceeding, and supported the VLT LeDuc acquisition and was a Party in MS-09- 04 Vermont Land Trust, it is inappropriate for the DRB to rely on the view of the City Attorney in formulating its decisions in this and related matters. To mandate that this proceeding by the City Attorney take place sometime in the future, in secret, and without any other party participation is wholly illegal. • Owners of TDRs to be transferred are necessary parties: The applicant must demonstrate that development rights have been secured. Parties to this proceeding are denied access to the actual (and still secret) option agreements that Applicant 2 claims to exist for the acquisition of the Development Rights that are integral to the requested TDR density approvals. This is an issue of required proof before the DRB not subsequent condition for the City Attorney review. • Appendix E cannot be ignored by the DRB as a "mistake": The last general standard for granting PUD approval, found in Subsection 15.18(A) (10), is that "the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan." The DRB can not find compliance with this standard. On Appendix E of the City Goal Based Plan, the Spear Meadow property is shown as "Neighborhood Density 2;" and part is shown as not being a developable area. The Neighborhood Density 2 designation appears in the Comprehensive Plan and must control. The Farrell project would contradict the planning goal indicated by this designation. The decision in JAM Golf case (In re Appeal of JAM Golf, LLC) and particularly the language regarding Appendix E in that case is conclusive on this point. The fact that the Comprehensive Plan calls for a maximum 2 unit / acre density in this district, as shown in the Appendix E map, is very important and can not be ignored.. Setback may not be reduced: Setback design 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 Jam Golf, 2008 VT 110,). Such waivers are only sough by Spear Meadows in order to accommodate vastly greater density through TDR transfers. Rather TDR transfers 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 bylaw § 9.08(C). Setback requirements are not included as dimensional requirements in Appendix C, Table C-2 and as such may not be waived. Glazing Requirements may not be waived by the DRB: The availability of relief from the building setback, orientation and glazing standards set forth in Section 9.08(C) of the LDR bylaws is governed by Section 15.01 and 15.02(A)(3) of the bylaws, and Sections 4414(8) and 4417(d) of the Vermont Planning and Zoning Act. Section 15.04(B) of the LDRs does not authorize waivers; it merely establishes the procedure for an applicant to request a waiver. Municipalities that do adopt dimensional waiver provisions in their bylaws may only reduce requirements in accordance with specific standards that are in conformance with the town plan. The City bylaw fails to establish such standards 24 V.S.A. § 4414(8). Vermont Planning and Zoning Act Section 4414(8): "A bylaw may allow a municipality to grant waivers to reduce dimensional requirements, in accordance with specific standards that shall be in conformance with the plan and the goals set in Section 4302 of this title." Bylaw Section 15.01: 3 "It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations ..." Glazing is not a dimensional requirement and may not be waived or granted exception. Therefore, the City Bylaw provides no standard by which to guide the DRB even if it were to consider such a waiver. Any grant of a glazing waiver would therefore be completely arbitrary and illegal. Such waivers are only sought by Spear Meadows in order to allow greater density through TDR transfers. Rather TDR transfers must be reduced to maintain the bylaw required glazing and orientation. TDR density cannot be allowed to cancel the clear standards set in the bylaws for glazing. • 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 Applicant parcel that are not and cannot be developed at all. Applicant then seeks to move these TDR's to the other part of his parcel to thereby increase density. TDR's cannot be "twice removed" in this fashion. Respectfully Submitted, November 4, 2010 William Gilbert Maurene Gilbert 4 l 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 minimum 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. 5 (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 municipality 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 map 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 (Adj. Sess.), § 95.) 0 214 Meadowood Drive S. Burlington, VT 05403 November 1, 2010 John Dinklage, Chair Development Review Board South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear John, I'm enclosing my recent correspondence with Eric Farrell and my note to Sandy Miller, in case they haven't already been forwarded to you. I'm not trying to "kick a dead horse". I realize that in your role as Chair of the DRB, you are legally severely constrained in what you can say and do. I know that you and I have similar values and points of view on many issues (we even like the same operas and chamber music, and both have very high regard for our City), so I am convinced that your deliberations and statements on the Board do not necessarily reflect your personal opinions; you are conveying the position that you feel the Board must take, and I respect that. The neighbors of the Farrell proposal are, as you know, in strong disagreement with the City's TDR regulations and their application, and remain angry that the right-of-way north of Vale Drive was never properly promulgated, even after we made a formal request for this about 5 years ago. Beyond these issues, there is clearly wide dissatisfaction with the conduct and actions of the DRB on this project, so much so that it clearly indicates, in my judgment, that something is very wrong with our development approval process. It is slowly becoming clear to me that the root problem is not the DRB (although it shares some responsibility), but rather the rules, generated by the Planning Commission, under which the DRB operates. I and most citizens bear some culpability, in that we rarely attend PC meetings or provide input; in any case we are now in a situation where our development projects are heavily influenced by the opinions of PC members such as Randall Kay and Marcel Beaudin, with whose development philosophy most of us disagree. Changing the character of a neighborhood to gain greater density, is not unlike changing a pension/retirement program after it has been agreed upon (an action our City has recently declared unacceptable). We plan now to become more active in encouraging the Planning Commission to revise some of its policies. We certainly understand that your Committee must operate under existing policies, but hope you will respect the level of citizen dissatisfaction, and NOT grant concessions or waivers without compelling reason. Further, if in our dialogue during prior and subsequent DRB meetings, issues are identified which your Board agree merit review by the City or its Planning Commission, we urge you to convey that message to them directly or through attending citizens, whichever seems most appropriate, if your "quasi judicial" status so permits. We all have the interests of the l City at heart, and it's neither logical nor productive for us to continue what has become a de facto adversarial relationship. I have on several occasions alluded to the fact that when the DRB was formed, it was intended to mediate interests of developers and those of concerned citizens. As it has evolved, the DRB clearly serves the former much more than the latter, and the Planning Staff do the same. Who, then, properly serves the concerns of the citizens? Do we need still another Board or City Representative? Or, more logically, can the role of the existing City Officers and/or of the DRB be redefined to better serve all concerned parties? I and many of my neighbors would be happy to sit down with any of the pertinent parties to discuss these issues. Topics that we think are worth addressing include whether neighbors should be granted right of first refusal (in this case neighbors raised the possibility of purchasing the land for continued farming by UVM, or for park use by the City), whether developers should be REQUIRED to seek input from neighbors before submitting plans, and whether the outcome of such discussions can be weighed in subsequent DRB deliberations, and whether energy production potential of the land should be considered. Two solar specialists have told us that this land is ideally situated for a solar farm: such an application would have been a much more responsible and progressive use of the land, and would have obviated concerns about density, security, traffic, and loss of Adirondack views from the recreation path. I have stated many times that I personally could most easily and cheaply deal with this project by erecting a tall fence. This solution, however, would exclude neighbors from my pond and paths, and ignore the development's impact on many adjoining neighborhoods, including visual intrusion, traffic, density and security concerns. It thus seems highly likely that a costly appeal will ensue, but we are willing to undertake this in the hopes that it will serve as an effective step in slowing the relentless and perverted development culture that is pervading our City. I earnestly hope that the outcome of all these efforts will be a more progressive and equitable development review process. The citizens crave this, and the City desperately needs it. Respectfully, Michael J. Scollins Cc: Randall Kay, Planning Commission Chair Mark Boucher, City Council Chair �' Sandy Miller, City Manager From the desk of Griffin Lalonde TO SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MY biKe glides smoothly and effortlessly across the clean, newly - paved road. I jump it onto the sidewalK. I hop off. Igo to the doors of my friends, LuKe and Ethan and some other people. We biKetscooter down to the field — oh, that beloved field — and we play. We would (notice use of past tense) play and play and play. First capture the flag, and when we got bored of capture the flag we would play KicK the can, and when we got bored of KicK the can we would play everybody tacKle Jacob, and when we got bored of that...... well, when we got bored of that we left, everybody (even including Jacob) would leave with big grins on our faces. Then our parents told us that the field... our Field ... was going to be developed. Nowadays, the games are only 15 minutes or less of a half hearted substitute for fun. I believe the field belongs to the people of Four Sisters, and should not be developed. MY dad also told me that my mom and MANY others had gone to a meeting that was debating the development of the field. I'll admit it puts me down to hear accomplished adults failed at our goal. But maybe... maybe... a small band of determined Kids just might be able to bring about a change that grown men (and women) could not. I Know you Might be thin(<ing, "There are people that want to live here. I can't just refuse them!" You're right, you can't refuse them. And I can't blame them. It really is a beautiful place. I have thought about this problem a lot and can only come up with one conclusion: TaIK to them. Tell them that if they proceed, they will be treading on about 30 adolescent lives. Tell them to thinK, just for a second, how we would Feel. Tell them that we love the field, and if you tooK it away, it would be IiKe murdering our brother. If all this dramatic stuff isn't getting to You, here's something new: I was walKing along the side of the field when I saw something... something... in the grass. As I walKed closer, it sprang up and tore through the grass. It went through a hole in the tree. My point is that there are lots of animals living there in the field, to. We (as in everybody on our street) biKe and scooter almost every day. We do it on the road. I Know what you are going to say. You are going to say that that is dangerous, and we shouldn't even do it in the first place, but we're always careful. We always wear a helmet. But if there is so much more traffic, we are sure to have an accident, even iF we go on the sidewalK. One more thing: Now we have a dog, and he IiKes to play there. So, you see, this development will hurt animals as much as it will hurt people. I thinK that pretty much sums that up, but one more thing: This is not just any random Kid writing to you. 'Please don't just toss this aside and say, "Cute." Because this is not just From some random Kid. This is From some random Kid who cares, really and truly. From, 190- y From: Michael &Mary Scollins <mscollins2@myfairpoint.neb < 0/0Subject: Fwd: Spear Meadows traffic study Date: October 14, 2010 8:58:00 PM EDT To: Sanford Miller Hi Sandy, Belated welcome to South Burlington! Sorry that your first weeks here have proved to be so auspicious. I've been a resident here for 34 years, and have been a business owner here for 36 years. I'm forwarding this recent correspondence with Eric Farrell as a way of making you aware of an unfortunate, now bitter, disagreement between citizens on Spear Street, Pinnacle (especially Vale Drive) and Meadowood Drive, and the Farrell brothers Eric (developer) and Gary (owner). and the City's DRB. I'm certainly not asking you to take sides, but you should be aware of the situation, as it has already drawn much public attention and will undoubtedly, before proceedings conclude, draw much more. The issues are encapsulated in this correspondence. Those that I would encourage you to be familiar with are the fact that the neighbors feel strongly that the TDR regulations are faulty, and are being improperly applied; that the right-of-way north of Vale Drive was never properly promulgated by the City; and the wide perception of the neighbors and many other townspeople, that the DRB has been arrogant and inflexible, and desperately needs new blood. I say this despite the fact that I consider John Dinklage a friend and a very decent and capable human being. Michael Sirotkin should be an excellent addition to the Board. If you can't readily access my correspondence with Chuck Hafter regarding the right-of-way issue from 2005 or so, let me know and I'll gladly furnish it. Chuck clearly didn't want to deal with the problem, and never did. I've previously sent you a copy of a letter I sent to the City Council on this same subject; I'm not trying to curry favor, but just call your attention to a smoldering problem that is causing much anger in the community. I am fortunate to have a nice 3-acre wooded lot, and have gradually improved it with a pond, stone walls and many paths, which we gladly share with our neighbors. I could most easily and inexpensively deal with this development by simply fencing it off, but this would block neighbors from my yard and prevent connectivity between the new rec path and Meadowood Drive. In principle I and my neighbors feel obliged to fight this proposal with all our might, because it is not in our best interest or that of the City. I hope that overall your transition into the job is going smoothly, and that you have many happy and rewarding years here! Michael Scollins ,/ 214 Meadowood Drive �G 1_1e. Begin forwarded message: From: Michael & Mary Scollins <mscollins2@myfairpoint.neb Date: October 11, 2010 7:00:00 PM EDT To: Eric Farrell<efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com> Subject: Re: Spear Meadows traffic study Hi Eric, We'll gladly get photocopies of the traffic report. No, I would not have declined to furnish you the report. That would only have been petty, and would have unnecessarily heightened the tensions between us. I'm truly sorry that we see things so differently. In the interest of civility, I would be inclined to just let your response dissipate in cyberspace, but feel obliged to comment. I can defend and document every statement in my prior note, and many of my neighbors, some of whom I've never conferred with, have drawn the same conclusions. If you disagreed with any of these points, you had ample opportunity to say so at the DRB meetings. Your acerbic reaction to my innocent request will only serve to further firm the neighbors' resolve to fund an appeal, which at this point seems nearly inevitable. I sincerely regret that this dialogue could not have been more amicable. Mike On Oct 8, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Eric Farrell wrote: Mike, it's not helpful, but for confirming my understanding of your position. Several ofyour statements are simply untrue and self-serving, as has been fhe case in all of your oral and written comments about this project and the.conduct of the DRB. For the record, the question was not rhetorical. I fully expect you would decline such a request, as any reasonable person would in; similar CZ) circumstances. I decline. Respectfully, Eric Eric F. Farrell efarrell@?farrellrealestatevt.com FARRELL REAL ESTATE Mailing: PO Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402-1335 Physical: 875 Roosevelt Highway, Suite 120, Colchester, VT 05446 P: 802-861-3000 x12 F: 802-861-3003 C: 802-343-7055 -----Original Message ----- From: Michael & Mary Scollins [mailto:mscollins2@myfairpoint net] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 10:35 AM To: Eric Farrell Subject: Re: Spear Meadows traffic study Hi Eric. I'm certainly not trying to challenge your civility. Ray simply advised that this was the way to try to get an electronic copy, and I thought it was a very reasonable request since the info needs to be disseminated to the abutters, and that it might be accomplished with a keystroke. If you can't or won't do it, or if the request is somehow out of line, just let me know and I'll get photocopies. Unfortunately, I don't see any possibility that the neighbors, all of whom seem to strongly oppose your proposal, will change their minds. As you know, most of us acquiesced, admittedly unenthusiastically, to the original 31 units, but density beyond that strikes us all as being totally inappropriate and unacceptable. We also deem the TDR rules that supposedly allow such density in that space to be ill conceived. We are all troubled about the fact that you are using 26 acres to justify the density, yet building most of the units on the easterly 10 acres, in a configuration that will be grossly incompatible with all the surroundings. The Pinnacle folks are livid as well about the establishment of a through street, a right-of-way that in our judgment was never adequately promulgated by the City, which will dramatically transform the character of Vail Drive. This opposition could have been stemmed by limiting the connection to a chained pass -through like the one between Ridgewood and Indian Creek, or between the Cider Mill and Dorset Heights. I know you and I both felt that option was acceptable, but the DRB wouldn't allow it. Perhaps that option can be revisited. If it's any consolation to you, the opposition is directed as much at the City and DRB, as at you. They are clearly given discretion in how much density to allow (as you have discretion in how much to pursue), but they seem to be siding with you at every turn. Gary told me that the City encouraged him to pursue this project; that only makes them complicit in this poorly thought-out proposal. Since you raised the question of civility, I'll dare to address it, assuming your question is genuine and not just rhetorical. As you know, Gary was presented with a great gift when the zoning was changed 16 or 18 years ago. Up until that time, the Farrell land was zoned at one unit per 10 acres. I and many neighbors chose to live where we are, based on that assurance. Gary was left with a big decision: when the time came to consider development, he could meet with the neighbors and try to plan a project that was optimally compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods (something I always assumed he would do), or he could ignore their concerns and go for maximal profit. Gary clearly and unfortunately chose the latter. Then, at our initial meeting regarding your development, at the Young's house 6 years ago, you began by saying, in effect, that if we didn't like the proposal, it was our problem, because it was within our City's regulations. You then professed ignorance of the existence of a recreational right-of-way on the East side of the property, despite the fact that it was clearly marked on the drawings that you distributed. This cost you some credibility with me and many attendees. When the neighbors subsequently wrote to Gary (the letter was written and signed by me) to raise the possibility of having us purchase the land then donate it to UVM or the City, to obviate the density and traffic concerns, we got no response, despite sending the letter 3 times to ensure that it was received. Given the resistance you encountered during the initial proposal from 6 to 4 years ago, it certainly should have been no surprise to you or Gary that your subsequent proposal, initially for an incredible 104 units, would have evoked such a furor. How could Gary, whose profession was the hospitality industry, have been so insensitive and inconsiderate of his neighbors? He either had a severe lapse in judgment, or got very bad advice from his developer. In the early stages of the proposal, I and the Klehs offered the path between our properties to adjoin the proposed recreation path on the easterly edge of your property, with Meadowood Drive, in the interest of ensuring neighborhood connectivity. When we realized your determination to maintain maximum possible density without regard for all the neighbors' objections, we withdrew the offer. I'm raising these points just to help you understand the roots and depth of the opposition, not to rake over past history. A lot of civility, unfortunately, has gone over the dam. To return to your question, to win the acceptance of the neighbors you would almost certainly have to reduce density back down close to that approved in the original proposal, and possibly improve design quality, which most of us find unattractive at best. Eliminating the right-of-way from Vail Drive (I'd certainly be on your side on that one) would help defuse opposition. I hope this is helpful. It's certainly meant to be. Mike On Oct 5, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Eric Farrell wrote Mike, You are challenging my civility. If you were in my shoes, having endured significant criticism and the threats of appeal, how would you respond to such a request? Do you think there is any possibility that you and your neighbors could get comfortable with our proposal, given our stated commitment to quality in design and construction? Eric Eric F. Farrell efarrel I @ farrel I realestatevt. co m FARRELL REAL ESTATE Mailing: PO Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402-1335 Physical: 875 Roosevelt Highway, Suite 120, Colchester, VT 05446 Q) P: 802-861-3000 x12 F: 802-861-3003 C: 802-343-7055 -----Original Message ----- From: Michael & Mary Scollins [mailto:mscollins2@mvfairooint netl Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 11:24 AM To: Eric Farrell Subject: Spear Meadows traffic study Hi Eric, Ray Belair suggested I check with you as to whether an electronic copy of the traffic study is available. It would be quite tedious to photocopy 88 pages, then distribute to all the interested neighbors. Sorry about the meeting postponement. I disavow any responsibility - it's the result of having 2 lawyers for neighbors. In fairness, they wanted to have a look at the study before the meeting. Thanks for your help, Eric. Mike r southburlinoon April 6, 2010 Charles E. Hafter, City Manager Mr. Luke Beatty Rick Marcotte Central School 10 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Luke: Thank you for your recent letter to the City Council regarding the possible development of the field at Swift Street and Spear Street. I will copy your letter for all the members of the City Council. I understand your concern about losing the field where you and your friends play and the loss of home for wildlife. It is healthy to have places to run and exercise and to enjoy the outdoors. It is also sad to lose an open space that you have been enjoying. First, you need to understand that the proposal to build housing is not that of the City Council. This land is owned by a private individual who wants to build houses. The City does not own the land, nor does the City have any rights to do what it likes with the land. This is not a City project, if the City owned the land it would not be developed, except for maybe a ballfield or a playground. The owner has a right to seek approval to use his property as he wants. Next, the decision whether to allow development of this land will not be made by the City Council. Instead, the City Council appoints another city committee, called the Development Review Board, to make this decision for them. I will also send a copy of your letter to the Development Review Board, called the DRB for short, so they can consider your comments. It is good that you have written the Vermont Land Trust. The City works with the VLT very often. Just last year we partnered with the VLT to . 0 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.41Q1 www.sburi.com preserve 88 acres of a farm in South Burlington. Unfortunately, the VLT has many requests for help, but not much money. It is a very interesting and complicated matter to consider where housing should be located in South Burlington. ,After all, we need houses for new families and new residents to live. How can we build these homes without using up all the open fields and playing spaces? You know that the area in which you live was open space not too long ago. When your neighborhood was built, some people raised the same concerns about your homes hurting the wildlife. The City decided that homes were needed and that the benefit of homes for people was great enough to outweigh the loss of open space. I think the answer is to have a balance between open space and houses. In order to decide on that balance, we need the voice of every resident of South Burlington to help make that decision. I am very pleased you wrote to the City Council to let your voice be heard. I hope you stay involved with this issue and others and that you continue to be part of your City government. Thanks again!! Sincerely, ao-b' Chuck Hafter City Manager f� Open 24/7/365. Post & browse ads at your convenience. do not hear the date . TALE r the terms ns of the ed Judg- Decree of and Order of ithe matter HOUSING -NCY V. >NOO, ET Superior nden Unit, , Docket No. c,foreclos- ge given rando to Federal dated April ecorded 5, Page :he South ind Records e) presently iff Vermont ice Agency se offore- ortgagefor conditions ge, the :h an E-911 9 Farrell 209, City's inium, ton, VT will be auction at Ictoberl5, :ation of o be Sold ame land lescribed ;e, and ed as ie lands onveyed ed of imunity to Ryan i Extra! Extra! There's no limit to ad length online. S. Forando dated April 8, 2005 and of record in Volume 705, Page 210 et seq of the Burlington Land Records. The Property may be subject to easements, rights -of -way of record and other interests of record Terms of Sale: The Property will be sold to the highest bidder, who will pay $10,000.00 at sale in cash, certified, treasurer's or cashier's check made payable to Kohn Rath Blackwood & Canon, LLP Client Trustee Account (or by wire transfer, if arrange- ments for wire transfer are made in advance, confirmation of wire transfer is available before commencement of sale and bidder pays additional fees required for wire transfer) and will pay the balance of the highest bid price within thirty (30) days of the issuance of an Order of Confirmation by the Vermont Superior Court. The successful bidder will be required to sign a Purchase Agreement and attached Vermont Lead Law Real Estate Transaction Disclosures. Copies of the Agree- ment and Disclosures are available by calling the telephone number below. If the successful bidder fails to complete the purchase of the Property as required by the Purchase Agree- ment, the $10,000.00 deposit will be forfeited to Plaintiff. The Property is sold "AS IS" and the successful bidder is required to purchase the Property whether or not the Property is in com- pliance with local, state or federal land use laws, regulations or permits. Title to the Property will be conveyed without warranties by Order of Confirmation. This sale is exempt from federal lead based hazards dis- closure. 24 CFR Section 35.82. The mortgagor is entitled to redeem the Property at any time prior to the sale by paying the full amount due under the Mortgage, including the costs and expenses of sale. Other terms to be an- nounced at the sale or inquire at Kohn Rath Blackwood & Danon, LLP 802-482-2905. Dated: August 9, 2010 David Rath, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD The South Burlington Development Review Board will hold a public hearing in the South Burlington City Hall CowtifererlCe Rbom; 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on October 5, 2010 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the fol- lowing: V) m z M PAGE C-5 FROM P.79 < P o T 4P 5 6P 2 01 RITIF'I F 1) .r 3 .. L" ,.1.I 1. Master Plan applica- tion #MP-10-01 and final plat application #SD-10-28 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two (2) single fam- ily 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. John Dinklage, Chairman South Burlington Devel- opment Review Board Copies of the application are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. September 15, 2010 STATE OF VERMONT DISTRICT OF CHITTEN- DEN PROBATECOURT DOCKET NO. 33328 IN RE THE ESTATE OF ALBERT F. MORASKA LATE OF CHARLOTTE, VERMONT NOTICE TO CREDITORS To the creditors of the estate of Albert F. Mo- raska late of Charlotte. I have been appointed as personal representa- tive of the above named estate. All creditors having claims against the estate must present their claims in writing within four months of the first publication of this notice. The claim must be presented to me at the address listed below with a coov filed Burlington, VT 05402 The Town of Williston, Vermont is soliciting Construction Inspec- tion Services for the VT Route 2A Shared Use Path, Contract 1. The project is being developed through the Local Transportation Facilities (LTF) section of the Vermont Agency of Transportation(VTrans). Final plans and Bid docu- ments for this ect— are are available fo wing at the office of the Public Works Department at 7900 Williston Road, Wil- liston Vermont 05495, and at Lamoureux & Dickinson,14 Morse Drive, Essex Junction, VT 05452. They can also be purchased for $100.00 at the Williston Public Works Department. Responses to this Re- quest for Qualifications shall be submitted to arrive at the Town Public Works offices no later than 2:00 p.m. on Tues- day, October 5, 2010. Responses received after the deadline will not be accepted. DON'T SEE A SUPPORT group here that meets your needs? Call Ver- mont 2-1-1, a program of United Way of Vermont. Within Vermont, dial 2-1- 1 or 866-652-4636 (toll free) or from outside of Vermont, 802-652-4636, 24/7. CAREGIVER SUPPORT GROUP This group offers support to those caring for loved ones with memory loss due to dementia. The group meets the second and fourth Thursday of the month from 6:30- 7:30 p.m. at The Con- verse Home, 272 Church work.org. MAN-TO-MAN CHAMPLAIN VALLEY PROSTATECANCER Support group meets 6-8 p.m., 2nd Tuesday of each month at the Hope Lodge at the UVM/FAHC campus.l-800-ACS- 2345. CENTRALVERMONT PROSTATE CANCER SUPPORTGROUP Wednesday, Sept.15, Central Vermont Medical Center, Conference Room #2, 6-7:45 p.m. Central Vermont Man To Man regular monthly meet- ings are open to the pub- lic, especially for recently diagnosed men with prostate cancer, those successfully treated, or men dealing with side effects from cancer treatment. Additionally, it is for men having prob- lems with recurrence. FOR MORE INFORMATION on program: Paul Irons, 461-6222. American Cancer Society toll free: 1-866-466-0626 (press 3 at greeting, ext. 6308). VEGGIE SUPPORT GROUP Want To Feel Supported On Your Veg- etarian/Vegan Journey? Want more info. on Healthy Veggy Diets? Want to share and so- cialize at Veggy Potlucks, and more, in the greater Burlington Area? This is your opportunity to join with other like-minded folks. veggy4life@gmail. com, 602-658-4991. CODEPENDENTS ANONYMOUS Meets on Sundays from 12-1 p.m.atthe Turning Point Center,191 Bank St., Burlington. This is a fellowship of men and women that meet and review the 12 steps of CODA, read stories from the CODA anonymous big book and share their experiences, strengths and hopes as we support each other. Open to everyone. Info: Larry, WLTRS@aol.com, 802-658-9994 or Jeff, TF GF ar RL Ce BL Th gr, trr an rai an for an th mr LG SL on gr+ rel da tic Vic gig su to inf an PIE da arE on for MI VI is( Sul WE rel da tic Vic wil at nit fac Spear Meadows Modeling Type 11 24-hr Q-10 Rainfall=3. 10 " Prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. Printed 8/10/2010 HydroCAD® 8.50 s/n 000787 ©2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Time span=0.00-300.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 15001 points x 3 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Subcatchment15S: proposed Runoff Area=9.760 ac 62.50% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.16" Tc=4.0 min CN=91 Runoff=38.56 cfs 1.761 of Subcatchment 16S: ex estimate Runoff Area=8.650 ac 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.20" Flow Length=300' Tc=16.8 min CN=78 Runoff=12.46 cfs 0.865 of Subcatchment20S: park area ex Runoff Area=136,955 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.20" Flow Length=315' Slope=0.0160 '/' Tc=12.1 min CN=78 Runoff=5.34 cfs 0.315 of Subcatchment21 S: park area proposed Runoff Area=136,755 sf 19.01 % Impervious Runoff Depth=1.53" Flow Length=320' Tc=9.9 min CN=83 Runoff=7.42 cfs 0.400 of Subcatchment22S: disc area and buffer Runoff Area=106,000 sf 18.87% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.46" Flow Length=50' Slope=0.0250 '/' Tc=6.1 min CN=82 Runoff=6.32 cfs 0.296 of Subcatchment23S: disc area and buffer ex Runoff Area=106,000 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.20" Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0250 '/' Tc=8.4 min CN=78 Runoff=4.75 cfs 0.243 of Subcatchment24S: west pond trib area Runoff Area=140,000 sf 42.86% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.91" Tc=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 '/' 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 T 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 18S / 23S / proposed a estimate 18 disc are and buffer ex di area and buffer zl� w wet pond prop 26R ^ 27R 29R ^ 28R wetland th%19 wetland ch net wetland cha el estimatwetland ch nel estimate estimate estimate New wet pon est 21 S 25S 20S park area proposed west pond Crib area ex park area ex 24S estimate west pond Crib area proposed Subcat Reach on Link > J west pmd.xls Page 1 of 2 Version: 9/06 For the area draining to*: Spear Meadows West Pond Located in drainage area for S/N: 1001 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. 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 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 Area draining to practice A= 3.22 Notes: 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) west pond.xls 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=1000/00 +(5*P)+(10*Qa) - (10*(Qa^2 + (1.25*Qa*P))^0.5)) where P = 0.9 inches CN = 93.5 3. If you are using hand hydrologic runoff calculations, use the computed CN above along with your calculated time of concentration and the drainage area (A) to calculate the peak discharge (Qwq) for the water quality storm using the TR-55 Graphical Peak Discharge Method. OR 3. If you are using a computer aided hydrologic model, simply revise the curve number for your subwatershed(s) draining to the practice using the curve number calculated above; the computed curve number should be applied to the total area (A) used in the WQv calcuation. As a check, you should note that now when you run the 0.9" storm, your runoff depth should be roughly equal to Qa (WQ runoff in inches) and your total runoff volume roughly equal to your WQv (in ac. ft.). If this is not the case, make sure that the time span for your modelling run is long enough to capture the entire storm. Small variations are likely due to having to round your computed CN to a whole number. Remember that for storms larger than 2", you do not need to use the modified curve number and you should calculate your composite curve number based on the accepted values for different types of land -use (see TR-55). * Enter the name of the STP (both type and label) which has been designed to treat this particular WQv (e.g. Wet Pond tt2) Copy ofsw wgv_with_calcs_low.xls Page 1 of 2 Version: 9/06 For the area draining to*: Spear Meadows Pond -Sizing Located in drainage area for S/N: 1001 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. 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 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 "4 (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= 10.65 Impervious area �.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 bOg WQ Volume (in watershed inches) Calculation � P * Rv) = p a47 Minimum WQ Volume 0 2 Enter the greater of line 6 or I i nc 7 WQv = 0.547 WQ Volume Calculation = (line 8 *A)/ 12 = WQv = U.485 WQ Volume Calculation = (line 9 * 43560) = WQv = � I I l6 Dotes: 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) Crgni n(sv.. ..gn_,vith_cnlcs_fta 1s Page 2 of 2 Version: 9/06 For the area draining to*: Spear Meadows Pond -Sizing 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 = 0.547 inches Enter the area (site +off -site draining to practice) used in calculating the percent impervious (1) A 1 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))^0.5)) where P = 0.9 inches CN = 3. If you are using hand hydrologic runoff calculations, use the computed CN above along with your calculated time of concentration and the drainage area (A) to calculate the peak discharge (Qwq) for the water quality storm using the TR-55 Graphical Peak Discharge Method. OR 3. If you are using a computer aided hydrologic model, simply revise the curve number for your subwatershed(s) draining to the practice using the curve number calculated above; the computed curve number should be applied to the total area (A) used in the WQv calcuation. As a check, you should note that now when you run the 0.9" storm, your runoff depth should be roughly equal to Qa (WQ runoff in inches) and your total runoff volume roughly equal to your WQv (in ac. ft.). If this is not the case, make sure that the time span for your modelling run is long enough to capture the entire storm. Small variations are likely due to having to round your computed CN to a whole number. Remember that for storms larger than 2", you do not need to use the modified curve number and you should calculate your composite curve number based on the accepted values for different types of land -use (see TR-55). * Enter the name of the STP (both type and label) which has been designed to treat this particular WQv (e.g. Wet Pond #2) LIST OF REQUESTED WAIVERS The Applicant hereby requests a waiver of the following Regulation(s): 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 r ► `}.5 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 intAminnting CtIAPtC nr recreation path connections. v The longest block (775') runs between the intersection of Spear Meadow DriveNale Drive and Park Street. The next longest block (750) runs from the intersection of Spear Street/Spear Meadow Drive and Vale Drive 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD � Report preparation date: September 28, 2010 drb\sub\farrell\SpearMeadows prelim.doc� Plans received: August 11, 2010 ��2, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street preliminary Plat Application #SD-10-28 Agenda #4 PLA, Meetingdate: November 9, 2010 Owner Applicant Spear Meadows, Inc Eric Farrell --- Gary N. Farrell PO Box 1335 Gary N. and Jane G. Farrell Burlington, VT 05402 1350 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer Property Information Civil Engineering Associates Inc. Tax Parcel 1640-01302 PO Box 485 Tax Parcel 1640-01340 Shelburne, VT 05482 Tax Parcel 1640-01350 SEQ Zonina District- Neinhhnrhnnd RP-,ir]Pntial 26.19 acres Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\farrell\spearmeadows prelim PROJECT DESCRIPTION Farrell Real Estate, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking preliminary plat approval for a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel 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 application was reviewed by the Development Review Board through a series of sketch plan meetings, beginning on October 6, 2009 and ending on July 6, 2010. COMMENTS Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on August 11, 2010 and have the following comments. DENSITY The base density of the parcel generated by the land at 1.2 units per acre, based on 26.19 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, are 104 units. The applicant is proposing 69 new units, with one existing dwelling to remain, for a total of 70 units within the PUD for a proposed density of 3.06 units/acre. Therefore, a total of 39 development rights shall be needed to complete the project as proposed. 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. 1. The applicant shall submit legal documents pertaining to the options to purchase Transferred Development Rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to Final Plat approval. 2. The applicant shall submit legal documents showing clear ownership of the remaining 39 development rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the 32nd unit. MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT Pursuant to Section 15.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (hereafter referred to as the SBLDRs), the Development Review Board shall require a master plan for any application of more than ten (10) dwelling units in the Southeast Quadrant. This application may, at the applicant's request, be combined with preliminary subdivision plat review. The DRB shall review the master plan and all areas proposed for preliminary plat simultaneously and shall make separate findings of fact as to the master plan and the areas reviewed for preliminary plat. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\farrell\spearmeadows prelim The subject parcels total 26.19 acres. Table 1. Dimensional Re uirements SEQ Zoning District Required Pro osed Min. Lot Size 12,000 SF* 3 acres** Max. Building -Coverage 15% 11.8% Max. Overall Coverage 30% 25.2% Min. Front Setback 20 ft.^ See below Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. 30 ft zoning compliance 12,000 sf is the minimum lot size for single family dwellings ** the smallest parcel proposed for development is 3 acres ^ the front yard setback requirement for the Southeast Quadrant Zoning district is 20 feet. The Residential Design criteria for the Neighborhood Residential sub -district states that "buildings should be set back twenty-five feet from the back of the sidewalk. The guidelines further state that "a close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment." The applicant is proposing between 15-20 foot setbacks for front units, with rear units located between 40 and 60 feet back. The Board discussed the location of units at length throughout the sketch plan review process and all members expressed favorability with respect to the proposed location of buildings and instructed the applicant to proceed without changes. The Board should discuss this item again and include its reasoning for any waivers in its decision. Gov" 3. The Board should discuss the location of the proposed buildings with respect to the front setback and detail any waivers or deviations from recommended placements that they wish to grant. SUBDIVISION CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations subdivisions shall comply with the following standards and conditions• A. General Standards. In all zoning districts of the City, the DRB shall make findings of fact on a PUD, subdivision and/or Master Plan in keeping with the standards for approval of subdivisions in Article 15 and/or site plans and conditional uses in Article 14. PUD, subdivision and Master Plan applications in the Central District shall meet the standards and criteria applicable in the appropriate sub -district and shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals for the City Center. For PUD, subdivision and/or Master Plan applications within the SEQ, 10 and R1-Lakeshore districts, the DRB shall also make positive findings with respect to the project's compliance with the specific criteria in this section. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\farrell\spearmeadows prelim The general standards applicable to all PUDs, subdivisions and Master Plans are: (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. The City of South Burlington Water Department has reviewed the plans and provided comments in a memo from the Department of Public Works, dated September 28, 2010 (from Justin Rabidoux, attached). The applicant shall adhere to these comments, shall revise the plans where necessary, and shall obtain preliminary and final wastewater allocations per the recommendations included herein. 4. The applicant shall address and/or adhere to the comments of the South Burlington Water Department per the memo from the Department of Public Works dated September 28, 2010 and any additional comments. The plans shall be revised accordingly. 5. The applicant shall receive preliminary wastewater allocation prior to final plat approval. 6. The applicant shall receive final wastewater allocation prior to issuance of any zoning permits. (2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. The City of South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent has reviewed the plans and provided comments in a memo from the Department of Public Works, dated September 28, 20010 (from Justin Rabidoux, attached). The applicant shall adhere to these comments, shall revise the plans where necessary, and shall obtain preliminary and final wastewater allocations per the recommendations included herein. 7. The applicant shall address and/or adhere to the comments of the South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent per the memo from the Department of Public Works dated September 28, 2010 and any additional comments. The plans shall be revised accordingly. (3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. Access is proposed via a public street connection to Spear Street as well as to the existing public road of Vale Drive. The applicant is proposing a short, private dead-end street connection to the parcel to the north, labeled as UVM and State Agricultural College, as well as a gravel public drive to the proposed public park and private community gardens. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\farrell\spearmeadows prelim Vale Drive is currently a public street terminated in a cul-de-sac. A right-of-way exists at the end of the cul-de-sac, always intended as a secondary access to this parcel. The applicant has submitted details of the roadway (including cross -sections) as part of the preliminary plat application. The road details have been extensively reviewed by the Director of Public Works. Comments are provided in a memo from the Department of Public Works, dated September 28, 20010 (from Justin Rabidoux, attached). The applicant shall adhere to these comments, shall revise the plans where necessary, and shall obtain preliminary and final wastewater allocations per the recommendations included herein. 8. The applicant shall address and/or adhere to the comments of the Director of Public Works per the memo from the Department of Public Works dated September 28, 2010 and any additional comments. Where necessary, the plans shall be revised accordingly. 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 connection. 1� In this case of competing objectives, staff finds that the design presented achieves the best G" os I out given the restrictions on the site. Staff does not advocate for an additional connection as it would be an option for bringing the propeTy into more strict compliance with the guideline stated above, the Board may wish to discuss it. ith respect to traffic management, the applicant has submitted a traffic impact study, prepared by RSG Inc, dated August, 2010. The City's Director of Public Works reviewed the study and has incorporated comments in a memo dated September 28, 2010 (attached, refer to numbers 57-60). In summary, there do not appear to be any major issues, though the department has asked for additional clarification. Furthermore, the Board has the authority to seek a third -party, technical review of the study. The Board should discuss this. 9. The Board should review and discuss the traffic study submitted by the applicant's consultant as well as the comments made in response by the Director of Public Works. The Board should also discuss whether an additional third -party review is warranted. The applicant is proposing a dead-end street to access the park area, which is more than 700 feet in length. The South Burlington Land Development Regulations state that: (2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets may not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). This guideline is waivable. Given the unique shape of the lot, the location of the wetlands on site, and the existence of two access points, and the close proximity of the cul-de-sac to an adjacent lot with development potential, and that the dead-end road is proposed only to access CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\farrell\spearmeadows prelim a park, staff is comfortable with this request. The Board has previously discussed this request and expressed favorability of the proposal. (4) The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project's impact on natural resources. There are small encroachments into a Class II wetland on the site. Staff finds that the proposed development minimizes the impact to these wetlands to the greatest extent possible while still allowing for a road to access the site. Still, pursuant to the SBLDRs, the applicant must obtain a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) from the State of Vermont prior to final plat approval. 10. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) for the proposed wetlands impacts prior to final plat approval. Furthermore, staff recommends a ground delineation of the wetland buffer where it gets close to the rear of the homes proposed along the west side of the road so as to reduce impact by residents of those units. The wetland and wetland buffers shall be protected and should not in any case be used as useable lawn or other recreational areas. The applicant has submitted a plan which includes a line of shrubbery and tress along the wetland buffer. There appears to be sections of fencing which fills in some of the gaps between landscaping, though staff was unable to locate a legend. The applicant should clarify if this is indeed proposed fencing. 11. The Board shall discuss the applicant's proposal for the wetland buffer delineation. Staff also suggests additional measures of protection, including limitations on fertilizers and mowing. The following are suggested conditions: 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Deeds and association covenants shall reflect all of the standards included above, especially the prohibition of use of the wetland buffer as lawn or other recreation areas, and the use of pesticides on site. (5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\farrell\spearmeadows prelim The stated purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located (Southeast Quadrant) is as follows: A Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ) is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and well -planned residential use in the area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The natural features, visual character and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique resources in the City and worthy of protection. The design and layout of buildings and lots in a manner that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will best create neighborhoods and a related network of open spaces consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Southeast Quadrant shall be encouraged. Any uses not expressly permitted are hereby prohibited, except those which are allowed as conditional uses. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 9.02 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: "These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, and any adopted amendments to such plan, and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. In the event of a conflict between the Southeast Quadrant chapter and other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the Southeast Quadrant chapter shall control." (6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The Board discussed this objective as part of the sketch plan review. Previous plan iterations were altered so as to remove some buildings from the area which were proximate to, but not inside, the wetland corridor which bisects the site from the north to south. This corridor was widened with homes moved further from the wetland buffer. Homes are now clustered more closely and a continuous corridor is now present. Furthermore, the largest portion of the wetland and undeveloped portion of the site is immediately adjacent to a wetland/buffer area on the adjoining development to the south. (7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water. (The South Burlington Fire Chief (8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\farrell\spearmeadows prelim The road details have been extensively reviewed by the Director of Public Works. Comments are provided in a memo from the Department of Public Works, dated September 28, 20010 (from Justin Rabidoux, attached). The applicant shall adhere to these comments, shall revise the plans where necessary. Staff has already commented on the need for connection to adjacent properties. The Recreation Path Committee reviewed the plans at their meeting on (9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Compreher,sI've Pian for the affected district(s). 14.06 General Review Standards The following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Re:-i`w Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design. A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\farrell\spearmeadows prelim (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, (ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home; (iii) The lot has unique site conditions such as a utility easement or unstable soils that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street, (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re- used and parkinq needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and - - -- - - - - --- --- - - sides of the existing building(s); or, (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation. (c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all proposed parking areas that are both to the side of a building and between the front lot line and the building line of the building on the lot that is closest to the public street shall not exceed one-half of the total building width of all buildings on the lot that are located adjacent to the public street. Buildings separated from the front lot line by parking approved pursuant to 14.06(C)(2)(b) shall be considered adjacent to the public street. Buildings separated from the front lot line by any other parking areas shall not be considered adjacent to the public street. (d) The DRB shall require that the majority of the parking on through lots and corner lots be located between the building(s) and the side yards or between the building and the front yard adjacent to the public street with the highest average daily volume of traffic. Where the rear vard of a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, the majority of parking shall be located between the building and the side yards or between the building and the yard that is adjacent to the Interstate. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\farrell\spearmeadows prelim relationship to the proposed structures. 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, •••--•----•••y ��. ./+.. •.... v.. ...u. u .). ,i. iya..nly yr VlI/C/ Ieglllr a/%/C//(J, Jlldll IJ t' cl (. (.eSSIUI@ secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. E. Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, with the exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 11 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\farrell\spearmeadows prelim The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The standards for this criterion are found below in a review of the regulations of the Southeast Quadrant. 2. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). Staff feels the proposed subdivision of this property is in conformance with the —Sou+hi Burlington linngton Comprehensive Plan. Southeast Quadrant District This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district Therefore it is subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR. 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub -Districts The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. A. Height. (1) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT, or SEQ- NR sub -district shall not exceed forty-five feet (45'); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub -districts. (2) The maximilm height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-VR or SEQ-VC sub- district shall not exceed fifty feet (50'); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub -districts. The applicant has stated that the heights of buildings will remain below the height limitations of the sub -district. B. Open Space and Resource Protection. (1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels The layout of the proposed subdivision provides for two substantially sized parks and another smaller one. Staff finds these acceptable. The more northern park is largely a wetland and will serve as mostly open space and house a stormwater pond. The more southern park is on dry soils and will be easily accessible to the 100+ homes in the vicinity. The park is easily accessed via walkways across the lots. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 12 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\farrell\spearmeadows prelim (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the Regulating Plan for the applicable sub -district allowing carefully planned development at the average densities provided in this bylaw. Staff finds the streets and building lots to be consistent with the regulating plan. The street, block and lot pattern provides pedestrian -scaled development and the street patterns allow for direct walking and bicycling trips. The street design also promotes slower speeds and connections between neighborhoods. The proposed parks are easily accessible for all residents of the proposed development. (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. The applicant has provided language which provides for ongoing maintenance of the park areas. Furthermore, this language also includes provisions for protection of the wetland and associated buffers. (4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The applicant has submitted a grading and erosion control plan as part of the phasing plan. Staff finds it appropriate at this time. 3. The proposed project should adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan should meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Bu '--g' n Land Development Regulations. (5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged. The wetlands located within the park land have been delineated with a landscape buffer or split rail fencing. They should be kept as natural as possible, and be brush -hogged several times per year rather than mowed. 4. The wetlands and associated buffers in the park shall be kept in as natural a state as possible and maybe be brush -hogged several times per year, but never mowed. 5. There shall be no use of pesticides or non -organic fertilizers within the wetlands or associated 50 foot buffers. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 13 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\suWarrell\spearmeadows prelim 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. This criterion is not applicable to this application. D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development, the location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned public facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths, streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities. (2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. Access is proposed via a street connection to the existing Cider Mill development. Access is also shown to the east to Hinesburg Road via a 24 foot wide road located in an existing 75 foot Right -of -Way. The applicant has submitted details of the roadway. The Department of Public Works reviewed the preliminary plans in a memo dated September 18, 2008 (attached). The applicant should continue to work with the Director of Public Works. 8. The applicant shall adhere to the comments of the Director of public Works. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and provided comments in a memo dated July 3, 2008 (attached). The plans should be revised in accordance with these comments. 9. The applicant shall adhere to the comments of the City Engineer. The plans shall be revised accordingly Future street access is also shown to the south and north side of the lot for potential connections to future developments. The applicant is working with an adjacent landowner to finalize easements for future development. The Board should inquire as to the status of these agreements and easements. Staff, in response to some issues raised by the Recreation Path Committee with regards to access to the Scott property, has some lingering concerns with respect to the easement noted above. Staff is continuing to work with the applicant and the adjacent landowner on this issue and hopes to have an update for the Board by the date of the Public Hearing. (3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. The Recreation Path Committee discussed the plans with the applicant at a meeting on September 8, 2008 (minutes attached). At issue is a concern for an easement to the Scott property. Staff believes that this will be taken care of via an easement that is being worked on with the adjacent CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 14 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\farrell\spearmeadows prelim property belonging to Jewett but again notes its concern and reserves the right to provide additional comments on this matter at the hearing on Tuesday evening. (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. The City of South Burlington Fire Department has reviewed the plans and issue comments in a memo dated September 11, 2008. The applicant shall adhere to the comments of the Fire Chief. There is no need for revisions to the plans. 10. The applicant shall adhere to the comments of the South Burlington Fire Chief per the letter dated September 11, 2008. E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. Access is proposed via a street connection to the existing Cider Mill development. Access is also shown to the east to Hinesburg Road via a 24 foot wide road located in an existing 75 foot Right -of -Way. Staff has reviewed the proposed accesses to the property. Given the site distances and the surrounding curbcuts, staff finds the plan acceptable. (1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. The plans include rights -of -way and provisions for access to the properties to the north and the south of the new portion of the development. Staff has already noted that the applicant is working with the adjacent property owner to secure easements and access agreements. (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. The neighborhood roads are proposed to be 26 feet wide with parking on one side, 24 feet wide in areas with no on -street parking. The road widths are proposed to be narrowed to 18 feet with no parking at the wetland crossings. This meets the standards set forth in Table 9-2, Street Design Criteria for Local Streets in the SEQ-NR zoning district. All roads are set within 50 foot right-of- ways with the exception of that which is labeled as "Main Street' on the plans, which is proposed to be 60 feet wide. (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and neighborhoods shall apply. 9.08 SEQ-NR &NRT Sub -District: Specific Standards CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 15 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\farrell\spearmeadows prelim The SEQ-NRT 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 400 linear feet; see Figure 9-2 for example. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks 400 feet or longer must include mid -block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. This criterion is being met in this application. The development blocks are broken by the two proposed parks and are appropriate in length. (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 housina on adjnininn narr`Ple. nor cnrtinn 15.1'31r-vA% All streets loop into others; connectivity in the proposed development is ideal. (3) Street Connection to Adjoining Parcels. Street stubs are required to be built to the property line and connected to adjacent parcels per section 15.12(D)(4) of these Regulations. Posting signs with a notice of intent to construct future streets is strongly encouraged. Staff has already commented on this matter. The plans depict numerous connection opportunities at various parcels to the north and south. (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. Lot ratios are appropriate. R Street Sirwln 1 -- P'urking .ci-u 4-rdj (1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the NR sub -district are intended to be low -speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Dimensions for public collector and local streets shall be as set forth in Tables 9-1 and 9-2, and Figures 9-4 and 9-5 of the SBLDR. Staff has already commented on the roadway, sidewalk, and recreation path design (2) Sidewalks. Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5') in width with an additional minimum five-foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the street. Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, and must be connected in a pattern that promotes walkability throughout the development. The DRB may in its discretion require supplemental sidewalk segments to achieve this purpose. This criterion is being met. (3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 16 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\farrell\spearmeadows prelim 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. At this point, the applicant is proposing street trees in accordance with the regulations along both sides of every street except for Aurora Street where there are no street trees to the north. Staff agrees that it is presumptuous to put the trees in advance of development and risk damaging them with construction, but staff would like to ensure that the trees are planted should the development never occur. Staff suggests a phasing plan, which would require street trees to be planted in five years, or otherwise re -considered for an extension by the Development Review Board. The City Arborist has reviewed the plans and provided comments in a memo dated July 2, 2008 (attached). There are minor changes needed to the plans. 11. The plans shall be revised to be in compliance with the comments of the City Arborist per the memo dated July 2, 2008. The applicant has noted in a planting specification that no street trees will be planted until construction is complete. Staff finds this comment too vague. Staff suggests a clarification that street trees may be delayed until road construction is complete, but must be in place prior to adding the final layer of top -coat. 12. Street trees must be in place on each street or road prior to adding the final layer of the top- coat. 13. Street trees shall be planted along the northern side of "Main Street" at a date no later than five years from the date of the decision for this subdivision. At such a time, any proposals to delay the plantings further must be approved by the Development Review Board on a yearly basis. (4) On -street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4). Staff has already commented on this issue. (5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and to slow traffic; see Figure 9-6 and Section 9.08(B)(5). The City Engineer and Director of Public Works shall more specifically comment on this issue. (6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian -scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12' to 14') shall be provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces. Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower -intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather than hot -spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety. The applicant has submitted sufficient lighting details. C. Residential Design CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 17 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\farrell\spearmeadows prelim (1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries for single family and multi -family buildings must face the street. Secondary building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to arterial streets). (2) Building Facades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but facades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi -private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged. The applicant should also address 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 Board has the authority to delegate review of the design standards to Planning Staff after Subdivision Approval. However, as the applicant is requesting some waivers in relation to the design slandards, staff strongly recommends that the applicant submit building elevations to address these criteria, particularly for those designs whereupon waivers may be sought, prior to final plat approval. The Board discussed this matter as a part of master plan review but did not include any stipulations in this regard. 14 The Board should discuss the proposed waivers of the design standards. (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. As no building envelopes, footprints, or elevations have been submitted, staff cannot determine if this criterion is being met. 15. Buildings should be set back twenty-five feet (25) from the back of sidewalk. (4) Porches, stoops, and balconies may proiect i,n to eight feet (8') into the fro►ii setbacks. Porch, stoop and balcony areas within the front setback shall not be enclosed or weatherized with glazing or other solid materials. 16. Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8) into the front setbacks. Porch, stoop and balcony areas within the front setback shall not be enclosed or weatherized with glazing or other solid materials. (5) Placement of Garages and Parking. See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9-7. The front building line of the garage must be set behind the front building line of the house by a minimum of eight feet. Compliance with this criterion cannot be determined until road right-of-way lines and building elevations are submitted. The applicant has stated that they will be seeking a waiver from this requirement; permission is requested to allow the garage setback from the face of the building to be 3 feet rather than 8. Permission is also requested to allow the garage to be set back form the front of the porch to be 8 feet, rather than from the front of the building. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 18 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\farrell\spearmeadows prelim The applicant should provide renderings to demonstrate how this will appear. The Board should discuss this issue and render a decision. 17. The Board shall render a decision regarding garage placement in relation to the front of the buildings and the front of the porches. (6) Mix of Housing Types. A mix of housing types is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. Housing types should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of identical housing types. The applicant is proposing 66 single family homes, 13 carriage homes (single family detached condos), and 30 townhouses (multi -family). Staff finds this sufficient to meet this criterion This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district Therefore it is subject to the provisions of Section 15.18(B). Staff finds that the proposed subdivision is in compliance with all provisions of this section. Traffic The major unresolved issue with regards to traffic impact involves the question of what is the applicant's responsibility towards the cost of improving the VT 116/Cheesefactory Road intersection? This issue was raised in the applicant's Traffic Impact Study under Conclusions and Recommendations (copy attached). The City's traffic consultants, Georges Jacquemart of Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart, Inc., reviewed the Traffic Impact Study and responded in a report dated August 4, 2008 (copy enclosed). The applicant's traffic consultant, Abby Lisius of Trudell Consulting Engineers responded to Mr. Jacquemart's memo with a memo to him dated 9/25/08 (copy enclosed). Mr. Jacquemart then responded to her comments in a memo dated October 14, 2008 (copy enclosed). in his latest memo, Mr. Jacquemart proposes to "calculate the respective shares of improvement responsibility based on the level of service D threshold and using the existing and future delay condition during the AM peak hour as a measurement". He concludes, based on his "analysis taking into consideration all traffic volumes above the acceptable LOS D limit, the Cider Mill Phase II project would be responsible for 35.6% of the improvement costs...". Staff contacted Mr. Jacquemart by e-mail on 10/27/08 (see enclosed) to inquire as to how many dwelling units the developer could build before triggering the need for the intersection improvement. His answer was 23.1 % of the planned units. This represents 25 dwelling units. The unanswered questions raised by the issue at hand are as follows: 1. What improvements are needed at the VT 116/Cheesefactory Road intersection? 2. What will be the cost of these improvements? 3. When will these improvements be completed? CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 19 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\farrell\spearmeadows prelim 4. Who will make the improvements? 5. If the developer is to pay 35.6% of the improvement cost, how much is that and when does he have to pay it? 6. Who will pay for the remainder of the impact cost? 7. What if other developments are proposed and approved that would contribute traffic to this intersection? How will this change the developer's responsibility towards the intersection improvements? POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: 1. Allow developer to proceed with the construction of 25 units with a condition that no additional units be constructed until the intersection is improved. 2. Have the developer, working with the City and State, estimate the cost of improvements and require the developer to pay 35.6% of that cost prior to the issuance of the zoning permit for the 26th dwelling unit. 3. Have the developer construct the intersection improvements and set up some type of reimbursement schedule for the 64.4% of the cost that he is not responsible for through the collection of a special impact for new developments which will contribute traffic through the intersection. 17. The Board should discuss the traffic considerations discussed above and craft an appropriate condition relating to the impacts the traffic associated with this development will have on the VT 116/Hinesburg Road. Another issue involves adding a northbound turn lane on VT116. The applicant's traffic impact study recommends monitoring the "new intersection of Nadeaucrest and VT 116 upon completion of Phase II to determine if left turn volumes will warrant a left turn lane." The Board should discuss whether to require this improvement, and if so, when should it be completed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board approve Final Plat application #SD-08-34 subject to the conditional items included above and to provide time for the Recreation Path Committee and the Fire Chief to finish their reviews. Respectfully submitted Cathyann LaRose, Associate Planner Copy to: Lance Llewellyn, Llewelyn-Howley MBL Associates, Owner of Record CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD drb\sub\farrell\SpearkMeadows\sketch 2_seq.doc DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: December 29, 2009 Plans received: December 29, 2009 SPEAR MEADOWS 1350 SPEAR STREET SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-09-42 Agenda # 7 Meeting date: January 5, 2010 Owner Applicant Gary N. Farrell, Jane G. Farrell & Spear Eric F. Farrell Meadows Inc. PO Box 1335 1350 Spear Street Burlington, VT 05402 South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer/Landscape Architect Civil Engineering Associates 10 Mansfield View Lane South Burlington VT 05403 TJ Boyle Associates LLC 301 College Street Burlington VT 05401 Location Map Property Information Tax Parcel 1640-01350 SEQ Zoning District - Neighborhood Residential r)nrco+ D�rL L'—;� \/;—W Dr�����i�n 7--- n vVl Jl L 1 GI f\ Vl,lil lit,, V 1k, IVtGtiUVII LVIIG V 26.94 acres CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\sgearmeadows\sketch2 sea Eric Farrell, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking sketch plan review of a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The proposal consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 21 single family dwellings, 3) constructing 17 two (2) family dwellings, and 4) constructing 8 three (3) unit multi- family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. The Development Review Board heard the first sketch plan review on October 6, 2009 (minutes attached) and continued the project to November 17, 2009 (minutes attached). The applicant submitted revised plans to the staff on December 29, 2009. Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose, Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Director of Planning Paul Conner, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on December 29, 2009 and have the following comments. The staff notes herein reflect a review of the major issues 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. 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: 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. The base density of the parcel generated by the land at 1.2 units per acre, based on 26.1 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, are 104 units. The applicant is proposing 79 new units, with one existing dwelling to remain, for a total of 80 units within the PUD for a proposed density of 3.06 units/acre. Therefore, a total of 49 development rights shall be needed. 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 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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\soearmeadows\sketch2 seg Development Rights 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 32"d unit. ACCESS Access is proposed via a public street connection to Spear Street as well as to the existing public road of Vale Drive. Vale Drive is currently a public street terminated in a cul-de-sac. A right-of-way exists at the end of the cul-de-sac, always intended as a secondary access to this parcel. As is customary, the applicant will submit more details of the roadway (including cross -sections) as part of the preliminary plat application. The applicant is now proposing a short dead-end street connection to the parcel to the north, labeled as UVM and State Agricultural College. The City is transitioning between Directors of Public Works. The new Director is expected to begin work at the end of January. Historically, the past Director has had a policy against dead end roads or hammer -head turn-arounds in residential areas. Staff cannot anticipate what the policy will be for the new Director and recommends any final decision on this item until such time as the Director of Public Works can review the plans. Staff reiterates this in a discussion below concerning the road which accesses the proposed neighborhood park. LOT LAYOUT & ROAD CONFIGURATION Staff has reviewed the proposed lot layout in accordance with the Regulating Plan illustrated in Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Staff finds that the project does not meet the strict guidelines of the SEQ which call for short development blocks and limits the lengths of roadways, in order to minimize impacts on the wetlands which traverse the site from north to south and fit into the unique shape of the lot. In this case of competing objectives, staff finds that the design presented achieves the best possible layout given the restrictions on the site. The Development Review Board should discuss this matter and determine whether or not they agree. They should give clear guidance to the applicant on this point. The applicant is proposing a cul-de-sac 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 criterion is waivable. The Board should discuss this request. Given the unique shape of the lot, the location of the wetlands on site, and the existence of two access points, and the close proximity of the cul-de-sac to an adjacent lot with development potential, and that the dead-end road is proposed only to access a park, staff is comfortable with this request. The Board should discuss this item and determine whether or not they are willing to waive this requirement. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch2 sea 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, duplex and triplex units. The applicant states that "of the 79 new dwelling units proposed, 58 units or 73.4% are oriented to the street as depicted on Drawing L100. This represents an increase from our previously submitted plan that depicted 86 new units, of which only 33 units or 38.4% were oriented to the street." The Board previously discussed the amount of translucent surfaces (windows) which would face the south. The applicant has since provided a sheet detailing solar orientation calculations (attached) and has stated that "31 % of the total glazing, measured in square feet, is oriented to the south, which percentage could change somewhat given that we are still at sketch level and final design development drawing for the buildings are yet to be completed." 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 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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch2 sea recreation area." The proposed park space meets the requirements of this section. The 80 units proposed as part of the PUD are estimated to generate 62.4 pm peak vehicle trip ends (LUC 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. 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 drb\sub\soearmeadows\sketch2 seq 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 ■ 21 detached single family homes • 17 duplex structures resulting in 34 units ■ 8 triplex structures resulting in 24 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 poiivsforttiier�I . in the even'- of a betVeel tle olIeaJL %t 11dptel and .Lh t conflict lStl ..IU 1 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 The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch2 sea 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. (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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drblsub\spearmeadows\sketch2 sea (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. (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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch2 sea (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 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch2 seq (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 minimum of thirty five percent (35%) of translucent widows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. (2) Building Fagades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but facades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi -private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 11 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch2 sea (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, Cathyann LaRose, AICP, Associate Planner Copy to: Eric Farrell, Applicant Jj=1NN11-2011 11:30H FROM:C:IT`( OF SOUTH BURLIN 8028464101 o:geG13003 P.1 F� Aw in4 L southl,bu. ding g it PLANNING & ZONING Permit Number AD- I t - D (office use only) APPLICATION FOR MINOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 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 by the Administrative Officer. 1) OWNER(S) OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax L.st 1 - 5pefR p4,eApVW5., NL.,13SaJPCA1ZST 1S0, 1SuRL, ✓TV.V403 LVrZ " Dv t644sr4#e e*A#2.vA1J, IgV4; SP64a SF. So.6 g U1 VrY-&3 i..v R14N +TR44LY-r4MR~1-�1401f 5P 64R Sr 1 $D. 6t4RI�. �T, osHn3 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED(S) (Book and page #)5W = 11D&- 7N"it S3—�� • JCRAV-XV0t= VoI- 211P W471 T*12R. A1r = VvA- -72-q 1v 3Zq 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax Srl_3.��yTE�r D.Swb "3 4) APPLICANT'S LEGAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY (fee simple, option, etc.)_,_ Fepz s,!11P4 6 -(,*T I 5) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) 6R44L A-12i1C It 0O190V I-3000 ; (fsd2�- Tr4e1- 00 5a) CONTACT EMAIL ADDRESS 6E&Z 1P[ L4 .4kCeI( 1ZEr+'L.LC i4TWLfJ a &Owt 6) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: �) D D�� I D J' A �✓ •.. 7) TAX PARCEL ID # can be obtained at Assessor's Office) Ite%4V 01L+ 14y-n--vl'fV 8) PROJECT DESCRIPIMN :Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each e use) L.D i i= V /W f b) Other (list any other informations pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note iffOverlay Districts are applicable) 2S E 6 AOI�,S�'1' �J4(ZIC, SC�ALL 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com 9) LOT COVERAGES F � EACH LOT LOT #1 (Street Address): 13 lit? S P E 4 re -sr . ` S r E:j+& �� S a) Building: Existing % Proposed C> % b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing a % Proposed C'D % e) Front yard along each street Existing�% ProposedAYA % (applies only to commercial property) LOT #2 (Street Address): l *7i�lj P E.*, P_ d) Building: Existing G , / % Proposed s- e) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing__k3i% Proposed % # Front yard along each street Existing% Proposed % (applies only to commercial property) LOT #(Street Address): L f 5 a) Building: Existing_ % Proposed 7. 7 b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing-2,0 �% Proposed_ c) Front yard along each street Existing% Proposed N�� (applies only to commercial property) 10) TYPE OF EXISTING OR PROPOSED ENCUMBRANCES ON PROPERTY (easements, covenants, leases, rights ofway, etc.) JFROpOS � 6 �"> S�wE�-,kc,c- I - - CL-RW?DNr') 6 EWE _>FtnAsCyv s��•rt �Z 11) PROPOSED EXTENSION, RELOCATION, OR MODIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL FACILITIES (sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc.) ,V i9A1e_ 13) PLANS AND FEE Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information required by the Land Development Regulations. Three (3) regular size copies and one reduced copy (11" x 17") of the plans must be submitted. Applicant fees must be included. Minor Lot Line Adjustment Application Form. Rev. 12-2010 I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT -6ARtf w. SIGNAT�RE, PROPERTY fYY,1 SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY 01 PRINT NAME Dvu6LA& T + IC H RISTiat f�ROO �VAj PRINT NAME R I H t i Ric y SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER % PRINTNAAME Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: I have reviewed this application and find it to be: ... Complete n T. n e dmmMstrative Officer Date The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identf& apply fnr, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call (802) 879--5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist, Minor Lot Line Adjustment Application Form. Rev. 12-2010 Farrell Real Estate P.O. Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402 802-861-3000 fax 802-861-3003 Memo To: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer From: Eric Farrell Date: 1 /25/2011 Re: Spear Meadows, 1340-1350 Spear Street Attached please find the following materials in connection with the above referenced project: • APPLICATION FOR BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT • Application Fee in the amount of $88.00 • Overall Location Map • Plat of Boundary Adjustment —"Lands of Spear Meadows Inc. R & T Tarrant D & C Franzonl', prepared by Civil Engineering Associates Inc. (Drawing Number. BA-1, dated January 25, 2011) Please let me know if you require any additional information in order to process this application. Attachments 1 '1it^*wmb 'SWIFT ESTATES' SUBDIVISION, / 0 ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL SUMMARY SEE NOTE 32/tif SOUTHEAST QUADRANT- NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILYHOUSING REQUIREMENTS SPEAR MEADOWS EMT SPEAR MEADOW PROPOSED TARRANT WT. TARRANT PROPOSED FRNROIN SW FRAMM PROPOSED LOT AREA 12,000 111 22.2E sa 21.99so 30,420 41,092 77,037 04,440 FRONTSET840K 20 20 W >200 >200 >250 >250 SIDE SETBACK f0 10 10 10 10 29 2F REAR SETBACK 30 90 W 72 j 100 21' W BLOO. COVERAGE 15% 0% 0% 8.4% 1 7.7% 6.1% 5.5% LOT COVERAGE 30% 0% 0% 20% 1 18% 13% 11% PLAN REFERENCES: A. "PLAT OF BOUNDARY SURVEY - PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE OF ILA M. ISHAM" 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 O 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 O 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. 1►[e11l*3 1. PURPOSE OF THIS PLAT IS TO DEPICT CERTAIN EXISTING BOUNDARIES OF LANDS OF SPEAR MEADOWS, INC., OF G. & J. FARRELL, AND OF G.N. FARRELL AND A PROPOSED BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN SPEAR MEADOWS, INC., R. & T. TARRANT AND D. & C. FRANZONI. 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. THE PERIMETER BOUNDARY SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITH A TOTAL STATION AND A STEEL TAPE BETWEEN FALL 2003 AND WINTER 2004-5. ADDITIONAL SURVEY AT TARRANT & FRANZONI DURING WINTER 2011. 3. BEARINGS SHOWN ARE REFERENCED TO ASTRONOMIC NORTH BASED ON SOLAR OBSERVATIONS MADE IN SEPTEMBER, 1995. SEE PLAN REFERENCE "A". 4. SURVEY MARKERS PROPOSED SHALL CONSIST OF 5/8" DIAMETER REBAR WITH ALUMINUM CAPS STAMPED "CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOC. - VT LS 597". IRON PIPES FOUND ARE SHOWN WITH INSIDE DIAMETERS. 5. SPEAR STREET HAS A RECORD 66 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY. LOCATION HERE DETERMINED BY EXISTING MONUMENTATION 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. THE EASEMENT CENTERED ON BURIED POWER AND TELEPHONE SERVICE LINES FROM POLE Q74 TO A PAD -MOUNTED TRANSFORMER BETWEEN FRANZONI AND TARRANT RESIDENCES WAS GRANTED TO GREEN MTN. POWER CORP. AND NET&T IS NOT DEPICTED HEREON. (VOL. 216 PG. 99, JUNE 24. 1986). 7. BEING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS SURVEY, CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. HAS UNDERTAKEN NO INVESTIGATION WHATSOEVER WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER THE PROPERTY AND EACH COMPONENT THEREOF IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL OR STATE PERMITS. S. 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. SEE OPTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN DOUG & CHRISTINE FRANZONI AND SPEAR MEADOWS, INC. FOR A 30' WIDE SEWER EASEMENT TP BE CONVEYED TO CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON. VOLUME 862 PAGE 318 (5/15/09) 11. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE SOLELY WITHIN AN AREA SHOWN AS "ZONE C - AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING" PER. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, COMMUNITY PANEL 500195-0005-B, EFFECTIVE DATE MARCH 16, 1981. / P.B. Grabowski I I T. & L Kish I C. Shand at al $ �� & J. L Milot I VOI& M. �II6 s4 Volume 175 Fepe 183 Vdune 406 PWO 728 / 4 I Vokwne 643 Pape 297 20 -.- - . --'- "T33'i 6"E 505'3135E�I�RecreEesamevs - �IPF gat. 1.25,AG S0T32'21'E �--; S08'OS16"E %��454.43'I' IPF 359.08' --------------- '- - - J/{ 266.$5' 1/2' IFF 317.021.0' AIGPF Dpes Space _T_ PAC PlnneCN SubdNgbIPF nr ac wl UVM and State AgrfculturW College m to Volans 134 Pepe 364 <In z a I / LaZjMllot ERNE Partnership I� ViOkeva 296 Pope ass � w yO r-Bar Found N14'23'S1"E 79.93' (capped) 299.53' _ 0.7' Ac /^'- --NO3'53�44 W � r-ear Found 0.5' AG I / 1 I / 1 2 1/2" IPF UNDEVELOPED LANDS 1.0' AG 1340 SPEAR STREET 1 G.N. Farrell / I / vaa Bn fags 402 !3 j I in n N 0.94 t sores .- I Y t �� v CM n IVIN / In 24.46' O1 J/4" lvF (enlJ QQQ / Hush ttMOO W 1 5" IPF Z K Se/lon w ac K McCOy-V/MKen ry S vopwne 845 TQ Sk1F\ Pope 326 125-, IPF 0.2 AG \SFFT J/4' IPF t!pr a 0.1 AG �G4, O>• Y 1 02.SpW St 3/4" IPF S11jp Hush 4.Tq CMF S4Zk, LO' AG I flsafaM a CAW am I I IN / N I � I,, W. & M. Gilbert i Volans 20P Pops 226 I 45 zs\ I 1 Op en Space N1434'54'E ` J� p/'M / I 'Pinnacle 9 Spear' Subdivision 48.23' I 3 87'32 SEE DETAIL A / n G. & J. Farrell 43 E eouNaeRr PROPOSED O I n Volume 142 Page 45 / Aansruena I o Ao MIN 2.99t acres / I J/{" lP 34o 0 � 0.8Bx Ac?B3pe&e Sq W / y I '�•.� I / D. & L " En A. ; J YOWL w. s"eue s - N/64�4.• s16 64• Vopk�s,M�412 f �E a � SJ?3 ed)nd so MMF 4 \ 7-Bor Found tWf !�V„ m. _, aJ AG J/4' IPF 0.5'AG M,I� 1.77s Aa 8 \ (Capped) Pig I� Md9i Flush [�O. J' AC R&T DETAIL A 1 "=40' ORIGIN I 0.5" AG N14• I I r-Br MTa 70 {ayfpN 4?�7p f Md. Vbl' 729 J J/4• IPF � �1E' 6 ' \ (Bent) t P♦�e&29/' I F/ash \ 0.2' AG I I.15''AG IPF I OkiMIIDIIeW 0. 1 - I I J/{•IPF I Q Spear Meadows, Inc. o. _-`00 In, ^N h S7q 2613'k� At�pled Lklse N87'34'27"E _ 37.96' 3/4' IPF nuM (en0 N73y ee'�Wr ` 9.16E S70 4 / 1' a L' 1wm4i 12 1 1.0 AG (on I-) e►wPa "Q� �� R..�& Tom. D. & C. Fmroonl N J7 03 I T✓K 1�0 y/ �m.2n M Pew azo ry RESIDENCE I l\�� I1111411 VRPdns - //{• 0.7 I D. & C. w; N Franzonl M. Dowhr Vbkene 211 Vbkm IV i k.l. Pepe447G1r-IRF sld I IS 2fe 200I Pepe 287 \V" 7bar Fnd IPF (Olsturbed) t -d roa� ydw Ott �o Lewbr / To n.h l � gCCF L O'PAC N ROgO GRAPHIC SCALE LEGEND - - SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE - - - OTHER PROPERTY LINE (APPROX.) - - - - - - - - - EASEMENT LINE - - - ZONING BOUNDARY CMF/MMF ❑ CONCRETE/MARBLE MONUMENT FOUND IPF/IRF 0 IRON PIPE/REBAR FOUND (w/SIZE) C "T BAR" FOUND AG ABOVE GROUND • SURVEY MARKER PROPOSED (NOTE 4) M CONCRETE MON. PROPOSED X-XX FENCE LINE To the best of my knowledge & belief this plot 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 CIYIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. 10 Mena"d View Lane, SMM Budkpron, W 05403 802404-2323 FAX 802-864-2271 web: Itxw.oBa txx,, PJM I JLM CR -- JLM Aeexoven R PROJECT: SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT SITE LOCATION MAP Not 7o Saab PLAT of BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT Lands of SPEAR MEADOWS, INC., R & T TARRANT, D & C FRANZON I 1340 SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT DATE DRAWING NUMBER January 25, 2011 ORIGINAL SCALE BA- 1 1"=100' PROJ. No. 02250 Sheet I of I b Pr-A-K k 6A-Wk�S T�cz Interested Persons Record and Service List tvv 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: - a1 PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME MAILING ADDRF4S pan Mfr-r nr 1A1Tc1nr!!c--r G( Cv 6 3 Foot- StS nE�&S S�3 S fPeA2 M e4J--,)vCZIs Vku Oriv'-L K Mi .� t �l Z 1 ) / 6�'� a Soti a i l u Q cQ..'- vv� U i� 0l Interested Persons Record and Service List _.................. Br R"O:VT 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 MQII Mr. AMIDCce MP1n - -- •--...��wv rr[VJCL I Ur IN I tKtST 1 '�'Vol (:)QSi )'j4-7O-v-� Lf q- Or I h P[rnnOde-` Q d-j o M,? vwoo�l S � ✓ del �cc b f 2. s m VOW" J 5 ZJO iuw tuw uc' rIcn elf 2_�)co 17 A,& A01. Interested Persons Record and Service List Yf NA10 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 MAILING AnnRFcs DOn IC!'T r1C IAIT['nr-nT 1 �m� lam. D� �.� � � I � �CI • "� ✓� .wvw I vI I17 1 C1tCa 1 7'C�Z ( M ,�oo��e cote 44,1A I. rr� / °l3 1,�, MA►W S i V X-Tb v' Q 9 V T �. 13 VAC br- S tk X-Ar �,, G ►�, v vv�-�r,,�/�— �roc761 r�1nlS S. t il�n �os� 05�03 �LarKI,�'�SL-2urie(5 s ►G• AN south PLANNING & ZONING MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Cathyann LaRose, Associate Planner RE: Agenda #5, Eric Farrell, Sketch Plan Application #SD-10-20 DATE: June 29, 2010 Sketch plan application #SD-10-20 of Eric Farrell for a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The proposal consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 29 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. A previous sketch plan was reviewed at several meetings since October, 2009, and was given guidance and general consent in April, 2010 to move on to a preliminary plat application. However, the applicant is now seeking further clarification and guidance on two points raised by members of the Development Review Board, as well as a few other minor modifications: Building setbacks from Spear Street and the new proposed roads-, a. The attached plans depict an increase in the setback of the two buildings fronting on Spear Street, making them approximately in line with the existing houses to the north and south b. The setbacks of the remaining buildings along the new road and Vale Drive extension have been increased to the following i. Front porches have gone from 5 feet to 10-26.5 feet ii. Where the front porches project beyond the main house facade has gone from 10 feet to 20-27.5 feet iii. Where the front porch is in the same plane as the main house has gone from 10 feet to 15-26.5 feet. 2. Widening of the corridor buffer adjacent to the wetlands (next to the UVM parcel) 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com 3. Reducing the number of units in the cluster along the north side of Spear Meadow Road from 10 units to 8 units, thereby reducing the overall number of units in the proposal from 74 to 72, and lowering the density from 2.83 units per acre to 2.75. 4. Alignment of a portion of recreation path such that it now aligns with and extends down Park Street. 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 V Date: 6/2/2010 Re: Spear Meadows, 1340 — 1350 Spear Street Attached please find the following materials in connection with the continued Sketch Plan Review of the above referenced project: • Application For Subdivision Sketch Plan Review Southeast Quadrant • Application Fee - $125.00 • List of Abutters • Spear Meadows — Concept Plan by T. J. Boyle Associates LLC (Sheet No. L100, dated 5/19/10) We are returning to the DRB to focus on only two questions: 1. Building setbacks from Spear Street and the new proposed roads 2. Widening of the corridor buffer adjacent to the wetlands (next to UVM's land) The attached plan depicts an increase in the setback of the two buildings fronting on Spear Street, such that they now more or less in line with the existing houses to the north and south of them. The setbacks of the remaining buildings along (new) Spear Meadow Road and the extension of Vale Drive have been increased, as follows: Front Porch: Was 5 feet; now is 10 — 26.5 feet (10 feet minimum) Main House: Where the front porch projects beyond the main house fagade Was 10 feet; now is 20 — 27.5 feet (20 feet minimum) Main House: Where the front porch is in the same plane as the main house Was 10 feet; now is 15' to 26.5 feet (15 feet minimum) The plan also lists the proposed setback for each building fronting along the street (i.e. not the rear buildings), both for the porch and the main house. 1 The cluster of units along the north side of Spear Meadow Road has been reduced from 10 units to 8 units, thereby reducing the overall number of units in the development from 74 to 72. The only other modification on the plan is the alignment of one of the east -west connections to the Recreation Path that runs along the east boundary line, such that one of the connections now aligns with and extends down Park Street. Street Blocks The number of street blocks has been reduced from 6 to 5, due the relocation of the above referenced Recreation Path east -west connection. The 5 blocks have the following lengths: 700', 725', 400' and 150', plus one private street bock measuring 150'. These measurements are between intersecting streets or recreation path connections. The longest block (725') is now the one between the intersection of Spear Meadow Drive/Vale Drive and Park Street. Density The plan depicts a revised total of 72 dwelling units in 50 (was 52) buildings, representing an overall density of 2.75 (was 2.83) units per acre. The building configurations are as follows: Single Family Homes • 1 - existing Single -Family Home — 1 unit • 27 - new Single -Family Homes — 27 units Duplex Buildings • 7 - Flat over a Flat — 14 units • 2 — Double Flats over Garages — 4 units • 2 - Side by Side Townhouses — 4 units • 11 - Townhouse attached to a Flat over a Garage — 22 Units DRB Meeting We look forward to covering these outstanding issues with the DRB at the Sketch Plan level on June 15th, before moving on to Preliminary. Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information. Attachments 0 Page 2 I I I , 1 I 1 I (BOTH SIDES OF ROAD ABELJ BOTH SIDES OF STONE) __- \ �- I g 8x2r 30 --- --29 - - - - r - \ cx2r _ szd „ Cad sea '' 1 I I 14 c2 Aza 18 " 1 I - I 11 C2. "�. 13 t .. 16 I J - �� _� v -_ BXI _ _ _ - - - - - I - - / • • • • PORCH SETBACK I,nMOM SIDEWALK) - 1 (20'FROM SIDEWALK) •- -- -- I 111 � 1 ei Ala \` I 11 A+..' +y- •+ ► 39 oxz 3 h 36 Nz.I 34 2 / 1t 11 49 Hx2,1 cm 4 9 e1 cxa 7 �,1 Nz.1 43-i 1 1 45 40 N2.1 I 38 I J U N 0 3 010 I "' 50 ezr N2-1 LOT 4 t City of So. Bu I I, + LOT s I t 1. ngton 1 LOT 2 l r ' 1j :�: PROPOSED USE SUMMARY Building Summary Unit Summary Required Parking Proposed Parking Single -Family Dwelling 27 Units 2 Spaces/Unit = 54 Spaces 94 Spaces Units that Address the Road (74 Units Total) 1 r I j i Ground Floor Flat 7 Units 2.25 Spaces/Unit = 15.75 Spaces 28 Spaces I � 1 I I Flat Over Flat 7 Units 2.25 Spaces/Unit = 15.75 Spaces 14 Spaces I j - NOTES: Flat Over Garage 15 Units 2.25 Spaces/Unit = 33.75 Spaces 30 Spaces 1. Buildings #2 and #3 are also subject to a 50 foot seback from Spear Street Town House 15 Units 2.25 Spaces/Unit = 33.75 Spaces 60 Spaces P c2 _ 5 Existing Single -Family 1 Unit 2 Spaces/Unit = 2 Spaces 9 Spaces 2. Setbacks listed below are for Front Yard Setbacks only _ - 72 Units Total Required Spaces: 155 Total Proposed Spaces: 235 3. Front Yard Setback requirements in the the SEQ-NR (Total Does Not Include On -street Parking) S2 ; / • LOT 1 _J I ; 3 / / Building Label Key EXISTING STINGLY 2 / Porch Building 1 "2{1 SINGL 'i RESIDENTWLUNIT No. Label Setback Setback Square Ft Description ® 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Existing Single Family 2 HX2+1 20' 20' 2,890 Small Townhouse Expanded, Flat Over Garage .,. 3 N2+1 N/A N/A 3,120 One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat 4 B2 12' 20' 1,373 Small Single Family, 2-Car Garage 5 P2+2 N/A N/A 3,400 Duplex Townhouse 6 C2 12' 20' 1,738 Large Single Family, 2-Car Garage \� a 7 CX2 26.5' 26.5' 2,200 Large Single Expanded, 2-Car Garage 8 C2r 11.5' 20.5' 1,738 Large Single Family Expanded, 2-Car Garage, Rear Access / 9 B1 19.5' 27.5' 1,373 Small Single Family, 1-Car Garage 1 10 N2+1 N/A N/A 3,120 One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat 11 C2 12' 20' 1,738 Large Single Family, 2-Car Garage 12 N2+1 N/A N/A 3,120 One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat 13 HX2+1 20' 20' 2,890 Small Townhouse Expanded, Flat Over Garage 14 C2 12' 20' 1,738 Large Single Family, 2-Car Garage 15 CX2r N/A N/A 2,200 Large Single Family Expanded, 2-Car Garage, Rear Access 16 A2d 12' 20' 1,860 Medium Single Family, Detached 2-Car Garage 17 M1+1 N/A NIA 2,630 Duplex Flat Over Garage 18 62d 12' 20, 1,373 Small Single Family, Detached 2-Car Garage 19 HX2+1 20' 20' 2,890 Small Townhouse Expanded, Flat Over Garage 20 H2+1 10, 20' 2,736 Small Townhouse, Flat Over Garage 21 BX2 20' 20' 1,885 Small Single Family Expanded, 2-Car Garage \ 22 J2+1 20' 20' 3,053 Large Townhouse, Flat over Garage 23 C2d 12' 20' 1,738 Large Single Family, Detached 2-Car Garage I GRAPHIC SCALE I / 24 M1+1 N/A N/A 2,630 Duplex Flat Over Garage 1 I 25 B2d 12' 20' 1,373 Small Single Family, Detached 2-Car Garage u I ( IN hY:Ff I inch = 60 It district are measured from the back of sidewalk. Were no sidewalks are proposed, setbacks are Label Porch Building Setback Setback Square Ft Description JX2+1 20, 20' 3,205 Large Townhouse Expanded, Flat Over Garage B2 12' 20' 1,373 Small Single Family, 2-Car Garage BX2r O/A N/A 1,885 Small Single Family Expanded, 2-Car Garage, Rear Access J2+1 alt 15' 15' 3,053 Large Townhouse, Flat over Garage, Alternate Deck C1 �0' 20' 1,738 Large Single Family, 1-Car Garage BX1 20' 20' 1,885 Small Single Family Expanded, 1-Car Garage H2+1 10, 20' 2,736 Small Townhouse, Flat Over Garage CX1 20' 20' 2,200 Large Single Family Expanded, 1-Car Garage P2+2 /A N/A 3,400 Duplex Townhouse Al 0' 20' 1,860 Medium Single Family, 1-Car Garage 112+1 13' 20' 2,736 Small Townhouse, Flat Over Garage HX2+1 15' 15, 2,890 Small Townhouse Expanded, Flat Over Garage CX2r 20' 20' 2,200 Large Single Family Expanded, 2-Car Garage, Rear Access CX2 15' 15' 2,200 Large Single Expanded, 2-Car Garage N2+1 N/A N/A 3,120 One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat A2d 12' 20' 1,860 Medium Single Family, Detached 2-Car Garage 81 2' 20' 1,373 Small Single Family, 1-Car Garage N2+1 /A N/A 3,120 One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat CX2 0' �/A 20' 2,200 Large Single Expanded, 2-Car Garage N2+1 N/A 3,120 One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat C2d 12' 20' 1,738 Large Single Family, Detached 2-Car Garage CX2 RO' 20' 2,200 Large Single Expanded, 2-Car Garage N2+1 N/A N/A 3,120 One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat HX2+1 5' 15, 2,890 Small Townhouse Expanded, Flat Over Garage B2r ;8. 26' 1,373 Small Single, 2-Car Garage, Rear Access rcev,avna Applicant: Eric Ferrell landscape architects • tannin wnsuttants 1 5- P planning , N,�,,,, PEA T 1 -- - PO Box 1335 L 1 0 0 I Budinaton. VT 05402 301 college street • budington • ve mont • asaol 3oz •658.3555 nnP:// W W .yowle. om 1^ = 60' Concept Plan From the desk of Griffin Lalonde TO SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MY biKe glides smoothly and effortlessly across the clean, newly - paved road. I jump it onto the sidewalK. I hop off. I go to the doors of my friends, LuKe and Ethan and some other people. We biKe/scooter down to the field — oh. that beloved Field — and we play. We would (notice use of past tense) play and play and play. First capture the flag, and when we got bored of capture the flag we would play KicK the can, and when we got bored of KiCK the can we would play everybody tacKle Jacob, and when we got bored of that...... well, when we got bored of that we left, everybody (even including Jacob) would leave with big grins on our faces. Then our parents told us that the field... our Field ... was going to be developed. Nowadays, the games are only 15 minutes or less of a half hearted substitute for fun. I believe the field belongs to the people of Four Sisters, and should not be developed. MY dad also told me that my mom and MANY others had gone to a meeting that was debating the development of the field. I'll admit it puts me down to hear accomplished adults failed at our goal. But maybe ... maybe...a small band of determined Kids just might be able to bring about a change that grown men (and women) could not. I Know you might be thinKing, I here are peopie that want to live here. I can't just refuse them!W' You're right, you can't refuse them. And I can't blame them. It really is a beautiful place. I have thought about this problem a lot and can only come up with one conclusion: 'T'aIK to them. Tell them that if they proceed, they will be treading on about 30 adolescent lives. Tell them to thinK, just for a second, how we would Feel. Tell them that we love the field, and if you tooK it away, it would be liKe murdering our brother. If all this dramatic stuff isn't getting to you, here's something new: I was walKing along the side of the field when I saw something... something... in the grass. As I walKed closer, it sprang up and tore through the grass. It went through a hole in the tree. My point is that there are lots of animals living there in the field, to. We (as in everybody on our street) biKe and scooter almost every day. We do it on the road. I Know what you are going to say. You are going to say that that is dangerous, and we shouldn't even do it in the first place, but we're always careful. We always wear a helmet. But if there is so much more traffic, we are sure to have an accident, even if we go on the sidewalK. one more thing: Now we have a dog, and he IiKes to play there. So, you see, this development will hurt animals as much as it will hurt people. I thinK that pretty much sums that up, but one more thing: This is not just any random Kid writing to you. 'please don't just toss this aside and say, "Cute." Because this is not just From some random Kid. This is From some ra—(<iH who res, relly nrly -I" — caaadtu. From, G , v7 f) Lnb,de June 24, 2010 Spear Meadows, Inc. c/o Brent Farrell Doubletree Hotel 1117 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Meadows Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is the draft agenda for the July 6, 2010 South Burlington Development Review Board Meeting. It includes an application for development on your property. This is being sent to you and the abutting property owners to make aware that a public meeting is being held regarding the proposed development. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburi.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. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com r �►Volis W01 southburlingtoirt PLANNING & ZONING June 24, 2010 Larkin/Milot Partnership PO Box 4193 Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Spear Meadows, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the July 6, 2010 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. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com ��.�A f� soutkbutdangton PLANNING & ZONING June 24, 2010 Gary N. & Jane G. Farrell 1350 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Meadows, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the July 6, 2010 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. Sincerely, la Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com June 24, 2010 Brett P. & Jennifer L. Milot 23 Dorey Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Meadows, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the July 6, 2010 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. Sincerely, Jana Beagley . Planning & Zoning Assistant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com south to l i 1 ors ti, a is PLANNING & ZONING June 24, 2010 UVM & State Agricultural College c/o Campus Planning 109 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Spear Meadows, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the Jul v 6, 2010 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.sbur.l.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. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com �2 1 south url e:`_`>_ PLANNING & ZONING June 24, 2010 Linda & David Young 1402 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Meadows, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the Julv 6, 2010 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. Sincerely, ?JanaZagle,yBe Planning & Zoning Assistant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com southh on, PLANNING & ZONING June 24, 2010 Douglas & Christine Franzoni 1406 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Meadows, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the July 6, 2010 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. Sincerely, ?Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802,846.4101 www.sburi.com south p _ PLANNING & ZONING June 24, 2010 Michael & Mary Scollins 214 Meadowood Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Meadows, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the July 6, 2010 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. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com r;ty south - rlingtor PLANNING & ZONING June 24, 2010 Margareta D. Dencker 1430 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Meadows, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the July 6, 2010 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. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com o r V�► 14WA V I south: PLANNING & ZONING June 24, 2010 Ila M. Isham Estate 1225 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Meadows, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the July 6, 2010 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. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com (r` /� ,NHi I south o,-, PLANNING & ZONING June 24, 2010 Thomas & Louise Kleh 219 Meadowood Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Meadows, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the July 6, 2010 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. Sincerely, ?Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com June 24, 2010 Pinnacle @ Spear c/o Betsy Carter Real Estate Management, Inc. 81 Ethan Allen Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Meadows, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the July 6, 2010 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. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com June 24, 2010 William & Maureen Gilbert 1400 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Meadows, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the July 6, 2010 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. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com southurliu,n. PLANNING & ZONING June 24, 2010 George A. Sporzynski Diane I. Muhr 1408 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Meadows, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the July 6, 2010 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 (wwww.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. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com south PLANNING & ZONING June 24, 2010 St. Clair Group 15840 Lakeview Court Cross Point, MI 48230 Re: Spear Meadows, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the July 6, 2010 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. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com southurlio. PLANNING & ZONING June 24, 2010 Robert & Estaleen Lavigne 1331 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Meadows, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the July 6, 2010 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. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com southburlington PLANNING & ZONING June 24, 2010 William & Tanya Cimmonetti 1393 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Meadows, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the July 6, 2010 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. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com June 24, 2010 Rich & Tracy Tarrant 1404 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Meadows, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the July 6, 2010 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. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com June 24, 2010 Kim McCoy -Whitten Kevin Sellon 1300 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Meadows, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the July 6, 2010 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. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com June 24, 2010 Robert & Marjorie Skiff 98 Springhouse Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Meadows, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Attached to this letter is a copy of the draft agenda for the July 6, 2010 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. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com r f� southburlington PLANNING & ZONING June 30, 2010 Eric Farrell PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 Re: Development Review Board Meeting, Spear Meadows Dear Eric: Enclosed, please find a copy of the July 6, 2010 Development Review Board agenda and staff comments for your project known as Spear Meadows. Please make sure someone to represent the project is at the meeting. Sincerely, Betsy Brown P&Z Assistant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com Page 1 of 2 Paul Conner From: Daniel [dseff@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 3:15 PM To: Paul Conner Cc: Bill Gilbert Subject: Re: Spear Meadows question Good afternoon, Paul. Thanks for the time on the phone and your email, which speaks of a "previous" sketch plan and the "most recent" sketch plan. I am not sure what you mean by "previous" or "most recent," but Mr. Farrell's application that is on for the July 6th DRB hearing is part and parcel of his one lone sketch plan application. Mr. Farrell himself refers to it in the first sentence of his June 2nd Memo to Mr. Belair as a "continued Sketch Plan Review" of Spear Meadows (emphasis added). The continuation of an existing application for sketch plan review could not be possibly be considered two separate proceedings for appeal purposes, and I do not understand the DRB's introduction of a new 2010 docket number into the existing sketch plan review process. Nevertheless, for the record, please have the DRB consider all my written and verbal statements made throughout the Spear Meadows sketch plan review process (regardless of docket number) in connection with the Spear Meadows issues to be reviewed/discussed/decided on July 6th and thereafter. Thanks very much. Sincerely, Daniel A. Seff 210 Meadowood Drive South Burlington, VT 05403-7401 From: Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com> To: Daniel <dseff@yahoo.com> Sent: Wed, June 30, 2010 1:20:38 PM Subject: Spear Meadows question Hi Daniel, Below is the message we had sent to Bill Gilbert yesterday. Hi Bill, You are welcome. Concerning your questions, the Vermont Supreme Court decisions below may provide some guidance regarding the issues that you have raised. We cannot provide any legal advice. We do not know the extent to which materials submitted in connection with previous sketch plans remains relevant, but you may simply file something in writing with the DRS that makes clear that you want your previous submittals to be part of the DRB's consideration of the most recent sketch plan. The City cannot make any statement regarding the Environmental Court or how it will view the application or the record before the DRB. Please call with further questions. Thank you. In re Appeal of Carroll, 181 Vt. 383 (2007) In re Champlain Oil Co., 176 Vt. 458 (2004) Paul 6/3 0/2010 Page 2 of 2 Paul Conner, AICPHI '"f4 Director of Planning & Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South B urling ton, V T 05403 (802) 846-4106 pconner@sburl.com www.sburl.coM/VlanniDg 6/3 0/2010 Permit Number SD- t_- In 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 OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax # .z- 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #)pr, 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #)��y4-��1 , /% �jO 1 3 3 J 4) APPLICANT'S LEGAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY (fee simple, option, etc.) 0j927Ciy�t 5) CONTACT Jq:LPERiS�O�N (Name, mailing add s� hone and fax #) Contact email address [' rrAI�E' l l pf L E�15r-A•K V71 Z-p"4 6) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 131) z - 134V 13 ST sPEKPL -6 7) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office 8) PROJECT DESCRIPTION a) Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use). b) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existin&j uses to remain) , Jr 1 /W�} a cc) Total building square footage on property (proposed bu ." vv�. �_ 6 P &)C1.571jVG- 5!N 6 cA /yu4-LLJr i�� and existing buildings to remain) I'a E Uzi W F—aI A'I') •4— d) Proposed height of building (if applicable) 7V A:16: 30 Fee,-� e) Total parcel size(s) , / 47 f) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable) 5'c,CC 9) 9a: SEQ SUBDISTRICT (identify in each) Acreage Units Existing Units proposed NRP NRT NR 2 VR VC 9b: Are Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) being utilized? V r6 If yes, please identify how many and from which parcel (street address) 'Y I uA,, 1rs FP—v411 (-C- () a 6- P A-e-LJA 10) TYPE OF EXISTING OR PROPOSED ENCUMBRANCES ON PROPERTY (easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc.) /I ,Lo' 11) LOT COVERAGE a) Building: Existing % Proposed % b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing _% Proposed % 2 c) Front yard (along each street) Existing % Proposed % 12) PROPOSED EXTENSION, RELOCATION, OR MODIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL FACILITIES (sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc.) P41 -i-- !C� 9:",/,ciQ, 13) OWNERS OF RECORD OF ALL CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES & MAILING ADDRESSES (this may be provided on a separate attached sheet) 14) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE--jQ 3L l 1 15) PLANS AND FEE Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (11" x 17") of the plans must be submitted. A sketch subdivision application fee is $125. I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledgq., A n 3 Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: v I have reviewed this sketch plan application and find it to be: 1;4 Complete ❑ Incomplete /Z /V Ojct�� � /3/p ire for of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date 4 [I FARRELL SUBDIVISION List of Abutters May 29, 2009 Parcel Number Name & Address Subject Property: 1640-1340 Spear Meadows, Inc. c/o Brent Farrell Double Tree Hotel Burlington 1117 Williston Rd So. Burlington, VT 05403 Abutters: 1742-00033 R Larkin/Milot Partnership P.O. Box 4193 Burlington, VT 05401 1640-01350 R Gary N. & Jane G. Farrell 1350 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1645-00112 Brett P. Grabowski & Jennifer L. Milot 23 Dorey Rd So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01260 N UVM & State Agricultural College 85 So. Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05401 1640-01402 R Linda & David Young 1402 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01406 R Douglas J. & Christine Franzoni 1406 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1160-00214 R Michael J. & Mary D. Scollins 214 Meadowood Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01430 R Margareta D. Dencker 1430 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Farrell Subdivision 1 List of Abutters - Page 2 0570-01225 R Ila M. Isham Estate 1225 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1160-00219 R Thomas R. & Louise T. Kleh 219 Meadow Wood Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01302 R Gary N. Farrell 1350 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Open Space Pinnacle at Spear Pinnacle @ Spear c/o Betsy Carter Real Estate Management, Inc. 81 Ethan Allen Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01400 R William A. & Maureen G. Gilbert 1400 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01408 R George A. Sporzynski & Diane I. Muhr 1408 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01317 R St. Clair Group, Inc. 15840 Lakeview Court Crosse Point, MI 48230 1640-01331 R Robert & Estaleen Lavigne 1331 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01393 R William & Tanya Cimmonetti 1393 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01404 R Rich & Tracy Tarrant 1404 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Farrell Subdivision List of Abutters - Page 3 1640-01300 R Kim McCoy -Whitten & Kevin Sellon 1300 Spear St. So. Burlington, VT 05403 1645-00089 R Robert A. & Marjorie N. Skiff 89 Springhouse Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington Public Works 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 TEL: (802)658-7961 FAX: (802)658-7976 OFFICE 104 LANDFILL RD. MEMO To: C'athyann LaRose From: Justin Rabidoux /� Date: February 5, 2010 Re: #SD-09-42, Gary Farrell et al — Spear Meadows Public Works staff met with the developer and his design team February 4 to review plans for the referenced project ("SPEAR MEADOWS Concept Plan", dated 2/1/10) and has the following comments to offer. l . A tree is shown 50' north of the intersection of Spear Street and Spear Meadow Road. 'rhe concern is whether or not Spear Meadow Road westbound drivers stopping at the intersection have sufficient sight distance to make a safe departure through the intersection area. 2. Spear Meadow Road has a three -lane profile as it approaches Spear Street. Do projected traffic volumes warrant this profile or would a two-lane cross-section be appropriate? 3. Both the Vail Drive intersections with Park Street and Spear Meadows Drive are narrowed from the typical 26' cross-section. Public Works has concerns about our ability to safely, effectively and efficiently plow the intersections given their size and tight radii. 4. At the eastern boundary of the site, many of the private driveways/parking lots are within 10' or less of the proposed rec path. If that path is to be public, Public Works is required to maintain it in the winter. The close proximity of the drives/lots to the path results in the potential for private plowers to push snow onto the rec path or near our required snow :,forage areas. We support keeping all paved surfaces at least 10' away from the rec path. 5. The southern 350' of proposed Vail Drive narrows from 26 to 18'. Again, we would rathcr this remain at 26' for maintenance purposes. If the intent is to induce traffic calming, the existing Vale Drive cul-de-sac will slow cars entering/exiting the proposed development. 6. The plan lists Vail Drive as a proposed street. The existing adjacent city street is Vale Drive. Please have the developer clarify the spelling of their proposed street and their intention on having proposed Vail Drive be a continuation of existing Vale Drive or is it planned to be a separate street. 7. The northern terminus of Vail Drive proposes a hammerhead turnaround. Public Works strongly prefers a cul-de-sac for maintenance purposes. If either the developer or the DRB wishes the hammerhead to remain, perhaps the 200' of Vail Drive north of the Spear Meadows intersection could remain private so as to alleviate maintenance concerns. S. The first 160' of Park Street is to be paved and the plans show the last 340' as gravel. We would like for the drive to be paved to the parking lot for maintenance purposes. The exact transition point of paved to gravel can be specified as the plans develop between Public Works and the developer. 9. Realizing this is only Sketch Plan review, we will hold detailed comments for future plan submissions. 'l hank you for the opportunity to comment and please let me know if you have questions. Page 1 of 1 ray From: Eric Farrell[efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 12:25 PM To: ray Subject: Spear Meadows Hi Ray, We will not be ready to submit revised plans in time for Staff review and comment before the March 16th meeting date, so please ask the DRB to continue our Sketch Plan review to April 6th Many thanks, Eric Eric F. Farrell efarrell, i farr_ellrealestatev_t com FARRELL REAL ESTATE Mailing: PO Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402-1335 Physical: 875 Roosevelt Highway, Suite 120, Colchester, VT 05446 P: 802-861-3000 x12 F: 802-861-3003 C: 802-343-7055 2/23/2010 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: April 2, 2010 drb\sub\farrell\SpearkMeadows\sketch3_seq.doc Plans received: March 22, 2010 SPEAR MEADOWS 1350 SPEAR STREET nda # 10 SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-09-42 Meeting date: April 6, 2010 Owner Applicant Gary N. Farrell, Jane G. Farrell & Spear Eric F. Farrell Meadows Inc. PO Box 1335 1350 Spear Street Burlington, VT 05402 South Burlington, VT 05403 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 26.94 acres 301 College Street Burlington VT 05401 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING (irb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch2 seg Eric Farrell, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking sketch plan review of a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The proposal consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 29 single family dwellings, 3) constructing 22 two-family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. The Development Review Board heard the first sketch plan review on October 6, 2009, and continued the project to November 17, 2009, January 5, 2010, February 16, and again to March 16, 2010. The applicant submitted revised plans to the staff on March 22, 2010. COMMENTS Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose, Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Director of Planning Paul Conner, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on March 22, 2010 and have the following comments. The staff notes herein reflect a review of the major issues 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. 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: 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. The base density of the parcel generated by the land at 1.2 units per acre, based on 26.1 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, are 104 units. The applicant is proposing 73 new units, with one existing dwelling to remain, for a total of 74 units within the PUD for a proposed density of 2.8 units/acre. Therefore, a total of 43 development rights shall be needed. 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 preliminary 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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch2 seg Development Rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to Preliminary Plat approval. The applicant shall submit legal documents showing clear ownership of the remaining 43 development rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the 32nd unit. ACCESS Access is proposed via a public street connection to Spear Street as well as to the existing public road of Vale Drive. Vale Drive is currently a public street terminated in a cul-de-sac. A right-of-way exists at the end of the cul-de-sac, always intended as a secondary access to this parcel. As is customary, the applicant will submit more details of the roadway (including cross -sections) as part of the preliminary plat application. The applicant is now proposing a short dead-end street connection to the parcel to the north, labeled as UVM and State Agricultural College. The Director of Public Works, the City Engineer, and the City of South Burlington has had a policy against dead end roads or hammer -head turn-arounds in residential areas. LOT LAYOUT & ROAD CONFIG iR MN Staff has reviewed the proposed lot layout in accordance with the Regulating Plan illustrated in Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Staff finds that the project does not meet the strict guidelines of the SEQ which call for short development blocks and limits the lengths of roadways, in order to minimize impacts on the wetlands which traverse the site from north to south and fit into the unique shape of the lot. In this case of partially competing objectives, staff finds that the design presented achieves the best possible layout given the restrictions on the site. Furthermore, the public bike path transects several of the blocks. The attached letter from the applicant further addresses the issue of street block length (Farrell, dated 3/22/10). The Development Review Board has previously discussed this matter and has agreed; they have previously found the road layout to be acceptable. The applicant is proposing a cul-de-sac 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 criterion is waivable. The Board should discuss this request. Given the unique shape of the lot, the location of the wetlands on site, the existence of two access points, the close proximity of the cul-de-sac to an adjacent lot with development potential, and that the dead-end road is proposed only to access a park, staff is comfortable with this request. The Board has previously discussed this item and voiced that they are amenable to waiving this requirement. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch2 seq 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. The plans have been revised since the last meeting, and all of the proposed units now orient to the street (see attached Drawing L100). The applicant states that "the homes fronting on the street are set back 10 feet, and some of the porches are set back 5 feet, from the public ROW. In combination with a 5 foot sidewalk and 8-9 foot green belt, this juxtaposition will present an intimate local street experience and serve to foster conversation between passing pedestrians and residents." Staff concurs. The Board previously discussed the amount of translucent surfaces (windows) which would face the south. The applicant has stated that they will provide final calculations for the total area of translucent windows oriented to the south at the preliminary plat level as the sketch plan level is premature for the final development drawings of actual buildings. The applicant states that the irregular shape of the parcel, and the previously stated desire by the Board to have all buildings front to the street, make it exceptionally difficult to orient 35% of the glazing to the south. Staff agrees that in this case these two guidelines compete in some level, and that to have 100% of both would either be impossible or result in a design which would fail to achieve the greater goals of new neighborhood design in favor of a monotonous series of narrow, linear buildings. Staff finds that the design guidelines are met in this proposal. 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 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, staff advised the applicant to work with the Director of Public Works to CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\sgearmeadows\sketch2 seg determine the needs for access and turn -around to this parcel. This has been done, and comments by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer are attached (see letter from Justin Rabidoux, dated April 1, 2010). 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. TRAFFIC The 74 units proposed as part of the PUD are estimated to generate 57.72 pm peak vehicle trip ends (LUC 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 South Burlington Director of Public Works in his letter dated April 1, 2010 questions the need for the three -lane profile on the new road. The applicant should work with the Department of Public Works and address this as part of the preliminary plat submission. WETLANDS 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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch2 seq 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. 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: 3 single family building models of small, medium and large alternatives ranging in size from 1373 to 2200 sf. These are proposed to be available with several garage arrangements resulting in 16 different -looking building configurations. 5 basic duplex building models with 7 different building styles ranging in size from 2736 to 3400 sf (both units) All of these structures are mixed throughout the proposed development. 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 subiect to the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch2 sea 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 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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch2 seg (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. (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 drb\sub\snearmeadows\sketch2 sea (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 drb\sub\sgearmeadows\sketch2 sea 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 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\sgearmeadows\sketch2 seq minimum of thirty five percent (35%) of translucent widows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. (2) Building Fagades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but fagades 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 proceed to the preliminary plat level. There are several items which must still be addressed as part of a more detailed, engineered preliminary plat application. Re ectfully submitted, thyan LaRose, AICP, Associate Planner Copy to: Eric Farrell, Applicant .. 4% ►��•�� `r southburlington PUBLIC WORKS MEMO To: Cathyann LaRose From: Justin Rabidoux,� Date: April 1, 2010 Re: #SD-09-42, Gary Farrell et al — Spear Meadows — 2°d Review Public Works staff reviewed plans for the referenced project ("SPEAR MEADOWS", dated 3/18/10) and has the following comments to offer. 1. A tree is shown 50' north of the intersection of Spear Street and Spear Meadow Road. The concern is whether or not Spear Meadow Road westbound drivers stopping at the intersection have sufficient sight distance to make a safe departure through the intersection area. 2. Spear Meadow Road has a three -lane profile as it approaches Spear Street. Do projected traffic volumes warrant this profile or would a two-lane cross-section be appropriate? 3. There are multiple "roundabouts" shown in the bike path. Without knowing the function of these, we recommend removing them from the plan. 4. A few of the drives on opposite of the street line up exactly with each other. Would it be safer for vehicles backing onto Vale Drive for these to be staggered? 5. The project designers are encouraged to implement Low Impact Development (LID) as described in the City's Low Impact Development Guidance Manual. This document can be found on-line at http://www.sburlstormwater.com/downloads/manuals/SB Low_Impact _Development _M anual.pdf or by contacting the City's Stormwater Superintendent. 6. It appears that this project will disturb greater than 1 acre of land and create greater than 1 acre of impervious area. Therefore, this project will need both a construction stormwater permit (3-9020 or individual permit) and an operational stormwater permit (3-9015 or individual permit) from the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Stormwater Division. Obtaining these two permits should be a condition of approval on this project. Information submitted to ANR for issuance of these permits should also be submitted to the DPW for review, comment, and inclusion in a Potash Brook watershed model that the City maintains. 7. The proposed project crosses a nearby wetland in two locations. Assuming that this is a class 2 wetland (not specified), this project will likely need a conditional use determination from the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation wetlands division. Obtaining this permit should be a condition of approval on this project. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.658.7961 fax 802.658.7976 www.sburi.com Physical Address: 104 Landfill Road South Burlington 8. Some of the units back up to the wetland and associated buffer (e.g. unit Ws 36, 40, 42, 45, 47, 50, 52, 10, 12). Use of this buffer area is regulated under section 12.02 of the City's Land Development Regulations (LDRs). The DRB should pay particular attention to section 12.02.E(1) through 12.02.E(3) of the LDRs and my want to include a condition that this buffer area not be turned into lawn. 9. The wetland area shown on the plans west of Vale Drive appears to also be a mapped stream (tributary of Potash Brook). The applicant should confirm that this area is a mapped stream. If it is a stream, section 12.01 of the South Burlington LDRs discussed appropriate uses for the stream buffer area. The DRB should pay particular attention to section 12.0l .C(2) of the LDRs. Section 12.0l .C(2)(c) of the LDRs states that the creation of new lawn areas is not permitted in the stream buffer area. 10. The project engineer should provide an analysis of downstream culverts and their ability to handle any additional volumes of runoff generated by this project. 11. Realizing this is only Sketch Plan review, we will hold detailed comments for future plan submissions. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and please let me know if you have questions. Farrell Real Estate P.O. Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402 802-861-3000 fax 802-861-3003 Memo To: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer From: Eric Farrell <f� Date: 3/22/2010 Re: Spear Meadows, 1340 — 1350 Spear Street Attached please find the following additional materials in connection with the continued Sketch Plan Review of the above referenced project: • Spear Meadows — Rendered Concept Plan by T. J. Boyle Associates LLC (Sheet No. R101, dated 3/5/10) • Spear Meadows — Concept Plan by T. J. Boyle Associates LLC (Sheet No. L100, dated 3/18/10) • Spear Meadows — Color Coded Building Type Plan — by T. J. Boyle Associates LLC (Sheet No. R100, dated 3/18/10) Density (Section 9.05 A and 9.05 B (3)) The materials submitted herein depict a revised total of 74 dwelling units in 52 buildings, representing an overall density of 2.83 units per acre (74 units / 26.19 acres). The building configurations are as follows: Single Family Homes • 1 - existing Single -Family Home — 1 unit • 29 - new Single -Family Homes — 29 units Duplex Buildings • 7 - Flat over a Flat — 14 units • 2 — Double Flats over Garages — 4 units • 2 - Side by Side Townhouses — 4 units • 11 - Townhouse attached to a Flat over a Garage — 22 Units 1 Dimensional & Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub -Districts — LDR Section 9.06 All of the proposed buildings will be less than 45 feet in height. 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 by and administered by the Landowners' Association. Public Park Area - LDR Section 9.07 (D 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 74 units proposed would require a park area of 1.25 acres (74 x 2.25 = 167 persons / 1,000 persons x 7.5 acres = 1.25 acres). The proposed plans depict a "Neighborhood Park" containing 2.7 acres (over twice the required size). The public park is proposed for the area where formerly a cul-de-sac was planned to serve 17 dwelling units. 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 and an extension of the recreation path network. The proposed plans also depict a community garden area for the exclusive use of residents of the Spear Meadows development. It will be located adjacent to the public park and contain approximately 1.6 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, satisfying a requirement in the LDR's that open spaces be contiguous wherever possible. Street Blocks and Street Connections to Adioining Parcels - LDR Section 9.08 (A) (B) There are six public street blocks, having the following lengths: 700', 325', 400', 400' and 150', plus one private street bock measuring 150'. These measurements are between intersecting streets or recreation path connections. The longest block (700') enters the project site from Spear Street and is necessitated by the presence of Class II wetlands and the associated 50 foot buffer that bisects the parcel for its entire length from north to south. The 300 foot length of street that connects Spear Meadows to the Pinnacle at Spear neighborhood is not included in this calculation, as it is technically not a part of the project site. There are two shorter street sections planned. The first is a private street, measuring 150 feet, and terminating at the property line of UVM to the north, providing a future potential connection to that undeveloped parcel. This private street connection will be constructed to city standards in anticipation of a future dedication to the City. The other short section of street is public, also measuring 150 feet, terminates at the easterly buffer line of the wetlands. Thereafter, this public street narrows to an 18 feet paved drive and continues on to provide access to the public park area. It also provides a potential future connection to the adjoining "Gilbert" property. • Page 2 The main public street is proposed at 26 feet wide (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 8 — 9 feet wide to accommodate generous street trees, all in full compliance with the LDR's. Building Orientation - LDR Section 9.08 (C) (1) (2) (3) (4 All of the 73 new dwelling units that are proposed are oriented to the street, as depicted on Drawing L100. The building facades employ a common theme, while also presenting sufficient variation so as to not be monotonous. All of the individual buildings, as located, present a diverse streetscape due to varying home sizes, roof orientation, exterior fenestration, porch design and garage access. The homes fronting on the street are set back 10 feet, and some of the porches are set back 5 feet, from the public ROW. In combination with a 5 foot sidewalk and 8 — 9 foot green belt, this juxtaposition will present an intimate local street experience and serve to foster conversation between passing pedestrians and residents. Accordingly, we request a waiver of the front yard setbacks, in order to reinforce this close neighborhood feel and support the ambiance of the street environment. Of the 52 buildings proposed, 4 single family homes have garages that face the street; 2 of which are to the rear of the main house and 2 of which are set back from the front fagade of the house. In all other instances, the garages are located behind the buildings and not face the street. Translucent Window Orientation - LDR Section 9.08 (C) (1 We are still at Sketch level and final design development drawings for the buildings have not yet been completed. Therefore, we are unable to make a final determination of the total area of translucent windows and surfaces that are oriented to the south. The final calculation will be presented at Preliminary Plat Review. The irregular shape of the parcel makes it difficult to orient 35% of the glazing to the south and this requirement conflicts with the requirement of building orientation to the street. Therefore, we ask the DRB to declare its position regarding the priority of these two competing sections of the LDR's. Mix of Housing Tvnes - LDR Section 9.08 (C) (5 There are 3 basic single family building models, across which there are small, medium and large floor plan alternatives resulting in 5 different home styles ranging in size from 1,373 sf to 2,200 sf. In addition to the floor plan alternatives, there are several garage arrangements, both attached and detached, resulting in 16 different -looking building configurations. There are 5 basic duplex building models within which there are several floor plan alternatives resulting in 7 different building styles ranging in size from 2,736 sf to 3,400 sf (both units). Within • Page 3 the different building styles, there are 9 variations in the individual unit floor plans ranging in size from 1,005 sf to 2,200 sf. When you combine the various single family and duplex floor plans opportunities, you have a total of 15 possible home layouts ranging from a 1,005 sf one -bedroom flat to a 2,200 sf, four - bedroom, 2-story single family or townhouse. Lot Coverage As proposed, Building coverage is 9.4% and Total Lot Coverage is 26.3%. If we were to utilize pervious pavers in the courtyard areas, the Total Lot Coverage would be reduced to 22.6%. The coverage calculations are set forth on the attached schedule entitled "Spear Meadows Impervious Coverage Calculations". Other Site Plan Modifications The proposed plans incorporate the recommendations of the Recreation Path Committee, which include 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. We also simplified the street design, making it uniformly 26 feet wide per city specifications, which accommodate parking on one side without delineation, and separating the sidewalk from the street by a generous green belt measuring 8 or 9 feet. Review by the New Public Work Director The proposed plans have been reviewed by Justin Rabidoux, Public Works Director. His comments are contained in a February 5, 2010 Memo to Cathyann LaRose and will be addressed, as follows: 1. Site distance will be confirmed and the tree removed, if necessary. 2. This will be addressed at Preliminary Plat Review, at which time a new traffic impact analysis will be presented. 3. The neck -downs have been removed, such that a minimum street width of 26 feet will be maintained. 4. The driveways have been revised to provide the requested 10 foot setback. 5. The Vale Drive connection has been increased to 24 feet (the same as at wetlands crossings), which we believe to be adequate for maintenance purposes. We will increase it to 26 feet, if directed to do so by the DRB. 6. The street spelling has been corrected. The new public street will be an extension of the existing Vale Drive. 9 Page 4 7. The northern section of the street in question is planned to be private, however constructed to City standards. 8. The pavement on Park Street has been extended down to the parking lot serving the public park. DRB Meetinq 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. We look forward to presenting our revised Sketch Plans to the DRB at its April 6th meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information. Attachments • Page 5 SPEAR MEADOWS IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE CALCULATIONS Building Footprints 3/22/2010 Proposed Buildings 100,900 sf Lot 1 Buildings (existing) 6,368 Community Garden Building 216 Subtotal: 107,484 Roads Proposed Roads (not including Vale Drive Extension) 79,122 New Lot 1 Driveway 7,154 Paved Road to Park 4,370 Sidewalks (not including at Vale Drive Extension) 18,589 Rec Path 36,473 Basketball 4,200 Total Overall Coverage: 257,392 sf Courtyards 42,087 sf Total Overall Coverage with Courtyards: 299,479 sf Total Project Size: 1,140,836 sf Percent Building Coverage: 9.4% Total Percent Overall Coverage: 26.3% Percent Overall Coverage (not including Courtyards): 22.6% 26.19 acres I rr go, southburlington April 6, 2010 Charles E. Hatter, City Manager Mr. Luke Beatty Rick Marcotte Central School 10 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Luke: Thank you for your recent letter to the City Council regarding the possible development of the field at Swift Street and Spear Street. I will copy your letter for all the members of the City Council. I understand your concern about losing the field where you and your friends play and the loss of home for wildlife. It is healthy to have places to run and exercise and to enjoy the outdoors. It is also sad to lose an open space that you have been enjoying. First, you need to understand that the proposal to build housing is not that of the City Council. This land is owned by a private individual who wants to build houses. The City does not own the land, nor does the City have any rights to do what it likes with the land. This is not a City project, if the City owned the land it would not be developed, except for maybe a ballfield or a playground. The owner has a right to seek approval to use his property as he wants. Next, the decision whether to allow development of this land will not be made by the City Council. Instead, the City Council appoints another city committee, called the Development Review Board, to make this decision for them. I will also send a copy of your letter to the Development Review Board, called the DRB for short, so they can consider your comments. It is good that you have written the Vermont Land Trust. The City works with the VLT very often. Just last year we partnered with the VLT to 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com preserve 88 acres of a farm in South Burlington. Unfortunately, the VLT has many requests for help, but not much money. It is a very interesting and complicated matter to consider where housing should be located in South Burlington. After all, we need houses for new families and new residents to live. How can we build these homes without using up all the open fields and playing spaces? You know that the area in which you live was open space not too long ago. When your neighborhood was built, some people raised the same concerns about your homes hurting the wildlife. The City decided that homes were needed and that the benefit of homes for people was great enough to outweigh the loss of open space. I think the answer is to have a balance between open space and houses. In order to decide on that balance, we need the voice of every resident of South Burlington to help make that decision. I am very pleased you wrote to the City Council to let your voice be heard. I hope you stay involved with this issue and others and that you continue to be part of your City government. Thanks again!! Sincerely, Ckti?' Chuck rafter City Manager 3-26-10 Dear City Council, You have been an amazing council for our city, and everyone appreciates the work that you do for us, but I and many others think that you have made a big mistake. I live on Four Sisters Road, and our street has lots and lots of kids on it. Almost everyday, rain, snow, or sun, the kids on our street plays in the field off of Spear Street and Swift Street, whether it is capture the flag, football, or flashlight taq. Lately we have heard that you are planning to build something there. I'm writing this to you, and I know that I represent quite a lot.' ot of people on my street, because I would like to stop you from following through with your project. Here are a few reasons why. V/i it+ Ii 611 A gn% I III/1 1Ar- IN AI IN IITHA A-{-� I•/A NA NIA\/INrf �AA-1-L.AII •N / GJ I C,I uur VVG, `uJ III Vul J 1 I GC+I J, VVC.1 c- ViuriIiy I Vv i vuii III the field, and we saw quite a few different types of animals who live there. We saw a mouse scurrying by. A snake darted into a hole when we walked past. A fox was lingering around when we arrived. My point is, if you built something there, you wouldn't just be affecting our street. You would be hurting the wildlife that lives there. Also, if you did build something in the field, it would mostly ruin the kids on our street's outside fun. I know that there are woods nearby, but our parents don't like us playing in there because they think that we could easily get hurt. There's also the golf course, but the rangers that work there don't like us playing there because they think that we might ruin the grass. We try to use our own yards, but the parents on the street don't like us in the road. I understand that this project would probably provide the city with quite a lot of money, but there is more at stake here than just your profit. I think that I have a road that you could choose to go down that would make both of us happy. There is a group called the Vermont Land Trust. Their main point is to preserve Vermont's wildlife. They buy land, like the field, from the city that the land is in, in this case South Burlington, and make it so no development can happen to that piece of land. By doing this, they also help the animals that live in that piece of land. I and many others are desperately asking you to rethink your building plans. I have tak2i ti i� t iati ve t o vvr i t e t o tiie Ver MUI I t Lard Trust myself. I am attaching a copy of my letter to them. I know that they would not give you nearly as much money as you would get from developing the land, but think of the children, and the children's children! I have also done quite a lot of research on the Vermont Land Trust, and on their website it says, "Conserving land for the future of Vermont." Notice how it says, "For the future of Vermont." If we keep developing more and more land, Vermont will turn into one big city. That also leads to pollution, which is already becoming a big problem for our home, Earth. I and many others are desperately begging you to rethink your building plans for the future. Thank you for your time in reading this letter. Sincerely, Luke Beatty .1-26-10 Dear VLT, You have been an amazing helper for our state, and everyone appreciates the work that you do for us, but I and many others think that you could help even more. I live on Four Sisters Road in South Burlington, and our street has lots and lots of kids on it. Almost everyday, rain, snow, or sun, the kids on our street play in the field off of Spear Street and Swift Street, whether it is capture the flag, football, or flashlight tag. Lately we have heard that the city council is planning to build something there. I'm writing this to you, and I know that I represent quite a lot of people on my street, 4,,,...,.... T ......,I.J I G- 4... L,.. .a.L - 1--J �L --- I I_�_ 1_... LJ<1I.UUJe 1 WUUIU l l mt-, yUU I V Uu I f IG IUIIU I MP-1'I✓. Here Gre a I UW reasons why. Yesterday we, (as in our street), were playing football in the field, and we saw quite a few different types of animals who live there. We saw a mouse scurrying by. A snake darted into a hole when we walked past. A fox was lingering around when we arrived. My point is, if the city built something there, it wouldn't just be affecting our street. It would be hurting the wildlife that lives there. Also, if the city did build something in the field, it would mostly ruin the kids on our streets outside fun. I know that there are woods nearby, but our parents don't like us playing in there because they think that we could easily get hurt. There's also the golf course, but the rangers that work there don't like us playing there because they think that we might ruin the grass. We try to use our own yards, but the parents on the street don't like us in the road. I understand that this project would probably provide the city with quite a lot of money, but there is more at stake here than just the city's profit. I think that I have a road that you could choose to go down that would make both of us happy. I have taken the initiative to write to the city council. I am attaching a copy of my letter to them. I know that you would not give the city nearly as much money then they would get from developing the land, but think of the children, and the children's children! T kn%in nlCn rinn ni , ; F n n 1n 1 n� v+nnnnni-�, .i�.� �n .,v�..1 1r, ilv� ....� �., l i IUYCi IAIJV .aVlle ylJ1 a li IV 1 V f C,JGUI 1.1 Oulu gJ Vllf.J. V(1 y0u website it says, "Conserving land for the future of Vermont." Notice how it says, "For the future of Vermont." If we keep developing more and more land, Vermont will turn into one big city. That also leads to pollution, which is already becoming a big problem for our home, Earth. I and many others are desperately begging you to think about buying this wonderful piece of land. Thank you for your time in reading this letter. Sincerely, Luke Beatty 40412- Q40 -ow Aeot� Interested Persons Record and Service L' ist soutlairp-tnzt)II :'fPMONI 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 wor in days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE:A14 G aO f PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME �-%. J-z,4 L. k 11 C'A- r� -&� S-t'Vr-- �!Dy MAILING ADDRESS PROJECT OF INTEREST 7 3pr.lvoo pj S, Z I 0 Vle S('C-4- ttV'-5 rj� lJ � , , i, -�i, - . n. ovm OZWY R ((.,t, :s p Interested Persons Record and Service List southilp E R N10-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 R4A11 IAIC Annoi--7c%e% � Z — — — ""' �w✓cv 1 yr IIV 1 CKti s� r/.v SrS spec 4.n T �o 1�y �71 I C�1�4011 rt � l j /'l ?'Id r io'ad �� 3 1 Vol q3 Interested Persons Record and Service List sa thbut gto .."IF N1 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: - C)V . I 0 PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME MAILING ADDRESS PROJECT � �� P r/vr• a c� OF INTEREST Q t�l l.C.i -- o A-o a;, ���,�� t19 — s �• 7-0 G 1 &A LLL AOCK - 0)1 Interested Persons Record and Service List southlmr. po n 1.R M0 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 VV..S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: A PA C In "(6/ c PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME MAILING ADDRESS PROJ ECT OF INERES i �q JC /'j��baNS 1 /ram DSAWE 577&I2 M,bc S CRECo So 13u,2JT �Lv t )--� 'o`�.��� S N� - V P1 I-�T\C\ � Sp��,� N-� A 4 �� ('j�y�i`l� i � �e,�t •cw� o .,�5 �'�VIN Iltlofz�DeN ZOO (:LY J AvGOLAC s -+ ITT- z. A V4v ivy Trm cite- faa',0C., I A Tt�.I1NtTD�l \1 7O Or �,JA-I't- �Jk"scAA-.cam 10 f-tAIIAS cL;X. Jets -. 106 cfr r�rs�� P go aver, Interested Persons Record and Service List JIM south u u toral VE Y:'A 0 N T 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 MAILING onnRFcc oon ICP`T e%r- 7 `aC L? LL- ✓ZOcCC ._ DEVELOMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 MARCH 2010 PAGE 4 7. Site Plan Application #SP-10-16 of Timothy Cutler to operate a seasonal mobile food unit, 6-12 Ethan Allen Drive: Mr. Dinklage noted receipt of a letter from Richard Grzyuna opposing this application for reasons of dust, noise, food odors and other issues. Mr. Cutler said cars drive on an unpaved area, but he was not aware there was a problem. He felt that Mr. Grzyuna's problem is more from the road that washes onto his property after a storm. He added that the site in question is 125 feet from Mr. Grzyuna's house. _ Regarding noise, Mr. Cutler said he also hadn't heard of this before. He said they are out of the site by 9 p.m., and the seating is 150 feet from Mr. Grzyuna's house. Mr. Cutler also noted they empty trash every other day. He had not noticed any upturned trash. They have tight -fitting lids on trash cans. He stressed that they meet all Health Department requirements. Mr. Dinklage said the real issue for him is the southerly entrance and he recommended closing it. Mr. Cutler had no issue with that. Mr. Belair said staff no longer recommends the Ethan Allen Dr. access as it is only one lane wide. He recommends access only from the northerly access off Lime Kiln Rd. Mr. Cutler was OK with that. Mr. Behr moved to approve Site Plan Application #SP-10-16 of Timothy Cutler subject to the stipulations in the draft motion as amended. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-42 of Gary Farrell et al for a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two single family dwellings. The proposal consists of. 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 21 single family dwellings, 3) constructing 17 two-family dwellings and 4) constructing 8 three -unit multi- family dwellings,1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Belair noted the applicant has asked to continue the application until 6 April. He also noted that staff has not yet seen the revised plans. Mr. Behr moved to continue Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-42 of Gary Farrell et al until 6 April 2010. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. 12 Clerk Lf gkdto Date DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 FEBRUARY 2010 PAGE 2 6. Site Plan Application #SP-10-12 of Tammy Schey to convert 7,575 sq. ft. of an 11, 200 sq. ft. building used for auto sales, service and repair to commercial kennel use, 5 Green Mountain Drive: Mr. Belair drew members' attention to the fact that the request had been changed from "pet day care" use to "commercial kennel use." Ms. LaRose reminded members that the section under which this application is being heard is new. Ms. Schey said they will be putting up chain link/stockade fencing. She noted that the nearest residence is hundreds of feet away. Mr. Dinklage asked how many overnights there would be at any one time. Ms. Schey said a maximum of 40 but probably more like 25. They are thinking of having overnight staff, but are not sure of that. No other issues were raised. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Site Plan Application #SP-10-12 of Tammy Schey subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Continued sketch plan application #SD-09-42 of Gary Farrell, et al, for a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two single family dwellings. The proposal consists of. 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 21 single family dwellings, 3) constructing 17 two-family dwellings, and 4) constructing 8 three -unit multi- family dwellings, 1302,1340, and 1350 Spear St: Mr. Dinklage advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance. Mr. Belair noted that Bill Gilbert, a neighbor, has indicted he cannot be available before 28 March, but the applicant had requested 16 March. Ms. Quimby moved to continue Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-42 of Gary Farrell, et al, until 16 March 2010. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Ad Clerk Date Page- 1 of 2 Paul Conner From: Paul Conner Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:50 AM To: William gilbert' Cc: Eric Farrell Subject: RE: Reschedule of Farrell DRB Hearing Thank you for your message. We have not received a request for a continuance to date, so any discussion of dates is purely hypothetical at this point. The decision of whether and when to continue a hearing to rests entirely with the DRB. They are, however, required to uphold the applicant's due process rights. Therefore, if the applicant requests to be heard in March, there is space on an agenda at that time, and staff has enough time to review submittals, the DRB must either allow that continuance or conclude the sketch plan. We would be happy to share any staff notes we prepare, and to take written comments from you if you are not able to attend. All meetings are recorded by CCTV, as you know, and can be viewed on line. Paul Paul Conner, AICP Director of Planning & Zoning From: wagvermont@gmail.com [mailto:wagvermont@gmail.com] On Behalf Of william gilbert Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 8:59 AM To: Paul Conner Cc: Eric Farrell Subject: Reschedule of Farrell DRB Hearing Paul I cannot do the March 2 date if that is the plan... I can be there after March 28th but will be away on March 2nd. I understand that the DRB cannot schedule for everyone's calendar, but as a major affected neighbor to the property and active participant in this long running sketch plan session perhaps a hearing after March 28th could be considered by the DRB? 2/16/2010 Page 2 of 2 wag william gilbert 802 862.4531 cell 802 734.1500 wagvermonta,comcast.net 2/16/2010 1 Page 1 of 2 Paul Conner From: wagvermont@gmail.com on behalf of william gilbert [wagvermont@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:07 AM To: Paul Conner Subject: Re: Agenda Paul Thank you. Regrading scheduling, I would ask (if appropriate) that the Staff indicate to the DRB that as a party to the proceeding I will be prepared to attend and would urge that the DRB consider a March 30th date for the next DRB hearing on this matter. Thanks again wag On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Paul Conner <pconner a sburl.com> wrote: 'am As noted last week, only the DRB has the authority to continue an application, and they may only do so in open session. However, the applicant has requested a continuance, and staff is supportive of this. See the note sent out over the Front Porch Forum last week: Eric Farrell has requested that the Development Review Board grant a continuance for their hearing on his Sketch Plan proposal for 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street (aka the "Spear Meadows" project). The proposal is on the agenda for the February 16th meeting at 7:30pm at 575 Dorset Street. The Planning and Zoning staff will recommend the DRB accept the request for a continuance. Once accepted, no further discussion of the project will occur until a later date set by the DRB. If you wish to keep track of this project as it comes up for review, please check the DRB agendas and pending applications on our website at http://www.sburl.com/planning. Paul Conner, AICP Director of Planning & Zoning 2/16/2010 Page 1 of 1 ray From: Eric Farrell[efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 4:24 PM To: ray Subject: Spear Meadows Hi Ray, By way of written conf irmation, please ask the DRB to continue our Sketch Plan application to March 16th. Thanks, Eric Eric F. Farrell efarrell&farrellrealestatevt com FARRELL REAL ESTATE Mailing: PO Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402-1335 Physical: 875 Roosevelt Highway, Suite 120, Colchester, VT 05446 P: 802-861-3000 x12 F: 802-861-3003 C: 802-343-7055 2/ 16/2010 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 NOVEMBER 2009 PAGE 6 Mr. Walcott felt the connection to Vale Drive would dramatically change the neighborhood. He asked that the affect of this be mitigated by making the connection one way and leaving the circle to slow traffic. Mr. Kleh noted that all of the proposed houses surround the wetland, which is home to many animals. He felt this habitat will be destroyed. Mr. Warshaw cited passages in the Comprehensive Plan which indicate that existing neighborhoods should be protected from "out of character" transition development and that higher -density, affordable units should be located where services and amenities are available. Members felt it was appropriate to continue the sketch plan hearing to allow the applicant to respond to Board concerns. Mr. Farrell asked to continue after the new year. Ms. Quimby moved to continue Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-42 until 5 January 2010. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Cler ik0 bo Date DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 3ANUARY 2010 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 5 January 2010, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Dinklage, Chair; M. Behr, E. Knudsen (arrived late), G. Quimby, R. Farley, B. Stuono Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; C. LaRose, Associate Planner; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; L. Bresee, B. Bull, M. Young, D. Young, B. & M. Gilbert, B. Cimonetti, M. Buscher, J. Hendley, H. Harmon, B. Masterson, E. Levite, C. Sheffield,A. Lalonde, N. Haskell, J. Farnham -Haskell, B. Rippa, S. & D. Lindberg, E. McMahon, D. & P. Warshaw, K. Donahue, L. Rovner, N. Khorrami, M. Abbott, M. Arani, L. & T. Kleh, P. Walcott, B. Charash, K. & P. Handy, L. Wood, S. Weztur, D Chamberlain, D. Schapiro, C. Deegan, K. Schwarzenberg, D. Strandt, K. & D. Walter, S. Lenes, G. Tang, M. Scollins, C. Preston, S. Coddaire, J. Gersbach, S. Dopp, E. Farrell 1. Other Business & Announcements: Mr. Belair asked to add item #8 to the agenda, a summary of Land Development Regulation changes. 2. Minutes of 1 December 2009: Ms. Quimby moved to approve the Minutes of l December 2009 as written. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Continued Conditional Use Application #CU-09-10 of Te1Jet Longhaul, LLC, for after -the -fact approval to add a 36-inch diameter antenna on an eight foot high mast on the roof of the building, 30 Community Drive: and 4. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-09-91 of Tel3et Longhaul, LLC, for after - the -fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 275,000 sq. ft. mixed use building. The amendment consists of installing a 36-inch diameter antenna on an eight foot high mast on the roof of the building, 30 Community Drive: Mr. Sterant gave the Board photos and documents. Mr. Belair said this was OK with staff. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Conditional Use Application #CU-09-10 and Site Plan Application #SP-09-91 of Te1Jet Longhaul, LLC, subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Design Review Application #DR-09-07 of Jake Farnham-Hastell for a master sign permit for wayfaring and interpretive signage under Section 23(r) of the South Burlington Sign Ordinance, 244 Van Sicklen Road: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 JANUARY 2010 PAGE 2 Mr. Farnham-Hastell distributed photos of the park entrance. He noted he is doing this for an Eagle Scout project. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Design Review Application #DR-09-07 of Jake Farnham-Hastell subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Site Plan Application #SP-09-55 of Oakwood Homeowners Association to amend a previously approved plan for two two-family dwellings. The amendment consists of revising the landscaping plan, 118-124 Oakwood Drive: Ms. Lenes, a resident of the property, said she supports the plan. Mr. Dinklage said this application is to correct the plan as to what was/was not planted. He noted that staff recommends that the value of the landscaping be itemized. Mr. Belair said it is hard to tell the value of the landscaping once it is in the ground. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Site Plan Application #SD-09-55 of Oakwood Homeowners Association subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Continued sketch plan application #SD-09-42 of Cary Farrell et al for a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two single family dwellings. The proposal consists of. 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 21 single family dwellings, 3) constructing 17 two-family dwellings, and 4) constructing 8 three -unit multi- family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street: As the applicant set up his display, the DRB opened a deliberative session. Mr. Stuono said he would like to see continuous open space up to the UVM property. Mr. Dinklage read a statement on how the DRB deals with density and TDR's. He stressed that the focus is on achieving an overall good plan. He also stressed that TDR's are treated as any other density. It was noted that the proposed plan has been substantially revised. Mr. Farrell said the number of units has been reduced from 87 to 80. The road network hasn't changed much and there will still be a connection to Vale Drive. There would be a public park accessed by a short public street and a gravel road into the park. There is also a 1.6 acre piece for a community garden for the homeowners' association. The recreation path accesses the public park as well. There is also a short section of public street to the UVM property. Mr. Farrell said they have added one new building style. He showed a picture of this indicating 2 units above 2 and 3 car garages. Many of the units now face the street. Mr. Farrell said he can't get 100% of them to face the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 JANUARY 2010 PAGE 3 street because of the irregularity of the site. There are now 21 single family homes, 3 single carriage homes (one unit above a garage), 4 double carriage homes, 13 traditional duplexes and 8 triplexes. For the most part, blocks are less than 500 feet. The standard street is 26 feet wide with parking on one side (this is not counted in the parking plan). Mr. Farrell noted that the Rec Path Committee reminded them that they want a path on the eastern boundary, 5 feet off the line. Mr. Farrell showed connections to the path. They will pave all that is shown as rec path. There will be sidewalk on both sides of the street, except where there is rec path. The berm has been removed from in front of Gary Farrell's house. (Mr. Knudsen arrived at this point in the meeting) Mr. Dinklage felt this was a significant improvement to layout. Mr. Stuono felt the east side was OK, but the west side looked rather repetitive. He felt it could be fixed with a few minor changes. He wanted to see unit L-2 removed since it "sticks out." Mr. Farrell said this is the result of the shape of the site and their desire for a lot of variety. Mr. Farley said he was OK with it. Mr. Knudsen said he wasn't sure enough has been changed to orient buildings to the street. Mr. Behr, Mr. Knudsen and Ms. Quimby agreed with Mr. Stuono. The applicant said they would lose variety by making the proposed changes. Mr. Behr said it would allow more units to enjoy the open space. Members felt that the unit adjacent to the storm water pond should disappear. Mr. Behr suggested moving it to the west. Mr. Dinklage said the Board will ask for delineation of the wetland buffer and suggested no structure be closer than 5 feet to that buffer. Mr. Buscher said they have been trying to keep 10 feet. Mr. Dinklage suggested bringing the road width at the wetland crossing down to 18 feet. Mr. Dinklage suggested the applicant work with Public Works on the gravel access to the park to see if they are comfortable from the point of view of maintenance and plowing. Mr. Dinklage also asked that the connector road to Vale Drive be a minimum width. He strongly recommended that the Vale Drive cul de sac remain as it is for traffic calming. Ms. Quimby expressed concern that it will become a racetrack as happened at Stonehedge. The Board asked that the traffic impact study be done for full build -out, including potential for 104 units (the Gary Farrell property). Mr. Dinklage asked that the applicant work out the stub road to the north with Public Works. Mr. Dinklage noted receipt of a letter to the Board from Michael Scollins dated 20 December 2009. Mr. Scollins acknowledged the great job done by the DRB, but he expressed dismay that the Board seemed to be focusing on how to accommodate Mr. Farrell's proposal. He felt the Board should be asking what is best for the neighbors and the community. He noted that the regulations say all houses must face the street. He said that if this is waived, it will "grind into a DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 JANUARY 2010 PAGE 4 long appeal." Mr. Scollins said 80 units have been packed onto 10 acres, 23 of them behind his home and the Kleh home. He felt all he had left to do was to build a 10 or 12 foot fence all around his property. He didn't see how the Board could justify anything more than 31 units. He felt the Board has ample justification to significantly reduce the density. Mr. Barish said he felt the traffic impact could be six times higher than what is anticipated. Mr. Walcott felt the "worst case scenario" for traffic should include what could be developed on the UVM parcel and the parcel on the south side of Nowland Farm Road. Mr. Dinklage noted that the Spear Street Corridor Study does include long-term traffic projections, but the DRB can consider only traffic from this development. Mr. Cimonetti expressed concern with compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the character of the neighborhood. He cited the development of single family, duplex, and triplex units nestled in a single family neighborhood. He felt design wasn't as much of a problem as density. He said that 1.2 per acre would allow for 31 units, and 80 are proposed. There are also no multi -family structures in abutting neighborhoods. Mr. Cimonetti urged the Board to consider whether this proposal is consistent with the city's stated goal of preserving character of neighborhoods. Ms. Masterson felt there was an attempt to gloss over how "diversity of housing" can be met. She noted that Mr. Farrell says it can only be achieved by having duplexes and triplexes. She felt "South Burlington was selling its soul so one developer can make a lot of money." Ms. Dopp noted that even Mr. Farrell says the shape of the parcel is a limiting factor. She felt concerns could be addressed by having fewer buildings. She felt this is just a condo development with a few color changes. Ms. Malone was concerned that people will use the Vale Drive cul de sac as a time saving cut - through. Mr. Young asked about the requirement for units to be facing south. Ms. LaRose said the guideline is 35% of translucent windows should be oriented to the south. Mr. Young said that purpose would be defeated by changing the units on the west side of the road. Mr. Dinklage said that is perhaps true. Mr. Kleh asked what impact the 80 units would have on education, municipal services and wildlife habitat. He asked if there would be lights in the park. He also commented that he would probably want a 6-foot wall to separate his neighborhood from this development. Mr. Belair said the School Department has recently eliminated the school impact fee because developments are not having an impact on schools. Impacts on municipal services are reviewed by department heads. Mr. Conner noted that over the last decade the number of students per household has been declining. In South Burlington, student population has stayed flat over that period of time. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 JANUARY 2010 PAGE 5 Mrs. Kleh said there is too much time being spent on whether units face the street. She felt there are too many units and too many people. Mr. Levitz asked why there was a change from the 31 units approved to this plan. Mr. Farrell said at that time, he expected to build $600,000 homes. Now he feels that what the city needs is work -force housing. Ms. Schapiro felt that if they all work together they can get a development they can all be proud of. Mr. Warshaw asked how it was decided this density is OK. Mr. Behr said the direction the Board got from the City Attorney is that zoning for this area is up to 4 units per acre, and that drives how many TDR's the site can hold. Mr. Donahue said he realized that they can't get rid of the TDR's for this project but said he would work to see they are never used again. Mr. Farrell said he would ask to continue the sketch plan hearing. Ms. Qimby moved to continue Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-42 of Gary Farrell et al to 16 February 2010. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Review of Land Development Regulation Amendments Adopted by the City Council: Mr. Conner noted that on 21 December, the City Council adopted amendments proposed by the Planning Commission. These will take effect on 11 January 2010. Most of the amendment don't have a dramatic impact on the DRB. One, however, does. It related to how parking location is looked at on a parcel. It spells out very specifically when parking can be in front of a building but only to the minimum necessary to meet the criteria. Mr. Farley asked who determined a "unique site" exists. Mr. Conner said the DRB will make that determination with very specific guidelines. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Clerk Date N 35 Pinnacle Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 February 11, 2010 Development Review Board (DRB) City of South Burlington City Hall Dear DRB Members: I want to first state that I appreciate your commitment and effort as our representatives to managing the future growth and development of housing within the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). This letter is in reference to the sketch plan application #SD- 09-42 of Gary Farrell et al. At two previous DRB discussions of this project, I have stated that the DRB is not obligated to grant Mr. Farrell the increased density based on his proposed TDR purchase. At the last DRB discussion of the Farrell project, Mr. Dinklage stated that TDRs are considered density and thus the DRB will base their decision on this assumption. Clearly, the TDR concept considers these transfer rights as pure shifting of density between "sending" and "receiving" parcels. However, with regards to the SEQ, the South Burlington Land Use Regulations states: "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... " This statement unambiguously gives the DRB full license to determine how much density can be transferred up to the maximum. Therefore, the DRB is not obligated to accept the TDRs as proposed by Mr. Farrell if it feels that goals of the SEQ comprehensive plan will be compromised. The South Burlington Comprehensive Plan states: "Existing residential neighborhoods should be protected from inappropriate, out -of -character transitions in land use... " Granted the Farrell parcel is zoned for 4 units per acre with TDRs, however, all of the abutting properties are single family dwellings. Thus, in my view, and that voiced by numerous abutting property owners, is that this proposal constitutes such an inappropriate and out of character transition in land use. Clearly, the Comprehensive Plan as written sets up an inherent conflict between limiting development in the SEQ and the need to protect natural resources. We as taxpayers and city residents rely on your judgment to address these conflicts with our best interests in mind rather than the commercial interests of the developer. I believe that the abutting property owners deserve an open and frank discussion of this issue. RECEIVED APR 21 2010 City of So. Burlington E BILL CIMONETTI 1393 SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT April 6, 2010 South Burlington Development Review Board South Burlington is a community of neighborhoods, some dating to the founding of the municipality in 1865, others dated to the explosive growth in post -World War 2, and still others products of modest growth during the current "great recession". Throughout all of the changing times, the sense of a community of distinct neighborhoods has been sustained. But the proposed Spear Meadows project is a sharp and abrupt neighborhood changer. Spear Meadows is proposed as a residential neighborhood, nestled in and surrounded by residential neighborhoods. But Spear Meadows is proposed as a neighborhood of multi -family dwellings, featuring "flats above garages", a far cry from any residential dwellings in the abutting neighborhoods. The linear neighborhood along Spear Street has enjoyed significant and consistent growth over the last fifty years, some by single lot in -fill, and some by planned unit development change. But nothing in this evolvement speaks of multi -family structures with flats above garages. The newest development in the linear neighborhood is South Pointe, a tightly clustered pocket of single family homes, new and concise, yet consistent with the neighborhood. Every one of the neighborhoods abutting the proposed Spear Meadows; Pinnacle at Spear, Swift Estates, Springhouse Road, Vale Drive, and linear Spear Street, have only single family dwellings. But Spear Meadows proposes to be a neighborhood changer by seeking to gain a maximum density through bonuses granted via the development review process. There is absolutely nothing in planning or zoning regulations to suggest that Spear Meadows has an entitlement to the maximum allowable number of transferred development rights. To the contrary, our elected City Council and its appointed Planning and Development Review Boards are directed to honor the existing structure of neighborhoods and to maintain a consistency of community planning and neighborhood growth. The neighborhood changing aspect of Spear Meadows, should it be approved as proposed, would extend far into the future. Imagine the pressures on present future owners of the Gilbert, Young, Tarrant, Franzoni, Muhr, Scollins, Kleh and other abutting properties if their backyards become contiguous with a development of maximum density, "flat -over -garage", multi -family dwellings. Even imagine the very real influence this Spear Meadows proposal must be having today on the open land of the Marie and Dick Underwood estate along the east side of the linear Spear Street neighborhood. RECEIVED APR 0 6 2010 citbi of So. Burlington Approval of Spear Meadows as proposed would essentially eliminate any opportunity for further in -fill development of single family homes. Now that is truly neighborhood changing. We continue to urge you, our Development Review Board, to open your minds to the likely consequences of this Spear Meadows proposal, and to reject the concept that maximum density, augmented by bonus awards of transferred development rights, is consistent with, or even tolerable within the neighborhood community. Thank you. cc. South Burlington City Council Development Review Board John Dinklage, Chair S. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear John and fellow DRB members, O April 6, 2010 �G� ono 0011 0M o� coo I'm song to burden you with one more letter regarding the Farrell Spear Meadows proposal, but I feel that it's important that I do so. The relatively new concept of TDR's presents challenges to Board and residents alike, and the more we communicate the better the chances that we'll all do the right thing. I've lived next to this land for 34 years, and have walked, biked and skied it far more than anyone else during that time, and consider myself the "de facto" steward of the site! I've had my enjoyment from it, but I want to ensure that subsequent generations get to appreciate it. The major argument of the neighbors, as outlined in prior correspondence, is that the density of the project makes it grossly incompatible with ALL the surrounding neighborhoods (see Comprehensive Plan pages 28 and 165). Further, the character of the project, placing most residents in multi -unit buildings, is grossly incongruous with the surrounding homes, all of which are single family dwellings. Additionally, all the houses to the east and west are situated on 2 to 5 acre lots, and those to the south (in the Pinnacle development) each occupy about %4 acre. Worse still, many of these buildings will be nearly 45 feet high; to my knowledge, none of the nearby homes exceed 28 to 30 feet in height. The existing neighborhoods are all interconnected by paths through the woods and field, including recreation paths, which have been used for decades, through the western edge of the woods as well as in the field bordering the woods. These afford views of wildlife, the Adirondacks and sunsets. The development as proposed will render these paths useless and unappealing, and replace them with an official recreation path that affords views only of a densely -packed apartment complex, with tall buildings packed closely together. Some of these are to be placed as close as 15 feet from the recreation path, which might better be described as an "escape route"! If any of you DRB members have not walked this land, we encourage you to do so, and would be happy to accompany you if you wish. I would again call your attention to page 40 in the Comprehensive Plan, which states that "existing residential neighborhoods should be protected from inappropriate, out -of - character transitions in land use....". On the same page it lists objectives, including "identify and protect existing and developing residential neighborhoods; locate higher density, affordable and elderly housing near schools, parks, shopping areas, employment centers, and transportation links so as to provide convenient access and minimize energy consumption". Eric Farrell has emphasized the point that he wanted to build affordable IJ housing: this is clearly the wrong site for the plan, or the wrong plan for the site. Why has the DRB conspicuously refused to tell him this, or to even suggest it? The land tract at issue is very oddly shaped, and ill -suited for development. Its northwest portion contains Gary Farrell's 3-acre lot, which while part of the PUD, includes no proposed building. The latest revision excluded any building in the southwest segment, since a long road and cul-de-sac would be needed for access. The entire central section of the plot, from north to south, is a wetland. Thus what is claimed to be a 26-acre tract offers only about 10 acres for development, and the most recent proposal (3/22/10) places most of the 73 units in this section, at the top of the slope. While this is technically allowable, it makes no sense: it would be aesthetically offensive to neighbors and to all who traverse the Spear -Swift intersection, and be a flagrant blight on the southeast quadrant. It would also usurp the only part of the tract, its southeastern corner, with Adirondack and sunset views —the site where a public park should logically be placed. It would also obliterate the view corridor between Swift Street and the large field to the south between Vail Drive and Four Sisters Road, violating the Comprehensive Plan directive (p. 30) to "preserve the open, special character of the SEQ". The Comprehensive Plan further recommends (p.96 #11) that "the City should acquire land along the ridge on the easterly side of Spear Street for a multi -purpose park". While the Farrells likely would decline a request that this land be purchased by the City (as you know, they previously refused to even respond to the neighbors' query in that regard), the City through its DRB should at least REQUIRE that this portion of the land ("lot 5" in their proposal) be dedicated to a generous -sized park, rather than allow one in the southwesterly section, which lacks the elevation and views. Contrary to Eric Farrell's claim, there is NO precedent in South Burlington for such a massive apartment complex abutting a single-family development, let alone one with 3- acre lots. We have not yet received an answer to our question as to why the Farrells should be allowed to include Gary's lot in the PUD without the lot contributing in any way to the aesthetics of the project. This is apparently legal, but it should not be, and we repeat our query as to whether such a maneuver should be prohibited in subsequent applications, and if not, why not? We would like an answer to this either at a DRB meeting, or in writing. Eric's suggestion that the lots in the Meadowood Drive neighborhood could at some point be subdivided, is absurd: the Association's by-laws prohibit this, as a means of protecting the integrity and aesthetics of the area and of the City. We would expect the DRB to respect these similarly. We strongly disagree with Eric's claim that this very dense building proposal will foster a strong sense of community: it will inevitably draw many students and other transients, who will show less respect for their own community as well as adjacent neighborhoods, with a resultant lessening of security and privacy in the area. The staff notes prepared for the DRB meetings have been a revelation to us. None of those prepared for this project even ADDRESS how density affects compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods, the core of our strong opposition to the project. The notes prepared for the 115110 meeting paraphrase extensively from Eric's 1/4/10 letter to the Board, but there is NO allusion to my letter, delivered to the Board 12/30/10 on behalf of the neighbors. That this letter was included in each Board member's packet is little consolation: only 4 of the 7 Board members acknowledged at the 115110 meeting, that they had read it. More disturbing, at the 11/18/09 meeting, the Board Chair refused the neighbors' earnest and reasonable desire to discuss the density issue. Meanwhile, Eric Farrell's several half truths (documented previously) have gone unchallenged by the Board. Why? It seems clear that the DRB and its staff have a bias, deliberate or subconscious, possibly driven by fear of legal action, in favor of the developer. The TDR concept is very complex, and we feel strongly that its application in this case is inappropriate. If indeed this land is designated as a "receiving area", the DRB is charged with the responsibility to determine WHETHER to allow building density beyond the maximum 1.2 units per acre otherwise allowed, and if so, how much. While the 1.2 unit density is clearly allowable, any increase beyond that is discretionary, and it is precisely to mediate such contentious issues between neighbors and developers, that the DRB exists. The abutting Meadowood Drive neighborhood have submitted a separate letter (4/6/10) addressing this issue. It has previously been documented that this development would introduce serious traffic concerns, not only for Spear Street but also for Four Sisters Road, Vale Drive and Nowland Farm Road. We feel, however, that these are secondary to the main issues of density and design. What are the advantages of this proposal? 1) Accedes to the Farrell's desire to profit 2) Accedes to those on the Planning Commission who feel that South Burlington should be obliged, even at its citizens' expense, to provide additional housing —albeit at an ill -suited site 3) Provides a slight increase in the City tax base What are the disadvantages of the proposal? 1) Allows a development that is grossly incompatible with all the adjacent neighborhoods, despite their strong protests 2) Allows a massive building complex that will be unsightly from Spear or Swift Street, and an embarrassment to our City 3) Abandons the City's charge and opportunity to establish a substantial park along the Spear Street ridgeline, with its Adirondack and sunset views 4) Favors the greed of the developer over the fervid wishes of all the neighbors (has anyone at these meetings, besides Eric and his consultants, favored this development?) 5) Destroys the utility of two long -existing recreation paths J 6) Poses serious traffic concerns on Spear Street as well as on Four Sisters Way, Vale Drive and Knowland Farms Road 7) Fails to establish an important precedent in our City for proper application of TDR's In summary, the Farrell proposal has forced all of us, both the neighbors and the DRB , to try to become fully versed in the nuances of Transfer Development Rights (TDR's) and their proper application. If the TDR tenets outlined in the City's regulations are valid, then the Board has the prerogative, and indeed the responsibility, to exercise its judgment as to whether this particular parcel, in a designated "receiving district", is an appropriate site for the proposed development. The residents of the adjacent neighborhoods have advanced compelling arguments that it definitely is not: this type of high density development, with multi -unit buildings, belongs in a high density area, such as near Shelburne Road or Williston Road, the "Core Area" as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. That the Farrells had the audacity to even SUGGEST this plan is offensive and almost unbelievable; the motive was solely profit —there was obviously no consideration of what is best for the neighbors or the City. We call upon the Board to make the enlightened decision that this case demands. Do what is fair, courageous and judicious: grant the Farrells the 31 units they were given in 2006, and deny them any more. Indeed, if the 2006 decision can be revisited, they should be required to include a large public park along the ridgeline at the southeastern edge of the site, adjacent to the recreation path. To allow more units would cave to the Farrells' financial interests, at the expense of our citizens, the adjacent neighborhoods, and our City. If we and the DRB fail to do the right thing now, the decision will be widely criticized, resented and bitterly regretted for generations to come. Thank you profoundly for all your hard work and deliberations. Respectfully, %"'� Michael J. S ollins VIA HAND DELIVERY April 6, 2010 C � Mr. John Dinklage, Chairperson 2410 �Q� �� South Burlington Development Review Board B,,ogkol, u Dorset South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: "Spear Meadows" Development / Sketch plan application #SD-09-42 Dear Chairman Dinklage and members of the Development Review Board: We write to express our continuing strong opposition to the proposed "Spear Meadows" development, which is on the Development Review Board's ("DRB") agenda for tonight's meeting. We live on Meadowood Drive, which abuts the Spear Meadows site to the east. You have already received numerous written submissions and verbal statements from various concerned Southeast Quadrant ("SEQ") residents opposing Spear Meadows, and we concur with those objections. Among those written submissions is our January 5, 2010 letter, the content of which is hereby incorporated herein by reference, and familiarity with which is assumed. We continue to maintain that the fundamental and fatal problem with Spear Meadows is that it attempts to cram far too many units of residential density onto a parcel that is not in the least bit suitable for such development. Developer Eric Farrell admits as much in his March 22, 2010 Memorandum to City Administrative Officer Ray Belair. On page three of his Memorandum, Mr. Farrell writes: The irregular shape of the parcel makes it difficult to orient 35% of the glazing to the south and this requirement conflicts with the requirement of building orientation to the street. Therefore, we ask the DRB to declare its position regarding the priority of these two competing sections of the LDRs. And yet, as the DRB is aware, the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations ("SBLDR") mandate as follows: Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries for single family and multi -family buildings must face the street.... A minimum of thirty-five percent (35%) of translucent windows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. SBLDR § 9.08(C)(1) (emphasis added). The two SBLDR requirements about which Mr. Farrell complains are not "two competing sections," as he erroneously suggests. Rather, they are part of the very same single SBLDR section and are stated in the conjunctive rather than the disjunctive. E Letter to Mr. John Dinklage, Chairperson South Burlington Development Review Board April 6, 2010 Page 2 of 3 For all the reasons set out in our January 5th letter, there is no reason why the DRB — or residents of the SEQ — should have to choose between having buildings that face the street or having 35% of translucent windows and surfaces oriented to the south. Section 9.08(C)(1) is quite specific, and its intent is clear: Residential buildings must be oriented to the street, and a minimum of 35% of translucent windows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. Moreover, SBLDR Section 9.13(C) makes clear that the DRB is under no obligation to approve a TDR request for increased density. This section states in pertinent part that: "If the conditions of [Section] 9.13(C)(1) above are met, the Development Review Board may then approve the assignment (transfer) of all or a portion of the residential development density calculated for a non-contiguous encumbered parcel to another parcel to satisfy the provisions of Section 9.05 above." SBLDR § 9.13(C)(2) (emphasis added). In other words, the DRB is charged to decide whether to approve none, some, or all of the requested increased density. In a situation such as the instant matter, where the developer cannot comply with the SBLDR's Article 9 design criteria while building his desired increased density, it is respectfully submitted that design must control over density, and that the request for increased density must be rejected. If the rule were otherwise, developers could flout the carefully crafted Article 9 design criteria simply by applying for a TDR density increase and then claiming that they cannot meet the design criteria because of the large number of units they are trying to fit into a limited space. Moreover, the SEQ Goals Based Plan clearly designates the Farrell lot as suitable for at most 2.0 units of density per acre of development. See South Burlington Comprehensive Plan (effective Mar. 9. 2006), at page 216. Mr. Farrell's latest proposal would amount to 2.8 units per acre of density. In sum, the DRB should not entertain the current Spear Meadows proposal given that it violates long-established SBLDR Article 9 design criteria and the density guidelines set out in the SEQ Goals Based Plan. Thanks. IJ Letter to Mr. John Dinklage, Chairperson South Burlington Development Review Board April 6, 2010 Page 3 of 3 Sincerely yours, Daniel A. Seff #210 Meadowood Drive President, Swift Estates Association Debbie Hernberg #210 Meadowood Drive t. detj 1, Michael Scollins #214 Meadowood Drive Abutter to Spear Meadows site Mary ScollYis #214 Meadowood Drive Abutter to Spear Meadows site Tom Kleh #219 Meadowood Drive Abutter to Spear Meadows site Louis eh #219 Meadowood Drive Abutter to Spear Meadows site DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 APRIL 2010 PAGE 5 4. A memory garden/therapeutic garden between the parking lot and lower level Ms. Henderson -King noted they have $146,000 in landscaping. She noted that they feel perennials and vines are an intricate part of the landscaping and they feel they meet the requirement. Mr. Belair said that if the Board allows the "non-traditional" things, the applicant meets the requirement. Ms. LaRose said she would like staff to see a plan for the Memory Garden. Ms. Henderson -King said they can provide something. Mr. Birmingham suggested they present photos of a garden from another of their similar projects. Mr. Thomas said they can provide that. Mr. Thomas testified that what is shown on the plans is what they will build. Ms. LaRose noted that no traffic mitigation is needed, but the applicant must pay impact fees. Ms. Dooley said it is hard to accept that traffic at the jug handle has improved. Members agreed to continue the application for details of the garden. Ms. Quimby moved to continue Final Plat Application #SD-10-07 of Bullrock Corporation until 20 April 2010. Mr Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-42 of Gary Farrell et al for a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two single family dwellings. The proposal consists of: 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 29 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 two-family dwellings, 1302,1340 and 1350 Spear Street: - Mr. Dinklage asked Mr. Conner to explain TDRs and the constraints to which the DRB is held. Mr. Conner explained how the DRB looks at standards. He stressed that the Board's primary responsibility is to uphold due process rights and the "certainty of regulations." He said the DRB's job is to review how and whether an application meets the regulations. With regard to density, Mr. Conner explained that density is a cap that cannot be exceeded. He also outlined some of the criteria which determine the "carrying capacity" of a piece of land including: wetlands, length of cul de sacs, open space, orientation of buildings, heights of buildings, etc. With regard to TDRs, Mr. Conner said there is one standard in the regulations: Density can be up to 4 units per acre if the applicant has proved that the sending areas have been sufficiently encumbered to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. Anything other than that DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 APRIL 2010 PAGE 6 would open the Board to legal challenges. Mr. Self said the regulations state the Board "may" approve. Mr. Conner said that "may" has to have a standard behind it based on the criteria he previously stated. Mr. Gilbert said he has made a request to obtain copies of the option and records. He felt he should have the opportunity to view these. He felt the applicant has yet to file anything that complies with the standards. Mr. Dinklage noted that the Board had received two correspondences from residents, one from Michael Scollins and other neighbors and one from Luke Beatty with a response from the City Manager. Mr. Farrell apologized to the Board that this proposed development has led to a "shameful denigration of the DRB by a handful of citizens." Mr. Farrell then reviewed the waivers which he is requesting. These are: 5 foot setbacks for porches, 10 foot setbacks for buildings, and the possibility of waiving the 35% glazing requirement. He noted that the revised plan he is presenting now has 100% of the buildings oriented to the street. There is one block length over 500 feet, mainly to accommodate the wetland. The plan has 52 buildings with 74 units including Gary Farrell's home. There are no more triplexes proposed. There are also 24 different models of houses. Mr. Farrell indicated that he had met with the Public Works Director to streamline the streets to make them easier to plow. The street would be 18 feet as it crosses the wetland. Mr. Farrell said he felt it should be wider. He then showed the street that would remain private. It would be built to city standards. The proposed public park would be 2.7 acres serviced by Park St. There would also be a garden available to residents of the development. Mr. Farrell said they have stayed 5-10 feet from the 50-foot buffer from the wetlands. 160 parking spaces are required. Mr. Farrell said they are showing 250 including garages and spaces in front of the garages but not including the parking on one side of the street. Mr. Farrell then showed street elevations and street typicals. Mr. Dinklage asked about land ownership. Mr. Farrell said there would be footprint lots with common land ownership by an association. Mr. Dinklage asked about traffic calming. Ms. LaRose said the Public Works Director is not fond of that. Mr. Belair added that he is also not fond of changes in widths. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 APRIL 2010 PAGE 7 Mr. Stuono said the revised plan answers a lot of questions since the last presentation. He felt the applicant did a good job of making this a walkable community. He felt that building orientation was very innovative and the community garden was a very good amenity. He then showed some units that he felt break up the continuous open space and asked that they be removed and other units moved back from Spear St. Mr. Behr agreed with this request. Ms. Skiff asked how far a building has to be from a rec path. Mr. Belair said there is no requirement. Mr. Young asked what kind of fencing there would be along the wetland buffer. Mr. Farrell said probably split rail for delineation. - Mr. Scollins asked about building heights. Ms. LaRose said there is a 40-foot height limit. Mr. Farrell said the buildings are less than 3 5 feet. Mr. Scollins said he felt the rec path looked more like "an alley." He felt the 11 units that abut his property and the 11 that abut the Kleh property don't fit anything around them. He felt the Board was "disregarding the interests of people who live in the area for the interests of people who don't." Mr. Stuono said he did some calculations and found that if 39 large single family homes were built on this property they would have the same amount of massing as the proposed project. Mr. Charish said he was concerned with water pressure in the neighborhood. Mr. Diklage said the Water Department would have to sign off on that. Mr. Cimonetti gave members some written remarks. He said he felt it was wrong to be considering the "planned future of a neighborhood." He felt it was also wrong to eliminate the opportunity for future infill of single family homes. Mr. Donahue felt that if the Board didn't grant any waivers they could "get rid of all the people who are here." Ms. Skiff asked if Spear St. would ever be widened. Mr. Dinklage said the setbacks from Spear Street were determined to allow for potential future widening. Mr. Farley said he was OK with the Plan. Ms. Quimby said she agreed with Mr. Stuono's idea to allow for more continuous open space. She also said she wouldn't vote for 5-foot setbacks for porches. Mr. Farrell said he could "grow" the setback a little. Ms. Quimby said she would be OK with that. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 APRIL 2010 PAGE 8 Mr. Behr was OK with the plan. Mr. Stuono was OK with the plan if the 2 units he had indicated were removed. He felt the five-foot setback for porches allows for keeping more open space. Mr. Birmingham said he hadn't fully made up his mind regarding setbacks. He was OK for the plan to go to preliminary plat. A member of the audience cited a map that accompanied the goals -based plan and noted that this area is designated for 2 units per acre and this plan is for 2.8. Mr. Conner said there is no reference in the Zoning Regulations to that map, and the Board must abide by the Regulations. Ms. Dopp said she still supports the TDR concept. She also said that most people thought there were certain delineated areas that would receive more dense development. Residents felt density should be increased where there are grocery stores and public services, not where people have to get in their cars to go anywhere. 11. Sketch Plan Application 4SD-10-08 of F&M Development Co, LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing an existing health club, 2) constructing a 20,400 sq. ft. medical office building, and 3) constructing a 40-unit multi -family dwelling, 78 Eastwood Drive: Mr. Farrell showed the location and existing conditions on the plan. He said their intention is to tear down the existing building to the foundation, square off the foundation, and then build a one-story medical office building with a condominium structure. Along the northern boundary line there would be a 3-4 story residential building and some office space. He showed one way the building could be subdivided. The sidewalk would be extended to the rec path. Mr. Farrell also showed the location of a storm water retention pond. They would pipe water there from an unsightly existing ditch. The lighting plan would include the same fixtures as those in the nearby development. All would be cut-off fixtures. Mr. Farrell then showed views of the proposed building from various approaches. He also showed the location of a proposed trash structure which would be shared with the nearby Morrissey building. Parking would also be shared with that building. Ms. LaRose said the proposed parking plan would be sent to a third party consultant for review. She noted that the request for a 25% parking waiver is a concern as there are parking problems with medical buildings elsewhere, particularly at Tilley Drive. Mr. Farrell stressed that they want to provide sufficient parking. Ms. LaRose also noted that where a sidewalk is proposed the Rec Path Committee wants I i I i -__ - - _ _= --_ -- ____ _ _ -- -- -- itso�li�:t��i..�i® VALE DRIVE N2.1 LOT 2 1 / / LOT 1 / L i lilt ' 1 I GRAPHIC SCALEOF I ( IN FEET) I I \ \ ` 1 Ine6 - 60 rl \\11\ I 1 \ \SS- � 1 III41 II I I` L ■ S 113 S:: f Label Bldg Qty Area/Bldg Description Al 1 1,860 sf Medium Single Family, 1-Car Garage A2d 2 1,860 sf Medium Single Family, Detached 2-Car Garage 61 2 1,373 sf Small Single Family, 1-Car Garage 132 2 1,373 sf Small Single Family, 2-Car Garage B2d 2 1,373 sf Small Single Family, Detached 2-Car Garage B2r 1 1,373 sf Small Single, 2-Car Garage, Rear Access BX1 1 1,885 sf Small Single Family Expanded, 1-Car Garage BX2 2 1,885 sf Small Single Family Expanded, 2-Car Garage BX2r 2 1,885 sf Small Single Family Expanded, 2-Car Garage, Rear Access C1 1 1,738 sf Large Single Family, 1-Car Garage C2 3 1,738 sf Large Single Family, 2-Car Garage C2d 2 1,738 sf Large Single Family, Detached 2-Car Garage C2r 1 1,738 sf Large Single Family, 2-Car Garage, Rear Access CX1 1 2,200 sf Large Single Family Expanded, 1-Car Garage CX2 4 2,200 sf Large Single Expanded, 2-Car Garage CX2r 2 2,200 sf Large Single Family Expanded, 2-Car Garage, Rear Access ■112+1 3 2,736 sf Small Townhouse, Flat Over Garage HX2+1 4 2,890 sf Small Townhouse Expanded, Flat Over Garage J2+1 1 3,053 sf Large Townhouse, Flat Over Garage J2+1 alt 1 3,053 sf Large Townhouse, Flat Over Garage JX2+1 2 3,205 sf Large Townhouse Expanded, Flat Over Garage M1+1 2 2,630 sf Duplex Townhouse N2+1 7 3,120 sf One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat P2+2 2 3,400 sf Duplex Townhouse Over Garage 51 Total 9 = Single Family D = Duplex Boyle Applicant Eric Farrel iara Fardnneas.planningc nsuAants ibo o 1e-zolo SPEAR MEADOWS —l— Po eoX, °" Budington, VT 05402 301 college avast . budington . vermont . 05401 802 .658.3555 m1P://. o��•.�m 1.= so' Color Coded Building Type Plan R 10( � � 1 a �s� t ®• � r ��. ■ m O �� m� � Ili % ® l �� • siiia Missile ilaiiii Q �- +� � : s•�lanalr s : motel s,.a� � ! .•► ®i � m .. -------------- l .C..t-. LOT 3 - ' 1 I LOT 2- _ I :t:.t. PROPOSED USE SUMMARY / C. and C. Hager Volume 391, Pages 285-288 I I 6 Building Summary Unit Summary Required Parking Proposed Parking Single -Family Dwelling 29 Units 2 Spaces/Unit = 58 Spaces 104 Spaces Ground Floor Flat 7 Units 2.25 Spaces/Unit = 15.75 Spaces 14 Spaces Flat Over Flat 7 Units 2.25 Spaces/Unit = 15.75 Spaces 28 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 74 Units Total Required Spaces: 159 Total Proposed Spaces: 245 (Total Does Not Include 4 LOT 1 �/ Building Label Key 1 / 3 z swG E-FEXIST'MMLY / NG IfBuilding Label Square Feet x 11 �// RESIDENTM UNIT 1 N/A N/A I 2 / 2 JX2+1 3,205 3 1 1,885 4 B2 1,373 5 P2+2 3,400 6 C2 1,738 7 BX2 1,885 8 N2+1 3,120 10 C2r 1,738 G. and-J., ° / 11 61 1,373 t� Volume 142, Pages 4 -47 i �' 12 N2+1 3,120 �2.9acres / //�/�/ 13 C2 1,738 14 N2+1 3,120 15 HX2+1 2,890 16 C2 1,738 17 CX2r 2,200 18 A2d 1,860 19 M1+1 2,630 I ^^•��k I 20 1 1,373 21 HX2+1 2,890 I 22 H2+1 2,736 1 GRAPHIC SCALE I 1 23 BX2 1,885 ■ I >0 1 ,, 24 J23,053 � 25 C2d 1,738738 ( IN rs* ) I1 1 lecb - 00 A. On -street Parking) r= Units that Address the Road (74 Units Total) Description 26 M1+1 2,630 Duplex Flat Over Garage Existing Single Family 27 11 1,373 Small Single Family, Detached 2-Car Garage Large Townhouse Expanded, Flat Over Garage 28 JX2+1 3,205 Large Townhouse Expanded, Flat Over Garage Small Single Family Expanded, 2-Car Garage, Rear Access 29 B2 1,373 Small Single Family, 2-Car Garage Small Single Family, 2-Car Garage 30 1 1,885 Small Single Family Expanded, 2-Car Garage, Rear Access Duplex Townhouse 31 J2+1 sit 3,053 Large Townhouse, Flat over Garage, Alternate Deck Large Single Family, 2-Car Garage 32 C1 1,738 Large Single Family, 1-Car Garage Small Single Family Expanded, 2-Car Garage 33 BX1 1,885 Small Single Family Expanded, 1-Car Garage One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat 34 H2+1 2,736 Small Townhouse, Flat Over Garage Large Single Expanded, 2-Car Garage 35 CX1 2,200 Large Single Family Expanded, 1-Car Garage Large Single Family Expanded, 2-Car Garage, Rear Access 36 P2+2 3,400 Duplex Townhouse Small Single Family, 1-Car Garage 37 Al 1,860 Medium Single Family, 1-Car Garage One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat 38 112+1 2,736 Small Townhouse, Flat Over Garage Large Single Family, 2-Car Garage 39 HX2+1 2,890 Small Townhouse Expanded, Flat Over Garage One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat 40 CX2r 2,200 Large Single Family Expanded, 2-Car Garage, Rear Access Small Townhouse Expanded, Flat Over Garage 41 CX2 2,200 Large Single Expanded, 2-Car Garage Large Single Family, 2-Car Garage 42 N2+1 3,120 One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat Large Single Family Expanded, 2-Car Garage, Rear Access 43 A2d 1,860 Medium Single Family, Detached 2-Car Garage Medium Single Family, Detached 2-Car Garage 44 81 1,373 Small Single Family, 1-Car Garage Duplex Flat Over Garage 45 N2+1 3,120 One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat Small Single Family, Detached 2-Car Garage 46 CX2 2,200 Large Single Expanded, 2-Car Garage Small Townhouse Expanded, Flat Over Garage 47 N2+1 3,120 One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat Small Townhouse, Flat Over Garage 48 C2d 1,738 Large Single Family, Detached 2-Car Garage Small Single Family Expanded, 2-Car Garage 49 CX2 2,200 Large Single Expanded, 2-Car Garage Large Townhouse, Flat over Garage 50 N2+1 3,120 One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat Large Single Family, Detached 2-Car Garage 51 HX2+1 2,890 Small Townhouse Expanded, Flat Over Garage 52 1 1,373 Small Single, 2-Car Garage, Rear Access T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC REVISbNS ,,. Applicant: Eric Farrell aneswpe architects .planning consultants © 1� D L18-2010 SPEAR MEADOWS T .100 PO Box1335 L Burlington, VT 05402 301 college street • burlington • vemwt • 05401 802 •658.3555 ntlp:nwww.tpoyle.wm 1• = 60' Concept Plan SPEAR MEADOWS Spear Street Elevation -Looking East South Burlington, VT No Text i SPEAR MEADOWS - Looking North Spear Meadow Road Elevation o g South Burlington, VT p �rli1! No Text SPEAR MEADOWS Vale Drive Elevation -Looking South Burlington, VT L!A W" NI. . ; -, 4 +- � , �� ,ar.. ®® � � �. 4� ( � + SPEAR MEADOWS Vale Drive Elevation -Looking West South Burlington; VT WA A A - - a AN - - . v w l . ! 1 Q s LOTS =+ LOT 2 �M� 4 '`, . . ::. �.' ' 1 F d LOT 6 i Ofs,O B NEIGHBORHOOD I vn��9t Q. r •�' PARK On ' \ 2.7 ACRES LOT 1 Q / r LOT 7 �. COMMUNITY GARDENS V 1.6 ACRES / I r I I ,Ft.Af'HIC �C'aLE I ' Boyle ktws Applicant: Enc Farrell Iands pe arehdects . planning consultants 03-05-2010 SPEAR MEADOWS PO Box1335 Burlington, VT 05402 Sot college street. • Du lmgton • vemront • osaot 802.658.3555 d c �w uM:, «� r = 60 Rendered Concept Plan R 101 I I` I c2 h I I _ o PRIVATE I I � I I � I - a Air, LOT 1 J a2 /, I / I '7 II \ II I GRAPHIC SCALE \ I I FEET) t Inch � 60 it. 1 LOT 3 1 --- - _ -_ -_-- _ -- -- _ �D J2a1 ac aza '— VALE DRIVE - --- -- - - _ ----- --- _ I \' ss — —5s_ _T i.vz.z 12 N2.1-777 I LOT 4 I - 1 Proposed Building Color Key •C• .1I. .j. :: f .y. ............. ............. CX2 4 2,200 sf Large Single Expanded, 2-Car Garage CX2r 2 2,200 at Large Single Family Expanded, 2-Car Garage, Rear Access _ _ — I ■ H2+1 3 2,736 s/ Small Townhouse, Flat Over Garage HX2+1 4 2,690 sf Small Townhouse Expanded, Flat Over Garage J2*1 1 3,053 at Large Townhouse, Flat Over Garage f J2+1 all 1 3.053 at Large Townhouse, Flat Over Garage JX2+1 2 3,205 at Large Townhouse Expanded, Flat Over Garage M 1 + 1 2 2.630 of Duplex Townhouse N2+1 7 3,120 al Ono Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat P2+2 2 31 of Duplex Townhouse Over Garage NEIGHBORHOOD I I 51 Total PARK I I 2.7 ACRES I -Single Family �D = Duplex rr LOTS \ \ \ COMMUNITY I I MAR 2 2 2010 GARDENS I I 1C, 1.6ACRES ItyOf ` 1So. BUN/ 9 0nI \ J \� J / I / I I I_ I/• \\ l \\rJ Boyle Associates, N Applicant Eric Farrell landsca architects. planning consultants jbo 03�18-2010 PO Box 1335 p g © SPEAR MEADOWS R 1 0( Burlington, Vr 05402 301 college street • budington • veonont • 05401 802.656 •3555 hdpp/w .41>oyle.com 1• = 60' Color Coded Building Type Plan JT - �.y C 4. aim ® ®_" ��a- - rs�� rum = js>.�j:j:j j u� >_� �■ I�at�l'��"•1 ,i► : �rslli� T � I �a oaf s� -- � : ■ sr ► � � _ as t� • I�fAf' sulkiwa s.mmry Unit st-,, Re lkred Parallel, PN•paed PrXara slnpl>F.mW D ng zs Unea 2 si-eaUnk. 55 a- IN space. Ground Floor Flat 7 Unita 2.25 Spwwu,n • 15.75 Spaces 14 spec.. Flat Ore, Flat 7 Units 1,111,-IUnn • 15,11 else- 28 Specea Flar O Grape t3 uNla 225 9pace4UnX • 33.73 Spann m Spaces Tpxm 1 usa 15 Unne 2.25 Spacee/unit • J3.75 Specs. 50 Spaces E-Ing Slmia-F mly t Una 2 Space -t = 2 Spans 9 Spaces unit Tnal: 14Unll, T-1 Required Space,: tap T1%I Prop.aed Spaces: 245 (Total Dne Not I- ,11 R GE NuIlding Label Key I• NumNer Label Square Fear Descdptlon NAGS _ _ -_ _� 1 N/A N/A Existing Single Family C. and C. Hager I e / / I� I I 2 JX2+1 3,2os LargeT -.house Explmded Flat O,Garage RearA ass o 3 BX2r 1,853 Small Stn I Family Ex er Garage Volume 391, I 4 B2 1,373 Small Single Family 2-Car Garage Pages 285-288 �� / I I 5 P2+2 3A00 Duplex Town house \ 9 , I 7 // ��` \ S C2 1,)38 Lags Single Family. 2Lar Garage / \ 30.9 8C(BS / // I I ) BX2 1,885 Small Single Family One Gr d 2Car Garage B N2.1 3,120 Ona Flal Over Flat. One Ground Floor Flal 8 CX2 1,738 Largo S:,, Expanded, 2-Car Garage 9 C2r 1,738 Lange Single Family Ex, 2-Car Garage Geraga, Rear Access _ 11 B1 1.373 Small Single Family, 1-Car Garage G2 ; / / NEIGHBORHOOD I I 12 142.1 3,120 One Flat Over Flat, One Grountl F or Flat 13 CZ 1,738 Large Single Famlty. 2-Car Garage / // r p _ PARK 14 N2+1 3, 120 ow One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat 15 HX2.1 2,880 Smell Tnhouse ExpantleQ Flatver OGarage 16 C2 1. 73B Large Single Family. 2�,r Garage I I r / /� 2.7 ACRES I 17 CX2' 2,20o Large Single Family Expanded, 2-Car Garage, Rear A. 18 A2d 1,500 Medium Single Family. Detached 2-Car Garage 111 1,11+1 2.530 Duplex Flat Over Garage 20 Wit 1173 Small Single Family, Detached 2Car Garage I • LOT 1 I- - I �\ I \/ 2. 4 / / 21 H22 %2.1 2,880 Smell rownhousa Expended, Flat Over Garage \ J B2 / / / f I BX21 1,$85 Small S053 Large I wle Femll FE.Over Garage / ` ng y panded.2Car Garage 25 C2d24 1 3,738 Large Single Family laDetached 2-Car Garage ' 3 { SINGLE-FAMILY t -r Garage EASTING' I \ \ ` \ I 25 M7+1 2,630 Duplex Flat Over Garage RESIDENTIAL UNIT / I 27 Bid 1,373 Small Single Family. Detached 2Car Garage / \ ` I 25 JX2+1 3,211 Large Townhouse Expended 1111 Over Garage 28 82 1.373 Smell Single Family, 2Lar Garage 30 BX2r 1,$85 Small Slrple Family Expanded. 2-Car Garage, Rear Access ..LOT 5 31 J2.1 arc 3,053 Large Townhouse, Flat over Garage, Ahemale Deck 32 C7 1,738 Large Single Family, tear Garage 33 BX1 1,885 Sma Single Family Ex ndetl, 1Car Garage II I \ 34 H2.1 2,73e sman rownM.ee. Flat aer care e I I \ �O,•••-•�NI• • I I 35 CX1 2,200 Large Single Family Exo..,L i-Car Garage 40 H -1 2.890 Duple, T-house Tm h... E 1-der Garage I G�5p^ c A7Nl�_ yENJ I , 37 At Bea Medlum Sln Ie Family 1.6 ACRES 38 N2 2736 small Tewn ousa Flat Oer Garage 8 S Expanded. Flat Over Garage 13 A2d 1,BB0 Medium Single Fa ••.:. ` \\ p 42 N1212.1 3, 120 One Flail BvgleF Flat / _ \ y ,l, Mar tear Garage, Rear Accesa J \ ` e Single nded, Mar Garage \ \\ © I I M B1 1,3)3 Small Single Feml 'On Grouts Fk1or Flat mill, Detached 2Lar Garage / I \ I y, near Garage G. and ' l 45 N2N 3,12o One Flat Over Flet, One Ground Floor Flat I �' vQllume 142, Pages 4 47 / / I I _ I I 4e CX2 2,200 Large Single Expended, 2Lar Garage 12 8C/e3 / / / 1 1 4 I I 47 42+1 3,120 One Flat Over Flat, One Grountl Floor Flat I 48 C2d 1,738 Laga Single Famlty, Detached 2Lar Garage Ci \ r / �� I 1 1 J 4g Cx2 2.200 Large Single Expanded, 2Car Garage � ' I 1 I 1 50 N221 3,120 One Flat Over Flat, One Ground Floor Flat T / / i I I I I 51 HX2.1 2.a90 Small Tovhouse Expanded. Flat Over Garage I \ 1 52 B2r 1.373 Smell Single.2Car Garage, Rear Access \ \ \-� - \ \ � / � / 1 � � I I 1 I � \ � r • unne that Agar«e the Rom P4 unne mt.p 33J_ 7 I '-- � AaTApxoao- I \ I I I i / _t� �\ I ;I I �rJ R�� r l I se GRAPHIC SCALE I 0 / D 1 1 1, I / p l m I ' \\\ \\ j l I I 1 1 I / I III I I I MAR/2 / tx =ET 1 \�, 1, I I I 2010 t men = eD ft. "' ' Applicant: Eri_Farrell landscape architects planning consultants rom ©bD y . 2010 I PCox1335 aallPAR MEXNj Burlington, VT 05402 301 college street a bu51• = 60• 1Concept Plan V O