Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BATCH 2 - Supplemental - 1600 Spear Street
City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 March 19, 1993 John Steele FitzPatrick-Llewellyn, Inc. One Wentworth Drive Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: Nowland II PRD, Spear Street Dear Mr. Steele: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 k Enclosed please find a copy of the February 9, 1993 Planning Commission meting minutes. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Joe Weith,/P'T� City Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp cc: Gerald Milot John Larkin MOTION OF APPROVAL NOWLAND TWO I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the Preliminary Plat application of Larkin-Milot Partnership for a planned residential development consisting of 73 single-family lots on 66.7 acres of land located on the east side of Spear Street opposite Deerfield Drive as depicted on a twenty (20) page set of plans, page one entitled "Nowland Two, South Burlington, Vermont", prepared by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc. and dated October, 1992 (stamped "received" 1/3/93) with the following stipulations: 1. Any previous approvals and stipulations affecting the subject property which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. In accordance with section 26.602 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, the Planning Commission approves the creation of lots for development upon land designated as "restricted area" on the Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map. It is the commission's opinion that based on the information submitted by the applicant the proposed development will not adversely affect wetlands on the property. Also, it is the Commission's opinion that the goals for maintaining an open space corridor along the north -south arterial roadways in the Southeast Quadrant will be promoted through the establishment of building envelopes on lots 8 through 10. The allowance of buildings in this manner is compatible with adjacent development along Spear Street. Finally, the Planning Commission supports moving the r.o.w. for a future north -south collector road to the east as proposed so as not to impact the wetland area. 3. The Commission approves the 1000 foot long cul-de-sac street serving lots 54 - 73. It is the Commission's opinion that the 1000 foot length will not result in unsafe or inefficient traffic conditions particularly since r.o.w.Is are being reserved for roadway connections to future developments on adjoining parcels. 4. In order for the Commission to find that the proposed development will not cause unreasonable highway congestion or unsafe conditions with respect of use of the highways, the applicant shall be responsible for the following: a) The final plat plans shall include design plans for the proposed southbound left turn lanes at each project access on Spear Street as recommended in the traffic impact analysis submitted by the applicant. b) The applicant shall construct the southbound left turn lanes identified above prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit for the 38th lot. c) Prior to issuance of any zoning/building permits for this development, the applicant shall post a bond to cover the costs of constructing the southbound left turn lanes. This bond shall remain in effect until such time as the lanes are constructed. 5. The Planning Commission approves a credit for construction of the portion of the proposed recreation path located outside of any public street right-of-way. This credit may be applied toward required recreation fees. The exact amount of credit to be applied toward recreation fees shall be determined at final plant. 6. In order to mitigate potential adverse impacts to the City's ability to provide educational services, the developer shall be required to pay a school mitigation fee of $750 per single- family unit in accordance with the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools regarding Nowland Two Residential Subdivision, file #92045 attached hereto. The fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of a zoning/building permit. 7. The developer shall be required to install two (2) trees on each lot as required in Section 19.104(a) of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. The landscape plan shall be revised prior to final plat submittal to include a "typical" or note addressing this requirement. A "Notice of Condition" addressing this requirement shall be recorded in the South Burlington land records prior to recording the final plat plans. 8. Prior to issuance of any zoning/building permits, the applicant shall post a landscape bond to cover the installation cost and value of proposed street and lot trees. The bond shall remain if effect for three (3) years to assure that the planted landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of surviving. The amount of the bond shall be determined at final plat. 9. Legal documents for all public streets (i.e., irrevocable offer of dedication) and easements (e.g., utility easements and recreation path easements) shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and shall be recorded in the South Burlington Land Records prior to issuance of any zoning/building permits. 10. A "Notice of Condition" addressing the height limitations for structures and landscaping on each lot shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and shall be recorded in the South Burlington land records prior to recording the final plat plans. 11. In accordance with section 301.5 of the subdivision regulations, within 14 days of completion of required improvements (e.g., streets, water mains, sanitary sewers, storm drains, etc.), the developer shall submit to the City Engineer "as -built" construction drawings certified by a registered engineer. 12. Prior to final plat submittal, the plans shall be revised to show the following: a) a reserved 60 foot r.o.w. connection to the adjoining property to the north in the vicinity of lot #35. b) proposed building envelopes on lots #8 - 11 as shown on sketch entitled "Nowland Two Building Envelopes" dated 11/24/92. c) landscaping species that will meet the height limitations of the Scenic View Protection Overlay District. d) eight foot wide recreation path for entire length of Deerfield Drive. e) twenty (2) foot wide easement along portions of recreation path not located within public street r.o.w. f) any changes necessary to address comments of Bob Gardner (South Burlington Water Department) in letter dated 2/4/93. g) an 8 inch stub northerly for MH S-6 and southerly for MH S-7. h) the drainage pipe between lots 45 & 46 extended to the rear line of the lots. i) mail box turnouts located on the side street rather than Deerfield Drive. j) northerly roadway connection to Spear Street moved approximately 150 feet to the south so as not to adversely impact houses on west side of Spear Street with headlight glare. 13. A bond for streets, sidewalks, recreation paths, sewer and water shall be posted prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit. The amount of the bond shall be approved by the City Engineer. 14. No zoning/building permit will be issued for a lot until the street serving that lot has a gravel sub -base installed in conformance with City specifications. 15. SEWER 16. The final plat plans, including survey plat, shall be submitted within 12 months or this approval is null and void. (mo-ml) (ovm ) 4,4 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services One Wentworth Drive 0 Williston • Vermont • 05495 • (802) 878-3000 4 March 1993 Mr. Joe Weith, City Planner 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Wetland Delineation in the Nowland Two Parcel FILE: 92045 Dear Mr. Weith: This is to confirm that Brad Wheeler of the Johnson Company was hired to delineate wetlands on the 66.7 acre Nowland Two parcel. Subsequently, our crews surveyed flagging placed in the field by Brad Wheeler to mark the wetland boundary. The Preliminary Plat drawings currently being reviewed by the City accurately depict the wetland boundary based on Brad Wheeler's delineation which he references in his December 16, 1992 letter and clarified in the attached March 3, 1993 letter. Sincerely, FITZPATRICK-LLEWEL N INCORPORATED y-^ Lh, Steele cc: Gerald Milot John Larkin Steve Crampton JAS#5/baf:92045-2 Design 0 Inspection 0 Studies 0 Permitting 0 Surveying E JOHNSON COMPANY, IN( } '*' ` Lc?ut 'R;7",API 0 March 3, 1993 a ; ;„ �,wr• r; - : I. , , Mr. Lance Llewellyn (;.�;� 1? R 1993 FitzPatrick-Llewellyn, Inc. One Wentworth Drive Williston, Vermont 05495 Ci:ift�Ulilf! s w.,�,neur� Re: Wetlands at the Nowland Two Property, Spear Street, South Burlington, Vermont JCO # 1-0616-3 (048) Dear Lance: Thank you for forwarding the detailed survey worksheet that was developed during the surveying process for the wetland boundary which I completed at the referenced property. This information has allowed me to conduct a more thorough review of the site plan, and hence, develop a better sense of the accuracy of the boundary which is represented on the Overall Site Plan. The wetland boundary represented on the Overall Site Plan is an accurate representation of the field identified wetland boundary which was a result of the wetland delineation which I conducted on June 15, 1990. 1 hope that this letter clarifies my letter of December 16, 1992. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, THE JOHNSON COMPANY, INC. By: /�. Bradley A. Wheeler, CPSS Senior Scientist cc: Mr. Joseph Wieth, South Burlington City Planner Reviewed by: SAS G:\USERS\BAW\FITZLLEW.303 March 3, 1993 15.27 BAW C.ivdlEnvironmental Engineeripkq Hydrogeolop Water Supply & 618.,h"awter Dislk"'d llazardous Waste Rennaliation )hydrology Contaminant fate Analysis Soil H Water Science GeohN £r Geuplysics Rimers and Dunn Solid Waste Iennittin� 5 State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 ■ (802) 229-4600 Fax: (802) 229-5876 GRAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES T. SHEA 76 ST. PAUL STREET AREA CODE 802 STEPHEN R. CRAMPTON TELEPHONE 658-0220 STEWART H. MCCONAUGHY POST OFFICE BOX 369 FAX 658-1456 ROBERT B. HEMLEY WILLIAM G. POST, JR BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0369 CRAIG WEATHERLY CLARKE A. GRAvEL JAMES E. KNAPP COUNSEL JOHN R. PONSECCO DENNIS R. PEARSON NORMAN WILLIAMS PETER S. ERLY SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT F. O'NEu.L MARGARET L. MONTGOMERY Lucy T. BROWN DAVID R. PUTNAM March 26, 1993 South Burlington Planning Commission Attention: Bill Burgess, Chairman South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Nowland II Preliminary Plot Submission Members of the Planning Commission: This letter responds to William Schroeder's letter dated March 24, 1993, submitted to the Planning Commission on behalf of Fred Hackett. Mr. Schroeder argues that the density of the subdivision, and the location of development within the subdivision, do not comply with "applicable standards." The Applicant disagrees with Mr. Schroeder for the following reasons. Mr. Schroeder is right when he says that both the City's zoning and subdivision regulations (the "Regulations") require that the Nowland II subdivision comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"). However, the Plan must be read in concert with the Regulations with the understanding that the Plan is a general guideline to the City Legislative Body and it is the Regulations which provide the details for implementation. In fact, the Plan does provide only general guidance on density, development location restrictions, and view protection. It is the Regulation that provides the details. Compliance with the Regulations must be deemed compliance with the Plan. What do the Regulations establish for density requirements in the Southeast Quadrant District? Section 26.401 provides: "The maximum development density for residential development on a parcel of land or a portion of a parcel of land located in the Southeast Quadrant District shall be 1.1 residential units per acre." Section 26.603 allows a Planning Commission to increase the density for a planned residential development within a Southeast Quadrant to up to 25%. Section 19.152 specifically provides that the formula used to calculate base density for a subdivision, which requires exclusion of land associated with steep slopes, wetlands, GRAVEL AND SHEA South Burlington Planning Commission March 26, 1993 Page 2 flood plains, and roadways, shall not apply in the Southeast Quadrant District. Base density in the Southeast Quadrant District is based on the total acreage of the subdivided tract or tracts. Accordingly, the Regulations allow a density of 73 units for the 66.7 acre Nowland II subdivision tract, which is what is proposed here. Contrary to Mr. Schroeder's assertion, the Applicant's plan does not maximize the density under the Regulations. Under Section 26.603, the Applicant could have proposed an additional 18 units. In addition to the density issue, Mr. Schroeder raises two other points regarding location of development within the Nowland II subdivision. First, he suggests that development may not occur outside of the "development areas" shown in the Southeast Quadrant Goals Based Plan. Second, he argues that an area proposed for development in the middle of the subdivision should be left opened to preserve views. Applicant's responses to these issues are that the Regulations authorize the Planning Commission to allow development, not otherwise specifically allowed by the Regulations, in restricted areas in connection with approval of a PRD. (See Section 26.602) With regard to the views issue, the Nowland II subdivision is located within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone. However, the Plan and Regulations control, but do not prohibit, development within the view protection areas. Within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone, the Regulations simply control the height of structures and landscaping. The Plan recommends that the City take action to preserve important views. The restrictions established by Article XXV of the Regulations (zoning) implement that recommendation. In response to the requirement of Article XXV, the applicant has submitted plans which demonstrate compliance with the view protection restrictions of the Regulations. It is applicant's position that read together, the Plans and Regulations do not conflict. In any event, if there is a conflict, under Vermont Law, the Plan must yield to the Regulations. In Smith v. Winhall Planning Commission, 140 Vt. 78, the Vermont Supreme Court settled the issue about which applies when there is a conflict between a town plan and its zoning regulations: "The Regulations as adopted may indeed be inconsistent with a Town Plan, but the total consistency upon which this argument is predicated is not a legal requirement. The Plan is a general guideline to the Legislative Body, an overall guide to community development. Partial implementation is not unusual; the specific implementation is a part that is GRAVEL AND SHEA South Burlington Planning Commission March 26, 1993 Page 3 adopted in the Zoning Regulations... The Regulations control the Plan." At 183. In summation, the Nowland II Subdivision fully complies with the density, restricted area, and view protection provisions of both the Plan and Regulations. Thank you for considering our response to Mr. Schroeder's comments. Very truly yours, GRAVEL AND SHEA John R. Ponsetto Stephen R. Crampton JRP:wbb cc: Mr. Gerald C. Milot William Schroeder, Esq. JOHNSON COMPANY, Environmental Sciences and Engineering J March 3, 1993 Mr. Lance Llewellyn FitzPatrick-Llewellyn, Inc. One Wentworth Drive Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: Wetlands at the Nowiand Two Property, Spear Street, South Burlington, Vermont JCO # 1-0616-3 (048) Dear Lance: Thank you for forwarding the detailed survey worksheet that was developed during the surveying process for the wetland boundary which I completed at the referenced property. This information has allowed me to conduct a more thorough review of the site plan, and hence, develop a better sense of the accuracy of the boundary which is represented on the Overall Site Plan. The wetland boundary represented on the Overall Site Plan is an accurate representation of the field identified wetland boundary which was a result of the wetland delineation which I conducted on June 15, 1990. I hope that this letter clarifies my letter of December 16, 1992. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Sincerely, THE JOHNSON COMPANY, INC. -24 By:Zy'& , kyv� Bradley A heeler, CPSS Senior Scientist cc: Mr. Joseph Wieth, South Burlington City Planner Reviewed by: SAS G:\USERS\8AW\F(TZLLEW.303 March 3. 1993 15.27 BAW CivillEiwirmnrei ii7 E» gineeiing Hydregeolu�it Water Supply S 4U�isMuv�h'r Dispnsr! Hazardous N'nst,• Remediatiort F(gdioln�q Cunlnuiiunnt Fate Atialysis Soil & Water Science Geology & Geoph lsic5 Rivers and Hants Solid Waste perudltir{l 5 State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 ■ (802) 229-4600 Fax: (802) 229-5876 J..:....�.�.LL.. .. ......a....:,.s ...gin I GARY N. FARRELL 1350 SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05401 February 9, 1993 City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Attention: South Burlington Planning Commission Mr. William Burgess, Chairman Dear Bill: I am unable to attend tonight's meeting, but I wanted to bring to your attention some concerns about the proposed development of the Milot/Larkin parcel on Spear Street. 1. The proposed development is predominantly minimum (12,000 sq. ft) lots, which is not in keeping with the general character of the neighborhood. 2. The proposed small lots will likely result in a development that has a similar visual impact as Summit at Spear, south of Overlook which many people consider undesirable. 3. The proposed development has not been presented as an overlay format in combination with a wetlands delineation map to be sure where the wetlands are located. 4. The parcel is located near the scenic view corridor indicated on the SEQ map. It is unclear if the small lots are compatible with maintaining any such views. 5. The common land on the perimeter in the proposal might be more useful as a buffer to larger lots fronting on Spear Street. 6. The comprehensive plan suggests that a mix of lot sizes is desirable in the SEQ as opposed to a predominance of minimum size lots. Planning Commission/Page 2 r 7. The traffic study was done when the University of Vermont was out of session. Traffic is more congested during peak hours, when UVM is in session. I am not generally opposed to development of this parcel of land, but would request that the Planning Commission give careful deliberation to maintaining the quality of what has been a very attractive and desirable neighborhood for many decades. Respe t y Subm tted, Ga N. F rrell 1350 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 GNF:SD To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Arthur E. Boyd Almon Atkins Jeff Chiu Douglas Meredith Fred Molthen/IBIS Date: Oral summary of this memo given to Planning Commission at its February 9, 1993 evening meeting. Re: Nowland Two Pro osal Development Plan, which had a date stamp of 1-5-93 on '« some of its` cTocuments, as being tfie date received by the South Burlington Planning Commission. The five people listed above are all contiguous property owners on Spear Street and are adjoining property owners to the proposed Nowland Two Development. The evening of 9 February 1993 was the first time we had seen or heard of the details of the developers' latest proposed development plans. However, during the course of the previous year (1992) we had seen or heard of other preliminary layouts, presented by the developer, which were considerably different from the development presented by them on 9 February 1993. We strongly recommend you deny the applicants' approval for their proposed development of Nowland Two as presented by them on 2/9/93, for the following reasons: The value of our five (5) properties will be considerably reduced due to the (a) extremely high density of the proposed building lots and buildings east of our five properties, (b) heights of some of the buildings proposed by the developers will cut off our easterly views of Mt. Mansfield, Bolton Mountain, Bolton Valley Ski Areas, Winooski River Valley Cut in Horizon and Camels Hump. The density of the buildings will also restrict our easterly views. Most of our lots on Spear Street are approximately 2 acres in size. Immediately east of our 2 acre lots the developer is proposing 1/4 to 1/2 acre lots. This is too drastic a transition. It will destroy the nature and character of the existing neighborhood, which has been in existence for about 30 years. We propose that the developers proposed lots adjoining us on the east be 1 1/2 to 2 acres in size; i.e. the numbered lots 1 thru 6 should be replaced with 2 lots instead of the presently shown 6 lots. We then propose that the next row of lots to the east (lots presently numbered 1 1 thru 22 and lots presently numbered 51, 52 and 53) be increased in size to 1 acre lots. We further propose presently numbered increased in size to that the third row of lots in the easterly direction (lots 23 thru 34 1/2 acre lots. and lots presently numbered 49 and 50) be We have no objections to lots presently numbered 7 thru 10 on the developers proposed Overall Site Plan being sized and located as depicted. We suggest that the remainder of the proposed lots not enumerated above be 1/2 acre lots. 2. Even though the developers feel they might meet the numerical density requirements, there is much doubt that they really do. See Mr. William A. Gilbert's 7 page memorandum (plus attachments) to you dated 2/9/93. Even, if by some convoluted logic, it is determined by some that the developers do meet the density requirements, that is only one of the criteria to be considered in your deliberations. The Planing Commission, using its good judgement, must also take into account the following: a. Prevent existing developed property owners and existing neighborhoods from being savaged by proposed new developments; i.e. reduction of the value of our property, reduction of our scenic views, reduction of our open spaces, tremendously increased traffic density due to the new development, reduction of our privacy. b. We quote portions of Article XXIV, Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ) Section 26.00, Purpose of the Zoning Regulations in support of our previous paragraph. "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 agricultural use, and well planned residential use in the largely undeveloped area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The open character and spectacular scenic views in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique resources in the city and worthy of protection." The proposed development seems to violate all of the desirable characteristics enumerated in the introduction to Article XXVI of the Zoning Regulations mentioned above. Since the developers have been working on their plans for several years and we are just now seeing their preliminary proposal, we ask in all fairness that we, the affected property owners, be given several months in which to review and evaluate their proposal and be given an opportunity in which to respond in more fullness and more detail to their proposal. 3. To briefly recap, we strongly recommend that the Planning Commission do not approve the proposed Nowland Two Development because: a. The value of our property will be reduced. b. The proposed lots immediately adjacent to our property are too small in size and too many in number. c. Our scenic views to the east will be destroyed. d. The increased traffic density will be too great. e. The height of the proposed buildings is too high. f. The character and nature of the existing neighborhood/community will be too adversely affected. g. The proposed development will violate all of the desirable characteristics recommended in the introduction to Article XXVI of the City Zoning Regulations. h. All the reasons mentioned in Mr. William A Gilbert's 2/9/93 memorandum to you. Thank you for your courteous consideration of our strongly felt anxieties. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 March 5, 1993 John Steele FitzPatrick-Llewellyn, Inc. One Wentworth Drive Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: Nowland II PRD, Spear Street Dear Mr. Steele: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, March 9, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. in erely, t4w oe Weith, City Planner Encls JW/mcp cc: Gerald Milot John Larkin To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Douglas Meredith r Date: February 23, 1993 Re: Nowland Two Proposal Developm t Plan The decision before us is not how many houses we'll build but how we shall develop one of the finest spots in the state of Vermont. This is a spot which will be the envy of many states To pepper it with a lot of small houses on small lots will result in the destruction of an outstanding site. This site should be developed in large lots and large houses, which will make a very attractive development. The lots on Spear Street should be not less than 2 acres, and the houses should be adaptable to such lots. As it is developed eastward towards Dorset Street, the lots could be gradually reduced. A development of this kind should provide the builder or developer with an adequate profit and result in a development that could attract nationwide attention. There would be further advantages to such a development. Traffic would be kept lower and provide scenic visitations. `. State of Vermont D s�,.,art;re ui of Fish and bV ll�!litc D e(>antr, r rtt of Fo�esls, Pair ks .aniI i1 re,i11 1 U Hpa i on of Em.... on rn en tal Co nse v;i tiers State (.olagi,t Natural Resources Conservation Council Partnership L & M 410 Shelburne Road South Burlington, VT 05403 AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Department of Environmental Conservation 111 West Street Essex Jct.,Vermont 05452 Telephone # 879-6563 June 22, 1993 RE: EC-4-1750 ; 73 lot subd. with associated common lands; Mun water & sew. 46,957 located SPEAR STREET in SOUTH BURLINGTON, Vermont. Dear Applicant: We received your completed application for the referenced permit on 06/14/93, including a fee of $7373 paid for by Check Number 372. This application falls under the Multi -Lot Subdivision Program Area, and under the Performance Standards for this program area, we have 45 days of 'in- house' time for our review of your application. If we need further information from you in order to reach a decision on your application, the time we wait for your submittal of that information does not count against the allowable in-house time specified in the performance standards. If you have any questions about the review process, or if you have not received a decision on your application within the 45 days in-house, please contact this office at 879-6563. Please note that this does not constitute receipt of your application under the requirements of Act 250. If you have questions relating to Act 250 jurisdiction, a District Coordinator may be reached at 879-6563. As of 6/1/93 our fee schedule changed therefore we will need another $3,725.00. Deferral permits will be issued same time. FF� the Divii on of Protection, Irene L. Roberge (J Administrative Secretary CC: FitzPatrick-Llewelln SOUTH BURLINGTON Planning Commission Regional Ofhcta - Barre/Essex Jct./Pittsford/N. Springfield/St. Johnsbury South b)urlington Police Department Fax: 658-4748 Administration: 658-7971 Detectives: 658-7969 June 29, 1993 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 .,. 802-658-1050 Brian R. Searles, Chief John A. Steele Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn Inc. One Wentworth Drive Williston, VT 05495 RE: Nowland II Residential Subdivision Spear Street, South Burlington, VT File: 92045 Dear Mr. Steele: TO KEEP KIDS OFF DRUGS I have reviewed your plans for the planned residential development consisting of 73 four bedroom single family lots east of Spear Street opposite Deerfield Drive and have concluded that the project will have no significant adverse impact on the delivery of police services by this department. If you have further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, - Al Brian R. Searles Chief of Police BRS:mc I L-Am� 4�-Tto ee)-A;�lvsl �To V&)ase� p4w-� \/10�0 14 Nly ISIS I Is, Nlr CHILI N/r CAGNON It Q UND ri0dlj400 r / I 1 11 — �. 'dip 416 400 / A52 10 A CA 221 21 R,2O 50 4p 1 B. A 9 A AA25 27 413 IF 47 A46-- A45 4��44 74 ,A 55 57 58 GOO GG 11 lkft� One 4w 0 is -ft CA! DYOCK CIRCLE) S r w-- 'r \ 70 68 q-li;f- 72 G 67 • AA : R66 COMMON LAND 0 N,,T ECONCUOU FARMS INC. a 40M am A TKlNS.,'1:,' 7 N LANE)-- s7j�-r O.;.e,► wwoop Jim T T?AMU , N11F HANSON AN A i5 II 17; /y i� J4. oft IG " 28 29, 30-30. FALL LINE DRIVE r 'A J5 SEW* 41 40 J9 J6 03 0 G COMMON LAND DELINEATED *EMAND LAOITS Q CIO �Jlopw�/ F6-51 �64, O El s(4 - 31 oouow i,&L, o e-. (zAtpe A.2. 0 - -e-,; -.3, 0 Ae el -* 0 < 19, sjW6-A.-,rl�To�.� - N/F FARRELL Er. AL. 4!> 100 ZOO (4,c o To I RCWSED ROAD . r AND SOWE LOTS REW.9ONS DA TE C Em a-* il E D No. it IS THE USER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE 771ESE DRA41NGS INCLUDE- 7HE LATEST REW-SdONS. WPREUYtiYAR Y PLAT i ACT 250 f7NAL PLA r i CONSTRUC77ON FEB 2 6 Ry of So. Buriington N O W L A N D T W .. 0 F o vERALL SITE PLAN COUAWON LAND c on -lili'1992 all- 7- INCORPORATED YALLISTON VERMONT 3 1.9 NI-Y !SHAM FPINIL� V41 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 May 20, 1993 Mr. Charles Van Winkle FitzPatrick-Llewellyn, Inc. One Wentworth Drive Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: Sewer Allocation, Nowland II Residential Development Dear Mr. Van Winkle: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Please be advised that the South Burlington Planning Commission at their March 30, 1993 meeting allocated 46,957 gpd to Larkin-Milot Partnership for a 73 unit planned residential development on Spear Street. The length of time that this sewer allocation will remain in effect is tied to roadway construction. The roadway serving this development must be completed within four years of final plat approval. The sewer allocation for any lots served by roadways which are not completed within this four year time limit will be lost unless reapproved v t e Planning C m; s T d • a- . ` rr-by h. y O■:..�.i-rSivn. i7i add" -Jon, it-.L i, LJ- at the end of three years no more than 50% of the roads have been completed, 25% of the total sewer allocation will be lost unless reapproved by the Planning Commission. The sewer allocation issue will be finalized at final plat. If you have any questions, please give me a call. in erely, 4& _ Z_ J e Weith, City Planner JW/mcp PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, August 10, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1) Final plat application of University Mall Realty Trust for: 1) boundary line adjustment involving two (2) existing parcels of 46.01 acres (U-Mall) and 7.73 acres (Howard Johnson's) which will result in two (2) new parcels of 49.32 acres (U-Mall) and 4.42 acres (Howard Johnson's), 2) construction of a surface parking facility on the newly acquired land north of University Mall, 3) a minor change to the north University Mall entrance, and 4) temporary parking on a portion of the U-Mall property previously approved for a 5,000 square foot retail building, Dorset Street. 2) Final plat application of Larkin-Milot Partnership for a planned residential development consisting of 73 single-family lots on 66.7 acres of land located on the east side of Spear Street opposite Deerfield Drive. Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. William Burgess Chairman, South Burlington Planning Commission July 24, 1993 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 July 20, 1993 John Steele FitzPatrick-Llewellyn, Inc. One Wentworth Drive Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: Nowland II PRD, Spear Street Dear Mr. Steele: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find some preliminary comments on the above referenced project from City Engineer Bill Szymanski, Fire Chief Jim Goddette and myself. Please submit additional information and/or revised plans addressing the enclosed comments by no later than Friday, July 30, 1993. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Since ly, , Raymo d J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant Encls RJB/mcp cc: Gerald Milot John Larkin NIF UNDERWOOO i 1 1 1 / --- ' `,-.. ®�~jI�U�TU�2.,�.�-�-E����� AIM �T•�s-�(D -ro vo per- Vi TtoN � 1. L'EL�l5�6iJ Z.-5.97`✓ ---- _ ;\ NOTES ,✓ \ _ Is I N/F IBIS I /� N/F CHILI � /• is \�-- � � i \••\.: I ( / N/F GAGNON It \1 , 0 / � L4 53 / 52 51 50 • A. 4B N/F MEREMWN I'•'�.,, - T "A' LANE) STREE---- t. -,\ 21 20 / O 4 / I / I. l N/F HANSON AN .A r A.33 A L 1 1 �- —i- 24 l • I ' u 11u EA ?8 ' � 29. 30 • 31 32 ' 33 - ' ' 34 ( FALL LINE DRIVE) -STREET A" 0 \ I I Q % (D. 40: D39 (. 3� 37 36 1' COMMON LAND A v p� 9 54 55 G56I 97 II D58 59 6[6E]i -\ ( CAS OCK GRCL£ — 63 _ _ ) I _-- --- • -_ -- __ BEET - _._ +... • !0' UT$lYY cAseMeNr O O O O ' 67 S6 1 64.' COMMON LINO ' D 65 \ / COMMON LAND N/F ECONOMOU FARMS INC. DEUNfAIM WEIL ND LIMITS 1. OWNER / APPLICANT: LARKIN MILOT PARTNERSHIP 410 SHELBURNE ROAD BURLINGTON• VERMONT 2 ZONED. SOUTHEAST QUADRANT .I TOTAL PARCEL AREA: 66.7 ACRES 4. PERIMETER PROPERTY LINE 1NFORMA7►0M TAKEN FROM PLAN EN77ILE0 " NOWLAND PROPERTY B - SUBDIVISION PLAN, BY FI7ZPATRICK - LLfW£LI.YN INC. NUMBER 0-3979 / O-JWA OATEO MARCH 1991. 1 TOPOGRAPHIC AND EXISTING FEATURES INFORMATION BY FITIPATR/CK-L-EWELLYN 6. PROIPERrY LINE IJFORMAAON FOR SWIFT ESTATES TAKEN FROW TAX MAPS PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON. 7. , PRoxcr DESCRIPTION: 73 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 66.7 ACRES ON THE EAST SIDE OF SPEAR STR£Er IN SOUTH BURL/NcroN, VERMONT• 706E (+/-) LINEAR FEET of ROADWAY WITH CURBS BOTH SIDES AND SIDEWALK ONE SIDE WITHIN A PROPOSED 0TY R.O.W. 6500 (+/-) LINEAR FEET OF 8" WATER MAIN FROM EXISTING WATER MAIN ON SPEAR STREET AT THE DEERFIELD DRIVE INTERSECTION. 5500 (+-) LINEAR FEET OF STORM COLLECTION SEWER DISCHARGING B. TO THREE PROPOSED DETENTION BASINS STREET NAMES SHOWN IN PARENTHESIS ARE PROPOSED ONLY AND .. ARE SUB ECT TO OWNER / CITY APPROVAL O y 3?-' NO LIMITON ❑ V4-:511 c/-WPI*L, ow. dAe A O I9, siWCol� �012`f ` N/F FARRELL £T. AL. 100 t> 100 ZOO L i D0 FLOo►- To Qu6w'&Gtb �iNt� kfib C.��•-t�tr �.t�t� z - 3 FCC I!✓� :. . I RfHSM SWAY AND SOWS LOTS • 17/2D(➢7 Na REHSrDvS DA TE IT /S THE USERS RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THESE DRAWINGS INCLUDE THE LA7EST REVISIONS. PRELIMINARY PLAT i ACT 250 FINAL PLAT CONSTRUCTION NOWLAND TWO 0 VERALL SITE PLAN U Lst!'Q�Q�� W o szas- ; 1 .. .."- ' N/F /SHAM _ l ,. INIt.. JA;I o I FOn% n n �% M INCORPORATED VALLISTON VERMONT AILY �1992 -•BAD D - 43B2 J ";' 19 s LOL 00 5•24 25 up G qv ACER - Continued ACH EACH 1-4 5-24 25 up astre Maple `I tv rubrum (Zone 3) EACH EACH EACH d Height: 60' Red or Swamp Maple Spread: 0' 60' Flower red n Shape: broad oval Fruit: /4", red, winged Foliage: green 'cture. Glossy G Dense foliage turns to shades of red, orange and yellow in fall. Tolerates damp soils. )e tree. G 1 vz" B.R. (Fall) /43�+ ........................................................ 0 42.00 f 1 B.R. (Fall) 48.00 38.00 36.00 0 54.00 `/ av 1'/z" B&B (Fall) ............. 60.00 48.00 46.00 0 68.00 13/4" B&B (Fall)........................................................ 77.00 62.00 59.00 0 87.00 G vv CLUMP FORM ""..96.00 76.00 72.00 0 110.00 6' B&B ............. �,,...................................................78.00 63.00 60.00 way Maple �I 8' B&B..............................................................100.00 90.00 85.00 'Armstrong' (Zone 3) Height: 45' Armstrong Red Maple ' Spread: 15' Flower: red i fall color. A Shape: narrow, u Fruit. 3/4', red, winged ri ht p Narrowest of the columnar maples. Foliage: compact, upright form gives it a formal I 42.00 G appearance. 54.00 68.00 C 13/4" B.R......... 64.00 52.00 49.00 87.00 2" B.R.................................................................80.00 52.00 49.00 110.00 `/ 13/4" B&B ........... 180.00 65.00 62.00 ................................................... 2" B&B.............................................................. 125.00 100.00 96.00 vay Maple C ~�' r. 'Autumn Flame1D (Zone 3) Autumn Flame Red Maple v °� Height: 50-60' Flower: red r Spread: 40-50' Fruit: none Shape: broadly rounded Foliage: medium green aright form. Ci The earliest of the red maples to color in the fall, consistent) I in autumn. display. Leaves are smaller than the species and are borne on producing ssym etricall, denred se, 34.00 C rounded head. 42.00 y 1'/z" B.R. (Fall) 54.00 C 13/4" B.R. Fall........................................................51.00 41.00 39.00 56.00 d' 1'/z" B&B (Fall)........................................................ 64.00 52.00 49.00 C........................................... 80.00 65.00 62.00 68.00 13/4" B&B (Fall) 87.00 .. 2" B&B..............................................................100.00 80.00 76.00 C..............................................125.00 100.00 96.00 ay Maple 2'/z" B&B..............................................................165.00 135.00 125.00 "ter r. 'Embers'® (Zone 3) Height: 50' Flower: red Embers Red Maple Spread: 35-40' ind dense and tree Shape: upright, rounded Fruit: winged �s C ,y Foliage: dark green Embers' is a very hardy, vigorous grower, with a narrow growth habit, maturing to a rounded head. Bright red autumn foliage. 42.00 NEW 13/4" B.R.................... 54.00 64.00 52.00 49.00 68.00 `� 23 " B.R.................................................................80.00 65.00 62.00 87.00 ` 1 /4 R&B .................... . 2" B&B ...........................................................100.00 80.00 76.00 , ........... 125.00 100.00 96.00 ................ Spruce G 2 /z" B8 B..............................................................165.00 135.00 125.00 r. 'Northwood' P.P. 5053 (Zone 3) If Height: 30-40' Northwood Red Maple Flower: red )odform. _Spread: 35' Fruit: winged Shape: broadly oval to rounded Foliage: dark green 34.00 A new red maple cultivar selected from a Northern Minnesota seed source by the 42.00 University of Minnesota. Northwood has a straight, sturdy trunk, excellent branch G y NEW angles and forms a rounded crown. Autumn foliage is crimson -red. 54.00 13/4" B. R................................................................. 64.00 56.00 G + 2" B.R. Fall 52.00 49.00 87.00 13/4" B&B......)......................................................... 80.00 65.00 62.00 87.00 �s..............................................100.00 80.00 76.00 110.00 ` _ 2" B&B (Fall) ...................................................... 1W.00 80.00 76.00 - ............... 125.00 100.00 96.00 4J -19- r' ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Resubmit_ _copies for approval ❑ Submit --copies for distribution ❑ Return _corrected prints 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCO"OORATED Engineering and Planning ; ices One Wentworth Drive WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 (802) 878-3000 TO WE ARE SENDING YOU [Y Attached ❑ Under separate cover via LIE"T� -M (IF TIZKOEUTTRL DATE NO.r` ©r� IJ� 4. ATTENTION RE: ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ the following items: ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS COPY TO 40% Pre -Consumer Content •10% Post -Consumer Content SIGNED:_ PRODUCT240 � Inc., Gmton, tvi s 01471_ It enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at �IA / C6 7/6 �) (m/t)5 /t) W661,q ACT 250 APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL PACKAGE NOWLAND II PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SPEAR STREET, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT PROJECT NUMBER; 92045 30 JULY 1993 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Fnninoori— —i Pionninn Services PUBLIC NEARING fOUTN BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, August 10, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. to consider the following: 1) Final plat application of University Mall Realty Trust for: 1) boundary fine adjustment involving two (2)) existing parcels of 42.01 acres (U-Mall) and 7.73 acres (Howard John- son's) which will result in two (2) new parcels of 49.32 acres (U-Mall) and 4.42 acres (Howard John- son's), 2) construction of , a surface parking facility on the newly acquired land north of University Mali, 3) a minor change to the north University Mall entrance, and 4) tempo- j rary parking on a portion of the U-Mall property previously approved for a 5,000 square foot retail building, Dorset Street. 2) Final FFlet application of ' Larkin-Milot Partnership { for a planned residential I development consisting of 73 single-family lots on 66.7 acres of land located on the east side of Spear Street opposite Deerfield Drive. Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. Continued Next Column LEGAL ►yptICES I William Burgess Chairman, South Buffington Plannin1 Commission July 24. 1993 PLANNING COMMISSION 9 MARCH 1993 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a meeting = Tuesday, 9 March 1993, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Member T ,- William Burgess, Chairman; Mary -Barbara Maher, Terry Sheahan, David Austin, Mac Teeson, William Craig Also Present: Joe Weith, City Planner; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Sandy Greiner, Free Press; Gerald Milot, John Larkin, Lucy Brown, L. Long, Bradley Wheeler, Jen-Fu Chin, Arthur Boyd, Anne Ratkus, Karen Unsworth, Brendan Kelly, Brad Merritt, Lance Llewellyn, John Steele, Dick Underwood, Fred Hackett, Bill Schroeder, Gary Farrell, Frank Naef, Ernie Pomerleau 1. Other Business: a. Mr. Weith advised that item #6 on the agenda has been can- celled. 2. Minutes of 26 January 1993: Mrs. Maher moved the Minutes of 26 January be approved as written. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Public Hearing: Continued Preliminary Plat application of Larkin-Milot Partnership for a planned residential development consisting of 73 single-family lots on 66.7 acres of land located on the east side of Spear Street opposite Deerfield Drive: Mr. Steele reviewed the changes made since the last hearing. The northerly entrance from Spear Street has been shifted to between lots 8 & 9 (opposite a vacant lot) to avoid having car lights shining into homes. The road easement now carries all the way through. Streets trees have been changed to conform with height restrictions. Regarding Wetlands, a supplementary letter from the wetlands expert has been submitted. Mr. Weith suggested staff visit the site to check on the newly proposed northern access. Brendan Kelly presented traffic information. Mr. Craig first asked whether the controller of the traffic light at Swift/Spe7ar Streets is capable of running at the modes being proposed. Mr. Kelly said he believed it is. If not, timings can be modified. Mr. Milot said they will assume responsibility for retiming the light. Mr. Craig noted that when you are heading north and make a right A .. � v- . ..«rfii+2Gi4ffRs2;iw 77 „ ,,;,:..> PLANNING COMMISSION 9 March 1993 page 2 turn onto Swift Street, the angle of the turn is more than 90 degrees. He asked if that was part of the geometry used in the traffic study. Mr. Kelly said their analysis didn't take that into account. Mr. Craig noted there is some space avail- able to soften that turn and asked if that can be looked into. Mr. Kelly said he didn't think it was causing a safety or con- gestion concern. Mr. Craig suggested the City Engineer look at this. Mr. Schroeder, representing Fred Hackett, asked how far traffic was backed up on the day the counts were done. Mr. Kelly said about 300-400 feet. He added that it appeared traffic almost always made it through the first cycle of the light. Mr. Hackett said traffic is usually backed up over the hill during the morning peak hour and usually has to wait at least 3 turns of the light. This is much more than 300-400 feet. Mr. Kelly said he felt they have offered a solution to this by revising the timing of the light. He said this should be done whether the project is built or not. Mr. Weith noted that counts he has from two years ago are very close to Mr. Kelly's figures. Mr. Farrell said he has noted that traffic is backed up at least 1/4 of a mile in the morning, past Stonehedge. He would hate to see conditions deteriorate more than they are now. He felt the method of traffic analysis has a flaw in it. Mr. Craig asked how far off the traffic analysis can be and still get the intersection to level of service "C". Mr. Kelly said he will get that information. Mr. Schroeder asked what the total peak hour traffic would be. Mr. Kelly said morning peak hour turning right from the project would be 16, turning left 17. There would be 2 entering from the south and 6 from the north. The PM peak would be 10 turning out the right and 4 to the left with 8 entering from the south and 18 from the north. Regarding wetlands, Mr. Milot noted they have submitted a follow- up letter which confirms their map. Mr Schroeder asked why the shape of the wetlands on the plan is different from that on the the Southeast Quadrant city map. Mr. Milot noted there is a note on the city map that says a field survey is needed to con- firm actual boundaries of the wetland. This is what they did. The map was an estimate, what they have is definite. Mr. Burgess -� added that the maps were put together with the best information the city had. They were aware the level of detail didn't allow a significant degree of accuracy. Mrs. Ratkus asked about the retention pond and noted that at present there is a pipe on the east side of Spear St. that goes PLANN_IGCO_MM_ISSION 9 WMarchWl993��� page 3 under the road and takes surface water from the east side to the west side of the street and down part of their land and onto their neighbor's land. She said she understood the water will be brought to a rentention pond and then come onto Spear St. through the pipe and then onto their land. She noted that now they have a river on their land in the spring and she didn't want that to become a flood. Mr. Llewellyn responded that there is a high point that runs north -south on the Milot property. At present, everything on one side of that goes through the pipe and onto the Ratkus property. But all the water from this project will not go that way. The holding pond only serves a part of the project. He said there will be no more water on the Ratkus land than there is now. Regarding sewer, Mr. Austin suggested that the Act 250 permit for sewer capacity add the words "or 5 years". Mr. Milot agreed to this. Mr. Austin noted there is a concern that this project and the Pomerleau project on Shelburne Rd. will eat up the rest of the capacity at the Bartlett Bay Sewer Plant. This would mean a small 4-lot development couldn't be built. Mr. Weith noted the city is planning a bond issue for possibly this fall. The plant addition would be built by the fall of 1996. He noted that in the past requests for sewer capacity have been handled on a first come -first serve basis, but that this has caused problems witi, people stockpiling capacity for projects that don't get built. Regarding the question of a school impact fee , Mr. Burgess noted there are several ways this can be handled. The develop- ment can be scaled down. It can be phased. Or a fee can be imposed after the enabling action for this has been done. Mr. Sheahan asked if the developer can donate money toward the schools without having the Commission impose a fee. Mr. Weith said he will talk with the City Attorney on this. Mr. Austin noted the Commission got a number of memos trom neighbors who would like to see larger lots nearer to Spear qt_ anc9 the smaller lots further back. Mr. Milot said they have done that to some extent. Mr. Milot then offered to sell to the neighbors the lots that have the greatest impact on their property. Mr. Schroeder asked if the developer considered any plan that didn't build the maximum number of units. Mr. Milot said that marketability controls density. He said they have been in this business for 20 years. He noted that density was reduced from the time they bought the property. Mr. Boyd, speaking on behalf of homeowners on the land in front of this project, said their major anxiety is the size of the PLANNING COMMISSION 9 March 1993 page 4 lots that adjoin theirs. He felt this would reduce the values of their homes. He said that even if they purchased the lots, there still would be a mass of houses blocking their eastern view. He asked that the application be denied for these reasons and for traffic reasons. He felt the plan violates all the city wants to achieve in the Southeast Quadrant. Mr. Hackett was concerned that the plan should reflect the neighborhood and not change its character. He felt the adjacent lots are inappropriately small and was concerned there would now be quarter acre zoning in the Quadrant. Mr. Burgess then reviewed the major issues: traffic, school impact, Spear St. access point, sewer allocation. He asked whether the traffic data can be verified. Mr. Weith said he is planning to go out and observe for himself. Mr. Austin said he isn't concerned that the counts are right but whether the translation from the counts is how the road/intersection actually works. Mrs. Maher then moved to continue the application to 30 March. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Site Plan application of Frank Naef for converstion of 240 sq. ft. within an existing 1740 sq. ft. office building to retail use. The subject building sits on a lot which contains two other buildings used for auto body repair and contracting business, 1908 Airport Parkway: Mr. Naef noted that retail use is conditional on this site. They want to put in a sports card shop. Mrs. Maher had no objection as this is a very low traffic generator. Mr. Weith noted the dumpster in the rear is not screened and there is a screening requirement. Mr. Naef said he had no problem with this. Mr. Weith also noted that there had been a requirement that the drive be signed for one-way only because there is only a 15 ft. access near the auto body shop. This hasn't been done. Mr. Naef said it is working fine as it is. Members felt this was not an issue. Mr. Austin moved the Planning_Commission approve ---the site plan application of Frank Naef for conversion of 240 sq_ ft. within an existin 1,740 sq. ft. offfice building to retail use asdWeE cted on a plan entitled "1906/1908 Airport Parkway," prepared by FRN and dated 2/15/93 with the following stipulations: 1 STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. IN RE: PLAT APPLICATION OF LARKIN-MILOT PARTNERSHIP FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO. S1224-93 CnC MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND f OR EXPEDITED MERITS HEARING Appellees Larkin-Milot Partnership, John Larkin and Gerald Milot, by and through their attorneys Gravel and Shea, and pursuant to Rules 56 and 74, V.R.Civ.P., hereby move for summary judgment as to the principal issue(s) presented by the Notice of Appeal in this matter, and for affirmance and reissuance of final subdivision approval as granted below by the South Burlington Planning Commission. This motion is based upon the Memorandum of Law incorporated herein, a Stipulation in Connection with Cross -Motions for Summary Judgment (hereafter "Stipulation") which has been previously filed, and the exhibits attached to that Stipulation. Alternatively, Appellees move for expedited hearing on the merits of any issues that cannot be disposed of as a matter of law on the undisputed factual record presented through the Stipulation. ,RAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. Box 369 'RLINGTON. VERMONT 05a02-036Q MEMORANDUM OF LAW PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This is an appeal taken by a nearby homeowner on Spear Street in South Burlington, Vermont, from approvals granted by the South Burlington Planning Commission to Larkin-Milot Partnership ("LMP") to create and develop a 77 lot subdivision) on a 66.7 acre parcel, known as the "Nowland Two" tract, with two new access roads connected to Spear Street. Final subdivision plat approval was granted by the Planning Commission at a hearing held August 10, 1993 (fee minutes, Exhibit A to Stipulation), following preliminary plat approval from the Commission on March 9 and 30, 1993. The Planning Commission issued a final written decision and findings of fact memorializing the final subdivision approval, dated December 21, 1993, a copy of which is attached hereto. The 73 single-family building lots so approved will range in size from 0.28 acre (lot #67) to 1.55 acre (lot #6), see Exhibit E to Stipulation, with the largest lots either fronting on Spear Street or sharing a common boundary with existing homes on Spear Street. See Exhibit E. The total amount of open, undeveloped common land included in the subdivision is 25.52 acres (38.3% of the total parcel of 66.7 acres); the largest 'The subdivision will actually consist of 73 building lots for single-family homes, three of which have frontage on Spear Street; four (4) common area lots (denoted lots A, B, C and D) which will be open space; and other common areas for roads, utilities and amenities such as the recreation/bike path which will connect with existing and proposed recreation paths in South Burlington. See Exhibits A and E to Stipulation. GRAVEL AND SIiEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. Box 369 JRLINGTON. VERMONT 05402 036V -2- common space (Area B, 19.73 acres), in the center of the development, includes a 5.5 acre Class II wetland. See Exhibits A and E. The two plans accompanying the Stipulation -- "Nowland Two: Overall Site Plan" and the "Nowland Two: Landscape and Lighting Plan," see Exhibit E -- delineate the wetland boundaries, which were determined after a site investigation by a wetland biologist and soil scientist, and are more detailed than either the general depiction of a "wetland" area included on "Map 9" of the 1991 Comprehensive Plan (fig Exhibit B to Stipulation), or the same natural resource site depicted as a "restricted area" on the Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map appended to the Zoning Regulations ee Exhibit C to Stipulation). Less than 0.5 acre of the wetland will in fact be impacted by development, with 0.2 of that from a single road crossing at the narrowest margin of the wetland; it will be protected by a 50-foot buffer zone on all sides. See Exhibits A and E. The buffer zone surrounding the wetland, plus other protective measures to be used during construction and thereafter, will not unduly or significantly impact the wetland. The bike/recreation path will skirt the easterly edge of the wetland, providing views of this natural area but not compromising its existing vegetation and moisture retention capabilities. See d In order to preserve the Class II wetland, the Planning Commission and LMP agreed to relocate a proposed "North -South collector route" which the City's 1991 Comprehensive Plan illustrates crossing the parcel. See Exhibit A. This relocation has been accommodated by designing so-called "Vale Drive" with a cul-de-sac at present, with the capacity to be extended (i.e., with dedicated ROWS) beyond the parcel ,RAVEL AND SHEA \TTORNEYS AT L,Nw P. O. Box 369 RLINGTON. VERAIONT 05402 0369 -3- boundaries to the extent required later. See Exhibit E. The approved final subdivision plat also incorporates the major "East-West arterial route" shown in the 1991 Comprehensive Plan, which is depicted in the Comprehensive Plan as "Holmes Road Extension" (deg Exhibit B) but is actually called "Deerfield Drive Extension" on the site plans ee Exhibit E). The Nowland Two subdivision application was submitted, reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a "planned residential development" (PRD). See §§ 26.60 and 19.15 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, Exhibit C to Stipulation. Although no "density bonus" was required or allowed, see id. §26.603, LMP was able to achieve the goals of PRD development ee Exhibit C, §19.151, and 24 V.S.A. §4407(3)) by "clustering" the 73 homesites to create open spaces, preserve the existing wetland, and provide for future integrated development with other neighboring parcels. In approving the subdivision, the Planning Commission necessarily concurred that all PRD goals had been satisfied. She Exhibit A. The Commission was thus able to approve development of the Nowland Two parcel pursuant to all applicable requirements and criteria of the South Burlington Zoning and Subdivision Regulations, including traffic, scenic view protection requirements, educational facilities, sewage and wastewater disposal, and compliance generally with the "goals" of the 1991 Comprehensive Plan. No existing community facilities were found to be adversely impacted by the proposed Nowland Two GRAvn AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. Box 369 •URLINGTON. VERMONT 05402-0369 -4- development, and the goals and objectives of the 1991 Comprehensive Plan for the Southeast Quadrant in particular were found to be met. ,See Exhibit A. ARGUMENT I. LMP SHOULD BE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH AFFIRMS AND REISSUES FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE NOWLAND TWO SUBDIVISION, AS GRANTED BY THE SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION A. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDS The relevant undisputed facts, which are contained in the parties' Stipulation and the exhibits attached thereto, warrant the conclusion that LMP is entitled to summary judgment in its favor as a matter of laws Summary judgment must be granted where "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and... the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(c), V.R.Civ.P. See also Messier v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 154 Vt. 406, 578 A.2d 98 (1990). Although the burden is initially on AAlthough adequate sewage disposal capacity is available for the entire development through the existing municipal treatment facility, the Commission has conditioned its approval by allowing LMP only four (4) years from approval to construct the necessary infrastructure for all 73 lots, after which the guaranteed sewage capacity allotment of 46,957 gpd will expire. See Exhibit A. This is a condition consistently included in PRD approvals to assure that capacity allocations have a defined termination date if not actually used, and to prevent hoarding of sewage capacity. 3 Summary judgment procedures are available in and applicable to planning/zoning appeals. See Rule 74(g), V.R.Civ.P., and 24 V.S.A. §4472(a); rf. Wilcox v. Village of Manchester ZBA, 3 Vt.L.Wk. 258, 616 A.2d 1137 (1992). There is no need to hold a plenary trial where the principal issues and relevant facts are clear, and one party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law, simply because the statute uses the term "de novo trial." Where summary judgment is warranted because no triable issues of fact are presented, there is no abrogation of a party's right to such a trial. See, e g., Gore v. Green Mountain Lakes, Inc., 140 Vt. 262, 438 A.2d 373 (1981). 3RAVLL AND SHLA ATTOPNEis AT LA%\- P. O. Box 369 !RLINGTON. VER_AIONT OS402 0369 -5- the moving party to show that no material facts are in dispute, Donahue v. Windsor Locks Bd. of Fire Commissioners, 834 F.2d 54, 57 (2d Cir. 1987), the nonmoving party may not rely simply "on mere speculation or conjecture as to the true nature of the facts to overcome a motion for summary judgment." Knight v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 804 F.2d 9, 12 (2d Cir. 1986), cert, denied, 480 U.S. 932, 94 L.E.2d 762 (1987); Kelly v. Town of Barnard, 155 Vt. 296, 583 A.2d 614 (1990). Additionally, the nonmoving party cannot avoid summary judgment by raising immaterial factual disputes, or by failing to come forward with admissible, credible evidence when the moving party demonstrates a fatal lack of evidence on a key element or issue as to which the non-moving party carries the ultimate burden of proof and persuasion a Ill also Howard v. Gleason Cori„ 901 F.2d 1154, 1159 (2d Cir. 1990). Where review of the entire record could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is then no genuine issue for trial and summary judgment should issue. Clements v. Nassau County, 835 F.2d 1000, 1004 (2d Cir. 1987), citing Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 89 L.E.2d 538 (1986). 4In order to fulfill constitutional mandates which require the separation of judicial functions from executive branch functions, the Vermont Supreme Court is continually refining the role of the courts in zoning/planning appeals. Most recently, in Village of Woodstock v. Bahramian, 4 Vt.L.Wk. 78, 80 (1993), it held that an appeal in zoning/planning matters is properly perfected, and thus before the court, only as to issues specifically raised in the notice of appeal. See also In Re Torres, 154 Vt. 233, 236, 575 A.2d 193 (1990). Thus, even where the statute specifies "de novo" review, it is the party claiming error that should be allocated the burden of convincing the court that it must come to a different result than the administrative body below. See 2 Koch, Admin. Law & Practice, §§ 9.1-9.3, at 87-88 (West 1985). See Points I(B) and II, infra. ;RAVLL AND SI ILA ATTORNEYS AT LAN P. O. Box 369 'RLINGTON. VERMONT 05402-0369 B. LEGAL STANDARDS PARTICULAR TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PLANNING AND ZONING APPEALS Our Supreme Court has recently begun to narrow the scope of the courts' appellate functions in municipal planning and zoning cases, not only in order to bring these cases more in line with long-standing principles of administrative law, but also to avoid (or at least minimize) potential constitutional defects created by judicial intrusion into executive branch matters. Thus the overriding rule in planning and zoning cases today, is the Supreme Court's strong admonition that "the court must resist the impulse to view itself as a super planning commission." Chioffi v. Winooski Zoning Board, 151 Vt. 9, 13, 556 A.2d 103, 106 (1989). See also In Re Maple Tree Place, 156 Vt. 494, 500, 594 A.2d 404 (1991). Accordingly, although the proceedings in this Court are "de novo,'6 those proceedings are limited to a resolution of the issues framed below and which still divide the parties, see Maple Tree Place, supra, or to the actual controversy framed for this Court by the Notice of Appeal (and/or any cross -appeal, if taken). See also footnote 5, supra. Here, the principal issue which the parties themselves have deemed to be controlling for purposes of summary judgment cross -motions, is the question of which density calculation formula provided by the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, is the correct one in this case. See Point I(C), infra. SA "de novo trial" is required by 24 V.S.A. §4472(a), which is made applicable to appeals from municipal planning commissions by 24 V.S.A. §4475. See In Re Vermont National Bank, 157 Vt. 306, 310, 597 A.2d 317 (1991). However, if such a "trial" does become necessary in this case, LMP will argue that it is incorrect to construe that term to always require a full evidentiary hearing at which the permit applicant must in fact "start from scratch" and prove again entitlement to the permit. See Point II, infra. ,RAVE-L AND SHEA kTTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. Box 369 RLINGTON. VERNIONT 05J02 0369 -7- Where interpretation and application of a zoning ordinance is at issue, which is the central question in this appeal with respect to the allowable lot density in the Southeast Quadrant, the ordinary rules of statutory construction are applied. See �, In Re Duncan, 155 Vt 402, 408, 584 A.2d 1140 (1990); In Re Vermont National Bank, supra, 157 Vt. at 312. "[A]bsent compelling indication of error," the interpretation or construction adopted by the relevant administrative body should be accorded deference and must be sustained. In Re Duncan, sutra, 155 Vt. at 408 (cit. omitted). The Planning Commission's application here of §26.40 of the Regulations, which allows for 1.1 units (or building lots) per gross acre of land in the Southeast Quadrant -- instead of § 19.152(a), and/or the Comprehensive Plan generally, as Appellant will contend -- is clearly correct under that standard. See Point I(C)(1), infra. Finally, it is well -settled that the specific, formally adopted zoning regulations constitute the controlling municipal land use restrictions. A municipality's comprehensive plan states only "goals," objectives and guiding principles, which are then implemented through -- and only to the extent set forth in -- the zoning and/or subdivision regulations. See Town of Sandy -ate v. Colehammer, 156 Vt. 77, 87, 589 A.2d 1205 (1990); Smith v. Winhall Planning Commission, 140 Vt. 178, 183-84, 436 A.2d 760 A.2d (1981). Where technical or numerical issues are presented, such as density calculations, compliance with the objective standards set out in the zoning regulations is all that is, or can be required. Id. GRAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. Box 369 URLINGTON. VERMONT 05J02-0369 C. THERE ARE NO MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE, AND LMP IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTROLLING PENSITY CALCULATION ISSUE 1. The Permitted Density of 73 Housing Units Complies With All Applicable Regulations There is no dispute that the Nowland Two parcel is located in what is called the "Southeast Quadrant District" ("SEQ") under current South Burlington zoning ordinances. The SEQ has its own subset of controlling regulations, at Article XXVI, Section 26.00 et se___1c ., of the zoning ordinances last amended September 21, 1992. See Exhibit C. With regard to allowable density of development, parcels of land in the SEQ are limited to "1.1 residential units per acre." Id,, §26.401 This "per acre" approach is based on all land within the parcel; the concept of basing density calculations only on "developable land," which will be relied upon by Appellant, finds no place or support in §26.401. Appellant mistakenly relies upon §19.152, which applies generally to review and approval of "planned unit developments.i6 ,See Exhibit C. That section specifically states, however: "The calculation of a base density as provided in this subsection shall not apply to the SEQ District." Id,, §19.152(a) (emphasis added). It could not be any clearer that §26.401 is the controlling regulation here, and that §19.152(a)'s discussion of 6 Section 26.601 does refer back to and incorporate by reference Section 19.15 with respect to the "standards" for PUDs. It is clear that this reference is only to the substantive standards under which a PRD (which is conceptually similar to but more limited than a PUD, cf. 24 V.S.A. §4407(3) with §4407(12)) may be approved, and not to the density definition included at §19.152. In any event, §26.401 is obviously the more specific regulation applicable to the parcel at issue, and would control over §19.152 even if the latter lacked the express disclaimer that it does conspicuously include. ,RAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAIC P. O. Box 369 RLINGTON. VERNIO`T 05401 0369 excluded areas such as steep slopes, wetlands and roadways -- even though this application was otherwise considered and approved as a PRU -- is not applicable here. Appellant fares no better by arguing for binding application of the 1991 Comprehensive Plan's "goal" of generally achieving a density in the SEQ of two units per "developable acre," or 4,100 to 4,200 total residential units. These objectives are not controlling, the specific zoning regulations are. ,egg Town of Sandgate v. Colehammer, and Smith v. Winhall Planning Commission, supra. In any event, not only are the general objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the SEQ met here, but the specific objective is also satisfied by the density formula set forth in §26.401 of the zoning regulations. Assuming that the SEQ contains approximately 4,000 acres, and using the well - accepted planning standard that 15% of available land will necessarily be required for 1 �. roads and other infrastructure, an initial maximum density cap of 1.1 units per acre will 60 in fact yield the projected density of 4,100-4,200 total dwellings. Moreover, that cap of A''� 1.1 units per acre is the maximum allowable (except for PRDs where a bonus is allowed, see §26.603), so that in any given situation the actual density may well work out to be less because there is a higher proportion of land that is physically undevelopable, or undevelopable because of other restrictions imposed by the ordinance. Consequently, it simply cannot be said that approval of LMP's Nowland Two subdivision using the "1.1 7The SEQ zoning regulations have their own specific PRD provisions. Seg id., §26.60 et. seq. GRAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. Box 369 JRLINGTON. VERIAON"I" - 10- 05402 0369 units per acre" formula will in any way affect or prevent South Burlington from achieving its long-range density "goal" for the SEQ as stated in the Comprehensive Plan. LMP's calculation of 73 allowable dwelling units (i.e., single-family homesites), and the Planning Commission's acceptance and approval of that number, are exactly what is permitted by the South Burlington ordinance: 66.7 acres times 1.1 units per acre equals 73 lots 8 Moreover, each of the 73 building lots exceeds the minimum lot size ';'� arguably required in the SEQ, as provided by §§ 26.402, 26.403 and 18.00: Whereas the / ��am Table in § 18.00 sets the minimum single-family lot size at 12,000 square feet, §26.403 appears to set the minimum at 10,880 square feet (1 acre (43,520 square feet) divided by 4). See Exhibit C. Here the smallest lot (#67) is 12,033 square feet, and all of the rest are larger. See Exhibit E. The approved subdivision complies with all numerical density and minimum lot size restrictions applicable to developments in the SEQ, and thus summary judgment should be granted to Appellees and subdivision approval for the Nowland II development reissued by this Court. II. LMP SHOULD BE GRANTED AN EXPEDITED MERITS HEARING ON ANY AND ALL ISSUES NOT RESOLVED BY SUMMARY JUDGMENT Rules 74(d) and (e), V.R.Civ.P., provide that within 30 days of filing of the notice of appeal, the "record" of proceedings, including all relevant papers and exhibits, shall be 'LMP has not requested approval for up to 18 additional building lots, which would arguably be available under the general PRD regulations which allow for such a 25% "bonus." 5ee Exhibit C, §26.603, and 24 V.S.A. §4407(3)(B). As noted by the Planning Commission and its staff, 73 lots is the SEQ "base density" for this parcel, not its "maximum density." See Exhibit A. '�;IZAVEL AND SHE*A ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. Box 369 JRLINGTON. VERNIONT 05402 0369 -11- filed with the Court. At that time the case is "ripe for listing on the hearing calendar." I,. LMP should be afforded an expedited merits hearing as to any and all issues which cannot be resolved as a matter of law, in light of the provision in the Planning Commission's final approval (attached hereto) which conditions necessary sewage disposal capacity upon completion of all roadway and other infrastructure improvements within four (4) years of approval. See Exhibit A. Accordingly, LMP must be ready to commence construction of those improvements as soon as possible in 1994, to be able to follow an orderly construction plan which minimizes inevitable construction delays, and to allow LMP to meet the phasing goals required by the Commission. Because of the potential for substantial and highly prejudicial delay if Appellant is accorded what has traditionally been a full-blown "de novo trial" in planning and zoning appeals, Wig, e.g., In Re White, 155 Vt. 612, 616, 587 A.2d 928 (1990); In Re Poole, 136 Vt. 242, 388 A.2d 422 (1978), LMP will ask this Court, and the Vermont Supreme Court if necessary, to revisit and reexamine the constitutional "separation of powers" issue raised, but not wholly or convincingly resolved, in cases like Chioffi and Torres, supra. More specifically, LMP will argue that White and Poole are both constitutionally infirm, and present a contradictory amalgam of administrative law principles, to the extent those decisions are read to always require a full-blown, plenary trial in zoning and planning appeals. The Legislature's use of the word "trial" in 24 V.S.A. §4472(a) does not need to be given the literal meaning ascribed to it in White and Poole, and even if it does, such a proscription is invalid because it violates the mandatory separation between the judicial and executive branches of state government. Recent decisions such as Chioffi, Torres 1RAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. Box 369 ;RLINGTON. VERMONT 05402-0369 -12- and now Village of Woodstock v. Bahramian v make it clear that these issues must be more convincingly resolved, if for no other reason than maximizing the increasingly scarce resources of the Superior Courts. These various emerging strands of Vermont administrative law, and the proper role of the courts as reviewing bodies, can best be woven together by a more refined understanding of the term "de novo," whose content depends on the context of the appeal and the type of proceedings that occurred below. This more discrete approach has long been recognized by commentators and the Federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court. Under this view, the use of the term "de novo" is more properly understood as simply defining the level of "error correction" which will be tolerated by the system. It is an instruction to the reviewing body to decide whether it actually agrees with the result reached by the agency in its initial decision, based upon the evidence in "the record" before it. ee 2 Koch, Administrative Law & Practice, §§ 9.1 to 9.3 (West 1985 and 1992 Supp.), citing, g_g_, United States v. First City Nat'l Bank, 386 U.S. 361, 9In LMP's view, the Vermont Supreme Court has already crossed the Rubicon in Bahramian and other recent zoning cases. How can the rule in that case -- that the zoning appeal is limited only to the issues specifically raised in the notice(s) of appeal -- be squared with the notion articulated in White and Poole, that the Superior Court must start all over and pretend no decision at all was made below? And what is the point of introducing as evidence the decision and "record" created by the zoning board or planning commission, see Rule 74(d), V.R.Civ.P., and In Re Vermont National Bank, supra, 157 Vt. at 310, if what those bodies did, and why, is deemed to be meaningless? And finally, how is the municipal body's interpretation of its own controlling regulations to be given the deference it deserves, see In Re Duncan, sul2ra, if the Court must engage in the fiction that nothing occurred below? GRAVEL AND SHLA A I TORNEI S AT LAIC P. O. Box 369 JRI,INGTON. VERMONT 05-4 1_ 0369 -13- 368, 87 S.Ct. 1088, 1093, 18 L.Ed.2d 151 (1967) ("The critical words... "de novo"... mean to us that the Court should make an independent determination of the issues")10 What "de novo" does not mean is that the reviewing tribunal must always hold a plenary trial and reduplicate everything that the administrative body has done already. This instruction is often called "de novo" review because it tells the court to make its own judgment without being bound by the administrative conclusion. Although often used to designate agreement reviews 1 of facts, the term "de novo review" is literally illogical: the court cannot be told both to undertake a de novo finding of facts and at the same time remain in a review posture. For this reason, it is better to think of this term as conveying an instruction to do agreement review on a judicial record dominated by administrative factgathering and factfinding. Since the agency's factual conclusions must be supported by a preponderance, the agreement review instruction tells the court to test that preponderance. It rarely tells the court to create a redundant record, and as a practical matter the term de novo review does not demand a judicial retrial or even extensive judicial recordmaking. Rather, the agency record remains the focal point of the conflict as it does in true review. Under agreement review of facts, the administrative record becomes an object of attack along with the relevant final decision. The challenger, like any other plaintiff, must show by a preponderance in the judicial record that the agency decision is wrong. In doing so, the challenger may introduce into the judicial record other evidence or request new or different inferences from the administrative record. The term "de novo review" tells the court to do agreement review of facts on a judicial record some or all of which is the original administrative record; agreement as to factual 1oThe most commonly used alternative standard of review for appeals of agency decisions, is the "substantial evidence/arbitrary and capricious" test. Under this mode of review, the appellate tribunal need not necessarily agree with the result reached by the agency, but must uphold it if there is some evidence in "the record" to support it and it is not unreasonable. See 2 Koch, Admin. Law & Practice, §§ 9.4 to 9.6. See , e.g., In Re McShinsky, 153 Vt. 586, 589 (1990). "Professor Koch uses the term "agreement review" to refer to the legal standard under which a court, after reviewing the administrative record and supplementing it with additional evidence if necessary, decides whether or not it "agrees" with the result reached by the administrative body. If it does, then the decision below is sustained; if it does not, then the Court is free to substitute its own conclusion(s) for that of the agency. Professor Koch equates "agreement review" with the "de novo" instruction. AZAVEL AND S11EA ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. Box 369 'RLINGTON. VERMONT 05402 0369 -14- judgments will result when a preponderance does not support the challenger's view of the facts. 2 Koch, supra, at 87-88 (fns. omitted) (emphasis supplied). It is LMP's position, then, that if the Court does not resolve this case by granting summary judgment to LMP on all issues, the Court can and should hold an expedited merits hearing on all remaining issues. In connection with such a hearing, the court should also (a) compel Appellant to state specifically the particular parts of the Planning Commission's decision and/or record which are genuinely disputed; (b) compel Appellant to bear the burdens of production and persuasion as to those precisely delineated issues; and (c) uphold the Commission's grant of this subdivision permit if the Court agrees, based on the evidence in the entire judicial record before it,12 that the Planning Commission's permitting decision is correct under the applicable law and controlling regulations. This is a case where the context and type of permitting decision at issue,ls 12As Professor Koch and many courts have pointed out, the reviewing body is certainly free to supplement the administrative record and take additional evidence which is relevant and material to the precise issues on appeal, and/or to explain or clarify the basis for the agency decision. See, e.g., 2 Koch, Supra, §8.23 at 29-30 (1990 Supp.), See also In Re Vermont National Bank, supra, 157 Vt. at 310. 13The context and type of decision under "de novo" appeal may in some instances dictate a full plenary trial on all issues, including creation of a new and proper "record" for review of the decision appealed from. One example is the situation where the first level of review is conducted on a more informal basis; this is the model adopted for appeals in Act 250 cases, or appeals from various permits issued by the Agency of Natural Resources. Condemnation proceedings initiated by a regional or municipal waste district are another compelling example where "full blown" trial -type proceedings are necessary on appeal to protect all of the interests at stake, particularly the 5th Amendment and due process rights of the landowner who does not want her or his property to be confiscated by the government. In such instances, even though 24 V.S.A. ,RANTL .iND SHEA kTTORN[1S AT LAW P. O. Box 369 RLINGTON. VER>IONT 05J0_ 0369 -15- demands the more refined understanding of "de novo review" articulated by Professor Koch and others. Compliance with all technical, numerical and/or objective standards imposed by applicable zoning and planning regulations, should be reviewed by the courts in accordance with the "de novo" standard articulated above. Where, however, a planning/zoning permit is based on subjective or discretionary judgments which a duly -constituted municipal body is empowered and directed to make, the' courts can avoid crossing the constitutional line and becoming a forbidden "super planning commission," only by according such subjective determinations (e.g., whether a project comports generally with the goals of a comprehensive plan) more deference than the "de novo" rule provides 14 In the latter instance the courts should overturn such determinations only when it is clear that an error has been made, the decision is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or is wholly lacking in any credible evidentiary §2299e specifies that the waste district's decision to condemn property shall be reviewed as if it too was "de novo," simple "agreement review" as described by Professor Koch may not be appropriate. The board of a regional waste district, unlike ANR staff who initially decide regulatory compliance issues, has no technical or scientific expertise which is entitled to deference. It has no set procedures for resolving condemnation issues, and its conduct in deciding to condemn a particular parcel does not even rise to the level of an informal agency adjudication, let alone a contested case proceeding. Most importantly, the board of a waste district is primarily a political entity, appointed without any direct accountability to the electorate, and subject to any number of unknown or extraneous political pressures. Thus a waste district's condemnation decision should be subjected to additional and stricter scrutiny, including (if necessary) judicial creation and/or supplementation of the appropriate factual record; the judicial "cost" of doing so must be borne in order to protect the important constitutional rights of the landowner. See 2 Koch, supra at 88-89. 14This is not so different than the well -established principle of administrative law, that heightened deference is to be given administrative determinations on scientific or technical matters within the agency's special expertise. See, g.g., In Re Sherburne, 154 Vt. 596, 607, 581 A.2d 274, 280 (1990). .RAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. Box 369 'RUNGTON. VERMONT 05402-0369 -16- support. -Cf. fn. 10, supra, and In Re Duncan, supra. 155 Vt. at 408 (administrative body's interpretation of own regulations must be sustained "absent compelling indications of error"). Such an approach is particularly appropriate where there are questions of subdivision and site plan compliance with the general and inherently subjective goals of a comprehensive plan, since it is the municipal planning commission that is the author of the plan in the first place. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons discussed herein, LMP should be granted summary judgment which approves and reissues subdivision and site plan approval for its proposed 77-lot subdivision on Spear Street. Alternatively, an expedited merits hearing should be scheduled as soon as possible with respect to any issues not resolved as a matter of law. Dated: Burlington, Vermont February 16, 1994 < <LMMOTSJ.LO2> > '`,RAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAN P. O. Box 369 JRLINGTON. VERMONT 05402.0369 GRAVEL AND SHEA Attorneys fors Larkin-Milot Partnership By: 'P4. to h R. Crampton, F Dennis R. Pearson, Esq. -17- FINDINGS OF FACT & DECISION STATE OF VERMONT COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Re: Findings of Fact, application of Larkin-Milot Partnership for a planned residential development consisting of 73 single family lots on 66.7 acres of land located on the east side of Spear Street opposite Deerfield Drive. On the loth of August, 1993, the South Burlington Planning Commission approved the request of Larkin-Milot Partnership for final plat approval under Section 204 of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations based on the following findings: 1. This project consists of a planned residential development consisting of 73 single family lots. Preliminary plat approval was granted on 3/30/93. 2. This property is located on the easterly side of Spear Street in the vicinity of Deerfield Drive. It is bounded on the west by Spear Street and several single family residences, on the north, south and east by undeveloped property. It is located within the Southeast Quadrant District. 3. The applicant, since preliminary plat, has reduced the number of lots located to the east of the Meredith, Gagnon, Chiu and IBIS properties in order to increase the size of the lots in this area. The number of lots were reduced from six (6) to four (4). The two (2) lots were relocated to the end of the cul-de-sac and its length increased by 100 feet to 1100 feet. 4. Access: The development is proposed to be served by two (2) accesses, one at either end of the property along Spear Street. The southerly access will be an extension of Deerfield Drive and is part of the east -west arterial shown on the Official Map. 5. The northerly access was relocated approximately 150 feet to the south to minimize the impact on the houses located on the west side of Spear Street with headlight glare. This was a requirement of the preliminary plat approval. 6. A cul-de-sac street is proposed on the easterly side of the property running in a north -south direction. This street would serve 20 lots and would provide future access to the Farrell property to the north and the Economou property to the east via reserved r.o.w.'s. This cul-de-sac is 1,100 feet in length and would exceed the allowable limit of 850 feet (Section 401.1(7) of the subdivision regulations). The Planning Commission approved the length of the cul-de-sac as part of its preliminary plat approval. 1 7. Density: The PRD provision in the Southeast Quadrant zoning may allow this property to generate 73 units (maximum base density) plus 25% or 92 units maximum for development. The applicant is proposing the maximum base density of 73 units. B. Nonbuildable area: Either all or a portion of 45 individual lots are within the restricted area under the Southeast Quadrant zoning. Included in this number are the lots along Spear Street (lots 5-8) for which the applicant is proposing building envelopes to keep the houses away from Spear Street. These building envelopes are shown on the plan. 9. Wetlands: The site contains approximately five (5) acres of class 2 wetlands which are shown on the plans. 10. View protection: This property is located within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone. The applicant has submitted detailed information on the allowable height of each house within development. Allowable heights for structures and landscaping will range from 17.6 feet to 41 feet. 11. Recreation Path/Pedestrian Trail: The path/trail has been relocated outside of the wetland area as recommended by the Natural Resources Committee. A 20 foot easement is being provided for that portion of the path/trail which is not located within a future street r.o.w. The path/trail has been widened to eight (8) feet for the entire length of Deerfield Drive as required under preliminary plat approval. 12. The survey plat should be revised to provide survey data on the location of the path/trail easement. This should include the same type of information provided for a City street. 13. Traffic: A traffic impact projects that at full build -out peak our trip ends. analysis was conducted. The study the project will generate 81 P.M. The following scenarios were evaluated: o North and south project access with Spear Street: --- 1993 A.M. and P.M. DHV with Phase I build (i.e., 37 units) --- 1988 A.M. and P.M. DHV with full -build (i.e., 73 units) o For Spear Street/Swift Street Intersection: --- Existing 1993 and 1998 A.M. and P.M. DHV (no -build) --- 1993 A.M. and P.M. DHV with Phase I --- 1998 A.M. and P.M. DHV with full -build 14. The results of the analysis indicate the following: 1) both project access intersections and the Spear Street/Swift Street 2 intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during both the 1993 and 1998 build scenarios, 2) traffic safety (e.g., sight distances) will not be a problem, and 3) upon the completion of Phase I,southbound left turn lanes on Spear Street for traffic entering both project accesses will be needed. 15. An addendum to the traffic impact analysis was prepared in response to concerns expressed by staff. The applicant took new traffic counts at the Spear/Swift Street intersection. The counts were adjusted to the design hour and turned out to be slightly higher than the counts used in the original analysis. The model was rerun with the new numbers and the results were presented in Table 3 in the addendum indicates that the Spear Street/Swift Street intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS with the project fully built. 16. The consultant also reran the analysis for existing conditions using existing signal timings. The previous report had assumed optimal signal timings for existing conditions. Table 2 in the addendum presents the results of the model assuming existing signal timings. The estimated LOS for the north bound approach during the A.M. peak hour is "E". This better reflects existing conditions. It is the consultant's opinion that the intersection LOS can be greatly improved by simply adjusting the signal timings so that less green time is given to Swift Street during the A.M. peak. Signal timings have been adjusted and the intersection is working much better than before. 17. The applicant has submitted a plan for proposed improvements to the corner radius for northbound right -turns at the Spear Street/Swift street intersection. This was a requirement for preliminary plat approval. 18. Sewer: The Planning Commission at preliminary plat approval granted a sewer allocation of 46,957 g.p.d. based on the following conditions: "The length of time that this sewer allocation approval shall remain in effect shall be tied to roadway construction. The roadways serving this development shall be completed within four years of final plat approval. The sewer allocation for any lots served by roadways which are not completed within this four year time limit shall be lost unless reapproved by the Planning Commission. In addition, if at the end of three years no more than 50% of the roads have been completed, 25% of the total sewer allocation shall be lost unless reapproved by the Planning Commission". 19. Historic sites: The applicant has received a letter from State Division for Historic Preservation indicating that the project will not have an adverse effect on any historic or archeological properties. 20. Recreation: A credit of $22,000 should be given the applicant 3 for construction of the portion of the proposed recreation path located outside of any public street r.o.w. This value is based on $11 per linear foot for a distance of 2,000 feet. This translates to $300 per lot. Based on the current recreation impact fee of $200, the applicant would not pay a recreation fee since the credit is more than the actual fee. If in the future the City adopts a recreation fee of more than $300 per lot, then the applicant would be required to pay the difference. 21. Landscaping/Street Trees: The landscaping plan has been revised since preliminary plat to propose trees appropriate to the tree height limits. The landscaping plan has also been revised to add a note addressing the requirement for two (2) trees on each lot. The total value of street trees and common areas is $130, 366 and the value for the two (2) trees per lot is $65,335. 22. School Impact: The Planning Commission as part 'of the preliminary plat approval imposed a condition (#16) which prevents a zoning/building permit from being issued until after the City adopts an education impact fee ordinance or September 1, 1993, whichever first occurs. This condition should also be made a part of the final plat approval. 23. Lighting: The applicant is proposing street lighting similar to what is in Butler Farms and Oak Creek. The lamps would be 70 watt high pressure sodium mounted on 20 foot poles with cut-off luminaries. It appears the top of the fixtures will meet the height limitation. 24. Water: Municipal water system will serve this development. The applicant has received a letter from CWD indicating that the demand of 43,800 g.p.d. can be met. 25. Legal Documents: o applicant should submit a "Notice of Condition" addressing the requirement of two (2) trees on each lot, addressing the height limitations for structures and landscaping on each lot, and addressing the requirement of the homeowner's association to maintain the community mailbox area and all drainage ditches for review by the City Attorney. o the applicant should submit the legal documents for all public streets and easements for review by the City Attorney. o applicant should submit a "Notice of Condition" addressing the building envelopes on lots #5-8 and purpose and restrictions thereof for review by the City Attorney. 0 26. Subdivision plat: --- survey data for the recreation path/pedestrian trail easement and the utility easement between lots 41-42 and 57-58 should be provided. 27. Other: --- lot numbers not correctly shown on sheet 2. --- the plans should show a 20 foot drainage easement across the Ratkus property for the drainage pipe. This easement should be included in the legal documents. DECISION & CONDITIONS Based on the above Findings of Fact, the South Burlington Planning Commission approves the Final Plat application of Larkin-Milot Partnership for a planned residential development consisting of 73 single-family lots on 66.7 acres of land located on the east side of Spear Street opposite Deerfield Drive as depicted on a plat entitled, "Nowland Two, Subdivision Plat, and last revised 7/28/93, and a 28 page set of plans, page one entitled "Nowland Two, South Burlington, Vermont", dated October, 1992 (stamped "received" 7/30/93), prepared by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc. with the following stipulations: 1. Any previous approvals and stipulations affecting the subject property which are not superseded by this approval shall remain In effect. 2. In accordance with section 26.602 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, the Planning Commission approves the creation of lots for development upon land designated as "restricted area" on the Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map. It is the commission's opinion that based on the information submitted by the applicant the proposed development will not adversely affect wetlands on the property. Also, it is the Commission's opinion that the goals for maintaining an open space corridor along the north -south arterial roadways in the Southeast Quadrant will be promoted through the establishment of building envelopes on lots 5 through 8. The allowance of buildings in this manner is compatible with adjacent development along Spear Street. Finally, the Planning Commission supports moving the r.o.w. for a future north - south collector road to the east as proposed so as not to impact the wetland area. 3. The Commission approves the 1100 foot long cul-de-sac street serving lots 52 - 73. It is the Commission's opinion that the 1100 foot length will not result in unsafe or inefficient traffic conditions particularly since r.o.w.Is are being reserved for roadway connections to future developments on adjoining parcels. 5 4. In order for the Commission to find that the proposed development will not cause unreasonable highway congestion or unsafe conditions with respect of use of the highways, the applicant shall be responsible for the following: a) The applicant shall construct the southbound left turn lanes at each project access on Spear Street (sheets 5 and 7) prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit for the 38th lot. b) The applicant shall construct the improvements to the Spear Street/Swift Street intersection as shown on the plan entitled "Spear Street/Swift Street Intersection Improvements" dated 5/93, prior to the issuance of a zoning/building permit for the construction of any residential structures. c) Prior to issuance of any zoning/building permits for this development, the applicant shall post a bond to cover the costs of constructing the improvements referenced in a) and c) above. This bond or bonds shall remain in effect until such time as the improvements are constructed. d) Prior to issuance of any zoning/building permits for this development, the applicant shall be responsible for retiming the signal phasing at the Spear Street/Swift Street intersection as recommended in the traffic analysis submitted by the applicant. 5. The Planning Commission grants a credit of $300 per lot for construction of the portion of the proposed recreation path located outside of any public street right-of-way. This credit may be applied toward required recreation fees. At time of application for a zoning/building permit, the applicant shall pay the difference between the recreation impact fee and the $300 per lot credit. 6. The developer shall be required to install two (2) trees on each lot as required in Section 19.104(a) of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. A "Notice of Condition" addressing this requirement shall be recorded in the South Burlington land records prior to recording the final plat plans. 7. Prior to issuance of any zoning/building permits, the applicant shall post a $130, 366 landscape bond for proposed street and common area trees, and a $65,335 bond for proposed lot trees. The bonds shall remain in effect for three (3) years to assure that the planted landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of surviving. 8. Legal documents for all public streets (i.e., irrevocable offer of dedication) and easements (e.g., utility easements and recreation path easements) shall be submitted to the City Attorney 0 for approval and shall be recorded in the South Burlington Land Records prior to issuance of any zoning/building permits. 9. A "Notice of Condition" addressing the height limitations for structures and landscaping on each lot shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and shall be recorded in the South Burlington land records prior to recording the final plat plans. 10. In accordance with Section 301.5 of the subdivision regulations, within 14 days of completion of required improvements (e.g., streets, water mains, sanitary sewers, storm drains, etc.), the developer shall submit to the City Engineer "as -built" construction drawings certified by a registered engineer. 11. A "Notice of Condition" addressing the building envelopes on lots #5 - 8 and purpose and restrictions thereof shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and shall be recorded in the South Burlington land records prior to recording the final plat plans. 12. Prior to final plat submittal, the plans shall be revised to show the following: a) The survey plat shall show survey data for the recreation path easement and the utility easement between lots 41-42 and 57-58. b) Lot numbers shall be correctly shown on sheet 2. c) The plans shall show a 20 foot drainage easement for the proposed drainage pipe on the Ratkus property west of Spear Street. This easement shall be included in the required legal documents. 13. A bond for streets, sidewalks, recreation paths, sewer and water shall be posted prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit. The amount of the bond shall be approved by the City Engineer. 14. No zoning/building permit will be issued for a lot until the street serving that lot has a gravel sub -base installed in conformance with City specifications. 15. The Commission approves a total sewer allocation of 46,957 gpd for this development. The length of time that this sewer allocation approval shall remain in effect shall be tied to roadway construction. The roadways serving this development shall be completed within four (4) years of final plat approval. The sewer allocation for any lots served by roadways which are not completed within this four (4) year time limit shall be lost unless reapproved by the Planning Commission. In addition, if at the end of three years no more than 50% of the roads have been completed, 25% of the total sewer allocation shall be lost unless reapproved by the Planning Commission. VA 16. No zoning/building permit will be issued for construction of any dwelling unit within this development until after the City adopts an education impact fee ordinance or September 1, 1993, whichever first occurs. This condition is being imposed to provide the school district a reasonable period of time to complete development of an impact fee ordinance and present the ordinance to the South Burlington City Council for adoption. No zoning/building permits shall be issued after the adoption of such an impact fee until that impact fee has been paid. 17. A "Notice of Condition" shall be recorded in the land records prior to recording the final plat plans which addresses the requirement of the homeowner's association to maintain the community mailbox area and all drainage ditches. 18. The final plat plans, including survey plat, shall be recorded in the South Burlington land records within 90 days or this approval is null and void. The plans shall be signed by the Planning Commission Chair or Clerk prior to recording. 19. As provided in Section 605 of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations, if no action is taken to construct substantially the proposed subdivision within three years, said approval shall become null and void. 20. The retention ponds shall be maintained by the homeowners' association. The legal documents for the Association shall state this responsibility. The legal documents shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to permit issuance. 21. The recreation path shall be constructed by the completion of Pinnacle Drive or during the construction of the cul-de-sac, whichever first occurs. Chairman dr CYerk, South Burlington Planning Commission i4�3 Date FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services One Wentworth Drive • Williston • Vermont • 05495 • (802) 878-3000 February 17, 1993 Mr. Joe Weith South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, City Planner Vermont 05403 RE: Nowland II Traffic Impact Analysis FILE: 92075 Dear Mr. Weith: Subsequent to conversations with you last week, we are providing additional traffic analysis information that will assist in your traffic impact review of the Nowland II project. This traffic analysis information is in response to comments and observations regarding the intersection of Spear Street and Swift Street and represents a supplement to the "Traffic Impact Analysis - Proposed Nowland II Residential Subdivision" by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn dated January 15, 1993. Traffic counts were updated by this office by performing turning movement counts at the Spear Street/Swift Street intersection. An AM turning movement count was conducted on Thursday, February 11, 1993 and a PM turning movement count was performed on Wednesday, February 10, 1993. The existing traffic signal timings were observed and are noted below: TABLE 1 EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMINGS SPEAR STREET/SWIFT STREET INTERSECTION (SECONDS) AM Peak & PM Peak �E,O Spear Street Maximum Green 27. ?15- Spear Street Yellow and All Red 7 7 Swift Street Maximum Green 25 Swift Street Yellow and All Red 6 6 Total Cycle Length 65 In addition to updating the turning movement counts, an Automatic Traffic Recorder was placed along Spear Street just south of the Spear Street/Swift Street intersection for the period of February 10 through February 13, 1993. Design hour volumes were then calculated for existing and future traffic conditions, both without and with the project. The methodology used to develop design hour traffic volumes is described in the aforementioned Traffic Impact Analysis. Design • Inspection • Studies • Permitting • Surveying Mr. Joe Weith FILE: 92075 February 17, 1993 Page Two Finally, updated signalized intersection capacity analyses were performed at the Spear Street/Swift Street intersection and have been attached to this transmittal. Table 2 lists the existing Levels -of -Service (L.O.S.) for 1993 conditions, without the project and without modifications to the traffic signal timings: TABLE 2 EXISTING LEVELS -OF -SERVICE W/O MODIFICATIONS TO SIGNAL TIMINGS SPEAR STREET/SWIFT STREET INTERSECTION w/o Project Approach & 1993 Turning Movement AM PM Swift Street Eastbound B B Westbound B C Spear Street Northbound E B Southbound B B OVERALL INTERSECTION D B Table 3 lists the capacity analyses for existing and future traffic conditions with modifications to the traffic signal timings: TABLE 3 PROJECTED LEVELS -OF -SERVICE W/ MODIFICATIONS TO SIGNAL TIMINGS SPEAR STREET/SWIFT STREET INTERSECTION w/o Project w/ Project Approach & 1993 1998 1993 1998 Turning Movement AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Swift Street Eastbound B B B C B B C C Westbound C B C C C B D D Spear Street Northbound B B C C B B C D Southbound A B A B A B A B OVERALL INTERSECTION B B C C B B C C FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Joe Weith FILE: 92075 February 17, 1993 Page Three The modified traffic signal timings that were used to calculate the levels -of -service listed in Table 3 are given below: mnuT F e PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMINGS SPEAR STREET/SWIFT STREET INTERSECTION (SECONDS) AM Peak Spear Street Maximum Green Spear Street Yellow and All Red Swift Street Maximum Green Swift Street Yellow and All Red Total Cycle Length PM Peak Spear Street Maximum Green Spear Street Yellow and All Red Swift Street Maximum Green Swift Street Yellow and All Red Total Cycle Length CONCLUSION w/o Project w/ Project 1993 1998 1993 1998 26 26 27 31 6 6 6 6 12 12 12 12 6 6 6 6 50 50 51 55 15 15 15 15 6 6 6 6 13 13 13 13 6 6 6 6 40 40 40 40 The intersection of Spear Street and Swift Street was re -analyzed using updated traffic count information. Existing traffic signal timings were observed at this location. Signalized intersection capacity analyses were then performed and, using the existing timings, those analyses indicate that L.O.S. E currently exists for northbound AM peak hour traffic. Since L.O.S. E is indicative of an approach near capacity, it is expected that queuing does exist for northbound traffic during the AM peak hour. With simple modifications to the traffic signal timings for existing AM peak hour traffic conditions, the northbound approach improves from L.O.S. E to L.O.S. B and the overall intersection improves from L.O.S. D to L.O.S. B. The effect of this modification will be a reduction in existing queuing. Therefore, regardless of whether or not this project is constructed, it is recommended that modifications be made to the traffic signal timings. Such modifications will optimize the performance of the traffic signal and will reduce existing northbound queues during the AM peak hour. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Joe Weith FILE: 92075 February 17, 1993 Page Four Upon the full build -out of this project for 1998 design hour conditions and with modifications to the traffic signal timings, it is anticipated that the Spear Street/Swift Street intersection will operate at overall L.O.S. B during the AM peak hour and overall L.O.S. C during the PM peak hour. Based on the updated analyses, the results of the Traffic Impact Analysis dated January 15, 1993 remain valid. Specifically, this project will not cause any undue or adverse traffic congestion impacts to the Spear Street/Swift Street intersection. We do recommend that modifications be made to the traffic signal timings, regardless of whether or not this project is constructed. Should you have any questions regarding the above, please contact us. Sincerely, FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Brendan Kelly, P.E. cc: Gerald Milot Michael Oman, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 1 ======================================================================= FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 1 Wentworth Drive Williston, VT 05495 (802) 878-3000 ======================================================================= , Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 75AO1.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 AM DHV Comment: 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TIMINGS ======================================================================= raffic and Roadway Conditions | Eastbound | Westbound 1 Northbound | Southbound |L |- ... ..... - T ---- R |L ----|---- T R |L T R |L T R No. Lanes | > 1 < | ---- ----|---- > 1 < | ---- > 1 ----|---- < | ---- > ---- 1 < Volumes 1 32 37 471 54 87 391 216 293 1241 10 57 11 PHF or PK1510.85 0.85 0.8510.85 0.85 0.8510.85 0.85 0.8510.85 0.85 0.85 Lane Width | 12.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.5 Grade | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 % Heavy Veh| 1 1 11 1 1 1| 1 1 1| 1 1 1 Parking | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N Bus Stops | 0| 0| 0| 0 Con. Peds | 0| 01 0| 0 Ped Button |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N Arr Type | 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 3 RTOR Vols | _______________________________________________________________________ 7| 61 19| 2 Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 | 5 6 7 8 EB Left * |NB Left * Thru * | Thru * Right X. | Right * Peds | Peds WB Left * | |SB Left * Thru * | Thru * Right * | Right * Peds | Peds NB Right | |EB Right SB Right |WB Right Green 25A | !Green 271:::: Yellow/A-R 6 !Yellow/A-R 7 Lost Time 3.0 !Lost Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 65 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 /. . � �.\ HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 2 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 75AO1.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 AM DHV Comment: 1993 EXISTING ======================================================================= CONDITIONS AND TIMINGS Volume Adjustment Worksheet Direc- Lane Lane Adj tion/ Mvt Adj Lane Grp No. Util Growth Grp Prop Prop Mvt ..... ..... ... __ Vol ____ PHF _..... ..... ..... Vol .... ..... ..... ..... Grp ..... ..... _..... Vol Ln ..... ..... ..... ... __ Fact ..... ..... ..... _..... Fact ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Vol LT RT ____ _..... ..... _.... ..... _ EB _ Left 32 0.85 38 Thru 37 0.85 44 LTR 129 1 1.000 1.000 129 0.29 0.36 Right 47 0.85 47 WB Left 54 0.85 64 Thru 87 0.85 102 LTR 205 1 1.000 1.000 205 0.31 0.19 Right 39 0.85 39 NB Left 216 0.85 254 Thru 293 0.85 345 LTR 723 1 1.000 1.000 723 0.35 0.17 Right 124 0.85 124 SB Left 10 0.85 12 Thru 57 0.85 67 LTR 90 1 1.000 1.000 90 0.13 0.12 Right _______________________________________________________________________ 11 0.85 11 Saturation Flow Adiustment Worksheet Direc- Ideal Adj tion/ Sat No. f f f f f f f f Sat LnGrp ______ Flow ____ Lns W ___ _____ _____ HV G _____ p _____ BB _____ A _____ RT _____ LT _____ Flow ____ EB LTR 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1443 WB LTR 1800 1 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.97 1475 NB LTR 1800 1 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.96 1466 SE-3 LTR 1900 1 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.82 1284 ` HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 3 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 75AO1.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 AM DHV Comment: 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ======================================================================= TIMINGS Supplemental Worksheet For Left -Turn Adjustment Factor Input Variables EB WB NB SB Cycle Length, C (sec) 65 65 65 65 Effective Green, G (sec) 28.0 28.0 31.0 31.0 Number of Lanes, N 1 1 J. 1 Total Approach Flow Rate, Va (vph) 129 205 723 90 Mainline Flow Rate, Vm (vph) 91 141 469 78 Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt (vph) 38 64 254 12 Proportion of LT, Pit 0.295 0.312 0.351 0.133 Opposing Lanes, No 1 1 1 1 Opposing Flow Rate, Vo (vph) 141 91 78 469 Proportion of LT in Opp. Vol., Plto ____________________________________________________________________________ 0.312 0.295 0.133 0.351 Computations EB WB NB SB Sop=(1800No)/(1+Plto((400+Vm)/(1400-Vm))> 1611 1598 1601 1597 Yo=Vo/Sop 0.088 0.057 0.049 0.294 Gu=(G-C*Yo)/(1-Yo) 24.452 25.765 29.258 16.865 Fs=(875-0.625Vo)/1000 0.787 0.818 0.826 0.582 Pl=Plt(1+((N-1)G)/(Fs*Gu+4.5))) 0.295 0.312 0.351 0.133 Gq=G-Gu 3.548 2.235 1.742 14.135 Pt=1-Pl 0.705 0.688 0.649 0.867 Gf=2Pt(1-(Pt**0.5Gq))/Pl 2.211 1.506 1.160 8.272 El=1800/(1400-Vo) 1.43 1.38 1.36 1.93 Fm=Gf/G+(Gu/G)(1/(1+Pl(El-1)))+(2/G)(1+Pl) 0.947 0.971 0.962 0.824 Flt=(Fm+N-1)/N ____________________________________________________________________________ 0.947 0.971 0.962 0.824 ~. *^ ` ` HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 4 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 75AO1.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 AM DHV Comment: 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TIMINGS ======================================================================= Capacity Analysis Workshee/ Direc- Adj Adj Sat Flow Lane Group tion/ Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Green Ratio Capacity v/c LnGrp (v) (s) (v/s) (g/C) (c) Ratio .... ..... ..... ..... .... EB _.... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... _ LTR 129 1443 0.089 0.431 622 0.208 WB LTR 205 1475 0.139 0.431 635 0.323 * NB LTR 723 1466 0.493 0.477 699 1.034 * SB LTR 90 1284 0.070 0.477 612 0.147 Cycle Length, C = 65.0 sec. Sum (v/s) critical = 0.632 Lost Time ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... Per _..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... Cycle, L = 6.0 .... __.... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... _______ sec. ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X critical ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... = 0.696 ..... _..... ..... ..... _..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... _________ Level of Service Worksheet ..... Direc- ..... .... _..... ..... ____________________________________________________________ Delay Lane Delay Lane Lane Delay LOS tion/ v/c g/C Cycle d Group d Prog Grp Grp By By LnGrp Ratio Ratio _ ..... .... ..... ..... ... ..... Len 1 ..... ___ _____ Cap __... ..... ..... ..... ..... 2 ___ Fact ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Delay LOS .... _..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... App ..... .... _.... ..... App .... ..... ..... ..... EB LTR 0.21 0.431 65.0 8.8 622 0.0 1.00 8.8 B 8.8 B WB LTR 0.32 0.431 65.0 9.3 635 0.1 1.00 9.4 B 9.4 B NB LTR 1.03 0.477 65.0 13.3 699 35.5 1.00 48.8 E 48.8 E SB LTR 0'15 0.477 65.0 7.3 612 0.0 1.00 7.3 B 7.3 B Intersection _.... .... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... .... Delay ..... __.... ..... _ = 34.0 (sec/veh) ..... ..... ..... ... .... _____..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... Intersection ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... LOS ..... ..... __..... = D ..... _..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ^ HCS: Signalized Intersection Version FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 1 Wentworth Drive Williston, VT 05495 (802) 878-3000 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 75PO1.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 PM DHV Comment: 1993-EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TIMINGS ======================================================================= [raffic and Roadway Conditions | Eastbound | Westbound | Northbound | Southbound �L T ..... R |L ... T ... R |L T R ...... ..... |L .... _|__ ..... ..... _ T R ..... ..... ..... ..... ... __ No. Lanes |__ | ... ____ > 1 < ..... ..... ..... _|__ | .... > ..... ... _ ____|.... 1 < | .... ... _ ..... _ > 1 < | > 1 < Volumes 1 31 135 2261 161 79 251 134 166 1031 32 185 29 PHF or PK1510.90 0.90 0.9010.90 0.90 0.9010.90 0.90 0.9010.90 0.90 0.90 Lane Width | 12.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.5 Grade | 0 | 0 | 0 | C1 % Heavy Veh| 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 Parking | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N Bus Stops | 0| 0| 0| 0 Con. Peds | 0| 0| 0| 0 Ped Button |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N Arr Type | 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 3 RTOR Vols ..... .... .... ..... .... .... __... ..... ..... | ____________________________________________________________ 341 41 15: 4 Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 | 5 6 7 8 EB Left * |NB Left * Thru * | Thru * Right * | Right * Peds | Peds WB Left * | |SB Left * Thru * | Thru * Right * | Right * Peds | Peds NB Right | |EB Right SB Right |WB Right | Green 25A !Green 271:::' Yellow/A-R 6 !Yellow/A-R 7 Lost Time 3.0 Most Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 65 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 ~ ^. ~ � HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 2 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 75PO1.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 PM DHV Comment: ======================================================================= 1993-EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TIMINGS Volume Adjustment Worksheet ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... __.... ..... ..... ___... ..... ... Direc- .... ..... __..... ..... ___ ..... ..... .... ..... _..... ... _____ ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Lane ..... ... ..... ..... ... Lane ..... ..... __..... ..... Adj tion/ Mvt Adj Lane Grp No. Util Growth Grp Prop Prop Mvt ___ Vol ____ PHF ..... ..... .... ..... Vol Grp ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... Vol Ln ..... ..... ... ..... __ Fact ..... ... ..... ..... ..... Fact ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Vol ..... ..... ..... ..... LT _... ..... ..... RT El-!, Left 31 0.90 34 Thru 135 0.90 150 LTR 397 1 1.000 1.000 397 0.09 0.54 Right 226 0.90 213 WB Left 161 0.90 179 Thru 79 0.90 Be LTR 291 1 1.000 1.000 291 0.62 0.08 Right 25 0.90 24 NB Left 134 0.90 149 Thru 166 0.90 184 LTR 430 1 1.000 1.000 430 0.35 0.23 Right 103 0.90 97 SB Left 32 0.90 36 Thru 185 0.90 206 LTR 270 1 1.000 1.000 270 0.13 0.10 Right 29 0.90 28 Saturation Flow Adjustment Worksheet Direc- Ideal Adj tion/ Sat No. f f f f f f f f Sat LnGrp _..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Flow ..... ..... ..... .... Lns W ..... ..... _ ..... ... ..... .... .... HV __..... ..... ..... G ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... p ..... _... ..... ..... BB ..... __... ..... A ..... .... .... ..... .... RT .... ..... ..... .... ..... LT ..... ... _.... ..... Flow ..... ..... ..... _ EB LTR 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 1.00 1481 WI-1 LTR 1800 1 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.61 940 NB LTR 1800 1 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.86 1301 SB LTR 1800 1 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.95 1479 � ` HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 3 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 75PO1.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 PM DHV Comment: 1993-EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TIMINGS ======================================================================= Supplemental Worksheet For Left -Turn Adjustment Factor Input Variables EB WB NB SB Cycle Length, C (sec) 65 65 65 Effective Green, G (sec) 28.0 28.0 31.0 31.C; Number of Lanes, N 1 1 1 1 Total Approach Flow Rate, Va (vph) 397 291 430 270 Mainline Flow Rate, Vm (vph) 363 112 281 234 Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt (vph) 34 179 149 36 Proportion of LT, Plt 0.086 0.615 0.347 0.133 Opposing Lanes, No 1 1 1 1 Opposing Flow Rate, Vo (vph) 112 363 234 281 Proportion of LT in Opp. Vol., Plto 0.615 0.086 0.133 0.347 ____________________________________________________________________________ Computations EB WB ..... ..... ..... NB ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ___ SB ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... _... ___..... .... .... __..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... _..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... Sop=(18O0No)/(1+Plto((400+Vm)/(1400-Vm)>) ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... 1239 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 1741 ..... 1665 1515 Yo=Vo/Sop 0.090 0.209 0.141 0.186 Gu=(G-C*Yo)/(1-Yo) 24.324 18.251 25.440 23.255 Fs=(875-0.625Vo)/1000 0.805 0.648 0.729 0.699 Pl=Plt(1+((N-1)G)/(Fs*Gu+4.5))) 0.086 0.615 0.347 0.133 Gq=G-81..t 3.676 9.749 5.560 7.745 Pt=1-Pl 0.914 0.385 0.653 0.867 Gf=2Pt(1-(Pt**0.5Gq))/Pl 3.240 1.239 2.616 5.531 El=1800/(1400-Vo) 1.40 1.74 1.54 1.6i Fm=Gf/G+(Gu/G)(1/(1+Pl(El-1)))+(2/G)(1+Pl) 1.033 0.608 0.862 0.945 Flt=(Fm+N-1)/1%-.1 ____________________________________________________________________________ 1.000 0.608 ' 0.862 0.945 ^. ^. ` ` HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 4 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 75PO1.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 PM DHV Comment: 1993-EXISTING ======================================================================= CONDITIONS AND TIMINGS Capacity Analysis Worksheet ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... __..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ________ Direc- ......... ..... ... ..... ..... _... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... Adj Adj Sat ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Flow ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... _________________ Lane Group tion/ Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Green Ratio Capacity v/c LnGrp .... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... (v) (s) ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... _.... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... (v/s) ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... (g/C) (c) Ratio ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... _..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... EB LTR 397 1481 0.268 0.431 638 0.622 WB LTR 291 940 0.310 0.431 405 0.719 � NB LTR 430 1301 0.331 0.477 620 0.693 -st SB LTR 270 1479 0.183 0.477 705 0.383 Cycle Length, C = 65.0 sec. Sum (v/s) critical = 0.640 Lost Time Per Cycle, L = 6.0 - --------------------------------------------------------------------- sec. X critical = 0.705 Level of Service Worksheet Direc- Delay Lane Delay Lane Lane Delay LOS tion/ v/c g/C Cycle d Group d Prog Grp Grp By By LnGrp Ratio -..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... Ratio Len 1 ..... .... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... .... ---..... ..... Cap ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 2 ..... ..... ..... Fact Delay LOS App ... ..... ..... ..... - ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... - ..... -..... ..... ..... App ..... .... ..... ..... EB LTR 0.62 0.431 65.0 10.9 638 1.3 1.00 12.3 B 12.3 B WB LTR 0.72 0.431 65.0 11.6 405 4.2 1.00 15.8 C 15.8 C NB LTR 0.69 0.477 65.0 10.1 620 2.3 1.00 12.4 B 12.4 B SB LTR 0.38 0.477 65.0 8.3 705 0.2 1.00 8.4 B 8.4 B Intersection Delay = 12.3 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B ~ Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 1 ======================================================================= FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 1 Wentworth Drive Williston, VT 05495 (802) 878-3000 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075AE3.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 AM DHV Comment: 1993-EXISTING CONDITIONS ======================================================================= [raffic and Roadway Conditions | Eastbound | Westbound | Northbound 1 Southbound |L T R |L T R |L T R L J. R |____ No. Lanes | ____ ---- > 1 < |---- | ____ > 1 < ---- |---- | ____ > 1 < ____|____ | ____ > 1 < Volumes 1 55 33 391 55 179 79| 225 326 1321 5 53 25 PHF or PK1510.90 0.90 0.9010.96 0.90 0.9010.90 0.90 0.9010.90 000 0.'90 Lane Width < 12.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.5 Grade | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 % Heavy Veh| 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 Parking | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N Bus Stops 0| 0| 0| 0 Con. Peds | 0| 0\ 0| 0 Ped Button 1(Y/N) N !(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N Arr Type 1 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 3 RTOR Vols | ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ... .... ..... __..... ..... 6| ..... .... ..... .... ..... ..... _..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... 121 ..... .... .... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 20| .... .... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... _________ 4 Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 | 5 6 7 8 EB Left * |NB Left * Thru * | Thru * Right * | Right * Peds 1 Peds WB Left X. | 19B Left * Thru * | Thru X.- Right * | Right * Peds | Peds NB Right i |EB Right SB Right 1WB Right { Green 12A !Green 261:-"' Yellow/A-R 6 !Yellow/A-R 6 Lost Time 3.0 !Lost Time 3.0 _-1 Cycle Length:( '50`secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 / `_' Volume Adjustment Worksheet Direc- Lane Lane Adj tion/ Mvt Adj Lane Grp No. Util Growth Grp Prop Prop Mvt ----- Vol .... ..... .... - PHF ---- Vol ... ..... ..... ..... Grp .... ..... ..... ..... Vol Ln ..... ..... ..... ..... -- Fact ..... ..... .... ..... ..... Fact -..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Vol ..... ..... ..... ..... LT RT ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... EB Left 55 0.90 61 Thru 33 0.90 37 LTR 134 1 1.000 1.000 134 0.46 0.27 Right 39 0.90 36 WB Left 55 0.90 61 Thru 179 0.90 199 LTR 335 1 1.000 1.000 335 0.18 0.22 Right 79 0.90 75 NB Left 225 0.90 250 Thru 326 0.90 362 LTR 737 1 1.000 1.000 737 0.34 0.17 Right 132 0.90 125 SB Left 5 0.90 6 Thru 53 0.90 59 LTR 89 1 1.000 1.000 89 0.07 0.27 Right __..... ..... ..... ..... 25 ..... ..... ..... __ 0.90 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... _ 24 ..... ... _____ ..... ... ..... ____ ..... ... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Saturation Flow Adjustment Worksheet Direc- Ideal Adj tion/ Sat No. f f f f f f f f Sat LnGrp Flow Lns W [AV G p BB A RT LT Flow ______ EB ____ ___ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ LTR 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.76 1182 WB LTR 1800 1 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 1512 NB LTR 1800 1 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.98 1486 SB LTR 1800 1 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.98 1488 ` ` HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 3 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075AE3.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 AM DHV Comment: 1993-EXISTING CONDITIONS ======================================================================= Supplemental Worksheet For Left -Turn Adjustment Factor Input Variables EB WB NB SB Cycle Length, C (sec) 50 50 50 50 Effective Green, G (sec) 15.0 15.0 29.0 29.0 Number of Lanes, N 1 1 1 1 Total Approach Flow Rate, Va (vph) 134 335 737 89 Mainline Flow Rate, Vm (vph) 73 274 487 83 Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt (vph) 61 61 250 6 Proportion of LT, Pit 0.455 0.182 0.339 0.067 Opposing Lanes, No 1 1 1 1 Opposing Flow Rate, Vo (vph) 274 73 83 487 Proportion of LT in Opp. Vol., Pit(::; ____________________________________________________________________________ 0.182 0.455 0.067 0.339 Computations EB WB NB SB Sop=(180ONo)/(1+Plto((400+Vm)/(1400-Vm)>) 1690 1415 1689 _..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... 1601 Yo=Vo/Sop 0.162 0.052 0.049 0.304 Gu=(G-C*Yo)/(1-Yo) 8.229 13.095 27.915 19.818 Fs=(875-0.625Vo)/1000 0.704 0.829 0.823 0.571 Pl=Plt(1+((N-1)G)/(Fs*Gu+4.5))> 0.455 0.182 0.339 0.067 Gq=G-Gu 6.771 1.905 1.085 9.182 Pt=1-Pl 0.545 0.818 0.661 0.933 Gf=2Pt(1-(Pt**0.5Gq))/Pl 2.087 1.565 0.784 7.585 E1=1800/(1400-Vo) 1.60 1.36 1.37 1.97 Fm=Gf/G+(Gu/G)(1/(1+Pl(El-1)))+(2/G)(1+Pl) 0.764 1.082 0.975 0.977 Flt=(Fm+N-1)/N 0.764 1.000 0.975 0.977 ~� - Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 4 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075AE3.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 AM DHV Comment: 1993-EXISTING ======================================================================= CONDITIONS .... Capacity .... ..... ..... Analysis ..... Worksheet .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... Direc- ..... .... ..... ..... _ Adj ..... _____... ..... .... ..... ..... Adj Sat ..... ______________________________________ Flow Lane Group tion/ Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Green Ratio Capacity v/c LnGrp (v) (s) (v/s) (g/C) (c) Ratio _..... .... ..... ..... ..... EB .... __..... .... ..... ..... _ _..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... _ ..... ..... ... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... .... ..... ... ..... LTR 134 1182 0.113 0.300 355 0.378 WB LTR 335 1512 0.222 0.300 454 0.739 * NB LTR 737 1486 0.496 0.580 862 0.855 * SB LTR 89 1488 0.060 0.580 863 0.103 Cycle Length, C = 50.0 sec. Sum (v/s) critical = 0.718 Lost Time Per Cycle, L = 6.0 sec. X critical = 0.815 _..... _..... Level of Service Worksheet ..... ..... ..... ___ ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... Direc- ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... _..... ..... .... ..... Delay .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... Lane Delay Lane Lane ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Delay LOS tion/ v/c g/C Cycle d Group d Prog Grp Grp By By LnGrp Ratio ... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... .... Ratio ... ..... ..... .... .... Len 1 ..... ..... ..... ..... .... _..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Cap ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 2 Fact Delay LOS _..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... .... .... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... App App ..... ... ..... ..... _ _..... ..... ..... EB LTR 0.38 0.300 50.0 10.5 355 0.3 1.00 10.8 B 10.8 B WB LTR 0.74 0.300 50.0 12.0 454 4.3 1'00 16.3 C 16.3 C NB LTR 0.86 0.580 50.0 6.6 862 6.0 1.00 12.6 B 12.6 B SB LTR 0.10 0.580 50.0 3.6 863 0.0 1.00 3.6 A 3.6 A Intersection Delay = 12.8 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2 FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 1 Wentworth Drive Williston, VT 05495 (802) 878-3000 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075PE3.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 PM DHV Comment: 1993-EXISTING CONDITIONS ======================================================================= [raffic and Roadway Conditions | Eastbound | Westbound | Northbound | Southbound |L T ... ... .... R |L T ..... .... ..... |..... ... .... _ ____ R |L ..... .... __|_ ..... ... _ _ -1. ..... ... ... R |L ..... ..... ..... ..... |____ T R .... ..... ... ... No. Lanes |____ | ... > 1 ..... < | > 1 < | > 1 < | > 1 < Volumes 1 39 157 2121 159 47 171 113 118 1371 52 237 115 PHF or PK1510.85 0.85 0.8510.85 0.85 0.8510.85 0.85 0.8510.85 0.85 0.85 Lane Width | 12.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.5 Grade | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 % Heavy Veh| 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 Parking | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N Bus Stops | 0| 0| 0| 0 Con. Peds | 0| 0| 0| 0 Ped Button !(Y/N) N \(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N Arr Type | 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 3 RTOR Vols _______________________________________________________________________ | 32| 3| 211 17 Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left * |NB Left * Thru * | Thru N. Right * \ Right * Peds | Peds WB Left * | |SB Left * Thru * | Thru * Right * | Right * Peds | Peds NB Right | |EB Right SB Right |WB Right | Green 13A !Green 15P Yellow/A-R 6 !Yellow/A-R 6 Lost Time 3.0 Most Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 40 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 .`. '. ` HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 2 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075PE3.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 PM DHV Comment: 1993-EXISTING ======================================================================= CONDITIONS Volume Adjustment Worksheet ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ------------------------------------------------------------- Direc- Lane Lane Adj tion/ Mvt Adj Lane Grp No. Util Growth Grp Prop Prop Mvt ___ Vol PHF ..... ..... .... ..... ..... _..... ..... Vol ..... ..... ..... ..... Grp ..... ..... _..... Vol .... ..... ..... ..... Ln Fact __ ..... ... ..... _..... Fact ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... Vol ..... ..... __ LT ____ RT __..... ..... EB Left 39 0.85 46 Thru 157 0.85 185 LTR 442 1 1.000 1.000 442 0.10 0.48 ^ Right 212 0.85 211 WB Left 159 0.85 187 Thru 47 0.85 55 LTR 258 1 1.000 1.000 258 0.72 0.06 Right 17 0.85 16 NB Left 113 0.85 133 Thru 118 0.85 139 LTR 408 1 1.000 1.000 408 0.33 0.33 Right 137 0.85 136 SB Left 52 0.85 61 Thru 237 0.85 279 LTR 455 1 1.000 1.000 455 0.13 0.25 Right 115 0.85 ���������������������������������������������������� 115 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... .... � Saturation Flow Adjustment Worksheet _______________________________________________________________________ Direc- Ideal Adj tion/ Sat No. f f f f f f f f Sat LnGrp ______ Flow Lns ____ ___ W _____ HV _____ G _____ p _____ _____ BB A _____ RT _____ LT _____ Flow ____ EB LTR 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 1.00 1496 WB LTR 1800 1 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.62 955 NB LTR 1800 1 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.81 1206 SD LTR 1900 1 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 1528 ` ` HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 3 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075PE3.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 PM DHV Comment: 1993-EXISTING CONDITIONS ======================================================================= Supplemental Worksheet For Left -Turn Adjustment Factor Input Variables EB WB NB SB ____________________________________________________________________________ Cycle Length, C (sec) 40 40 40 40 Effective Green, G (sec) 16.0 16.0 18.0 18.0 Number of Lanes, N 1 1 1 1 Total Approach Flow Rate, Va (vph) 442 258 408 455 Mainline Flow Rate, Vm (vph) 396 71 275 394 Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt (vph) 46 187 133 61 Proportion of LT, Plt 0.104 0.725 0.326 0.134 Opposing Lanes, No 1 1 1 1 Opposing Flow Rate, Vo (vph) 71 396 394 275 Proportion of LT in Opp. Vol., Pit(::- 0.725 0.104 0.134 0.326 Computations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB Sop=(1800No)/(1+Plto((400+Vm)/(1400-Vm))> 1143 1736 1666 1432 Yo=Vo/Sop 0.062 0.228 0.236 0.192 Gu=(G'C*Yo)/(1-Yo) 14.411 8.907 11.185 12.769 Fs=(875-0.625Vo)/1000 0.831 0.627 0.629 0.703 Pl=Plt(1+((N-1)G)/(Fs*Gu+4.5))) 0.104 0.725 0.326 0.134 Gq=G-Gu 1.589 7.093 6.815 5.231 Pt=1-Pl 0.896 0.275 0.674 0.866 Gf=2Pt(1-(Pt**0.5Gq))/Pl 1.440 0.752 3.057 4.053 El=1800/(1400-Vo) 1.35 1.79 1.79 1.60 Fm=Gf/G+(Gu/G)(1/(1+Pl(El-1)))+(2/G)(1+Pl) 1.097 0.616 0.811 1.008 Flt=(Fm+N-1)/11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.000 0.616 0.811 1.000 ~` ` HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 4 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075PE3.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 PM DHV Comment: 1993-EXISTING CONDITIONS ======================================================================= Capacity Analysis Worksheet Direc- Adj Adj Sat Flow Lane Group tion/ Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Green Ratio Capacity v/c LnGrp _... .... ..... ..... (v) ... ..... .... __..... ..... ... _ (s) _..... _... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... (v/s) ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... (g/C) .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ___ (c) .... ..... .... ..... __..... ..... ..... ..... Ratio EB LTR 442 1496 0.295 0.400 598 0.739 * WB LTR 258 955 0.270 0.400 382 0.675 NB LTR 408 1206 0.338 0.450 . 543 0.752 * SD LTR 455 1528 0.298 0.450 688 0.662 Cycle Length, C = 40.0 sec. Sum Ms) critical = 0.634 Lost Time Per Cycle, L = 6.0 sec. X critical = 0.746 Level of Service Worksheet Direc- Delay Lane Delay Lane Lane Delay LOS tion/ v/c g/C Cycle d Group d Prog Grp Grp By By LnGrp __.... ..... _ Ratio _____ Ratio ... ..... ..... ..... ..... Len ..... .... _..... ..... 1 _..... .... _... Cap ..... ..... ..... __ 2 _..... ..... ..... ..... Fact __..... ..... ... Delay ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... LOS ..... ..... ..... ..... App ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... App EG LTR 0.74 0.400 40.0 7.8 598 3.3 1.00 11.1 B 11.1 B WB LTR 0.68 0.400 40.0 7.5 382 3.2 1.00 10.7 B 10.7 B NB LTR 0.75 0.450 40.0 6.9 543 4.0 1.00 11.0 B 11.0 B SB LTR 0.66 0.450 40.0 6.5 688 1'7 1.00 8.2 B 8.2 B Intersection _______________________________________________________________________ Delay = 10.2 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 1 Wentworth Drive Williston, VT 05495 (802) 878-3000 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075AE8.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 AM DHV Comment: ======================================================================= 1998-EXISTING CONDITIONS Fraffic and Roadway Conditions | Eastbound | Westbound 1 Northbound | Southbound |L |__ T ..... ... _ R |L T R |L T R |L T R No. Lanes | ... ..... ... > 1 < ..... ..... ..... ..... |..... | ..... ..... _ > ..... ..... __ ---- 1 < |---- | > ____ 1 < ---- |____ | > 1 < Volumes 1 63 37 441 62 203 891 255 369 1501 6 60 28 PHF or PK1510.90 0.90 0.9010.90 0.90 0.9010.90 0.90 0.9010.90 0.90 0.90 Lane Width | 12.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.5 Grade | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 % Heavy Veh| 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 Parking | (Y/N) N 1 (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N Bus Stops | 0| 0| 0| 0 Con. Peds | 01 0| 0| 0 Ped Button !(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N Arr Type | 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 3 RTOR Vols | _______________________________________________________________________ 71 13| 23| 4 Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 : 5 6 7 8 EB Left * |NB Left * Thru * | Thru * Right * | Right * Peds | P e d s WB Left * | |SB Left * T h r u * | Thru * Right * | Right * Peds | Peds NB Right | |EB Right SB Right |WB Right | Green 12A !Green 271:::' Yellow/A-R 6 !Yellow/A-R 6 Lost Time 3.0 |Lost Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 51 secs Phase combinatioh order: 01 #5 .~ . ' HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 2 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075AE8.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 AM DHV Comment: 1998-EXISTING ======================================================================= CONDITIONS Volume Adjustment Worksheet ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... -------------------------------------------------------------- Direc- Lane Lane Adj ..... _..... tion/ Mvt Adj Lane Grp No. Util Growth Grp Prop Prop Mvt ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Vol _..... ..... ..... PHF ..... ..... __ Vol ____ Grp ..... ..... ..... ..... Vol ..... ..... ..... ..... Ln Fact __ ..... ..... ..... ..... ... Fact ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Vol LT ..... ... _... ..... .... ..... ..... RT ..... .... ..... ..... EB Left 63 0.90 70 Thru 37 0.90 41 LTR 152 1 1.000 1.000 152 0.46 0.27 Right 44 0.90 41 WB Left 62 0.90 69 Thru 203 0.90 226 LTR 380 1 1.000 1.000 380 0.18 0.22 Right 89 0.90 85 NB Left 255 0.90 283 Thru 369 0.90 410 LTR 834 1 1.000 1.000 834 0.34 0.17 Right 150 0.90 141 SB Left 6 0.90 7 Thru 60 0.90 67 LTR 101 1 1.000 1.000 101 0.07 0.27 Right 28 0.90 27 Saturation Flow Adjustment Workshee1 Direc- Ideal Adj tion/ Sat No. f f f f f f f f Sat LnGrp ..... .... ..... ..... ..... .... Flow ..... ..... ..... .... Lns W ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... HV ..... ..... ..... ..... .... G ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... p ..... ..... ..... __ BB ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... A ... ..... ..... ..... RT ..... ..... ..... ..... _ LT ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Flow ____ EB LTR 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.69 1068 WB LTR 1800 1 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 1512 NB LTR 1800 1 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.97 1475 SB LTR 1800 1 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.95 1448 ` HCS: Signalized Intersection Version R.J. 3 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075AE8.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 AM DHV Comment: 1998-EXISTING CONDITIONS ======================================================================= Supplemental Worksheet For Left -Turn Adjustment Factor Input Variables .... ..... ..... .... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... _..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... .... ..... ..... _..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... _.... ..... ..... EB .... ..... ..... _..... ..... ..... ..... WB ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... .... ..... NB ..... ..... ..... .... ____ SB ..... ..... ..... ... _..... ..... _ Cycle Length, C (sec) 51 51 51 51 Effective Green, G (sec) 15.0 15.0 30.0 30.0 Number of Lanes, N 1 1 1 1 Total Approach Flow Rate, Va (vph) 152 380 834 101 Mainline Flow Rate, Vm (vph) 82 311 551 94 Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt (vph) 7O 69 283 7 Proportion of LT, Plt 0.461 0.182 0.339 0.069 Opposing Lanes, No 1 1 1 1 Opposing Flow Rate, Vo (vph) 311 82 94 551 Proportion of LT in Opp. Vol., Plto 0.182 0.461 0.069 0.339 Computations EB WB NB SB Sop=(1800No)/(1+Plto((400+Vm)/(1400-Vm))) 1688 1384 1670 1595 Yo=Vo/Sop 0.184 0.059 0.056 0.345 Gu=(G-C*Yo)/(1-Yo) 6.869 12.733 28.748 18.919 Fs=(875-0.625Vo)/1000 0.681 0.824 0.816 0.531 Pl=Plt(1+((N-1)G)/(Fs*Gu+4.5))) 0.461 0.182 0.339 0.069 Gq=G-Gu 8.131 2.267 1.252 11.081 Pt=1-Pl 0.539 0.818 0.661 0.931 Gf=2Pt(1-(Pt**0.5Gq))/Pl 2.152 1.832 0.890 8.817 El=1800/(1400-Vo) 1.65 1.37 1.38 2.12 Fm=Gf/G+(Gu/G)(1/(1+Pl(El-1))>+(2/G)(1+Pl) 0.690 1.076 0.968 0.950 Flt=(Fm+N-1)/N _... ..... .... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... .... _..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... _..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... 0.690 ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... 1.000 ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0.968 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0.950 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .. ` . HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 4 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075AE8.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 AM DHV Comment: 1998-EXISTING CONDITIONS ======================================================================= Capacity Analysis Worksheet Direc- Adj Adj Sat Flow Lane Group tion/ Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Green Ratio Capacity v/c LnGrp (v) (s) (v/s) ..... ... ..... (g/C) ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... (c) ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Ratio _____ __..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... EB ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... _ ..... ..... ..... ..... LTR 152 1068 0.142 0.294 314 0.484 WB LTR 380 1512 0.251 0.294 445 0.854 * NB LTR 834 1475 0.565 0.588 868 0.961 * SB LTR 101 1448 0.070 0.588 852 0.119 Cycle Length, C = 51.0 sec. Sum (v/s) critical = 0.817 Lost Time Per -------------------------------------------------------------- Cycle, L = 6.0 sec. X critical = 0.926 ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... .... evel of Service Worksheet Direc- Delay Lane Delay Lane Lane Delay LOS tion/ v/c g/C Cycle d Group d Prog Grp Grp By By LnGrp ..... .... ..... .... - Ratio ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Ratio .... .... .... ..... ..... Len ..... ... ..... .... ..... 1 ..... ... ..... ..... ..... Cap ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 2 .... ..... ..... ... ..... Fact .... ..... .... ..... ..... Delay .... ..... ..... ..... ..... LOS ..... ... ..... ..... App ..... ---... App ..... ..... r- EB LTR 0.48 0.294 51.0 11.3 314 0.9 1.00 12.2 B 12.2 B WB LTR 0.85 0.294 51.0 12.9 445 10.4 1.00 23.3 C 23.3 C NB LTR 0.96 0.588 51.0 7.6 868 16.0 1.00 23.5 C 23.5\ C] �_/ SB LTR 0.12 0.588 51.0 3.5 852 0.0 1.00 3.5 A 3.5 A Intersection ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Delay ..... .... ..... ..... .... .... = 20.9 (sec/veh) ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Intersection ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... LOS ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... = C ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 1 ======================================================================= FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 1 Wentworth Drive Williston, VT 05495 (802) 878-3000 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075PE8.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-16-93 PM DHV Comment: 1998-EXISTING CONDITIONS ======================================================================= [raffic and Roadway Conditions | Eastbound | Westbound | Northbound | Southbound 1L |---- J. ---- R |L T R |L T R |L T R No. Lanes | > 1 < ----|---- ---- ----\---- ---- 1 > 1 < | > ---- 1 < |---- ---- | > ---- 1 < Volumes 1 44 178 2401 180 54 191 128 134 1551 59 269 130 PHF or PK1510.85 0.85 0.8510.85 0.85 0.8510.85 0.85 0.8510.85 0.85 0.85 Lane Width \ 12.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.5 Grade | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 % Heavy Veh| 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 Parking | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N Bus Stops | 0| 0| 0| 0 Con. Peds | 01 0| 0\ 0 Ped Button |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N Arr Type | 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 3 RTOR Vols | _______________________________________________________________________ 36| 1| 231 20 _______________________________________________________________________ Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 | 5 6 7 8 EB Left * |NB Left * Thru * | Thru * Right * | Right * P e d s | Peds WB Left * | |SB Left * Thru * | Thru * Right * | Right * Peds | P e d s NB Right | |EB Right SB Right 1WB Right | Green 13A !Green 15P Yellow/A-R 6 !Yellow/A-R 6 Lost Time 3.0 Most Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 40 secs Phase combination order: 01-#5 |CS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 2 Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92O75PE8.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-16-93 PM DHV Comment: 1998-EXISTING CONDITIONS ======================================================================= Volume Adjustment Worksheet Direc- Lane Lane Adj tion/ Mvt Adj Lane Grp No. Util Growth Grp Prop Prop Mvt ___ Vol ..... _..... _ PHF ____ Vol ..... ..... ... ..... Grp ... ..... ..... ... Vol ..... _.... ..... Ln Fact Fact __ ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ___..... ..... ..... Vol _..... ..... ..... LT ..... ... ..... ..... RT ____ EB Left 44 0.85 52 Thru 178 0.85 209 LTR 501 1 1.000 1.000 501 0.10 0.48 Right 240 0.85 240 WB Left 180 0.85 212 Thru 54 0.85 64 LTR 297 1 1.000 1.000 297 0.71 0.07 Right 19 0.85 21 NB Left 128 0.85 151 Thru 134 0.85 158 LTR 464 1 1.000 1.000 464 0.33 0.33 Right 155 0.85 155 SB Left 59 0.85 69 Thru 269 0.85 316 LTR 514 1 1.000 1.000 514 0.13 0.25 Right 130 0.85 129 _______________________________________________________________________ Saturation Flow Adjustment Worksheet Direc- Ideal Adj tion/ Sat No. f f f f f f f f Sat LnGrp ______ Flow ____ Lns ___ W _____ HV _____ G _____ p BB _____ _____ A _____ RT _____ LT _____ Flow ____ EB LTR 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 1.00 1496 WB LTR 1800 1 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.55 858 NB LTR 1800 1 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.76 1127 SB LTR 1800 1 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.98 1504 HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 3 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075PE8.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-16-93 PM DHV Comment: 1998-EXISTING CONDITIONS ======================================================================= Supplemental Worksheet For Left -Turn Adjustment Factor Input Variables EB WB NB SB Cycle Length, C (sec) 40 40 40 40 Effective Green, G (sec) 16.0 16.0 18.0 18.0 Number of Lanes, N 1 1 1 1 Total Approach Flow Rate, Va (vph) 501 297 464 514 Mainline Flow Rate, Vm (vph) 449 85 313 445 Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt (vph) 52 212 151 69 Proportion of LT, Pit 0.104 0.714 0.325 0.134 Opposing Lanes, No 1 1 1 1 Opposing Flow Rate, Vo (vph) 85 449 445 313 Proportion of LT in Opp. Vol., Pit(::- 0.714 0.104 0.134 0.325 Computations ..... ..... ..... ..... EB ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... -- WB ..... ..... ..... -..... ..... ..... NB ..... -..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... SB ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ------..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... -..... ..... ..... Sop=(180ONo)/(1+Plto((400+Vm)/(1400-Vm)>> ..... -..... 1099 1734 1654 1398 Yo=Vo/Sop 0.077 0.259 0.269 0.224 Gu=(G-C*Yo)/(1-Yo) 13.989 7.612 9.905 11.651 Fs=(875-0.625Vo)/1000 0.822 0.594 0.597 0.679 Pl=Plt(1+((N-1)G)/(Fs*Gu+4.5))) 0.104 0.714 0.325 0.134 Gq=G-Gu 2.011 8.388 8.095 6.349 Pt=1-P1 0.896 0.286 0.675 0.866 Gf=2Pt(1-(Pt**0.5Gq))/Pl 1.802 0.798 3.303 4.736 El=1800/(1400-Vo) 1.37 1.89 1.88 1.66 Fm=Gf/G+(Gu/G)(1/(1+Pl(El-1)))+(2/G)(1+Pl) 1.093 0.555 0.758 0.984 Flt=(Fm+N-1)/N ..... ... .... ... ..... .... ... ... ... ..... ..... _..... ..... ___..... ..... __..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... _____.... ..... _..... ..... ..... _..... ..... 1.000 ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0.555 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... 0.758 .... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... .... .... 0.984 ..... .... ..... _..... ..... ..... .... .., .. HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 4 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075PE8.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-16-93 PM DHV Comment: 1998-EXISTING CONDITIONS ======================================================================= Capacity Analysis Workshee Direc- Adj Adj Sat Flow Lane Group tion/ Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Green Ratio Capacity v/c LnGrp ..... ..... .... .... (v) ..... ..... .... ..... (s) (v/s) (g/C) (c) Ratio .... EB ..... ... ..... ..... ..... .... __.... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... .... _... ..... ..... ..... _ .... ..... ..... ..... ..... LTR 501 1496 0.335 0.400 598 0.837 WB LTR NB 297 858 0.346 0.400 343 0.865 * LTR 464 1127 0.412 0.450 507 0.915 * SB LTR 514 1504 0.342 0.450 677 0.759 Cycle Length, C = 40.0 sec. Sum (v/s) critical = 0.758 Lost Time Per Cycle, L = 6.0 sec. X critical = 0.892 ___ evel of Service Worksheet Direc- Delay Lane Delay Lane Lane Delay LOS tion/ v/c g/C Cycle d Group d Prog Grp Grp By By LnGrp Ratio Ratio Len 1 Cap 2 Fact Delay LOS App App .... ..... ..... ..... ..... EB ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... .... ..... .... ..... _..... ..... ..... _..... ..... _..... __..... .... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... _..... ..... ... ... ____ LTR WB 0.84 0.400 40.0 8.2 598 7.1 1.00 15.3 C 15.3 C ' LTR 0.87 0.400 40.0 8.4 343 13.9 1.00 22.3 C 22.3 C NB LTR 0.91 0'450 40.0 7.8 507 15.2 1.00 23.0 C 23.0 C SB LTR 0.76 0.450 40.0 7.0 677 3.5 1.00 10.5 B 10.5 B Intersection _______________________________________________________________________ Delay = 17.1 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 1 ======================================================================= FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 1 Wentworth Drive Williston, VT 05495 (802) 878-3000 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075AP3.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 AM DHV Comment: 1993 W/ PHASE I TRAFFIC ======================================================================= rraffic and Roadwav Conditions | Eastbound | Westbound | Northbound | Southbound |L |_ T ..... ... ..... ... ... ... ..... R |L ..... T ... ..... ____ R |L T R |L T R No. Lanes | > 1 < _..... _|..... | ..... ..... > 1 < ..... .... .... |.... | ..... ..... ..... > ..... _..... ..... 1 .... ... ..... .... |_ < | ..... __ > 1 < Volumes 1 55 33 411 57 179 791 231 335 1351 5 55 25 PHF or PK1510.96 0.96 0.010.90 0.90 0.4010.90 0:90 0.§010.90 0.90 0.90 Lane Width | 12.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.5 Grade | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 % Heavy Veh| 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 Parking | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N Bus Stops | 01 0| 0| 0 Con. Peds | 0| 0| 0| 0 Ped Button 1(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N Arr Type | 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 3 RTOR Vols _______________________________________________________________________ | 6| 12| 201 4 Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 ( 5 6 7 8 EB Left * |NB Left * Thru * | Thru * Right * | Right * Peds | Peds WB Left * � |SB Left * Thru Thru * Right * \ Right * Peds | Peds NB Right | |EB Right SB Right |WB Right | Green 12A !Green 26P Yellow/A-R 6 !Yellow/A-R 6 Lost Time 3'0 !Lost Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 Volume Adjustment Worksheet Direc- Lane Lane Adj tion/ Mvt Adj Lane Grp No. Util Growth Grp Prop Prop Mvt ..... ..... __ Vol PHF Vol Grp Vol Ln Fact Fact Vol LT RT ..... EB ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... __ ..... ..... ..... _..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... _ Left 55 0.90 61 Thru 33 0.90 37 LTR 137 1 1.000 1.000 137 0.45 0.28 Right 41 0.90 39 WB Left 57 0.90 63 Thru 179 0.90 199 LTR 337 1 1.000 1.000 337 0.19 0.22 Right 79 0.90 75 NB Left 231 0.90 257 Thru 335 0.90 372 LTR 757 1 1.000 1.000 757 0.34 0.17 Right 135 0.90 128 SB Left 5 0.90 6 Thru 55 0.90 61 LTR 91 1 1.000 1.000 91 0.07 0.26 Right .... ..... ..... .... ..... _ 25 ..... ..... ... .... ..... ... 0.90 _.... ..... .... ... 24 ..... __... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ______.... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... .... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... _ Saturation Flow Adjustment Worksheet ..... ..... Direc- ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Ideal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... _..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ... _..... ..... _____.... ..... .... _..... ... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... _ Adj tion/ Sat No. f f f f f f f f Sat LnGrp ______ Flow ____ Lns ___ W _____ [IV _____ G _____ p BB _____ _____ A _____ RT _____ LT _____ Flow ____ EB LTR 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.77 1187 WB LTR 1800 1 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 1512 NB LTR 1800 1 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.97 1485 SB LTR 1800 1 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.97 1487 HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 3 Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075AP3.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 AM DHV Comment: 1993 W/ PHASE I TRAFFIC ======================================================================= Supplemental Worksheet For Left -Turn Adjustment Factor Input Variables EB WB NB SB Cycle Length, C (sec) 50 50 50 50 Effective Green, G (sec) 15.0 15.0 29.0 29.0 Number of Lanes, N 1 1 1 1 Total Approach Flow Rate, Va (vph) 137 337 757 91 Mainline Flow Rate, Vm (vph) 76 274 500 85 Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt (vph) 61 63 257 6 Proportion of LT, Plt 0.445 0.187 0.339 0.066 Opposing Lanes, No 1 1 1 1 Opposing Flow Rate, Vo (vph) 274 76 85 500 Proportion of LT in Opp. Vol., Plto 0.187 0.445 0.066 0.339 ____________________________________________________________________________ Computations E8 WB NB SB ____________________________________________________________________________ Sop=(1800No)/(1+Plto((400+Vm)/(1400-Vm))) 1687 1421 1689 1600 Yo=Vo/Sop 0.162 0.053 0.050 0.313 Gu=(G-C*Yo)/(1-Yo) 8.211 13.023 27.887 19.452 Fs=(875-0.625Vo)/1000 0.704 0.827 0.822 0.563 Pl=Plt(1+((N-1)0)/(Fs*Gu+4.5))) 0.445 0.187 0.339 0.066 Gq=G-Gu 6.789 1.977 1.113 9.548 Pt=1-Pl 0.555 0.813 0.661 0.934 Gf=2Pt(1-(Pt**0.5Gq))/Pl 2.155 1.610 0.802 7.875 El=1800/(1400-Vo) 1.60 1.36 1.37 2.00 Fm=Gf/G+(Gu/G)(1/(1+Pl(El-1)))+(2/G)(1+Pl) 0.769 1.079 0.975 0.974 Flt=(Fm+N-1)/N 0.769 1.000 0.975 0.974 ~ ' - ` ~, - HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 4 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075AP3.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 AM DHV Comment: ======================================================================= 1993 W/ PHASE I TRAFFIC Capacity Analysis Worksheet Direc- Adj Adj Sat Flow Lane Group tion/ Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Green Ratio Capacity v/c LnGrp _..... ..... ..... _ __.... (v) ..... ..... ..... ..... ... (s) ..... _... ..... ... __.... ..... _ (v/s) _..... ..... ..... _ ... ..... ..... (g/C) ..... ... ..... _..... ... (c) _..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ____..... Ratio _... ..... ... ..... EB LTR 137 1187 0.115 0.300 356 0.385 WB LTR 337 1512 0.223 0.300 454 0.743 * NB LTR 757 1485 0.510 0.580 861 0.879 * SB LTR 91 1487 0.061 0.580 862 0.106 Cycle Length, C = 50.0 sec. Sum (v/s) critical = 0.733 Lost Time Per Cycle, ... ..... ..... .... __..... ..... ..... L = 6.0 ..... ..... _..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... .... sec. ___..... ..... ..... ..... .... X critical __..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... = 0.833 ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ___________ Level of Service Worksheet _______________________________________________________________________ Direc- Delay Lane Delay Lane Lane Delay LOS tion/ v/c g/C Cycle d Group d Prog Grp Grp By By LnGrp ..... .... .... ..... ..... Ratio ..... .... ..... ..... .... Ratio _.... .... ..... .... Len 1 ..... ..... _..... ..... ..... __..... ..... Cap ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... 2 ..... ..... ..... Fact ..... ... ..... ..... ..... Delay LOS ..... _.... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... .... App App _____ ____ EB LTR 0.38 0.300 50.0 10.5 356 0.4 1.00 10.9 B 10.9 B WB LTR 0.74 0.300 50.0 12.0 454 4.5 1.00 16.4 C 16.4 C NB LTR 0.88 0.580 50.0 6.8 861 7.3 1.00 14.2 B 14.2 B SB LTR 0.11 0.580 50.0 3.6 862 0.0 1.00 3.6 A 3.6 A Intersection _______________________________________________________________________ Delay = 13.7 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B . ^ . HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 1 FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 1 Wentworth Drive Williston, VT 05495 (802) 878-3000 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075PP3.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 PM DHV Comment: 1993 W/ PHASE I TRAFFIC ======================================================================= Fraffic and Roadway Conditions | Eastbound | Westbound 1 Northbound | Southbound |L T |__.... ... ____ R |L ..... ..... ... _|_ T R ..... ..... _ ____ ---- |L |---- T ____ R |L ____|____ ____ T R ____ No. Lanes | > 1 < 1 > 1 < | > 1 < | > 1 < Volumes 1 39 157 2191 164 47 171 117 122 1411 52 245 115 PHF or PK1510.85 0.85 0.8510.85 0.85 0.8510.85 0.85 0.8510.85 0.85 0.85 Lane Width | 12.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.5 Grade | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 % Heavy Veh| 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 Parking | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N Bus Stops | 0| 0| 0| 0 Con. Peds | 0| 0| 0| 0 Ped Button 1(Y/N) N <(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N Arr Type | 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 3 RTOR Vols | 33| 3| 211 17 Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 | 5 6 7 8 EB Left * |NB Left * Thru * | Thru X. Right * | Right * Peds | Peds WB Left * | |SB Left * Thru * | Thru X. Right * | Right * Peds | Peds NB Right | |EB Right SB Right |WB Right Green 13A � !Green 15P Yellow/A-R 6 !Yellow/A-R 6 Lost Time 3.0 Most Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 40 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 / ` HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 2 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075PP3.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 PM DHV Comment: 1993 W/ PHASE I TRAFFIC ======================================================================= Volume Adjustment Worksheet Direc- Lane Lane Adj tion/ Mvt Adj Lane Grp No. Util Growth Grp Prop Prop Mvt _..... ..... ..... _ Vol _.... _..... PHF ... ..... .... ..... Vol ..... ..... ..... ..... Grp ..... ..... ..... ..... Vol Ln ..... ... ..... ..... __ Fact _____ Fact ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Vol ..... ..... ..... ..... LT ..... _..... ..... RT ..... ..... ..... ..... EB Left 39 0.85 46 Thru 157 0.85 185 LTR 450 1 1.000 1.000 450 0.10 0.49 Right 219 0.85 219 WB Left 164 0.85 193 Thru 47 0.85 55 LTR 264 1 1.000 1.000 264 0.73 0.06 Right 17 0.85 16 NB Left 117 0.85 138 Thru 122 0.85 144 LTR 423 1 1.000 1.000 423 0.33 0.33 Right 141 0.85 141 SB Left 52 0.85 61 Thru 245 0.85 288 LTR 464 1 1.000 1.000 464 0.13 0.25 Right 115 0.85 115 Saturation Flow Adjustment Worksheet Direc- Ideal Adj tion/ Sat No. f f f f f f f f Sat LnGrp ______ Flow ____ Lns W ___ _____ HV _____ G _____ p BB _____ _____ A _____ RT _____ LT _____ Flow ____ EB LTR 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 1.00 1493 WB LTR 1800 1 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.60 937 NB LTR 1800 1 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.80 1193 SB LTR 1800 1 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 1503 � HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 3 Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075PP3.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 PM DHV Comment: 1993 W/ PHASE I TRAFFIC ======================================================================= Supplemental Worksheet For Left -Turn Adjustment Factor Input Variables EB WB NO SB Cycle Length, C (sec) 40 40 40 40 Effective Green, G (sac) 16.0 16.0 18.0 18.0 Number of Lanes, N 1 1 1 1 Total Approach Flow Rate, Va (vph) 450 264 423 464 Mainline Flow Rate, Vm (vph) 404 71 285 403 Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt (vph) 46 193 138 61 Proportion of LT, Plt 0.102 0.731 0.326 0.131 Opposing Lanes, No 1 1 1 1 Opposing Flow Rate, Vo (vph) 71 404 403 285 Proportion of LT in Opp. Vol., Plto 0.731 0.102 0.131 0.326 Computations EB WB NB SB ____________________________________________________________________________ Sop=(1800No)/(1+Plto((400+Vm)/(1400-Vm))> 1132 1737 1665 1425 Yo=Vo/Sop 0.063 0.233 0.242 0.200 Gu=(G-C*Yo)/(1-Yo) 14.394 8.727 10.977 12.502 Fs=(875-0.625Vo)/1000 0.831 0.623 0.623 0.697 Pl=Plt(1+((N-1)G)/(Fs*Gu+4.5))) 0.102 0.731 0.326 0.131 Gq=G-Gu 1.606 7.273 7.023 5.498 Pt=1-Pl 0.898 0.269 0.674 0.869 Gf=2Pt(1-(Pt**0.5Gq))/Pl 1.457 0.730 3.098 4.244 El=1800/(1400-Vo) 1.35 1.81 1.81 1.61 Fm=Gf/G+(Gu/G)(1/(1+Pl(El-1))>+(2/G)(1+Pl) 1.097 0.605 0.802 1.004 Flt=(Fm+N-1)/1%.1 ____..... ..... ..... .... ... _____..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... _..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... -------------------------------------- 1.000 0.605 0.802 ..... ..... ..... 1.000 ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ` HCS: Signalized Intersection Version B.I. 4 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075PP3.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-17-93 PM DHV Comment: 1993 W/ PHASE I TRAFFIC ======================================================================= Capacity Analysis Worksheet Direc- Adj Adj Sat Flow Lane Group tion/ Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Green Ratio Capacity v/c LnGrp ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... (v) ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... _..... (s) ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... (v/s) ..... ..... ..... .... _ (g/C) _..... ..... ____.... .... _..... (c) .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... Ratio ..... .... ..... ..... _ EB LTR 450 1493 0.301 0.400 597 0.754 * WB LTR 264 937 0.282 0.400 375 0.704 NB LTR 423 1193 0.355 0.450 537 0.788 * SB LTR 464 1528 0.304 0.450 688 0.675 Cycle Length, C = 40.0 sec. Sum (v/s) critical = 0.656 Lost Time ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Per Cycle, L = 6.0 sec. X critical = 0.772 evel of Service Worksheet Direc- Delay Lane Delay Lane Lane Delay LOS tion/ v/c g/C Cycle d Group d Prog Grp Grp By By LnGrp ----- Ratio ----- Ratio ----- Len ..... ..... ..... .... ..... 1 ... ..... ..... ... ..... Cap ... .... -..... ..... -..... ... 2 ..... ..... Fact ..... ..... .... ..... ..... Delay .... .... ..... ..... ..... LOS ..... ..... .... ..... App ... ..... ..... .... .... App ..... .... -- EB LTR 0.75 0.400 40.0 7.8 597 3.7 1.00 11.6 B 11.6 B WB LTR 0.70 0.400 40.0 7.6 375 4.0 1.00 11.7 B 11.7 B NB LTR 0.79 0.450 40.0 7.1 537 5.3 1.00 12.4 B 12.4 B SB LTR 0.67 0.450 40.0 6.6 688 1.8 1.00 8.4 B 8.4 B Intersection _______________________________________________________________________ Delay = 10.9 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B |CS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 1 [raffic and Roadway Conditions | Eastbound | Westbound 1 Northbound | Southbound |L T R ____ ..... ..... |L ..... ..... |..... ..... .... .... T .... ..... _..... ... R |L _.... ..... | ... .... ..... ..... ..... T ..... ..... ..... R |L ..... ..... ..... _|..... T R ..... ... ..... __..... .... ____ |____ No. Lanes | > 1 < | > 1 < | > 1 < | > 1 < Volumes 1 63 37 471 67 203 891 265 384 1561 6 64 28 PHF or PK1510.90 0.90 0.9010.90 0.90 0.9010.90 0.90 0.9010.90 0.90 0.90 Lane Width | 12.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.5 Grade | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 % Heavy Veh| 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 Parking | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N Bus Stops | 0| 0| 0| 0 Con. Peds | 0| 0| 01 0 Ped Button |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N Arr Type | 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 3 RTOR Vols i _______________________________________________________________________ 7| 13| 231 4 Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 | 5 6 7 8 EB Left * |NB Left * Thru * | Thru * Right * | Right * Peds | Peds � WB Left * |SB Left * Thru * | Thru X. Right X. | Right * Peds 1 Peds NB Right | |EB Right SD Right |WB Right Green 12A | !Green 31P Yellow/A-R 6 !Yellow/A-R 6 Lost Time 3.0 Most Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 55 secs Phase combination order: #1 05 � �-----�- �-----------------r----- ---------- ^ HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 2 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075AP8.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-16-93 AM DHV Comment: 1998 W/ PHASE II TRAFFIC ======================================================================= Volume Adjustment Worksheet Direc- Lane Lane Adj tion/ Mvt Adj Lane Grp No. Util Growth Grp Prop Prop Mvt ..... ..... ... ..... ..... Vol ..... .... ..... ..... PHF ..... ..... ..... ..... Vol ____ Grp ..... ..... ..... ..... Vol ..... ..... .... _ Ln Fact __ ..... ..... ..... ... _ Fact _..... ..... ... ..... ... Vol ..... ..... ..... ..... LT ..... ..... .... ..... RT ..... ..... ..... ..... EB Left 63 0.90 70 Thru 37 0.90 41 LTR 155 1 1.000 1.000 155 0.45 0.28 Right 47 0.90 44 WB Left 67 0.90 74 Thru 203 0.90 226 LTR 385 1 1.000 1.000 385 0.19 0.22 Right 89 0.90 85 NB Left 265 0.90 294 Thru 384 0.90 427 LTR 868 1 1.000 1.000 868 0.34 0.17 Right 156, 0.90 147 SB Left 6 0.90 7 Thru 64 0.90 71 LTR 105 1 1.000 1.000 105 0.07 0.26 Right 28 0.90 27 Saturation Flow Adjustment Worksheet Direc- Ideal Adj tion/ Sat Nof f f f f f f f Sat LnGrp ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Flow ..... ..... ..... .... Lns W ___ _____ I. -IV .... ..... ..... ... _ G ..... ..... ..... .... ..... p ..... ..... ..... ..... ... BB ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... A __.... ..... ..... RT _____ LT ..... ... .... ..... ..... Flow ..... ..... ..... _ EB LTR 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.65 1003 WB LTR 1800 1 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 1512 NB LTR 1800 1 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.96 1458 SB LTR 1800 1 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.94 1439 , HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 3 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075AP8.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-16-93 AM DHV Comment: ======================================================================= 1998 W/ PHASE II TRAFFIC Supplemental Worksheet For Left -Turn Adjustment Factor Input Variables EB WB NB SD _..... .... ..... ..... Cycle Length, C (sec) 55 55 55 55 Effective Green, G (sec) 15.0 15.0 34.0 34.0 Number of Lanes, N 1 1 1 1 Total Approach Flow Rate, Va (vph) 155 385 868 105 Mainline Flow Rate, Vm (vph) 85 311 574 98 Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt (vph) 70 74 294 7 Proportion of LT, Plt 0.452 0.192 0.339 0.067 Opposing Lanes, No 1 1 1 1 Opposing Flow Rate, Vo (vph) 311 85 98 574 Proportion of LT in Opp. Vol., Plto 0.192 0.452 0.067 0.339 ____________________________________________________________________________ Computations EB WB ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... NB .... ..... .... .... _... _... SB ..... ..... ___..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... .... ______..... ... ..... ..... ..... .... .... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... .... _.... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Sop=(1800No)/(1+Plto((400+Vm)/(1400-Vm)>) ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 1681 1390 1669 1594 Yo=Vo/Sop 0.185 0.061 0.059 0.360 Gu=(G-C*Yo)/(1-Yo) 5.919 12.395 32.690 22.177 Fs=(875-0.625Vo)/1000 0.681 0.822 0.814 0.516 PI=Plt(1+((N-1)G)/(Fs*Gu+4.5)>) 0.452 0.192 0.339 0.067 8q=G-Gu 9.081 2.605 1.310 11.823 Pt=1-Pl 0.548 0.808 0.661 0.933 Gf=2Pt(1-(Pt**0.5Gq))/P1 2.270 2.040 0.927 9.378 El=1800/(1403-Vo) 1.65 1.37 1.38 2.18 Fm=Gf/G+(Gu/G)(1/(1+Pl(El-1)))+(2/G)(1+Pl) 0.650 1.067 0.957 0.943 Flt=(Fm+N-1)/N .... ..... ..... -..... ..... ----... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0.650 ..... ..... ..... ... ... ---- 1.000 ..... .... ------------ 0.957 ..... 0.943 ..... ..... ..... -.... ..... ..... ...- ^ . HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 4 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075AP8.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-16-93 AM DHV Comment: 1998 W/ PHASE II TRAFFIC ======================================================================= Capacity Analysis Worksheet Direc- Adj Adj Sat Flow Lane Group tion/ Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Green Ratio Capacity v/c LnGrp ... .... .... ..... ..... (v) ..... __.... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... (s) ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... (v/s) ..... ..... ..... ..... ... (g/C) ... ... ..... ..... _..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... (c) ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Ratio ..... .... ..... __ EB LTR 155 1003 0.155 0.273 274 0.567 WB LTR 385 1512 0.255 0.273 412 0.934 * NB LTR 868 1458 0.595 0.618 901 0.963 * SD LTR 105 1439 0.073 0.618 890 0.118 Cycle Length, C = 55.0 sec. Sum (v/s) critical = 0.850 Lost Time _..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... Per Cycle, ..... _..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... L = 6.0 ..... ..... ..... __..... ..... _..... ..... ..... sec. ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... X critical = ..... .... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0.954 ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... Level of Service Worksheet Direc- Delay Lane Delay Lane Lane Delay LOS tion/ v/c g/C Cycle d Group d Prog Grp Grp By By LnGrp Ratio _..... ..... ..... .... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... Ratio ..... .... ..... ..... ..... Len ..... ..... _..... .... 1 ..... ..... .... .... ..... Cap ... ..... ..... ..... ..... 2 ... ..... ..... ... _ Fact ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Delay ..... ..... ..... _.... LOS ..... ..... ..... ..... App ..... _..... ..... ..... App ..... ..... ..... ..... EB LTR 0.57 0.273 55.0 13.1 274 2.0 1.00 15.1 C 15.1 C WB LTR 0.93 0.273 55.0 14.8 412 20.4 1.00 35.2 D 35.2 D NB LTR 0.96 0.618 55.0 7.5 901 15.9 1.00 23.4 C 23.4 C SB LTR 0.12 0.618 55.0 3.3 890 0.0 1.00 3.3 A 3.3 A Intersection Delay = 24.2 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C JL K K HCS: Signalized Intersection ======================================================================= Version 2.1 1 FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 1 Wentworth Drive Williston, ======================================================================= VT 05495 (802) 878-3000 Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075PP8.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-16-93 PM DHV Comment: 1998 W/ PHASE II TRAFFIC ======================================================================= Traffic and Roadway Conditions ..... ..... __..... ..... ..... _____.... ... ..... ..... ..... _..... ..... .... _______ ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... __ .... ..... .... ... ..... ..... ..... __.... ..... ..... ..... ..... __.... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... | Eastbound | Westbound | Northbound | Southbound No. Lanes |____ ..... ..... .... ..... | > 1 < ..... ___|____ ____ | > 1 .... _.... ... |_..... __ ____ __-_|____ < | > 1 < | ____ > 1 ..... ..... ..... .... < Volumes 1 44 178 2531 189 54 191 134 140 1631 59 283 130 PHF or PK15|0.85 0.85 0.8510.85 0.85 0.8510.85 0.85 0.8510.85 0.85 0.85 Lane Width 1 12.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11,5 Grade | 0 i 0 | 0 | 0 % Heavy Veh( 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 Parking | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N | (Y/N) N { (Y/N) N Bus Stops | 0| 0| 0| 0 Con. Peds i 0\ 0| 0| 0 Ped Button |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N |(Y/N) N Arr Type | 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 3 RTOR Vols _______________________________________________________________________ 38| 3| 251 20 Signal Operation,. Phase combination 1 2 3 4 | 5 6 7 8 EB Left * |NB Left * Thru * | Thru * Right * | Right * Peds 1 Peds WB Left * | |SB Left * Thru * | Thru * Right * | Right * Peds | Peds NB Right | |EB Right BB Right |WB Right Green 13A | !Green 15P Yellow/A-R 6 !Yellow/A-R 6 Lost Time 3.0 Most Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 40 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.1 E Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075PP8.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-16-93 PM DHV Comment: 1998 W/ PHASE II TRAFFIC ======================================================================= Volume Adjustment Worksheet _______________________________________________________________________ Direc- Lane Lane Adj tion/ Mvt Adj Lane Grp No. Util Growth Grp Prop Prop Mvt .... ..... ..... ..... _ Vol _..... ..... .... PHF _..... ..... ..... Vol ..... _..... .... Grp ..... ..... ..... ..... Vol ..... ..... ..... ... Ln Fact __ ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Fact ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Vol _..... ..... ... LT _... ..... ..... RT ... ..... ..... ..... EB Left 44 0.85 52 Thru 178 0.85 209 LTR 514 1 1.000 1.000 514 0.10 0.49 Right 253 0.85 253 WB Left 189 0.85 222 Thru 54 0.85 64 LTR 304 1 1.000 1.000 304 0.73 0.06 Right 19 0.85 18 NB Left 134 0.85 158 Thru 140 0.85 165 LTR 486 1 1.000 1.000 486 0.33 0.34 Right 163 0.85 163 SD Left 59 0.85 69 Thru 283 0.85 333 LTR 531 1 1.000 1.000 531 0.13 0.24 Right _______________________________________________________________________ 130 0.85 129 � Saturation Flow Adjustment Worksheet Direc- Ideal Adj tion/ Sat No. f f f f f f f f Sat LnGrp Flow ____ Lns ___ W _____ HV _____ G _____ p _____ _____ BB A _____ RT _____ LT _____ Flow ____ EB LTR 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 1.00 1493 WB LTR 1800 1 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.54 829 NB LTR 1830 1 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.74 1098 SB LTR 1800 1 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.98 1496 ° HCS: Siqnalized Intersection Version 2.1 3 Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075PP8.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-16-93 PM DHV Comment: 1998 W/ PHASE II TRAFFIC ======================================================================= Supplemental Worksheet For Left -Turn Adjustment Factor - Input Variables ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... EB ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... .... WB ... ..... ___..... ..... ..... ..... NB ..... _.... .... ..... ..... ..... SB ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... _.... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Cycle Length, C (sec) 40 40 40 40 Effective Green, G (sec) 16.0 16.0 18.0 18.0 Number of Lanes, N 1 1 1 1 Total Approach Flow Rate, Va (vph) 514 304 486 531 Mainline Flow Rate, Vm (vph) 462 82 328 462 Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt (vph) 52 222 158 69 Proportion of LT, Plt 0.101 0.730 0.325 0.130 Opposing Lanes, No 1 1 1 1 Opposing Flow Rate, Vo (vph) 82 462 462 328 Proportion of LT in Opp. Vol., Plto ____________________________________________________________________________ 0.730 0.101 0.130 0.325 Computations ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... EB ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... WB ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... NB ..... ..... ..... --..... ..... SB ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ... -----.... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... -------..... --.... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Sop=(1800No)/(1+Plto((400+Vm)/(1400-Vm))) 1077 1736 1654 1386 Yo=Vo/Sop 0.076 0.266 0.279 0.237 Gu=(G-C*Yo)/(1-Y0) 14.022 7.295 9.473 11.179 Fs=(875-0.625Vo)/1000 0.824 0.586 0.586 0.670 Pl=Plt(1+((N-1)G)/(Fs*Gu+4.5)>) 0.101 0.730 0.325 0.130 Gq=G-GU 1.978 8.705 8.527 6.821 Pt=1-Pl 0.899 0.270 0.675 0.870 Gf=2Pt(1-(Pt**0.5Gq))/Pl 1.779 0.736 3.375 5.061 El=1800/(1400-Vo) 1.37 1.92 1.92 1.68 Fm=Gf/G+(Gu/G)(1/(1+Pl(El-1)))+(2/G)(1+Pl) 1.094 0.535 0.740 0.977 Flt=(Fm+N-1)/N 1.000 0.535 0.740 0.977 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ` ' HCS: Signalized Intersection Version R.J. 4 ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: D. CONGER File Name: 92075PP8.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-16-93 PM DHV Comment: ======================================================================= 1998 W/ PHASE II TRAFFIC Capacity Analysis Worksheet Direc- Adj Adj Sat Flow Lane Group tion/ Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Green Ratio Capacity v/c LnGrp (v) (s) (v/s) (g/C) ..... ..... (c) ..... ..... ..... ... ..... Ratio ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... _ ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... EB ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... _ _... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... .... ... ... LTR 514 1493 0.344 0.400 597 0.861 WB LTR 304 829 0.367 0.400 332 0.917 * NB LTR 486 1098 0.443 0.450 494 0.984 * GB LTR 531 1496 0.355 0.450 673 0.789 Cycle Length, C = 40.0 sec. Sum (v/s) critical = 0.809 Lost Time _.... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... Per Cycle, .... ..... ____________________________________________________________ L = 6.0 sec. X critical = 0.952 evel of Service Worksheet Direc- Delay Lane Delay Lane Lane Delay LOS tion/ v/c g/C Cycle d Group d Prog Grp Grp By By LnGrp ..... ..... .... __ Ratio _____ Ratio __..... __ Len .... ..... ..... ..... ..... 1 ..... ..... .... __ Cap ..... ..... ..... .... ..... 2 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Fact ..... ..... _..... ..... Delay ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... LOS ..... ..... ..... ... App ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... App ..... ..... __ EB LTR 0.86 0.400 40.0 8.3 597 8.6 1.00 16.9 C 16.9 C WI:." LTR 0.92 0.400 40.0 8.6 332 20.8 1.00 29.4 D 29.4 D NB LTR 0.98 0.450 40.0 8.2 494 27.3 1.00 35.5 D 35.5 D SB LTR 0.79 0.450 40.0 7.1 673 4.4 1.00 11.5 B 11.5 B Intersection Delay = 22.3 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C a M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer Re: May 26, 1992 Preliminary Comments Date: May 12, 1992 BUSINESS PARK NORTH - LOT #3, KIMBALL AVENUE 1. Existing curb cuts not to be used shall be closed by removing the existing depressed curb and constructing a regular curb. 2. Existing sidewalk thickness at proposed driveways shall be 8 inches. VERMONT GAS SYSTEMS GARAGE, 31 SWIFT STREET Site Plan dated April 22, 1992 is acceptable. PERRY'S FISH HOUSE SHELBURNE ROAD - BALDWIN AVENUE 1. The planter at the corner of Baldwin Avenue is almost entirely within Shelburne Road r.o.w. The radius of the curb at this corner is planned to be increased to accommodate school busses. The owner should anticipate moving this planter when this work is done. NOWLAND PROPERTY. SPEAR STREET 1. The area should be sewered to the Bartlett Bay sewage treatment plant by a gravity line. Any temporary hookup to the Airport Parkway plant should be maintained by the developer or an association of home owners including the pumping station. If this is done it will require the upgrading of the Swift Estates pumping station to accommodate the increased flow. It may also require a larger force from that station. When the Bartlett Bay plant is increased in capacity the work required to connect. this development to the plant should be the responsibility of the developer. This may require the upgrading of S I Preliminary Comments - City Engineer May 26, 1992 agenda items May 12, 1992 Page 2 the Deerfield Road pumping station. It may also require the upgrading of some of the gravity lines in the Meadowood at Spear development and westerly across the Green Mountain Power property to the plant.. 2. The street r.o.w. should not be used as a parking lot as shown in the area of the playground. This would require cars to back out on to a public street. It also creates problems for street maintenance especially snow plowing. .SOUTHEAST SUMMIT. DORSET STREET 1. Pumping sewage approximately 3 miles will be expensive. This pump cost and the maintenance the pumping station and force main shouid be the developer's or a home owner association's responsibility. The force main terminates at Kennedy Drive on that portion of Dorset Street that is being reconstructed. That p.::rr•t.ion of force main should be put in now during the reconstruction not. after Dorset. Street is complete. 2. Water service to serve this development will require extension of existing system a distance of approximately 8,000 feet. This water main extension serving this large development should be looped either to Spear Street or to Hinesburg Road. DORSET STREET CITY PARK 1 have met with the consultants at least three times recently and the plans submitted dated May 8, 1992 conform with my rec->mmendations and are acceptable. M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer Re: Preliminary Comments August 10, 1993 agenda items Date: July 20, 1993 AUDIO -VIDEO AUTHORITY, SHELBURNE ROAD Normally the City would request that the site improvements include a sidewalk across the frontage, however, the improvements to Shelburne Road in the area will include sidewalks. CALKINS PROPERTY - LOT #2 - CALKINS COURT Plan prepared by Vermont Land Surveyors dated April 23, 1993 is acceptable. NOWLAND TWO - SPEAR STREET 1. M.H. B-50 should included a 8 inch stub to the north extended about 85 feet for sewering the adjacent area. 2. M.H. S-2 and M.H.S-1 should include stubs so line can be extended north and south on Spear Street. 3. The sewer line on Spear Street should include Y-Branches so that the existing lots can hook on. The plan shows a connection for only the Meredith property. It should include Atkin's, Gagnon, Chiu and all the IBIS lots. The Chiu property has a 4 inch service in the approximate location of the proposed sewer and it runs down Deerfield to the first manhole. It should be abandoned. 4. Trees must not be planted on top of water and sewer mains. They should be planted at least 10 feet away. 5. In a memo dated May 12, 1992, it was stated that the gravity line leading to the Bartletts Bay plant must be checked for capacity especially sections that have a flat grade. This must be done before the project can proceed. 6. The Deerfield Drive Extension intersection with Spear should include widening to accommodate two exit lanes. Preliminary Memo - City Engineer August 10, 1993 agenda items July 20, 1993 Page 2 7. The drainage along the Spear Street frontage of lot no. 8 should be piped. The flat ditch will result in a swampy area. If a retention basin is required it should be entirely on lot 8. 8. A street lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval. 9. Telephone and electric underground utilities shall be outside of the street r.o.w. in easements. 10. The developer shall erect all street and traffic control signs. Type of signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City. TO: FROM: DATE: RE: 1. 2. 3. �§vuth ISuriingtvn Yire Department 575 Dona -1krrrt gnuth Nurlingtnn, Urrmunt 115403 SO. BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION CHIEF GODDETTE MONDAY JULY 190-1993 TUESDAY AUGUST 10,1993 AGENDA ITEMS LELAND AND PATRICIA CALKINS CALKINS COURT LOT #2 PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND AT THIS TIME I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM WITH CHANGES FOR THE SIDE WALK AND PARKING SPACES BEING ADDED WHICH WOULD EFFECT EMERGENCY PROTECTION. ANTONIO POMERLEAU SHELBURNE ROAD PROJECT #93165 OLD GE BUILDING (802) 658-7960 THE PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THIS DEPARTMENT AND AT THIS TIME I DO NOT SEE WHERE IT WOULD EFFECT EMERGENCY SERVICES. UNIVERSITY MALL DORSET STREET PROJECT # 6699.5 PLAN REVIEWED AND THE CHANGE WITH THE PARKING DOSE NOT EFFECT GIVEN EMERGENCY PROTECTION IF NEEDED. 4. NOWLAND TWO PROPERTY PROJECT #92045 PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND THE CHANGES MADE WILL NOT EFFECT THE DEPARTMENT IF EMERGENCY SERVICE IS NEEDED. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 December 4, 1992 Mr. John Steele FitzPatrick-Llewellyn, :Cnc. One Wentworth Drive Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: Southeast Summit and Nowland I3-PRD ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Dear Mr. Steele: Enclosed is an agenda for r:ext Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, December 8, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. present your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. i cfe&_1 , je Weith, City Planner Encls ` JW/mcp cc: Gerald Milot John Lai -kin February 1993 Nowland Two Subdivision, Spear Street, South Burlington 92045 Table of height limitations for structures within the Dorset Park View Protection Zones (VPZ) A and D Key Notes 1. Lot number according to drawing: D 4382 2. Dorset Park View Protection Zone, A or D 3. Distance from Dorset Park VPZ baseline to house lot 4. Existing house lot grade 5. Ceiling height relative to Dorset Park VPZ Baseline 6. Road centerline grade adjacent to house lot 7. First floor elevation (road centerline grade plus 5 feet) 8. Maximum height of structures, first floor elevation to ridgeline (ceiling height minus FFE). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (6)+5.0' (5)-(7) Lot # VPZ Dist. Exist Grade Ceiling Height Rd. C.L. Grade 1st F1. Elev. Max. Height 1 A 5900 391.0 416.7 390.5 395.5 21.2 2 A 5900 390.0 416.7 389.5 394.5 22.2 3 A 5850 389.0 416.9 388.8 393.4 23.5 4 A 5850 388.0 416.9 388.4 393.4 23.5 5 A 5850 387.0 416.9 387.9 392.9 24.0 6 A 5850 386.0 416.9 387.0 392.0 24.9 7 D 5900 384.0 430.9 386.0 391.0 39.9 8 D 6000 382.0 430.8 385.2 390.2 40.6 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services File: 92045 Cont. Table of height limitations for structures, within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone (VPZ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (6)+5.0' (5)-(7) Lot # VPZ Dist. Exist Grade Ceiling Height Rd. C.L. Grade 1st F1. Elev. Max. Height 9 D 6000 380.0 430.8 384.2 389.2 41.6 10 D 6100 380.0 430.7 384.1 389.1 41.6 11 D 5900 388.0 430.9 387.0 392.0 38.9 12 D 5850 386.0 430.9 384.0 389.0 41.9 13 D 5850 386.0 430.9 383.8 388.8 42.1 14 D 5800 386.0 430.9 384.4 389.4 41.5 15 D 5800 386.0 430.9 384.8 389.8 41.1 16 D 5750 387.0 431.0 385.4 390.4 40.6 17 D 5720 388.0 431.0 385.9 390.9 40.1 18 D 5700 389.0 431.0 386.5 391.5 39.5 19 A 5650 390.0 417.5 386.8 391.8 25.7 20 A 5650 390.0 417.5 387.4 392.4 25.1 21 A 5600 390.0 417.6 387.8 392.8 24.8 22 A 5620 389.5 417.6 388.3 393.3 24.3 23 A 5500 392.0 417.9 390.5 395.5 22.4 24 A 5500 392.0 417.9 391.5 396.5 21.4 25 A 5500 392.0 417.9 392.2 397.2 20.7 26 A 5520 392.0 417.9 392.6 397.6 20.3 27 D 5550 392.5 431.1 393.0 398.0 33.1 28 D 5560 393.0 431.1 393.2 398.2 32.9 29 D 5600 393.0 431.1 393.5 398.5 32.6 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services File: 92045 cont. Table of height limitations for structures, within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone (VPZ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (6)+5.0' (5)-(7) Lot # VPZ Dist. Exist Grade Ceiling Height Rd. C.L. Grade 1st F1. Elev. Max. Height 30 D 5610 391.0 431.1 393.3 398.3 32.8 31 D 5650 392.5 431.0 393.0 398.0 33.0 32 D 5680 392.0 431.0 392.5 397.5 33.5 33 D 5720 391.0 431.0 391.0 396.0 35.0 34 D 5780 391.5 431.0 389.5 394.5 36.5 35 D 5680 391.0 431.0 390.5 395.5 35.5 36 D 5560 390.0 431.1 391.5 396.5 34.6 37 D 5520 391.0 431.2 392.2 397.2 34.0 38 D 5500 390.5 431.2 393.8 398.8 32.4 39 D 5460 391.0 431.2 393.2 398.2 33.0 40 D 5420 391.0 431.2 393.4 398.4 32.8 41 D 5400 391.0 431.2 393.3 398.3 32.9 42 D 5370 391.0 431.3 393.1 398.1 33.2 43 D 5350 391.0 431.3 392.8 397.8 33.5 44 A 5330 391.5 418.5 392.3 397.3 21.2 45 A 5300 390.5 418.6 392.0 397.0 21.6 46 A 5280 390.0 418.6 392.2 397.2 21.4 47 A 5300 390.0 418.6 390.6 395.6 23.0 48 A 5340 390.5 418.5 390.2 395.2 23.3 49 A 5420 391.5 418.2 389.9 394.9 23.3 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services File: 92045 cont. Table of height limitations for structures, within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone (VPZ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (6)+5.0' (5)-(7) Lot # VPZ Dist. Exist Grade Ceiling Height Rd. C.L. Grade 1st Fl. Elev. Max. Height 50 A 5540 390.5 417.8 389.4 394.4 23.4 51 A 5660 389.0 417.5 389.0 394.0 23.5 52 A 5660 389.5 417.5 389.8 394.8 22.7 53 A 5660 389.5 417.5 390.5 395.5 22.0 54 A 4900 392.0 419.8 394.5 399.5 20.3 55 A 4900 392.0 419.8 395.2 400.2 19.6 56 A 4950 392.0 419.7 395.6 400.6 19.1 57 A 4950 392.0 419.7 396.2 401.2 18.5 58 A 4970 393.5 419.6 396.8 401.8 17.8 59 A 5000 392.0 419.5 397.2 402.2 17.3 60 A 5000 391.5 419.5 397.6 402.6 16.9 61 D 5000 391.0 431.5 398.1 403.1 28.4 62 D 5000 391.0 431.5 398.1 403.1 28.4 63 D 5000 391.0 431.5 398.1 403.1 28.4 64 D 4840 393.0 431.6 398.1 403.1 28.5 65 D 4740 393.5 431.7 398.1 403.1 28.6 66 A 4800 392.5 431.6 398.1 403.1 28.5 67 A 4800 392.5 420.1 397.5 402.5 17.6 68 A 4800 392.5 420.1 397.0 402.0 18.1 69 A 4780 392.5 420.2 396.5 401.5 18.7 FITZPATRIC K- LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services File: 92045 cont. Table of height limitations for structures, within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone (VPZ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (6)+5.0' (5)-(7) Lot # VPZ Dist. Exist Grade Ceiling Height Rd. C.L. Grade 1st F1. Elev. Max. Height 70 A 4750 392.5 420.3 396.0 401.0 19.3 71 A 4750 392.5 420.3 395.5 400.5 19.8 72 A 4730 392.5 420.3 395.0 400.0 20.3 73 A 4700 393.0 420.4 394.5 399.5 20.9 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 August 6, 1993 John Steele FitzPatrick-Llewellyn, Inc. One Wentworth Drive Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: Nowland II PRD, Spear Street Dear Mr. Steele: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and comments from City Engineer Bill Szymanski and myself. Comments from Fire Chief Jim Goddette were sent to you at an earlier date. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, August 10, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. S7eWeith, rely, , t�c-k City Planner Encls JW/mcp cc: Gerald Milot John Larkin M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer Re: Preliminary Comments August 10, 1993 agenda items Date: August 6, 1993 AUDIO -VIDEO AUTHORITY, SHELBURNE ROAD Normally the City would request that the site improvements include a sidewalk across the frontage, however, the improvements to Shelburne Road in the area will include sidewalks. CALKINS PROPERTY - LOT #2 - CALKINS COURT Plan prepared by Vermont Land Surveyors dated April 23, 1993 is acceptable. NOWLAND TWO - SPEAR STREET Comments dated July 20, 1993 have been addressed on plans received July 30, 1993 including the checking of the capacity of sewer mains the project will discharge to. PILLSBURY MANOR III - WILLISTON ROAD 1. The retention basin limits to rate of discharge from the site to a rate that existed prior to any development of the site. If there is a drainage problem it most likely the result of restrictions of the discharge point behind the Grand Union. Beavers are active in the area and are constantly restricting the free flow of the discharge pipe. 2. Plans received August 3, 1993 prepared by Krebs & Lansing are acceptable. UNIVERSITY MALL - PARKING LOT EXPANSION - DORSET STREET 1. Plans which include site drainage received August 4, 1993 prepared by Pinkham Engineering are acceptable. July 1993 Nowland Two Subdivision, Spear Street, South Burlington 92045 TABLE OF HEIGHT LII+ITATIONS FOR STRUCTURES WITHIN THE DORSET PARK VIEW PROTECTION ZONES Zone A, Section 25.401; and Zone D, Section 25.407. Key Notes 1. Lot number according to drawing: D 4382 2. Dorset Park View Protection Zone (VPZ), A or D 3. Distance from Dorset Park VPZ baseline to center of house lot 4. Existing house lot grade 5. Ceiling height relative to Dorset Park VPZ Baseline VPZ A: ceiling height = 435'-3.1 (distance/1000) VPZ D: ceiling height = 435'- .7 (distance/1000) 6. Road centerline grade adjacent to house lot 7. First floor elevation (road centerline grade plus 5 feet) 8. Maximum height of structures, first floor elevation to ridgeline (ceiling height minus FFE). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (6)+5.0' (5)-(7) Lot # VPZ Dist. Exist Grade Ceiling Height Rd. C.L. Grade 1st F1. Elev. Max. Height 1 A 5900 391.0 416.7 390.5 395.5 21.2 2 A 5900 390.0 416.7 389.5 394.5 22.2 3 A 5850 387.0 416.9 387.9 392.9 24.0 4 A 5850 386.0 416.9 387.0 392.0 24.9 5 D 5900 384.0 430.9 386.0 391.0 39.9 6 D 6000 382.0 430.8 385.2 390.2 40.6 7 D 6000 380.0 430.8 384.2 389.2 41.6 8 D 6100 380.0 430.7 384.1 389.1 41.6 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services File: 92045 cont. Table of height limitations for structures, within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone (VPZ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (6)+5.0' (5)-(7) Lot # VPZ Dist. Exist Grade Ceiling Height Rd. C.L. Grade 1st F1. Elev. Max. Height 9 D 5900 388.0 430.9 387.0 392.0 38.9 10 D 5850 386.0 430.9 384.0 389.0 41.9 11 D 5850 386.0 430.9 383.8 388.8 42.1 12 D 5800 386.0 430.9 384.4 389.4 41.5 13 D 5800 386.0 430.9 384.8 389.8 41.1 14 D 5750 387.0 431.0 385.4 390.4 40.6 15 D 5720 388.0 431.0 385.9 390.9 40.1 16 A 5650 390.0 417.5 386.8 391.8 25.7 17 A 5650 390.0 417.5 386.8 391.8 25.7 18 A 5650 390.0 417.5 387.4 392.4 25.1 19 A 5600 390.0 417.6 387.8 392.8 24.8 20 A 5620 389.5 417.6 388.3 393.3 24.3 21 A 5500 392.0 417.9 390.5 395.5 22.4 22 A 5500 392.0 417.9 391.5 396.5 21.4 23 A 5500 392.0 417.9 392.2 397.2 20.7 24 D 5550 392.5 431.1 393.0 398.0 33.1 25 D 5550 392.5 431.1 393.0 398.0 33.1 26 D 5560 393.0 431.1 393.2 398.2 32.9 27 D 5600 393.0 431.1 393.5 398.5 32.6 28 D 5610 391.0 431.1 393.3 398.3 32.8 29 I D I 5650 I 1 J 7 G. U I A'11 n It J 1. U I 7n� n J J J. U I '2 a ri J J U. U I '2Z ii J,• v FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services File: 92045 cont. Table of height limitations for structures, within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone (VPZ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (6)+5.0' (5)-(7) Lot # VPZ Dist. Exist Grade Ceiling Height Rd. C.L. Grade 1st F1. Elev. Max. Height 30 D 5680 392.0 431.0 392.5 397.5 33.5 31 D 5720 391.0 431.0 391.0 396.0 35.0 32 D 5780 391.5 431.0 389.5 394.5 36.5 33 D 5680 391.0 431.0 390.5 395.5 35.5 34 D 5560 390.0 431.1 391.5 396.5 34.6 35 D 5520 391.0 431.2 392.2 397.2 34.0 36 D 5500 390.5 431.2 393.8 398.8 32.4 37 D 5460 391.0 431.2 393.2 398.2 33.0 38 D 5420 391.0 431.2 393.4 398.4 32.8 39 D 5400 391.0 431.2 393.3 398.3 32.9 40 D 5370 391.0 431.3 393.1 398.1 33.2 41 D 5350 391.0 431.3 392.8 397.8 33.5 42 A 5330 391.5 418.5 392.3 397.3 21.2 43 A 5300 390.5 418.6 392.0 397.0 21.6 44 A 5280 390.0 418.6 392.2 397.2 21.4 45 A 5300 390.0 418.6 390.6 395.6 23.0 46 A 5340 390.5 418.5 390.2 395.2 23.3 47 A 5420 391.5 418.2 389.9 394.9 23.3 48 A 5540 390.5 417.8 389.4 394.4 23.4 49 A 5660 389.0 417.5 389.0 394.0 23.5 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services File: 92045 Cont. Table of height limitations for structures, within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone (VPZ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (6)+5.0' (5)-(7) Lot # VPZ Dist. Exist Grade Ceiling Height Rd. C.L. Grade 1st F1. Elev. Max. Height 50 A 5660 389.5 417.5 389.8 394.8 22.7 51 A 5660 389.5 417.5 390.5 395.5 22.0 52 A 4900 392.0 419.8 394.5 399.5 20.3 53 A 4900 392.0 419.8 395.2 400.2 19.6 54 A 4950 392.0 419.7 395.6 400.6 19.1 55 A 4950 392.0 419.7 396.2 401.2 18.5 56 A 4970 393.5 419.6 396.8 401.8 17.8 57 A 5000 392.0 419.5 397.2 402.2 17.3 58 A 5000 391.5 419.5 397.6 402.6 16.9 59 D 5000 391.0 431.5 398.1 403.1 28.4 60 D 5000 391.0 431.5 398.1 403.1 28.4 61 D 5000 391.0 431.5 398.1 403.1 28.4 62 D 5000 391.0 431.5 398.1 403.1 28.4 63 D 4840 393.0 431.6 398.1 403.1 28.5 64 D 4740 393.5 431.7 398.1 403.1 28.6 65 D 4800 392.5 431.6 398.1 403.1 28.5 66 D 4800 392.5 431.6 398.1 403.1 28.5 67 A 4800 392.5 420.1 397.5 402.5 17.6 68 A 4800 392.5 420.1 397.0 402.0 18.1 69 A 4780 392.5 420.2 396.5 401.5 18.7 FITZPATRIC K- LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services File: 92045 cont. Table of height limitations for structures, within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone (VPZ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (6)+5.0' (5)-(7) Lot # VPZ Dist. Exist Grade Ceiling Height Rd. C.L. Grade 1st F1. Elev. Max. Height 70 A 4750 392.5 420.3 396.0 401.0 19.3 71 A 4750 392.5 420.3 395.5 400.5 19.8 72 A 4730 392.5 420.3 395.0 400.0 20.3 73 A 4700 393.0 420.4 394.5 399.5 20.9 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services One Wentworth Drive • Williston • Vermont • 05495 • (802) 878-3000 30 July 1993 Mr. Raymond J. Belair, Planning Assistant City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Nowland II Final Plat Submission, Revised Plant List and Landscape Plan FILE: 92045 Dear Mr. Belair: In response to findings #11 and #22 and condition 12b) of the 3/30/93 Planning Commission decision, we have revised the plant list and made adjustments to the landscape plan (sheet 20 of 20). As a general comment, it is worth noting that determining tree heights at maturity is not an exact science and that estimates vary depending upon the source. There are many factors that determine the mature height including: plant species and variety microclimate, exposure, soil type, nutrients, availability of water size of tree when planted, care and maintenance. It is assumed that heavy Vergennes clay soils, in which most of the trees will be planted, will limit tree growth. The mature height of the trees planted on this site will be significantly less than the mature heights provided by the State Urban and Community Forestry Program and wholesale nurseries. To help insure that street trees will not exceed the ceiling established by the Dorset Park View Protection Zone, Hackberry trees were substituted for Green Ash, Hornbeam trees for Red Maple, and smaller Tatarian Maples replaced Hedge Maples. As discussed, we are submitting a revised Table of Height Limitations reflecting changes in the lot layout presented at the Preliminary Plat Hearing. Design 0 Inspection 0 Studies 0 Permitting 0 Surveying Mr. Raymond J. Belair FILE: 92045 30 July 1993 Page Two I trust that these changes will satisfy the conditions for Final Plan approval. Sincerely, FITZPATRICK-LLEWEL YN INCORPORATED ohn Steele cc: Gerald Milot, John Larkin Enclosures JAS#5/baf:92045-4 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Raymond J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant Re: August 10, 1993 agenda items Date: July 20, 1993 NOWLAND II - 73 UNIT PRD - FINAL PLAT --- applicant should submit a "Notice of Condition" addressing the requirement of two (2) trees on each lot, addressing the height limitations for structures and landscaping on each lot, and addressing the requirement of the homeowner's association to maintain the community mailbox area and all drainage ditches for review by the City Attorney. --- note on sheet 20 states that there will be a 50 foot distance maintained between the limits of the wetland and the bikepath but this buffer is not maintained along lots 52-55. --- the applicant should submit the legal documents for all public streets and easements for review by the City Attorney. --- applicant should submit a "Notice of Decision" addressing the building envelopes on lots #8-11 (now lots #5-8) and purpose and restrictions thereof for review by the City Attorney. --- condition 12k of the preliminary approval conditions has not been met, applicant has not added landscaping along the side of lots closest to Spear Street to lessen or .soften the visual impact of this development from Spear Street. --- acreage of lots #9-18 on sheets 7 and 8 should be indicated. --- the landscaping issue needs to be resolved, proposed trees appear to exceed the height limitations. --- street trees along south side of Deerfield Drive must have a minimum 2" caliper (1.5"-2" are proposed). --- lot numbers must be numbered the same on the landscaping plan as on the other plans. Subdivision plat: --- the length of the street frontage of lot A is missing. --- add the location of the bikepath and drainage easements and label them. --- survey data should be provided for the south side of Deerfield Drive. --- use the street names shown on the engineering drawings. - monuments should be shown on lots #52 and 73 along the street r.o.w. Preliminary Memo - Planning August 10, 1993 agenda items July 20, 1993 Page 2 --- the frontage distance for lots #53 and 54 are missing. --- an iron pin should be shown on the west side where lots #57 and 58 meet. --- provide width of Nowland Drive at Spear Street. RICHARD SCOTT - RETAIL ELECTRONICS SALES - SKETCH PLAN --- provide information on previous use of building including number of employees. --- unless applicant can demonstrate otherwise, it appears that the Jiffy Lube building and the building under application are on the same lot. Plan should be revised to show the entire lot on which these two (2) buildings are situated. Since there are two (2) principal buildings on one (1) lot and the lot is over four (4) acres it must be treated as a PCD. A PCD is a major subdivision which would require this project to be reviewed in a two (2) step process, sketch plan review and then revised final plat. --- provide building, overall and front yard coverage percentages for the lot as a whole. --- provide landscaping details for the Jiffy Lube building. --- ADA Accessibility Guidelines require a parking area of this size to have two (2) handicapped parking spaces. --- if.a dumpster will be used, it must. be shown on the plan and suitably screened. --- existing and proposed exterior lighting details must be submitted. --- the parking spaces along the rear should be striped prior to occupancy. LELAND & PATRICIA CALKINS - PARKING CHANGES - SITE PLAN --- plan does not accurately depict main entrance. --- if any portion of dumpster area along easterly property line is on lot #2, it should be shown on the site plan. --- dumpster at rear of property must be shown and suitably screened. --- outside storage must either be eliminated or approval obtained from the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Planning Commission. --- gravel access connecting lot #2 with lot #3 must be shown and the gravel area included in the overall coverage calculation. L 0 1 N/F UNDERM30D {Y AC-tC,-14' \7\� 4 �54 55 56 57 5B 59 ! 60� 61:T- _..,'-'---------------- 1: N/F ECONOMOU FARMS INC. /r%9 X oZl • cr .w ✓e NOTES 1. OWNER / APPLICANT.• LARKIN MILOT PARTNERSHIP v✓!K 1/, 410 SHELBURNE ROAD �• I BURLINGTON, WRMGNT N IF A WIN 2 ZONED: SOUTHEAST GUAORANT I TOTAL PARCEL AREA: 66.7 ACRES .. n'•�r7 f. S" f N/T HANSON FAN TT ; 40) ' ! 3,9 3B' ,'3T1, ' ; 36' N/F FARRELL fT. AL. COMMON LAND I B , ... _.. 10' UNITY EAsEwNt ' DELINEATED METLAND LRNTS N/F ISHAM 4. PERIMETER PROPERTY LINE INFORMA7TON TAKEN FROM PLAN ENTITLED NOWLAND PROPERTY R - SUBDINSION PLAN' BY n77PA7RIOC - LLEN£LLYN INC; NUMBER D-3979 / D-3880, DATED MARCH 1991. 5. TOPOGRAPHIC AND EXISTING FEATURES INFORMA17ON BY nTZPATRICK-LLENEU.NV 6. PROPERTY LINE INFORMA7►ON FOR STNFT ESTATES TAKEN FROM TAX MAPS PROND£D BY THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON. 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 73 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 66.7 ACRES ON THE EAST SIDE OF SPEAR STREET /N SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT. 7068 (+/-) LINEAR FEET OF ROADWAY WITH CURBS BOTH SIDES AND SIDEWALK ONE SIDE WITHIN A PROPOSED OTY R.O.W. 6500 (+/-) LINEAR FEET OF 8' WATER MAIN FROM EXIS77NG WATER MAIN ON SPEAR STREET AT THE DEERF7ELD DRIVE INTERSECTION. 5500 (+-) LINEAR FEET OF STORM COLLEC77ON SEVER DISCHARGING TO THREE PROPOSED DETENTION BASINS 8. STREET NAMES SHOWN /N PARENTHESIS ARE PROPOSED ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO OWNER / CITY APPROVAL. RECEIVED JAN 0 5 1993 City of So. Burlington (;UAI'III(' �('AlI I RENffD ROADWAY AND SOW LOTS N0. REN9'ONS DAI IT /S THE USERS RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THESE DRAWINGS INCLUDE THE LATEST REVISIONS. PRELIMINARY PLAT ACT 250 FINAL PLAT CONSTRUCTION NOWLAND TW01 OVERALL SITE PLAN cm 9z FH4�pQ4a�C�a L���>1n����t1n W INCORPORATED VLY 199? BND D - 4382 t, JAt1 r 1MLLISTON VERMONT 3 ^'' 19 ._.-- -_._I._... lt5 I'3 - 75-?- 72 7 9 Ane MEMORANDUM TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: WILLIAM A. GILBEt3N11 DATE: February 9, 1993 V RE: NOWLAND TWO OVERALL SITE PLAN 1/5/93 The following comments reflect my observations on the Preliminary Plat Plan approval request that is before the Commission on February 9, 1993. They relate to the 'Overall Site Plan" received by the City of South Burlington on January 5, 1993 for the Nowland Two Parcel. Notice of the February 9, 1993 was dated January 30, 1993. No sketch plan approval of the January 5, 1993 "Overall Site Plan" has been granted by the South Burlington Planning Commission. I. Procedural Issues Procedurally, the Planning Commission may either approve or deny the preliminary site plan submitted on January 5, 1993 by the Applicant. The Applicant has chosen to ignore the sketch p plan process with respect to the January 5 design and is therefore procedurally not seeking comments from the Planning Commission, but rather approval.' --IAZZ� .CA. Sep A. Notice of hearing is inadequate. t.GCt-.nt✓ The notice of the February 9 hearing is dated January 30, 1993.r Required notice is greater than nine days. ' Previous plans for the Nowland Two property have been submitted by the applicant in the spring of 1992 for sketch plan approval. They are completely unrelated to the January 5th filing and indeed were superseded by a December, 1992 effort to obtain a Transfer of Development Rights ("TDR"). At the December 8, 1992 Planning Commission meeting the applicant withdrew the TDR proposal and indicated on the record that it would apply for a separate planned residential development ("PRD") on the Nowland Two parcel during January. Therefore, the January 5 filing of the Overall Site Plan reflects the applicant's choice to commence a new process with a new plan for Nowland Two. By ignoring the sketch plan review process that would be available, the applicant, at its own election, puts the Planning Commission in the position of a simple yes or no answer to the plan as submitted. The correct answer is no. B. 24 V.S.A. § 4407(3). The Applicant has not submitted to the Planning Commission the submissions required under 24 V.S.A. § 4407(3) relating to cj v� planned residential development. ,a -�•&�.._,a ��' C. South Burlington Zoning Regulations.'"�' The Applicant has not complied with South Burlington Zoning Regulation 26.606D which requires: D. In developing a plan which maximizes the goals identified above, the developer shall rely on specific site analyses, inventory maps contained in the Comprehensive Plan, and planning studies such a (sic) the "Public Improvements and Scenic Views/Natural Areas Protection Study Phases I and II. " For example, the Applicant has refused to provide to the Planning Commission for comparison purposes a site plan which discloses the location of "Restricted Areas" designated in the Southeast Quadrant District ("SEQ") identified on the map entitled ___ "Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map" ("SEQ Map") which is incorporated into and required by Article 26 of the South Burlington, Vermont Zoning Regulations. In addition, Applicant has refused to provide a detailed wetland delineation study and+' map. Finally, Applicant has refused to provide a "standard" or "euclidian" site plan for the subject parcel which would reflect the layout of units on the parcel allowed by the South Burlington Zoning Ordinance without PRD approval. Without such a standard plat plan the Commission cannot begin to know what, if any, PRD density bonus may be warranted. II. Issues Relatinct to Densit The parcel in question contains 66.7 acres and lies in the SEQ. SEQ zoning is established by the interrelationship of Article 26 and the SEQ Map. Article 26 specifically provides at 26.303 as follows: Areas not located within a restricted area designated pursuant to Section 26.301 above [the SEQ Map] shall constitute development ',areas. The only development areas allowed for development under SEQ zoning are those areas which are outside of the restricted area 2 designated by the SEQ Map. Without an overlay of the SEQ Map on the subject parcel, the Planning Commission is not provided with adequate information with which to approve a preliminary plan and therefore the Applicant's request for approval must be denied. Density calculations are affected by two separate parts of Article 26. 26.401 sets forth the maximum development density for residential developmental shall be 1.1 residential units per acre. That is 1.1 residential units per acre that may be tjof developed "developable acreage^__._under�the pr ivo sions of Article Ire. 26 as set forth on the SEQ Map. In this case, a very rough estimate of the land which is not Restricted by the provisions of the SEQ Map is 16 acres. Every other portion of the subject parcel is within a Restricted area as set forth on the map. The majority of this Restricted area is wetland. By the enactment of the SEQ Map the City has replaced the need to calculate "buildable" land. If there were any uncertainty with respect to the actual delineation or boundary of the restricted area, the Applicant has the ability to request the Planning Commission to define the location of the boundary pursuant to 26.302. This process is crucial as -it -protects the Planning Commission and the public with a carefully drawn provision relating to notice and requires written requests so that persons interested in the restricted area may present information relevant to determining the location of the boundary. The Applicant has not sought to take advantage of the opportunity,,, offered to it by 26.302. Without recourse to 26.302 the Applicant has simply presented its own map of the area and has ignored the procedural and substantive protection insured to persons interested in the restricted area by the ordinance. The Planning Commission may not consider any map of the subject parcel other than the SEQ Map when defining areas upon which development may take place. / A rough scaling of the land which may be developed within the subject parcel (that is, land which is not restricted under the SEQ Map) is approximately 16 acres. Since the "maximum development density for residential development" (26.401) may not exceed 1.1 residential units per acre and areas that are within a restricted area may not be developed, the base calculation of the number of units allowable within the subject parcel is approximately 18 units.2 2 Apparently, in connection with its effort to transfer development rights back in December, the engineer for the applicant agreed with this analysis. By memorandum dated November 18th to Joe Weith, John Steel, the engineer for the 91 Having established the average density of units allowable on the subject parcel as a whole, the question then becomes what is the maximum density on any particular portion of the subject parcel that is allowed. That is established under the provisions of 26.403 wherein it is stated that the number of dwelling units or single family dwelling lots that may be located shall not exceed 4 per acre. Therefore, the subject parcel may be permitted approximately 18' p4^� units within the developable area (nonrestricted area) and the clusters may not exceed 4 per acre within that developable i area. The Applicant argues for the average density of 1.1 acres total number of acres on the clearly says that only areas areas as set forth on the SEQ areas. incredible calculation of an times a bonus of 25% times the parcel as a maximum. The ordinance that are outside of the Restricted Map shall constitute development For purposes of development, land within the restricted area does not exist. The Applicant simply cannot be permitted to manufacture density or manufacture unitsbythe fact that it has land on which development can not take place. This absurd result would also be legally discriminatory inasmuch as a parcel of land that is completely unrestricted would have maximum density of 1.1 acres, while a parcel of land with significant undevelopable areas or Restricted areas would have in effect quarter acre zoning. This would discriminate against the owner of developable land and favor developers who have purchased land on which development can not take place. Further, as the Nowland Two parcel most clearly demonstrates such an absurd reading of the density and residential units per acre rules would completely abrogate the purposes set forth in Article 26 for the SEQ. applicant, indicated that by his calculations Nowland Two contains 39.5 acres of "actual developable area." (Attached). While his calculation of the area that is Restricted by wetlands is vastly understated, the points remains that the number of acres of developable land is determined after subtracting the restricted areas such as wetlands, wetland buffer, Spear Street set back arrd roadways. 0 The open character and spectacular scenic views offered in this area have long be recognized as very special and unique resources in the city and worthy of protection. The Applicant seeks quarter acre zoning at the very center of that area which is known for its "open character and spectacular scenic views." In effect, the Applicant claims it is entitled to quarter acre zoning in this unique and spectacularly scenic location due to the fact that the land upon which it can develop is attached to some wetlands upon which it can not do any development whatsoever under state, federal and city land use rules. If that is the result accepted by the Planning Commission, it might have saved the public and itself a great deal of difficulty in zoning the SEQ as most of the most unique and spectacularly scenic area is associated with Restricted areas. The public should simply have been told that the way the SEQ ordinance works is to establish quarter acre zoning in the most spectacular scenic views in the City of South Burlington. Neither the zoning ordinance nor the law require the Planning Commission to accept such an inappropriate and destructive result and therefore the preliminary approval sought by the Applicant should be denied. III. Other Issues A. Wetland Study. The Applicant has refused to provide a wetland study to the Planning Commission in connection with the January 5, 1993 site plan. Indeed the only study that has been presented is the map, coupled with a letter dated December 16, 1992 from the Johnson Company to Mr. John Steel, the Applicant's engineer. That letter does not say that any study has been done by the Johnson Company. Rather, it says that in June 15, 1990 an employee of the Johnson Company used a 1989 �•�„fob n Federal Manual to place 123 flags along the boundary of three separate wetland areas on "the property." The property is not defined in the letter. Thereafter, apparently a prior plan (obviously not the site plan submitted to this Commission on January 5, 1993) was sent to Johnson Company for review. The Johnson Company employee did not revisit the site, but rather reports in his letter that he reviewed his field notes of over two and one half years before. He said that "based on my recollection of the site and the general configuration of this wetland area, it appears that the wetland boundary is accurately represented on the plan." This is not a wetland survey; it is a guess. Indeed, the source of his definition of wetland does not even reflect his 5 own judgment as to what is wet and what is not wet on the site, but rather his interpretation of a 1989 Federal Manual. Neither the letter nor the material provided by the Applicant relates this information to the SEQ Map which defines the area of the wetland with the power of law for the City of South Burlington and for the Applicant. It is not surprising that the Applicant would prefer the guess or estimate of its own engineer from a desk in Montpelier to the use of the adopted SEQ Map enacted by the people of the City of South Burlington. The wetland area on the SEQ Map is substantially larger than the estimates of the Johnson Company.3 B. Traffic Issues The traffic study was done apparently during the period when the students at the University of Vermont and in the public school system were on vacation. The traffic study should be rejected. c,v� r u:� �✓ �.� C. Transitional Areas The common lands outlined on the overall site plan are set to the farthest east portion of the parcel (Common Land C and -- Common Land D). This common land should be at the western rather than the eastern side of the parcel so as to provide a lot size buffer for transition between the larger existing parcels along Spear Street rather than the abrupt shift contemplated by the proposed plan. D. Aesthetic Issues There doesn't seem to be any effort to ameliorate the aesthetic impact on the scenic vistas available to the east from existing lands and from Spear Street, which is a public thoroughfare, toward the east. The stretch of Spear Street involved is virtually the only location in South Burlington where the Green Mountains and the Adirondacks may be encompassed in a near 360 degree view. Travelers on Spear Street, as well as the existing dwellings, enjoy the benefit of this panorama and the proposed layouts and buildings heights seem to create a wall of structures along the western boundary of the site plan. The impacts on aesthetics of this development and similar developments along Spear Street affect the entire street as the City does not require underground utilities along Spear Street. Therefore the travelling public and homeowners are presented 3 The Staff of the Planning Commission, Mr. Weith, has frequently indicated to the applicant and to the Commission the need for a thorough wetland study in connection with the applicant's prior filings on this site. A with utility poles carrying increasingly large numbers of square feet of telephone lines and connection packages, cable television lines and power lines of both transmission and distribution voltage. The impact on Spear Street to the north of the existing development is to create a hanging fence line of wires and cables that interfere with the views of existing dwellings as well as of travelers on Spear Street and provisions should be made for any new substantial increase in demands to be served by reducing the intrusion of the utility impacts and viewing them cumulatively with other developments that have taken place in the recent past along Spear Street south of Swift. The Applicant is not provided a scenic overview overlay on the subject parcel so that the Commission may determine what portions of the parcel are subject to scenic view protection or ought to be subject to conditions relating to scenic views. E. Aquifer Recharge Area There has been no effort to determine whether or not the wetland constitutes an aquifer recharge area subject to protection under state law. Several wells of neighboring residents could be affected if the wetland is substantially disturbed and/or runoffs from any development are not carefully planned. F. Ownership Issue r.'.; ,i The ownership of the parcel is said to be "Larkin Milot Partnership, 410 Shelburne Road, Burlington, Vermont." The actual ownership and names of partners, as well as the interests and a copy of the partnership agreement, should be required to be filed. The Applicant representatives make general statements upon which the City must rely and which bind the Applicant and each of its partners individually. The City and the public should know who is responsible for this proposal and the promises made. G. Sewer Issue Apparently, there are significant restrictions with respect to the Bartlett Bay Plant which would prevent this parcel from being served by that plant. Any forced main sewer, according to memos in the files of the Planning Commission, would require an upgrade of the Swift Estates and possibly of Ridgewood pumping stations. A careful analysis of the impact of construction, the costs and traffic congestion associated with any street crossings should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. In addition, neighborhoods affected by any of that construction should receive actual notice of the Planning Commission's deliberations with respect to such matters. Without a detailed sewer plan acceptable to the town engineer and City Council the plan can not be approved. B3/05.0209 7 Ch. 117 ' MUN. & REGIONAL PLAN. & DF---�. T.24 § 4407 (3) Planned residential development. As provided in the plan, the modification of zoning regulations by the planning commission may be permitted simultaneously with the approval of a subdivision plat, subject to the conditions set forth below. The purposes of such authorization shall be to enable and encourage flexibility of design and development of land in such a manner as to promote the most appropriate use of land, to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities, and to preserve the natural and scenic qualities of the open lands of this state. The conditions re- ferred to above are as follows: (A) The submission of a site plan to the planning commission showing the location, height and spacing of buildings, open spaces and their landscaping, streets, driveways and offstreet parking spaces and all other physical features, accompanied by a statement setting forth the nature of all proposed modifications, changes or supplementations of existing zoning regulations; (B) If authorized in the bylaw the permitted number of dwelling units may include a density increase of as much as 25 percent beyond the number which could be permitted in the planning commission's judgment, if the land were subdivided into lots in conformance with the zoning regulations for the districts in which such land is situated. When a bylaw authorizes a density increase, no person shall be re- quired to apply for or accept a density increase. In granting a den- sity increase, the planning commission shall consider the capacities of community facilities and services and the character of the area affected; r (C) The dwelling units permitted may, at the discretion of the planning commission, be of varied types including one -family, two- family or multi -family construction; (D) If the application of this procedure results in lands available for park, recreation, open space or other municipal purposes, the planning commission as a condition of its approval may establish such conditions on the ownership, use and maintenance of such lands as it deems necessary to assure the preservation of such lands for their intended purposes; (E) Any modification of the zoning regulations approved under this section shall be specifically set forth in terms of standards and criteria for the design, bulk and spacing of buildings and the sizes of -- i lots and open spaces which shall be required, an-d these shall be noted or appended to the plat. F MEMORANDUM ,") To: Joe Weith, City Planner From: John Steele Date: November 18, 1992 Subject: Sketch Plan Review Project: Southeast Summit - Nowland Two PRD Zone: Southeast Quadrant Development Density: Maximum Proposed Parcel ID Size/Acres Density Units* Density Southeast Summit 202.2 278 237 Nowland Two 66.7 92 132 Combined Total 268.9 Acres* 370 Units 369 Units *268.9 Acres x 1.1 Units/ Acre = 295.79 Units 73.94 25% Increase in Density 369.73 Total Units Sketch Plans Compared: June 16, 1992/December 8, 1992 Unit Type Single Family Multi -Family Elderly Total Units Subdivision Jun 16/Dec 8 Jun 16/Dec 8 Jun 16/Dec 8 Jun 16/Dec 8 Southeast Summit 166/157 72/80 0/0 238/237 Nowland Two 90/92 0/0 0/40 90/132 Southeast Summit and Nowland Two 256/249 72/80 0/40 11 328/369 Note: Based on Class II Wetlands delineation and survey, the actual developable area on the Nowland Two parcel is 39.5 acres: 66.7 Acres total - 5.0 Class II Wetlands - 5.0 Wetlands buffer - 7.2 400' Spear St. setback -10.0 15% of 66.7 for roads 39.5 Acres Maximum density on Nowland Two parcel as per section 26.403 is: 39.5 x 4 units per acre = 158 The proposed 132 units is less than the maximum density of 158 units. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services I C_. L/ "T Environrl!iental�.Sctences.;and,Erigineeri>ng I December 16, 1992 TIECF"1ED uc 2 1 1992 `I LLYN Mr. John Steele FITZpATF0G- -LLB• FtzPatrick-Llewellyn, Inc. p4CpFtPURATtD One Wentworth Drive Consuft►n9 Ena��� Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: Wetlands at the Nowland Two Property, Spear Street, South Burlington, Vermont 1 JCO # 1-0616-3 (048) Dear John: The wetland delineation at the referenced property was completed on June 15, 1990. The methodology used to delineate the wetland boundary was from the 1989 Federal Manual for the Identification and Delineation of Jurisdictional Wetlands. My field notes indicate that 1 hung 123 flags along the boundary of three separate wetland areas on the property. Two of those areas appear to be south of the area shown on the plan for the proposed subdivision (Overall Site Plan) which you recently sent to me. The third area, which was the largest of the three areas, is shown on the Overall Site Plan. Based on my recollection of the site and the general configuration of this wetland area, it appears that the wetland boundary is accurately represented on this plan. This wetland area is associated with a drainage system that flows through the property to the north. My recollection of it is that it is a mixture of wet meadow and scrub/shrub vegetation. The field data sheets that were completed for documentation of this boundary list reed canarygrass and several sedge species as the dominant vegetation near the boundary of the wetland. The shrub type vegetation was typically located at lower landscape positions, closer to the stream, probably due to the fact that the wetland edge is occasionally mowed during farming operations. The soils in this area are clayey sediments that were laid down when this area was inundated by the glacial Lake Vermont. These soils have a very high water holding capacity. The area slopes gently from both edges towards the drainage flow in the center of the wetland. The moisture regime gets increasingly wetter towards the stream itself. The National Wetland Inventory Map for this site supports my recollection of this area with its classification of the wetland. It basically describes it as a wetland with scrub/shrub and emergent vegetation with a moisture regime that varies from seasonal to semipermanent to permanent saturation. The emergent vegetation refers to herbaceous plants such as grasses and sedges. Functionally, the main values of this area are for the enhancement of surface water quality and wildlife habitat. The function of surface water quality enhancement is particularly important at this site due to the Proposed subdivision, which could potentially increase surface water flow into this drainage system. The wetlands present along this stream will help to reduce any increased sediment and nutrient loading of this small stream that may occur. Wildlife habitat for songbirds and small mammals is provided especially by the scrub/shrub areas within this wetland. If you have questions about any of the information in this letter, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, THE JOHNSON OO�M%PANY, INC Bradley A. Wheeler, CPSS Senior Scientist Reviewed by: SAS/G:\USERS\BAW\FITZLLEW.LTR December 16. M2 14.26 BAW Ciri1/Cn+irunnrnlal I:nNmrcnqg IlydnwrrL�y 11L1n iulryly u Iyinrrurrfrr Diy%rl !Ia rnLm: 14r4r l na•Jialian IlyJndrly C4,11611ninnaf lidr Ana y.is $rril I. N9frr S-irrrrr Riwr: and Darns Sidi t 1 'a h. Perrrrilfing 5 Slale Slur! Maa!)r)ier, VT 05602 ■ (802) 229-4600 Tar: (802) 229-5876 �,:� : ^e, 4 W GRAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES T. SHEA 76 ST. PAUL STREET STEPHEN R. CRWPTON STEWART H. MCCONAUGHY POST OFFICE BOX 369 ROBERT B. HEMLEY WILLIAM G. POST, JR, BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0369 CRAIG WEATHERLY JAMPs E. KNAPP JOHN R. PONSETTO DENNIs R. PEARSON PETER S. ERLY ROBERT F. O'NEILL MARGARET L. MONTGOMERY Lucy T. BRowN DAVO R. PUTNAM March 26, 1993 South Burlington Planning Commission Attention: Bill Burgess, Chairman South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Nowland II Preliminary Plot Submission Members of the Planning Commission: AREA CODE 802 TELEPHONE 638-0220 FAX 658-1456 CLARKE A. GRAVEL COUNSEL NORMAN WILUAMs SPECIAL COUNSEL This letter responds to William Schroeder's letter dated March 24, 1993, submitted to the Planning Commission on behalf of Fred Hackett. Mr. Schroeder argues that the density of the subdivision, and the location of development within the subdivision, do not comply with "applicable standards." The Applicant disagrees with Mr. Schroeder for the following reasons. Mr. Schroeder is right when he says that both the City's zoning and subdivision regulations (the "Regulations") require that the Nowland II subdivision comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"). However, the Plan must be read in concert with the Regulations with the understanding that the Plan is a general guideline to the City Legislative Body and it is the Regulations which provide the details for implementation. In fact, the Plan does provide only general guidance on density, development location restrictions, and view protection. It is the Regulation that provides the details. Compliance with the Regulations must be deemed compliance with the Plan. What do the Regulations establish for density requirements in the Southeast Quadrant District? Section 26.401 provides: "The maximum development density for residential development on a parcel of land or a portion of a parcel of land located in the Southeast Quadrant District shall be 1.1 residential units per acre." Section 26.603 allows a Planning Commission to increase the density for a planned residential development within a Southeast Quadrant to up to 25%. Section 19.152 specifically provides that the formula used to calculate base density for a subdivision, which requires exclusion of land associated with steep slopes, wetlands, GRAVEL AND SHEA South Burlington Planning Commission March 26, 1993 Page 2 flood plains, and roadways, shall not apply in the Southeast Quadrant District. Base density in the Southeast Quadrant District is based on the total acreage of the subdivided tract or tracts. Accordingly, the Regulations allow a density of 73 units for the 66.7 acre Nowland II subdivision tract, which is what is proposed here. Contrary to Mr. Schroeder's assertion, the Applicant's plan does not maximize the density under the Regulations. Under Section 26.603, the Applicant could have proposed an additional 18 units. In addition to the density issue, Mr. Schroeder raises two other points regarding location of development within the Nowland II subdivision. First, he suggests that development may not occur outside of the "development areas" shown in the Southeast Quadrant Goals Based Plan. Second, he argues that an area proposed for development in the middle of the subdivision should be left opened to preserve views. Applicant's responses to these issues are that the Regulations authorize the Planning Commission to allow development, not otherwise specifically allowed by the Regulations, in restricted areas in connection with approval of a PRD. (See Section 26.602) With regard to the views issue, the Nowland II subdivision is located within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone. However, the Plan and Regulations control, but do not prohibit, development within the view protection areas. Within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone, the Regulations simply control the height of structures and landscaping. The Plan recommends that the City take action to preserve important views. The restrictions established by Article XXV of the Regulations (zoning) implement that recommendation. In response to the requirement of Article XXV, the applicant has submitted plans which demonstrate compliance with the view protection restrictions of the Regulations. It is applicant's position that read together, the Plans and Regulations do not conflict. In any event, if there is a conflict, under Vermont Law, the Plan must yield to the Regulations. In Smith v. Winhall PlanningCommission, 140 Vt. 78, the Vermont Supreme Court settled the issue about which applies when there is a conflict between a town plan and its zoning regulations: "The Regulations as adopted may indeed be inconsistent with a Town Plan, but the total consistency upon which this argument is predicated is not a legal requirement. The Plan is a general guideline to the Legislative Body, an overall guide to community development. Partial implementation is not unusual; the specific implementation is a part that is GRAVEL AND SHEA South Burlington Planning Commission March 26, 1993 Page 3 adopted in the Zoning Regulations... The Regulations control the Plan." At 183. In summation, the Nowland II Subdivision fully complies with the density, restricted area, and view protection provisions of both the Plan and Regulations. Thank you for considering our response to Mr. Schroeder's comments. Very truly yours, GRAVEL AND SHEA John R. Ponsetto Stephen R. Crampton JRP:wbb cc: Mr. Gerald C. Milot William Schroeder, Esq. /cafe / o f 3 so bm le- d 3 - -2 03 PETITION vv; fA 41 N-ame-s Subject: Petition regarding Nowland II Proposed Development on Spear Street and Deerfield Road Extension To: South Burlington Planning Commission The proposed housing development on Spear Street and Deerfield Road Extension of 73 units is too many units and too tightly spaced. It will adversely affect traffic, school system, sewage system, scenic views and some wildlife. We respectfully ask the Planning Commission to approve, at the most, 30 or 40 units for the proposed 66 acre development. ADDRESS l.S ,20 -S ar Sl-, S, SdrkNg-I O ,y &Z i /ece, a�� �z o' /1.2/ �a v� `. .......... G .' . (3q _ � Gar 9_ , 9,�4 a A'-✓ ' d� S'`8Al�fi:v' S Nd 2kddYe5$e.5 zhe>o otv vfl7 r s,�e �r� ��e' o✓t W__ - - I _ 2,CJS- �j, -?Ci IC7. 0 ,,,l 1 3 t---( -ecd d -% Ij 9- -s - 6 .2 ( ?s H O-t-4y, -C-) &�-- 'S� Ypta.,,-- eyt YpA� si s C3 , 5f ea a r ti s50ulk Bur/1101V Subm,'& W, to *9 �laNz e s PETITION Subject: Petition regarding Nowland II Proposed Development on Spear Street and Deerfield Road Extension To: South Burlington Planning Commission The proposed housing development on Spear Street and Deerfield Road Extension of 73 units is too many units and too tightly spaced. It will adversely affect traffic, school system, sewage system, scenic views and some wildlife. We respectfully ask the Planning Commission to approve, at the most, 30 or 40 units for the proposed 66 acre development. NAME 01 ADDRESS 10 Me-a.46ujao4 e � l /5S6 �'- , .L , &Z'VI,W- �1 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 March 26, 1993 John Steele FitzPatrick-Llewellyn, Inc. One Wentworth Drive Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: Nowland II PRD, Spear Street Dear Mr. Steele: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 L Enclosed is an agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, March 30, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. to present your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, 'oe Weith, �3Q City Planner Encls JW/mcp cc: Gerald Milot John Larkin No Text AA-7 (, Ir r SEWER G/ 1. The PC grants a total sewer location of gpd for this development. This all cation is based on The length of time that this sewer al cation approval shall remain in effect shall be tied to oadway construction. The roadways serving this development shall be completed within four (4) years of Act 250 approval. The sewer allocation for any lots served by roadways which are not completed within this four (4) year time limit shall be lost unless reapproved by the Planning Commission. 2. The PC grants a total sewer allocation of gpd. This allocation is based on This approved sewer allocation shall remain in effect for a period of five (5) years from the date of final plat approval. Any lots which have not been issued zoning/building permits within this 5 year time frame shall only be issued a zoning/building permit if treatment capacity is available at the Bartlett Bay treatment facility as determined by the City Planner. 3. The PC grants a total sewer allocation of gpd. This allocation is based on The details of this approved allocation, including any time limits or other conditions, shall be determined at final plat review. 1431 Spear Street South Burlington, VT March 12, 1993 South Burlington Planning Commission South Burlington Vermont 05403 Gentlemen: I would like to reinforce Fred Hackett's statement of astonishment concerning the back up of traffic on Spear Street from the corner of Swift Street. I live at 1431 Spear Street, approximately 2600 feet from that corner. It is not unusual for traffic to be backed up past our residence. In order to enter the street heading north, we rely on the good will of other motorists to let us in. This good will decreases with the length of time they are forced to wait for the light to change. This situation is particularly noticeable from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m., and 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. weekdays, all seasons. I question the authenticity of the traffic report quoted by the spokesman for Mr. Larkin and Mr. Milot. When road construction begins on Shelburne road, this problem will be exacerbated. Coupled with this situ- ation, is the risk one takes to pick up mail and paper because of the excessive speed of cars at any time of day or night. Sincerely, JOSEPH C. PALMISANO ASSOCIATES, INC. Attorneys at Law JOSEPH C. PALMISANO JOSEPH P. PALMISANO SAMUEL C. PALMISANO March 16, 1993 South Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Milot/Larkin Spear Street Project Dear Members of the Board: P. O. BOX 552 BARRE, VERMONT 05641 TELEPHONE (802) 229-5959 FAX (802) 223-9969 I read an article recently in The Burlington Free Press on the proposed development across the street from Overlook Park. I just wanted to briefly comment on the traffic study results that claim that traffic backs up only 200-400 feet from the intersection of Spear and Swift Streets at peak hours. I am a resident of Overlook East at the end of Deerfield Drive. I leave for work between 7:45 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. At that time, traffic is often backed up almost half a mile from the Swift Street/Spear Street Intersection. I think that if the traffic study did claim that traffic backs up only 200-400 feet, it is way off the mark. I also feel that a 73 home development across from Deerfield Drive would make an existing traffic problem much worse. Spear Street cannot handle that much of an increase in traffic, .- ec eca_ _1 1 e J -1 -the nter- v 1. .. tiff. ._-� L i L_. 1.. LaS Thank you for your consideration. SCP/tb Sincerely, r Samuel C. Palmisano, Esq. All Bookkeeping Matters Must Be Directed to Ext. 13. (A' SOLI :1l. WA-EER DEPARTMENT 4(yj j?t)r'F.N (=irr r1A11K ROAD SOUTH BUR1_INGTON. VE01MONT 0540-3 TEL., 864.4361 February 4, 1993 Mr. John Steele Fitzpatrick-i.lewellyn, Inc. One Wentworth Drive Williston, VT 05495 RE: Nowland Two Subdivision, #92045 Spear Street, South Burlington, VT Dear John, Z have reviewed the plans dated July, 1992 for the above referenced project. and I offer the following: Page 4: a. The existing main on Spear Street is shown as being 811 when it in fact is 1211 asbestos -cement. b. The proposed water main on Deerfield Drive is shown as 811. on page 7 it is shown as 12". In fact all of the proposed water main on Deerfield Drive should be .shown as 1211 ductile iron. Thus, the tap as shown to the existing main should be shown as a 1251 x 1211 tap instead of an 81' tap. Page 5: a. The proposed 12f1 ductile iron water main on Deerfield Drive is not shown. b. An additional resilient seat gate valve should be installed on Street "All at sta . 4+10 + . Page 6: Install, two (2) additional. resilient seat gate valves at the intersection of Streets "A" and "C". Page 7: Install a 1211 resilient seat gate valve after the hydrant. This valve to he installed with restrained joint per the project snecifirati.on>;s on page 18. After this gate valve a full length of pipe is to be installed. FCLl LJ:).y 14 •40 IN .VVL r' .VJ Nowland Two page 2 2/4/93 Page 16: Remove concrete valve support/thrust block from under all gate valves. Page 18 : a. #4: The minimum thickness class for ductile iron pipe is Class 51; not Class 52. b. #8: The distance between the ground line and the bottom of the steamer cap on the fire hydrant should not be greater than IS inches. Any greater distance and the breakaway Feature of the hydrant may be compromiaed. For this reason fire hydrants are manufactured, in accordance with AWWA C--502, with a dimension of 18 inches between the bury line of the hydrant and the center of the streamer nozzle. If you have any questions or I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, SOUTH BURLINGTON WATER DEPARTMENT Robert L. Gardner Superintendent cc: T. Bessette D. Plantier J. Weith NOWLAND II Spear Street Planned Unit Development General Standards A) Will not result in undue water or air pollution. Response: 1) This project will use City sewer system and no on site discharge of water shall occur. 2) Construction on the site is located entirely outside any flood plain area. Site elevations are provided on the plans submitted. 3) Wetlands exist on the site. These wetlands have been mapped and buffer areas have been established to protect these wetlands during and after construction. Retention structures are shown on the plans to minimize impact on adjacent properties or downstream drainageways. 4) Heating systems will be gas fired. No air pollution permit from the Agency of Natural Resources is required. 5) All applicable regulation of the Health Department and other state agencies will be obtained prior to the issuance of Act 250 permits for the project. B) Water Supply: This project will be served by City water. C) Soil erosion: A soil erosion control plan has been submitted. During construction dust will be controlled by application of water or calcium chloride. Post construction all surfaces will be either paved or landscaped. Retention ponds are provided to minimize the impact of storm water runoff on adjacent properties or downstream drainageways. D) Traffic - Traffic impact study, with any required mitigation, has been submitted. E) Educational Services - Plans have been presented to the school board and a letter is forthcoming. The project will be phased at 35 homes per year and will have minimum impact on schools. F) Governmental Services - Plans have been reviewed by the fire and police departments. Their review comments are provided directly to the planning commission. G) Natural Resources Protection - The only important Natural Resource located on the site are wetlands which,have been surveyed and identified. The plans provide for the protection of the wetlands. This project will conform to the requirements of the Scenic View Protection Overlay District as defined in Article XXV. H) Compatibility - This project will consist of single family development which is compatible with existing construction in the area. All identified natural areas (wetlands) will be preserved and protected. This project will conform with the S. V.P. District requirements. I) Housing Types - This project will consist of single family homes that will have a broad range of values that will provide for the housing needs of various social and economic groups. n Open Space - The open space provided by this project is in excess of that required by the Planning Commission. In addition, we have agreed to construct a bike path thru the development to tie into the South Burlington bike path system. K) Streets - All streets will be built to City standards and will conform with the City's street and utilities plan. These plans have been reviewed by the city engineer and his comments have been forwarded to the Planning Commission. L) Road and Utility Extensions - Road and utility access have been provided to all adjacent property owners either by the construction of City streets or the granting of R.O. W.'s. M) Energy Conservation - All homes will be serviced by natural gas to maximize energy efficiency. Low flow water devices will be required as a condition of our Act 250 Permit. Insulation of at least R-19 in the exterior walls and R-38 at the roof will be required. No electrical space heating will be allowed. N) Comprehensive Plan - This project conforms with the City's comprehensive plan. It lies wholly in the Southeast Quadrant Zone and complies with the standards of that zone. The construction of single family houses is a permitted land use. File: 92045 Nowland Two Subdivision, Spear Street, South Burlington 26.606 Criteria for Development within Restricted Areas of the Southeast Quadrant District A. More than 27 acres or 41% of the 66.7 acre site will remain as open space including 5 acres of designated Class II wetlands. The majority of the open space is in the center of the project and separates the two developed portions of the site. This space includes a north -south segment of bicycle path and, combined with the 6 acres east of street B, provides significant recreational opportunities to the adjacent homeowners and City residents. The open space provides substantial buffers along Deerfield Drive extension, the Economu parcel on the east, and the Farrell property to the north. B. The general orientation of the Project is north -south. The street and lot layout parallel the wetlands and follow the natural topography. This layout maximized open space and preserves the wetland resources. On site scenic views will be maintained wherever possible, and off sight views will be maintained by the height limitations imposed by the Dorset Park Scenic View Protection District. The undeveloped 10 acres east of the wetlands and bicycle path remains open for agriculture use. C. The placement of buildings, lots, streets and utilities conforms with planned public facilities. The Project preserves significant amounts of open space, provides recreational opportunities including bicycle paths, and conforms to the City's standards for dedicated streets, water, and sewer connections. Deerfield Drive will be extended eastward as recommended by the S.E. Quadrant Study, and portions of an 80' north -south arterial will be set aside along the east side. D. The Preliminary Plat drawings reflect the southeast Quadrant Study and subsequent zoning district regulations including: open space provisions, recreational needs, developable areas, arterial right-of-ways, wetland resources, and height limitations based on the Dorset Park Scenic View Protection Overlay District. 2-3-93 JAS#5:92045-1 CID! � 0 s-r-r" " Cjj-i-- Of-- 5v ' UJ Ni 1 te A I ate. Z�EPOAZ. <o,.X EQvj-A&� _\.V�MEAV--" f iLF 70 vi 44 iOG AWMINJUM M A E;'I- AIRM P:'4;7-�GLA53 L-JGHr P'Ok-� C.:, e., L, 0 VZ— TYPICAL STREET LIGHT m T 8 (na 6yy e k, r5o,�E&t, Fa-vtt� No Text D► FtAF7 MOTION OF APPROVAL L&M PARTNERSHIP 10/27/98 I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the final plat application of L & M Partnership to amend a condition of approval granted on 10/13/98 for a planned residential development consisting of 80 single family lots, Pinnacle @Spear, Spear Street. The amendment is to extend, by two (2) years, the date by which the roadways serving the development must be completed, which will in turn extend, by two (2) years, the approved reserved sewer allocation for the development. This approval is based on the following stipulation: Condition #6 of the 10/13/98 approval shall be revised to read as follows: "The Commission approves a total sewer allocation of 50,576 gpd for this development. The length of time that this sewer allocation approval shall remain in effect shall be tied to roadway construction. The sewer allocation for any lots served by roadways which are not completed by 12/21/00 shall be lost unless reapproved by the Planning Commission." BARTLETTS BAY SEWERAGE TREATMENT PLANT UNCOMMITTED RESERVE CAPACITY Design/Permitted Flow 12 Month Average Flow Committments Against Reserve (State List) Committments Against Reserve (Municipal List) UNCOMMITTED RESERVE CAPACITY Date: 3/2/93 800000 G.P.D. 620000 G.P.D. 77653 G.P.D. 29397 G.P.D. 72950 G.P.D. COMMITTMENTS AGAINST RESERVE Action/ Applicant Approval Date STATE LIST: DATE: 2/24/93 Project G.P.D. 6/19/79 LOZON ESTATE 2 COMM LOTS NOT BUILT 1650 9/23/82 LTH ASSOC & BARTLETT(**) 5 DUPLEX, 2 LOTS NOT BUILT 5400 9/24/87 THOMAS & CAROL DROLETT 2 LOT SUBD 900 9/24/87 DAVIS DEVEL. CORP. 10,000 SF OFFICE BLDG 1000 6/90 BLODGETT(*) 18 UNIT PRD 7625 5/1/91 JAMES FAYETTE/L&M PARK RES/RETAIL/THEATRE PCD 49528 (THEATRE AND REST. HOOKED ON) FAYETTE/L&M PARK (***) 7725 9/25/91 BDP REALTY ASSOC PHASE 2 OFFICE BLDG 3825 MUNICIPAL LIST: DATE: 3/2/93 NOWLAND SUBD H. MARK BOLTON MEADOWBROOK CONDOS BLODGETT(*) 4/16/91 LOCHMORE ASSOC 1/11/92 IBIS 5/12/92 O'BRIENS TRAINING CTR 6/9/92 HANDY 2/23/93 PERRY'S TOTAL COMMITTMENT 77653 5 LOTS NOT BUILT 2250 1 LOT SUBD 300 11 MF UNITS NOT BUILT 4950 18 UNIT PRD 475 HOTEL & RET/OFFICE-LAKEWD 14300 2 LOTS 900 ADDITION -VOCATIONAL 342 MOTEURESTAURANT 4800 ADDITIONAL SEATS 1080 TOTAL COMMITT'VIENT 29397 (*) INDICATES ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION GRANTED BY CITY ABOVE THAT GRANTED BY STATE. (**) INDICATES EXCHANGE OF RESERVED SEWER ALLOCATION (***) INDICATES ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION GRANTED BY STATE ABOVE THAT GRANTED BY CITY (#) INDICATES PLACE ON EARLIER WAITING LIST FOR SEWER ALLOCATION ' ,+..�. �� •.�' �� ,. .:.� •� .h :,,,t",-r.. 2'S°'v'r'?t�..7ff}�RK,*�'"":?�Ci7"R'Ri`!T$M.� v• �6F" .^¢,,.., a. .":,'."s; '^rr,..., ,'.';'."?,T.ir�.... AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Permits Compliance & Protection Division Municipality BARTLETTS BAY NPDES Number VTO100358 REPORT OF UNCOMMITTED RESERVE HYDRAULIC CAPACITY ------------------------------------------------ Design/Permitted Flow : 0.8000 M.G.D. 12 Month Flows (M.G.D.) 01/92 0.6100 02/92 0.5670 03/92 0.6480 04/92 0.7960 05/92 0.6610 06/92 0.6160 07/92 0.5620 08/92 0.5700 09/92 0.5730 10/92 0.6040 11/92 0.6990 12/92 0.6200 12 Month Average Flow ( 780 of Design) Reserve (Design Flow less 12 Month Average Flow) Commitments Against Reserve(projects for which approval for connection has been given but connection to municipal sewer has not been completed) . . . . . . 02/24/93 PAGE 1 627,167 G.P.D. 172,833 G.P.D. 91,063 G.P.D. UNCOMMITTED RESERVE HYDRAULIC CAPACITY . . . . . . . . . . 81,770 G.P.D. M.G.D. - Million Gallons per Day G.P.D. - Gallons per Day NOTE: Uncommitted Reserve Hydraulic Capacity is one of several criteria for approval of new connections to a treatment facility. Please refer to the Agency Policy on Connections to Wastewater Treatment Facilities dated July 24, 1989 for additional information. EPPB2251 VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES 02/24/93 Permits Compliance & Protection Division PAGE 1 MUNICIPAL CONNECTION DATA FOR BARTLETTS BAY -- UNCONNECTED PROJECTS Action Application Flow Connect'n Date Number Name of Applicant Description G.P.D. Status RecNo 06/19/79 4CO392 LOZON ESTATE 2 LOTS NOT BLT 4/92 1,100 NotConn 73 09/23/82 4CO526 LTH ASSOC & BARTLETT ET AL 5 DUPLEXES,2 LOTS NOT BLT 5/88 5,400 NotConn 70 — H M186 PB-4-1186 ROBERT -STEVENS SR- - 6000 ADD'N T"OHNERCIAL BLDG 18@ W'drawn 1663 1- 03��{86--4C@339-4 - DALE FRANKLIN & HOWARD SHERNAN--PARTNER TIRE & SERVICE BAH --- 4@0 W'drawn 1742 09/24/87 EC-4-1212 THOMAS & CAROL DROLETTE 2 LOT SUBDIVISION 900 NotConn 2280 09/24/87 PB-4-1375 DAVIS DEVELOPMENT CORP 10,000 S.F. OFFICE BUILDING 1,000 NotConn 2283 12/01/89 WW-4-0184 DENNIS BLODGETT HOLMES ROAD EXTENSION 7,290 NotConn 3614 12/01/89 WW-4-0184 DENNIS BLODGETT HOLMES ROAD EXTENSION 335 NotConn 3615 --A5FA11�9--1fW--6255 ` --B- D P REALTY ASSOCIATES - ADD 74-6HILD;--15 SThFF DAYCARE --1,150- --"rawe - 3809 -1-19&---BCr4-1478--SCOTT NASEIiTO?1— ----Spit; IMPERiRL-Did 450 NotConn 3831 L_ --081t-7190--- WW-4-0292- --WRIGHT--& HORRIS59Y INC 3-STORY OFFICE-BLDG, SWIFT ST 1,107 NotConn 3961 L WRIGHT & MORRISSEY, INC. INFILTRATION 114 NotConn 3962 05/01/91 WW-4-0384 JANES FAYETTE / L&M PARK BLDG 5 7,500 NotConn 4293 05/01/91 WN-44384 JAMES FAYETTE / L&M PARK INFILTRATION 871 NotConn 4299 07/03/91 NW-4-0384 JANES FAYETTE I L&M PARK RETAIL COMMERCIAL BLDG 17,382 NotConn 4297 09/25/91 WW-4-0442 BDP REALTY ASSOCS 60,00@ SQ FT ADDITION 3,825 NotConn 4489 -03I�5�9�--#N- @fllfr r-- LARRER; TARRANt 6r-HOEHL ---- - ADD BALLROOM TA RIN #3---------3-;174 NotConn 4644 L 9 1VA /-LARKIII _L&M--PARK --1-15 SEAT- FAST ..F40( -RESTAURANT- 5,750 NotConn 4704 E 05/20/92 EC-4-1650 FAYETTEILARKIN/L&M PARK RESIDENTIAL BLDG 1-4 200 BDRM 31,500 NotConn 4705 918R04K--MOM3S-FOR-T0UTH7INC -CHILD CARE FACILITY 1,275 NotCono 4707 <' -@ - - YOUlit-�NC- INPiLPRAfi4N --- - 21�-- NotCona----4748 171-26 2- 0-4-0i22-- -- JWJ REALTY - CAR DEALERSHIP___ _______ ls0 NotCoanr-� �• Total Outstanding Commitments ; 91,063 G.P.D. STATUS CODES NotConn = Project Not Yet Discharging to Municipal Sewer System (Commitment) Connect = Project Completed, Discharging to municipal sewer Denied = Request for Connection Denied W'drawn = Approval for Connection Withdrawn by Municipality (Commitment) Revoked = Permit has been REVOKED by Commissioner Updated by Name and Title of Municipal Official Date EPPB2250 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services One Wentworth Drive 0 Williston • Vermont • 05495 • (802) 878-3000 2 March 1993 Mr. Joe Weith, Planner City Of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Wastewater Allocation for Nowland II File: 92045 Dear Mr. Weith; On behalf of our client Gerry Milot, we are requesting a sewage allocation for the above- project. As you ;:now, the project involves the creation of 73 lots to be used for the construction of single family homes. In order to expedite the state permitting process, our client is seeking a Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. The permit requires a letter form the municipality granting a sewage allocation for the proposed project. Using the flow quantities established in appendix 7-A of the Vermont Environmental Protection Rules, we have calculated the estimated daily wastewater demand. Assuming 73 single family four bedroom homes, we have estimated an average daily wastewater flow of 43,800 gallons per day. Based on the length of sewer pipe proposed and required by the EPR, an allocation of 3,157 gallons for infiltration must also be included with the project allocation. Therefore, we hereby request a total sewage allocation for the project of 46,957 gallons. Would you please provide a letter granting the allocation so we may include it in our state permit application. Should you have any questions regarding our request, or our flow calculation's please contact us. Sincerely, FITZPATRICK-LhEWELLYN INCORPORATED I Charles Van Winkle Project Manager cc: Gerry Milot John Larkin Design 0 Inspection 0 Studies • Permitting 0 Surveying GARY N. FARRELL 1350 SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05401 February 9, 1993 City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Attention: South Burlington Planning CommissioIl Mr. William Burgess, Chairman Dear Bill: I am unable to attend tonight's meeting, but I wanted to bring to your attention some concerns about the proposed development of the Milot/Larkin parcel on Spear Street. 1. The proposed development is predominantly minimum (12,000 sq. ft) lots, which is not in keeping with the general character of the neighborhood. 2. The proposed small lots will likely result in a development that has a similar visual impact as Summit at Spear, south of Overlook which many people consider undesirable. 3. The proposed development has not been presented as an overlay format in combination with a wetlands delineation map to be sure where the wetlands are located. 4. The parcel is located near the scenic view corridor indicated on the SEQ map. It is unclear if the small lots are compatible with maintaining any such views. 5. The common land on the perimeter in the proposal might be more useful as a buffer to larger lots fronting on Spear Street. 6. The comprehensive plan suggests that a mix of lot sizes is desirable in the SEQ as opposed to a predominance of minimum size lots. Planning Commission/Page 2 7. The traffic study was done when the University of Vermont was out of session. Traffic is more congested during peak hours, when UVM is in session. I am not generally opposed to development of this parcel of land, but wculd request that the Planning Commission give careful deliberation to maintaining the quality of what has been a very attractive and desirable neighborhood for many decades. Resp(e/cl t ti y Submitted, W If Gary N. Farrell 1350 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 GNF:SD February 9, 1993 Mr. Bill Burgess, South Burlington South Burlington, Dear Bill: City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 TEL (802) 658-7953 FAX (802) 658-4748 Chairman Planning Commission VT 05403 OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER CHARLES E. HAFTER I have noted that the Planning Commission agenda for February 9, 1993 includes the review of a preliminary plat of Larkin-Milot for a planned residential development on Spear Street. (Item #6) In December, the City Council expressed concern about the future development of infrastructure, particularly sanitary sewer, in the Southeast Quadrant. The Council requested a staff review of the use of dedicated force mains and gravity collection systems in order to create a comprehensive and coordinated guide for future infrastructure improvements and extensions in the Quadrant. Bill Szymanski has been working towards this aim. Staff will have a plan to present to Council at the March 1, 1993 meeting. I do i,�L know how far along your Commission will get in your review of the proposed development, but I wanted to make you aware of this study in case it impacted on your review process. Please contact Joe Weith or myself if you have any questions. Sincerely, Chuck! Hafte City Manager CH/peh SEWER 1. 2. The PC grants a total sewer allocation of this development. This allocation is based on time effe sery year lots four the gpd for . The length of that this sewer allocation approval shall remain in ct shall be tied to roadway construction. The roadways ing this development shall be completed within four (4) s of final plat approval. The sewer allocation for any served by roadways which are not completed within this (4) year time limit shall be lost unless reapproved by Planning Commission. The PC grants a total sewer allocation of allocation is based on gpd. This This approved sewer allocation shall remain in effect for a period of five ( 5 ) years from the date of final plat approval. Any lots which have not been issued zoning/building permits within this 5 year time frame shall only be issued a zoning/building permit if treatment capacity is available at the Bartlett Bay treatment facility as determined by the City Planner. 3 The PC grants a total sewer allocation of gpd. This allocation is based on . The details of this approved allocation, including any time limits or other conditions, shall be determined at final plat review. E To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Arthur E. Boyd Almon Atkins Jeff Chiu Douglas Meredith Fred Molthen/IBIS C Date: Oral summary of this memo given to Planning Commission at its February 9, 1993 evening meeting. Re: Nowland Two Proposal Development Plan, which had a date stamp of 1-5-93 on some of its documents, as being the date received by the South Burlington Planning Commission. The five people listed above are all contiguous property owners on Spear Street and are adjoining property owners to the proposed Nowland Two Development. The evening of 9 February 1993 was the first time we had seen or heard of the details of the developers' latest proposed development plans. However, during the course of the previous year (1992) we had seen or heard of other preliminary layouts, presented by the developer, which were considerably different from the development presented by them on 9 February 1993. We strongly recommend You deny the applicants' approval for their proposed development of Nowland Two as presented by them on 2/9/93, for the following reasons: The value of our five (5) properties will be considerably reduced due to the (a) extremely high density of the proposed building lots and buildings east of our five properties, (b) heights of some of the buildings proposed by the developers will cut off our easterly views of Mt. Mansfield, Bolton Mountain, Bolton Valley Ski Areas, Winooski River Valley Cut in Horizon and Camels Hump. The density of the buildings will also restrict our easterly views. Most of our lots on Spear Street are approximately 2 acres in size. Immediately east of our 2 acre lots the developer is proposing 1/4 to 1/2 acre lots. This is too drastic a transition. It will destroy the nature and character of the existing neighborhood, which has been in existence for about 30 years. We propose that the developers proposed lots adjoining us on the east be 1 1/2 to 2 acres in size; i.e. the numbered lots 1 thru 6 should be replaced with 2 lots instead of the presently shown 6 lots. We then propose that the next row of lots to the east (lots presently numbered 1 1 thru 22 and lots presently numbered 51, 52 and 53) be increased in size to 1 acre lots. We further propose that the third row of lots in the easterly direction (lots presently numbered 23 thru 34 and lots presently numbered 49 and 50) be increased in size to 1/2 acre lots. We have no objections to lots presently numbered 7 thru 10 on the developers proposed Overall Site Plan being sized and located as depicted. We suggest that the remainder of the proposed lots not enumerated above be 1/2 acre lots. 2. Even though the developers feel they might meet the numerical density requirements, there is much doubt that they really do. See Mr. William A. Gilbert's 7 page memorandum (plus attachments) to you dated 2/9/93. Even, if by some convoluted logic, it is determined by some that the developers do meet the density requirements, that is only one of the criteria to be considered in your deliberations. The Planing Commission, using its good judgement, must also take into account the following: a. Prevent existing developed property owners and existing neighborhoods from being savaged by proposed new developments; i.e. reduction of the value of our property, reduction of our scenic views, reduction of our open spaces, tremendously increased traffic density due to the new development, reduction of our privacy. b. We quote portions of Article XXfV, Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ) Section 26.00, Purpose of the Zoning Regulations in support of our previous paragraph. "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 agricultural use, and well planned residential use in the largely undeveloped area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The open character and spectacular scenic views in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique resources in the city and worthy of protection." The proposed development seems to violate all of the desirable characteristics enumerated in the introduction to Article XXVI of the Zoning Regulations mentioned above. Since the developers have been working on their plans for several years and we are just now seeing their preliminary proposal, we ask in all fairness that we, the affected property owners, be given several months in which to review and evaluate their proposal and be given an opportunity in which to respond in more fullness and more detail to their proposal. 3. To briefly recap, we strongly recommend that the Planning Commission do not approve the proposed Nowland Two Development because: a. The value of our property will be reduced. b. The proposed lots immediately adjacent to our property are too small in size and too many in number. c. Our scenic views to the east will be destroyed. d. The increased traffic density will be too great. e. The height of the proposed buildings is too high. f. The character and nature of the existing neighborhood/community will be too adversely affected. g. The proposed development will violate all of the desirable characteristics recommended in the introduction to Article XXVI of the City Zoning Regulations. h. All the reasons mentioned in Mr. William A Gilbert's 2/9/93 memorandum to you. Thank you for your courteous consideration of our strongly felt anxieties. NOWLAND II Spear Street Planned Unit Development General Standards A) Will not result in undue water or air pollution. Response: 1) This project will use City sewer system and no on site discharge of water shall occur. 2) Construction on the site is located entirely outside any flood plain area. Site elevations are provided on the plans submitted. 3) Wetlands exist on the site. These wetlands have been mapped and buffer areas have been established to protect these wetlands during and after construction. Retention structures are shown on the plans to minimize impact on adjacent properties or downstream drainageways. 4) Heating systems will be gas fired. No air pollution permit from the Agency of Natural Resources is required. 5) All applicable regulation of the Health Department and other state agencies will be obtained prior to the issuance of Act 250 permits for the project. B) Water Supply: This project will be served by City water. ' C) Soil erosion: A soil erosion control plan has been submitted. During construction dust will be controlled by application of water or calcium chloride. Post construction all surfaces will be either paved or landscaped. Retention ponds are provided to minimize the impact of storm water runoff on adjacent properties or downstream drainageways. D) Traffic - Traffic impact study, with any required mitigation, has been submitted. E) Educational Services - Plans have been presented to the school board and a letter is forthcoming. The project will be phased at 35 homes per year and will have minimum impact on schools. F) Governmental Services - Plans have been reviewed by the fire and police departments. Their review comments are provided directly to the planning commission. G) Natural Resources Protection - The only important Natural Resource located on the site are wetlands which .have been surveyed and identified. The plans provide for the protection of the wetlands. This project will conform to the requirements of the Scenic View Protection Overlay District as defined in Article XXV. H) Compatibility - This project will consist of single family development which is compatible with existing construction in the area. All identified natural areas (wetlands) will be preserved and protected. This project will conform with the S. V.P. District requirements. I) Housing Types - This project will consist of single family homes that will have a broad range of values that will provide for the housing needs of various social and economic groups. J) Open Space - The open space provided by this project is in excess of that required by the Planning Commission. In addition, we have agreed to construct a bike path thru the development to tie into the South Burlington bike path system. K) Streets - All streets will be built to City standards and will conform with the City's street and utilities plan. These plans have been reviewed by the city engineer and his comments have been forwarded to the Planning Commission. L) Road and Utility Extensions - Road and utility access have been provided to all adjacent property owners either by the construction of City streets or the granting of R.O. W.'s. M) Energy Conservation - All homes will be serviced by natural gas to maximize energy efficiency. Low flow water devices will be required as a condition of our Act 250 Permit. Insulation of at least R-19 in the exterior walls and R-38 at the roof will be required. No electrical space heating will be allowed. ' N) Comprehensive Plan - This project conforms with the City's comprehensive plan. It lies wholly in the Southeast Quadrant Zone and complies with the standards of that zone. The construction of single family houses is a permitted land use. MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Joe Weith, City Planner RE: Nowland II, Spear Street DATE: March 5, 1993 Provided below is a Staff response to several of the issues raised in Mr. Gilbert's letter to the Commission dated 2/9/93: I. Procedural Issues - Mr. Gilbert states that the current preliminary plat plan being reviewed should have first undergone a sketch plan review. As explained at the meeting, it is staff's opinion that the sketch plan requirement was met with the 12/8/92 sketch review. At that meeting, the applicant proposed a plan involving a development on both the Nowland parcel and Ramsey parcel and a transfer of density between the two. The applicant was informed by the Commission at the meeting that due to the proposed level of development on the Ramsey parcel, there was not any "extra" density available to be transferred to the Nowland parcel. The applicant since revised the Nowland plan accordingly and submitted a preliminary plat application. It is staff's opinion that the proper procedure was followed. I.A Notice of Hearing - The notice of hearing appeared in the 1/25/93 edition of the Burlington Free Press. This meets the statutory requirement of notice within 15 days of the hearing. The notice sent to the adjoining landowners incorrectly indicated that the notice appeared in the 1/30/93 edition. Neither State statute nor local ordinance requires notification of adjoining landowners. We do this as a courtesy and as an effort to obtain public input. I.B - I believe Mr. Gilbert is claiming that the applicant did not submit as part of the PRD application a statement setting forth the nature of all proposed modifications of existing zoning regulations as is required by state statute. This is true, however, the procedure that staff typically follows in these situations is that staff performs a preliminary review and identifies all proposed modifications. We then contact the applicant in writing and inform them of proposed modifications which will require approval by the Commission. The applicant has the opportunity to revise the proposal if so desired. Staff then identifies all proposed modifications in the memo to the Commission. I.D - A map depicting the "restricted areas" and "development areas" shown on the Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map and how the proposed Nowland II development compares to these designated areas was submitted by the applicant. This map dated 1/19/93 was distributed to the Commission prior to the 2/9/93 meeting. See letter dated 3/3/93 from the Johnson Company regarding the Planning Commission memo - 3/5/93 Nowland II Page 2 wetland delineation study issue. II. Densitv Issues Staff does not agree with Mr. Gilbert's interpretation of the ordinance in regards to density. The intent of the district in regards to maximum allowable density for a particular parcel is to calculate maximum density via a two step process. Section 26.401 determines the maximum density of development that a parcel generates for development somewhere in the SEQ district. This is determined by multiplying the total acres of a parcel times 1.1 units/acre. In the Nowland II case, the 66.7 acre parcel generates a maximum of 73 units for development somewhere in the SEQ district (66.7 acres x 1.1 u/a = 73 units). This example does not assume a 25% bonus which is provided for in Section 26.603. The maximum allowable density on a particular parcel is determined by Section 26.403. As provided, the maximum number of units potentially allowed on a parcel is determined by the number of acres of development designated land times 4 units/acre. In the Nowland case, this means a maximum allowable density of 123 units could be approved if all criteria are satisfied (30.9 acres development area x 4 u/a = 123 units). Section 26.302 - Mr. Gilbert claims that the applicant must follow the procedure provided for in Section 26.302 in order to get approval to develop within a restricted area. Staff does not agree with this opinion. Section 26.302 was included to offer an opportunity to clear up any confusion that may exist as to the location of a boundary between a restricted area and development area. There apparently is not any confusion as to the restricted area boundaries on this parcel. There are basically three restricted areas defined: 1) the 400 foot setback along Spear Street, 2) the restricted area following the limits of the wetland, and 3) the restricted area defining proposed arterial/collector streets. Since there is not any confusion, the applicant has not elected to request a clarification as provided for in Section 26.302. The applicant is proposing to develop within restricted areas which is allowed in Section 26.602. In order for the Commission to approve such development, the Commission must find that the proposal meets all the requirements for PRD's as defined. In presenting their case, the applicant has provided information including a wetlands delineation study, a relocated arterial/connector roadway r.o.w. and specific building envelopes on the lots along Spear Street. The Commission will take this testimony into consideration when deciding whether or not to ... , d . ,•<N�14i .. .. .. >~;aaa:.••r`srifi�t. .. ,.ct t , ... rc.. ...... .... ....... .. .................. Planning Commission memo - 3/5/93 Nowland II Page 3 approve development within the restricted areas as shown on the SEQ Official Zoning Map. Other Issues - Mr. Gilbert addresses a number of other issues which involve personal interpretations of how the proposal meets various PRD criterion. These include issues of aesthetic compatibility with existing buildings and site characteristics, protection of scenic views, etc. These criterion are somewhat harder to define and will require the Commission to formulate an opinion and make a finding on how the proposal addresses these issues. (mem3-5) -Z To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Arthur E. Boyd Almon Atkins Jeff Chiu Douglas Meredith Fred Molthen/IBIS 0 w Date: Oral summary of this memo given to Planning Commission at its February 9, 1993 evening meeting. Re: Nowland Two Proposal Develo ment Plan, which had a date stamp of 1-5-93 on some of its documents, as being the -ate received by the South Burlington Planning Commission. The five people listed above are all contiguous property owners on Spear Street and are adjoining property owners to the proposed Nowland Two Development. The evening of 9 February 1993 was the first time we had seen or heard of the details of the developers' latest proposed development plans. However, during the course of the previous year (1992) we had seen or heard of other preliminary layouts, presented by the developer, which were considerably different from the development presented by them on 9 February 1993. We strongly recommend you deny the applicants' approval for their proposed development of Nowland Two as presented by them on 2/9/93, for the following reasons: 1. The value of our five (5) properties will be considerably reduced due to the (a) extremely high density of the proposed building lots and buildings east of our five properties, (b) heights of some of the buildings proposed by the developers will cut off our easterly views of Mt. Mansfield, Bolton Mountain, Bolton Valley Ski Areas, Winooski River Valley Cut in Horizon and Camels Hump. The density of the buildings will also restrict our easterly views. Most of our lots on Spear Street are approximately 2 acres in size. Immediately T east of our 2 acre lots the developer is proposing 1/4 to 1/2 acre lots. This is too drastic a transition. It will destroy the nature and character of the existin� neighborhood, which has been in existence for about 30 years. We propose that the developers proposed lots adjoining us on the east be 1 1/2 to 2 acres in size; i.e. the numbered lots 1 thru 6 should be replaced with 2 lots instead of the presently shown 6 lots. We then propose that the next row of lots to the east (lots presently numbered 1 1 thru 22 and lots presently numbered 51, 52 and 53) be increased in size to 1 acre lots. ( - ( (in) We further propose that the third row of lots in the easterly direction (lots presently numbered 23 thru 34 and lots presently numbered 49 and 50) be increased in size to 1/2 acre lots. We have no objections to lots presently numbered 7 thru 10 on the developers proposed Overall Site Plan being sized and located as depicted. We suggest that the remainder of the proposed lots not enumerated above be 1/2 acre lots. 2. Even though the developers feel they might meet the numerical density requirements, there is much doubt that they really do. See Mr. William A. Gilbert's 7 page memorandum (plus attachments) to you dated 2/9/93. Even, if by some convoluted logic, it is determined by some that the developers do meet the density requirements, that is only one of the criteria to be considered in your deliberations. The Planing Commission, using its good judgement, must also take into account the following: a. Prevent existing developed property owners and existing neighborhoods from being savaged by proposed new developments; i.e. reduction of the value of our property, reduction of our scenic views, reduction of our open spaces, tremendously increased traffic density due to the new development, reduction of our privacy. b. We quote portions of Article XXIV, Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ) Section 26.00, Purpose of the Zoning Regulations in support of our previous paragraph. "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 agricultural use, and well planned residential use in the largely undeveloped area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The open character and spectacular scenic views in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique resources in the city and worthy of protection." i The proposed development seems to violate all of the desirable characteristics enumerated in the introduction to Article XXVI of the Zoning Regulations mentioned above. Since the developers have been working on their plans for several years and we are just now seeing their preliminary proposal, we ask in all fairness that we, the affected property owners, be given several months in which to review and evaluate their proposal and be given an opportunity in which to respond in more fullness and more detail to their proposal. 3. To briefly recap, we strongly recommend that the Planning Commission do not approve the proposed Nowland Two Development because: a. The value of our property will be reduced. b. The proposed lots immediately adjacent to our property are too small in size and too many in number. c. Our scenic views to the east will be destroyed. d. The increased traffic density will be too great. e. The height of the proposed buildings is too high. f. The character and nature of the eadsting neighborhood/community will be too adversely affected. g. The proposed development will violate all of the desirable characteristics recommended in the introduction to Article XXVI of the City Zoning Regulations. h. All the reasons mentioned in Mr. William A Gilbert's 2/9/93 memorandum to you. Thank you for your courteous consideration of our strongly felt an)deties. ....:.r-.:;ca. ........, .r,..,,.. ..,»..-..._.� t�'.a:.wv..nY'.:-.�i•`r.„i{�.,.�. .�,> bLhaf..rh1,:.1. h i:2�: ,•' h,.1�.,2.2�1r? hr. _ -u*y' ___ .wLu�s� _ �.: . s. s.1.;..•..Ly.. MOTION OF APPROVAL NOWLAND TWO I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the Preliminary Plat application of Larkin-Milot Partnership for a planned residential development consisting of 73 single-family lots on 66.7 acres of land located on the east side of Spear Street opposite Deerfield Drive as depicted on a twenty (20) page set of plans, page one entitled "Nowland Two, South Burlington, Vermont", prepared by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc. and dated October, 1992 (stamped "received" 1/3/93) with the following stipulations: 1. Any previous approvals and stipulations affecting the subject property which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. In accordance with section 26.602 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, the Planning Commission approves the creation of lots for development upon land designated as "restricted area" on the Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map. It is the commission's opinion that based on the information submitted by the applicant the proposed development will not adversely affect wetlands on the property. Also, it is the Commission's opinion that the goals for maintaining an open space corridor along the north -south arterial roadways in the Southeast Quadrant will be promoted through the establishment of building envelopes on lots 8 through 10. The allowance of buildings in this manner is compatible with adjacent development along Spear Street. Finally, the Planning Commission supports moving the r.o.w. for a future north -south collector road to the east as proposed so as not to impact the wetland area. 3. The Commission approves the 1000 foot long cul-de-sac street serving lots 54 - 73. It is the Commission's opinion that the 1000 foot length will not result in unsafe or inefficient traffic conditions particularly since r.o.w.'s are being reserved for roadway connections to future developments on adjoining parcels. 4. In order for the Commission to find that the proposed development will not cause unreasonable highway congestion or unsafe conditions with respect of use of the highways, the applicant shall be responsible for the following: a) The final plat plans shall include design plans for the proposed southbound left turn lanes at each project access on Spear Street as recommended in the traffic impact analysis submitted by the applicant. b) The applicant shall construct the southbound left turn lanes identified above prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit for the 38th lot. c) The final plat plans shall include proposed improvements to the corner radius for northbound right -turns at the Spear Street/Swift Street intersection. d) The applicant shall construct the improvements identified in c) above prior to the issuance of a zoning/building permit for the construction of any residential structures. e) Prior to issuance of any zoning/building permits for this development, the applicant shall post a bond to cover the costs of constructing the improvements referenced in a) and c) above. This bond or bonds shall remain in effect until such time as the improvements are constructed. f) Prior to issuance of any zoning/building permits for this development, the applicant shall be responsible for retiming the signal phasing at the Spear Street/Swift Street intersection as recommended in the traffic analysis submitted by the applicant. 5. The Planning Commission approves a credit for construction of the portion of the proposed recreation path located outside of any public street right-of-way. This credit may be applied toward required recreation fees. The exact amount of credit to be applied toward recreation fees shall be determined at final plat. .6. The developer shall be required to install two (2) trees on each lot as required in Section 19.104(a) of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. The landscape plan shall be revised prior to final plat submittal to include a "typical" or note addressing this requirement. A "Notice of Condition" addressing this requirement shall be recorded in the South Burlington land records prior to recording the final plat plans. 7. Prior to issuance of any zoning/building permits, the applicant shall post a landscape bond to cover the installation cost and value of proposed street and lot trees. The bond shall remain if effect for three (3) years to assure that the planted landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of surviving. The amount of the bond shall be determined at final plat. 8. Legal documents for all public streets (i.e., irrevocable offer of dedication) and easements (e.g., utility easements and recreation path easements) shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and shall be recorded in the South Burlington Land Records prior to issuance of any zoning/building permits. 9. A "Notice of Condition" addressing the height limitations for structures and landscaping on each lot shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and shall be recorded in the South Burlington land records prior to recording the final plat plans. 10. In accordance with section 301.5 of the subdivision regulations, within 14 days of completion of required improvements (e.g., streets, water mains, sanitary sewers, storm drains, etc.), the developer shall submit to the City Engineer "as -built" construction drawings certified by a registered engineer. 11. A "Notice of Condition" addressing the building envelopes on lots #8 - 11 and purpose and restrictions thereof shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and shall be recorded in the South Burlington land records prior to recording the final plat plans. 12. Prior to final plat submittal, the plans shall be .revised to show the following: a) proposed building envelopes on lots #8 - 11 similar to those shown on the sketch entitled "Nowland Two Building Envelopes" dated 11/24/92. b) landscaping species that will meet the height limitations of the Scenic View Protection Overlay District. c) eight foot wide recreation path for entire length of Deerfield Drive. d) twenty (2,) foot wide easement along portions of recreation path not located within public street r.o.w. e) any changes necessary to address comments of Bob Gardner (South Burlington Water Department) in letter dated 2/4/93. f) an 8 inch stub northerly for MH S-6 and southerly for MH S-7. g) the drainage pipe between lots 45 & 46 extended to the rear line of the lots. h) mail box turnouts located on the side street rather than Deerfield Drive. i) northerly roadway connection to Spear Street moved approximately 150 feet to the south so as not to adversely impact houses on west side of Spear Street with headlight glare. j) a stormwater pipe along the east side of Spear Street as represented by the applicant. 13. A bond for streets, sidewalks, recreation paths, sewer and _AIWIU .. a.•r:r..,...Ud kwillw'ir water shall be posted prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit. The amount of the bond shall be approved by the City Engineer. 14. No zoning/building permit will be issued for a lot until the street serving that lot has a gravel sub -base ins a led in conformance with City specifications. r 9s� 15. The Commission approves a total sewer allocation of "RTJ7T gpd for this development. The length of time that this sewer allocation approval shall remain in effect!shall be tied to roadway construction. The roadways serving this development shall be completed within four (4) years of Aet--250 approval. The sewer allocation for any lots served by roadways which are not completed within this four (4) year time limit shall be lost unless reapproved by the Planning Commission. 16. No zoning/building permit will be issued for construction of any dwelling unit within this development until after the City adopts an education impact fee ordinance or September 1, 1993, whichever first occurs. This condition is being imposed to provide the school district a reasonable period of time to complete development of an impact fee ordinance and present the ordinance to the South Burlington City Council for ado adoption. /-g Administratfficer mayT gissue _. oni u Y permit for the; ons uction of single family re.s�nce. thin this development prior to the date specified above upon being provided cjdcumentat Dn that the applicant for such permit/has paid to the City or/School District a fee for the construction of new school facilities in a minimum amount of $750 per single family residence in compliance with a _._..W condi=n imposed in _conne._ 'on w' h _.other pew pox Val.r 17. The final plat plans, including survey plat, shall be submitted within 12 months or this approval is null and void. (mo-ml) /L i MEMORANDUM TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: WILLIAM A. GILBE6 DATE: February 9, 1993 RE: NOWLAND TWO OVERALL SITE PLAN 1/5/93 The following comments reflect my observations on the Preliminary Plat Plan approval request that is before the Commission on February 9, 1993. They relate to the "Overall Site Plan" received by the City of South Burlington on January 5, 1993 for the Nowland Two Parcel. Notice of the February 9, 1993 was dated January 30, 1993. No sketch plan approval of the January 5, 1993 "Overall Site Plan" has been granted by the South Burlington Planning Commission. I. Procedural Issues Procedurally, the Planning Commission may either approve or deny the preliminary site plan submitted on January 5, 1993 by the Applicant. The Applicant has chosen to ignore the sketch plan process with respect to the January 5 design and is therefore procedurally not seeking comments from the Planning commission, but rather approval.' A. Notice of hearing is inadequate. The notice of the February 9 hearing is dated January 30, 1993. Required notice is greater than nine days. ' Previous plans for the Nowland Two property have been submitted by the applicant in the spring of 1992 for sketch plan approval. They are completely unrelated to the January 5th filing and indeed were superseded by a December, 1992 effort to obtain a Transfer of Development Rights ("TDR"). At the December 8, 1992 Planning Commission meeting the applicant withdrew the TDR proposal and indicated on the record that it would apply for a separate planned residential development ("PRD") on the Nowland Two parcel during January. Therefore, the January 5 filing of the Overall Site Plan reflects the applicant's choice to commence a new process with a new plan for Nowland Two. By ignoring the sketch plan review process that would be available, the applicant, at its own election, puts the Planning Commission in the position of a simple yes or no answer to the plan as submitted. The correct answer is no. B. 24 V.S.A. § 4407(3). The Applicant has not submitted to the Planning Commission the submissions required under 24 V.S.A. § 4407(3) relating to planned residential development. C. South Burlington Zoning Regulations. The Applicant has not complied with South Burlington Zoning Regulation 26.606D which requires: D. In developing a plan which maximizes the goals identified above, the developer shall rely on specific site analyses, inventory maps contained in the Comprehensive Plan, and planning studies such a (sic) the "Public Improvements and Scenic Views/Natural Areas Protection Study Phases I and II." For example, the Applicant has refused to provide to the Planning Commission for comparison purposes a site plan which discloses the location of "Restricted Areas" designated in the Southeast Quadrant District ("SEQ") identified on the map entitled "Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map" ("SEQ Map") which is incorporated into and required by Article 26 of the South Burlington, Vermont Zoning Regulations. In addition, Applicant has refused to provide a detailed wetland delineation study and map. Finally, Applicant has refused to provide a "standard" or "euclidian" site plan for the subject parcel which would reflect the layout of units on the parcel allowed by the South Burlington Zoning Ordinance without PRD approval. Without such a standard plat plan the Commission cannot begin to know what, if any, PRD density bonus may be warranted. II. Issues Relating to Densit The parcel in question contains 66.7 acres and lies in the SEQ. SEQ zoning is established by the interrelationship of Article 26 and the SEQ Map. Article 26 specifically provides at 26.303 as follows: Areas not located within a restricted area designated pursuant to Section 26.301 above [the SEQ Map] shall constitute development areas. The only development areas allowed for development under SEQ zoning are those areas which are outside of the restricted area 2 designated by the SEQ Map. Without an overlay of the SEQ Map on the subject parcel, the Planning Commission is not provided with adequate information with which to approve a preliminary plan and therefore the Applicant's request for approval must be denied. Density calculations are affected by two separate parts of Article 26. 26.401 sets forth the maximum development density for residential developmental shall be 1.1 residential units per acre. That is 1.1 residential units per acre that may be developed "developable acreage" under the provisions of Article 26 as set forth on the SEQ Map. In this case, a very rough estimate of the land which is not Restricted by the provisions of the SEQ Map is 16 acres. Every other portion of the subject parcel is within a Restricted area as set forth on the map. The majority of this Restricted area is wetland. By the enactment of the SEQ Map the City has replaced the need to calculate "buildable" land. If there were any uncertainty with respect to the actual delineation or boundary of the restricted area, the Applicant has the ability to request the Planning Commission to define the location of the boundary pursuant to 26.302. This process is crucial as it protects the Planning Commission and the public with a carefully drawn provision relating to notice and requires written requests so that persons interested in the restricted area may present information relevant to determining the location of the boundary. The Applicant has not sought to take advantage of the opportunity offered to it by 26.302. Without recourse to 26.302 the Applicant has simply presented its own map of the area and has ignored the procedural and substantive protection insured to persons interested in the restricted area by the ordinance. The Planning Commission may not consider any map of the subject parcel other than the SEQ Map when defining areas upon which development may take place. A rough scaling of the land which may be developed within the subject parcel (that is, land which is not restricted under the SEQ Map) is approximately 16 acres. Since the "maximum development density for residential development" (26.401) may not exceed 1.1 residential units per acre and areas that are within a restricted area may not be developed, the base calculation of the number of units allowable within the subject parcel is approximately 18 units.z Z Apparently, in connection with its effort to transfer development rights back in December, the engineer for the applicant agreed with this analysis. By memorandum dated November 18th to Joe Weith, John Steel, the engineer for the c Having established the average density of units allowable on the subject parcel as a whole, the question then becomes what is the maximum density on any particular portion of the subject parcel that is allowed. That is established under the provisions of 26.403 wherein it is stated that the number of dwelling units or single family dwelling lots that may be located shall not exceed 4 per acre. Therefore, the subject parcel may be permitted approximately 18 units within the developable area (nonrestricted area) and the clusters may not exceed 4 per acre within that developable area. The Applicant argues for the incredible calculation of an average density of 1.1 acres times a bonus of 25% times the total number of acres on the parcel as a maximum. The ordinance clearly says that only areas that are outside of the Restricted areas as set forth on the SEQ Map shall constitute development areas. For purposes of development, land within the restricted area does not exist. The Applicant simply cannot be permitted to manufacture density or manufacture units by the fact that it has land on which development can not take place. This absurd result would also be legally discriminatory inasmuch as a parcel of land that is completely unrestricted would have maximum density of 1.1 acres, while a parcel of land with significant undevelopable areas or Restricted areas would have in effect quarter acre zoning. This would discriminate against the owner of developable land and favor developers who have purchased land on which development can not take place. Further, as the Nowland Two parcel most clearly demonstrates such an absurd reading of the density and residential units per acre rules would completely abrogate the purposes set forth in Article 26 for the SEQ. applicant, indicated that by his calculations Nowland Two contains 39.5 acres of "actual developable area." (Attached). While his calculation of the area that is Restricted by wetlands is vastly understated, the points remains that the number of acres of developable land is determined after subtracting the restricted areas such as wetlands, wetland buffer, Spear Street set back and roadways. 4 The open character and spectacular scenic views offered in this area have long be recognized as very special and unique resources in the city and worthy of protection. The Applicant seeks quarter acre zoning at the very center of that area which is known for its "open character and spectacular scenic views." In effect, the Applicant claims it is entitled to quarter acre zoning in this unique and spectacularly scenic location due to the fact that the land upon which it can develop is attached to some wetlands upon which it can not do any development whatsoever under state, federal and city land use rules. If that is the result accepted by the Planning Commission, it might have saved the public and itself a great deal of difficulty in zoning the SEQ as most of the most unique and spectacularly scenic area is associated with Restricted areas. The public should simply have been told that the way the SEQ ordinance works is to establish quarter acre zoning in the most spectacular scenic views in the City of South Burlington. Neither the zoning ordinance nor the law require the Planning Commission to accept such an inappropriate and destructive result and therefore the preliminary approval sought by the Applicant should be denied. III. Other Issues A. Wetland Study. The Applicant has refused to provide a wetland study to the Planning Commission in connection with the January 5, 1993 site plan. Indeed the only study that has been presented is the map, coupled with a letter dated December 16, 1992 from the Johnson Company to Mr. John Steel, the Applicant's engineer. That letter does not say that any study has been done by the Johnson Company. Rather, it says that in June 15, 1990 an employee of the Johnson Company used a 1989 Federal Manual to place 123 flags along the boundary of three separate wetland areas on "the property." The property is not defined in the letter. Thereafter, apparently a prior plan (obviously not the site plan submitted to this Commission on January 5, 1993) was sent to Johnson Company for review. The Johnson Company employee did not revisit the site, but rather reports in his letter that he reviewed his field notes of over two and one half years before. He said that "based on my recollection of the site and the general configuration of this wetland area, it appears that the wetland boundary is accurately represented on the plan." This is not a wetland survey; it is a guess. Indeed, the source of his definition of wetland does not even reflect his 5 own judgment as to what is wet and what is not wet on the site, but rather his interpretation of a 1989 Federal Manual. Neither the letter nor the material provided by the Applicant relates this information to the SEQ Map which defines the area of the wetland with the power of law for the City of South Burlington and for the Applicant. It is not surprising that the Applicant would prefer the guess or estimate of its own engineer from a desk in Montpelier to the use of the adopted SEQ Map enacted by the people of the City of South Burlington. The wetland area on the SEQ Map is substantially larger than the estimates of the Johnson Company.3 B. Traffic Issues The traffic study was done apparently during the period when the students at the University of Vermont and in the public school system were on vacation. The traffic study should be rejected. C. Transitional Areas The common lands outlined on the overall site plan are set to the farthest east portion of the parcel (Common Land C and Common Land D). This common land should be at the western rather than the eastern side of the parcel so as to provide a lot size buffer for transition between the larger existing parcels along Spear Street rather than the abrupt shift contemplated by the proposed plan. D. Aesthetic Issues There doesn't seem to be any effort to ameliorate the aesthetic impact on the scenic vistas available to the east from existing lands and from Spear Street, which is a public thoroughfare, toward the east. The stretch of Spear Street involved is virtually the only location in South Burlington where the Green Mountains and the Adirondacks may be encompassed in a near 360 degree view. Travelers on Spear Street, as well as the existing dwellings, enjoy the benefit of this panorama and the proposed layouts and buildings heights seem to create a wall of structures along the western boundary of the site plan. The impacts on aesthetics of this development and similar developments along Spear Street affect the entire street as the City does not require underground utilities along Spear Street. Therefore the travelling public and homeowners are presented 3 The Staff of the Planning Commission, Mr. Weith, has frequently indicated to the applicant and to the Commission the need for a thorough wetland study in connection with the applicant's prior filings on this site. P. with utility poles carrying increasingly large numbers of square feet of telephone lines and connection packages, cable television lines and power lines of both transmission and distribution voltage. The impact on Spear Street to the north of the existing development is to create a hanging fence line of wires and cables that interfere with the views of existing dwellings as well as of travelers on Spear Street and provisions should be made for any new substantial increase in demands to be served by reducing the intrusion of the utility impacts and viewing them cumulatively with other developments that have taken place in the recent past along Spear Street south of Swift. The Applicant is not provided a scenic overview overlay on the subject parcel so that the Commission may determine what portions of the parcel are subject to scenic view protection or ought to be subject to conditions relating to scenic views. E. Aquifer Recharge Area There has been no effort to determine whether or not the wetland constitutes an aquifer recharge area subject to protection under state law. Several wells of neighboring residents could be affected if the wetland is substantially disturbed and/or runoffs from any development are not carefully planned. F. Ownership Issue The ownership of the parcel is said to be "Larkin Milot Partnership, 410 Shelburne Road, Burlington, Vermont." The actual ownership and names of partners, as well as the interests and a copy of the partnership agreement, should be required to be filed. The Applicant representatives make general statements upon which the City must rely and which bind the Applicant and each of its partners individually. The City and the public should know who is responsible for this proposal and the promises made. G. Sewer Issue Apparently, there are significant restrictions with respect to the Bartlett Bay Plant which would prevent this parcel from being served by that plant. Any forced main sewer, according to memos in the files of the Planning Commission, would require an upgrade of the Swift Estates and possibly of Ridgewood pumping stations. A careful analysis of the impact of construction, the costs and traffic congestion associated with any street crossings should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. In addition, neighborhoods affected by any of that construction should receive actual notice of the Planning Commission's deliberations with respect to such matters. Without a detailed sewer plan acceptable to the town engineer and City Council the plan can not be approved. B3/05.0209 7 Ch. 117 ) MUN. & REGIONAL PLAN. & DEVI 1 T.24 § 4407 (3) Planned residential development. As provided in the plan, the modification of zoning regulations by the planning commission may be permitted simultaneously with the approval of a subdivision plat, subject to the conditions set forth below. The purposes of such authorization shall be to enable and encourage flexibility of design and development of land in such a manner as to promote the most appropriate use of land, to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities, and to preserve the natural and scenic qualities of the open lands of this state. The conditions re- ferred to above are as follows: (A) The submission of a site plan to the planning commission showing the location, height and spacing of buildings, open spaces and their landscaping, streets, driveways and offstreet parking spaces and all other physical features, accompanied by a statement setting forth the nature of all proposed modifications, changes or supplementations of existing zoning regulations; (B) If authorized in the bylaw the permitted number of dwelling units may include a density increase of as much as 25 percent beyond the number which could be permitted in the planning commission's judgment, if the land were subdivided into lots in conformance with the zoning regulations for the districts in which such land is situated. When a bylaw authorizes a density increase, no person shall be re- quired to apply for or accept a density increase. In granting a den- sity increase, the planning commission shall consider the capacities of community facilities and services and the character of the area affected; (C) The dwelling units permitted may, at the discretion of the planning commission, be of varied types including one -family, two- family or multi -family construction; (D) If the application of this procedure results in lands available for park, recreation, open space or other municipal purposes, the planning commission as a condition of its approval may establish such conditions on the ownership, use and maintenance of such lands as it deems necessary to assure the preservation of such lands for their intended purposes; (E) Any modification of the zoning regulations approved under this section shall be specifically set forth in terms of standards and criteria for the design, bulk and spacing of buildings and the sizes of lots and open spaces which shall be required, and these shall be noted or appended to the plat. is MEMORANDUM To: Joe Weith, City Planner From: John Steele Date: November 18, 1992 Subject: Sketch Plan Review Project: Southeast Summit - Nowland Two PRD Zone: Southeast Quadrant Development Density: Maximum Proposed Parcel ID Size/Acres Density Units* Density Southeast Summit 202.2 278 237 Nowland Two 66.7 92 132 Combined Total 268.9 Acres* 370 Units 369 Units *268.9 Acres x 1.1 Units/ Acre = 295.79 Units 73.94 25% Increase in Density 369.73 Total Units Sketch Plans Compared: June 16, 1992/December 8, 1992 Unit Type Single Family Multi -Family Elderly Total Units Subdivision Jun 16/Dec 8 Jun 16/Dec 8 Jun 16/Dec 8 Jun 16/Dec 8 Southeast Summit 166/157 72/80 0/0 238/237 Nowland Two 90/92 0/0 0/40 90/132 Southeast Summit and Nowland Two 256/249 72/80 0/40 328/369 Note: Based on Class II Wetlands delineation and survey, the actual developable area on the Nowland Two parcel is 39.5 acres: 66.7 Acres total - 5.0 Class II Wetlands - 5.0 Wetlands buffer - 7.2 400' Spear St. setback -10.0 15% of 66.7 for roads 39.5 Acres Maximum density on Nowland Two parcel as per section 26.403 is: 39.5 x 4 units per acre = 158 The proposed 132 units is less than the maximum density of 158 units. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services TIC OHNSON COMPANY, INC. December 16, 1992 SEC;F,Wf D DEC 2 1 1992 r•.4 l�LLY1 Mr. John Steele F�pATR1C%-Lt-�< FtzPatrick-Llewellyn, Inc. onsuhiPOE gv'" One Wentworth Drive (`pnsu�in9 Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: Wetlands at the Nowland Two Property, Spear Street, South Burlington, Vermont i JCO # 1-0616-3 (048) Dear John: The wetland delineation at the referenced property was completed on June 15, 1990. The methodology used to delineate the wetland boundary was from the 1989 Federal Manual for the Identification and Delineation of Jurisdictional Wetlands. My field notes indicate that I hung 123 flags along the boundary of three separate wetland areas on the property. Two of those areas appear to be south of the area shown on the plan for the proposed subdivision (Overall Site Plan) which you recently sent to me. The third area, which was the largest of the three areas, is shown on the Overall Site Plan. Based on my recollection of the site and the general configuration of this wetland area, it appears that the wetland boundary is accurately represented on this plan. This wetland area is associated with a drainage system that flows through the property to the north. My recollection of it is that it is a mixture of wet meadow and scrub/shrub vegetation. The field data sheets that were completed for documentation of this boundary list reed canarygrass and several sedge species as the dominant vegetation near the boundary of the wetland. The shrub type vegetation was typically located at lower landscape positions, closer to the stream, probably due to the fact that the wetland edge is occasionally mowed during farming operations. The soils in this area are clayey sediments that were laid down when this area was inundated by the glacial Lake Vermont. These soils have a very high water holding capacity. The area slopes gently from both edges towards the drainage flow in the center of the wetland. The moisture regime gets increasingly wetter towards the stream itself. The National Wetland Inventory Map for this site supports my recollection of this area with its classification of the wetland. It basically describes it as a wetland with scrub/shrub and emergent vegetation with a moisture regime that varies from seasonal to semipermanent to permanent saturation. The emergent vegetation refers to herbaceous plants such as grasses and sedges. Functionally, the main values of this area arc for the enhancement of surface water quality and wildlife habitat. The function of surface water quality enhancement is particularly important at this site due to the proposed subdivision, which could potentially increase surface water flow into this drainage system. The wetlands present along this stream will help to reduce any increased sediment and nutrient loading of this small stream that may occur. Wildlife habitat for songbirds and small mammals is provided especially by the scrub/shrub areas within this wetland. If you have questions about any of the information in this letter, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, THE JOHNSON /OMMPANY, U4C. By / 1' Bradley A. Wheeler, CPSS Senior Scientist Reviewed by: SAS/G:\USERS\8AW\RTZLLEW.LTR December 16, 1992 14.26 BAW Uri?/Gminrrurn nlal I: ngmrrnng Il ydn �rnh�y Niter.iupl ly e, 1Vr+lrnr+frr Or,lktid lLr�ni4 u; I1lrale 1, dialion Iludroh- Cordrrrninent Iuh rL+r+ly,ii $oil :� KLIi r G'irmr (:r.dhy f. Crydrq.ir. Rin•r< �nJ ndnrs did 11'dar 1'rnuiflin•\ 5 Stair Street Montitcher, VT 05602 ■ (802) 2294600 Tax: (802) 229-5876 t' BURLINGTON OFFICE Courthouse Plaza DOWNS RACHLIN & MARTIN Gary H. Barnes John H. Marshall COUNSEL 199 Main Street Leo A. Bison, Jr. Allen Martin John H. Downs Post Office Box 190 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Andre D. Bouffard Paul H. Ode, Jr. Patricia M. Sabalis Burlington, Vermont 05402-0190 Heather Briggs Bruce C. Palmer* Telephone (802) 863-2373 Gregory S. Clayton* Robert D. Rachlin Facsimile (802) 862-7512 Kathleen H. Davis Priscilla K. Reidinger Telex 92-1857 Patricia Gabel Dale A. Rocheleau James C. Gallagher* William W. Schroeder ST. JOHNSBURY OFFICE William A. Gilbert Anita R. Tuttle 9 Prospect Street Marc B. Heath Peter D. Van Cot* Post Office Box 99 Charles N. Hurt, Jr. * Dennis W. Wells St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819-0099 Robert B. Luce James G. Wheeler, Jr. Telephone (802) 748-8324 Facsimile (802) 748-4394 -- Telex 88-8659 Patricia E. Dilley Laurie LeClair LITTLETON OFFICE David L. Grayck* Coddy Marx 127 Main Street Holly Ernst Groschner* Willemien Dingemans Miller Post Office Box 78 James R. Haug, Jr. Thomas H. Moody Littleton, New Hampshire 03561-0078 Walter E. Judge. Jr. Christopher D. Roy Telephone (603) 444-0216 Peter B. Kunin *Also Admitted in NH Facsimile (603) 444-0768 REPLY TO: Burlington Office March 24, 1993 Mr. Joe Weith City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Nowland II Dear Joe: I represent Fred Hackett in connection with the "Nowland II" subdivision proposed by the Milot/Larkin partnership. Fred has attended the Preliminary Plat hearings on the project and has expressed his concerns regarding the density of the proposed subdivision. The purpose of this letter is to explain precisely why the proposed density does not meet applicable standards. We would like to draw the Planning Commission's attention to the following: 1. Both the South Burlington Zoning Regulations (Section 19.151(n)) and the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations (Section 417(m)) require that the proposed subdivision conform to the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. 2. The project is located in the so-called "Southeast Quadrant." The 1991 Comprehensive Plan was amended in June, 1992 to add Chapter XV, which governs the Southeast Quadrant. 3. Section D of Chapter XV discusses appropriate development densities in the Southeast Quadrant (Pages 95 and 96). Section D incorporates a development plan entitled the "Southeast Quadrant Goals Based Plan," which is attached to the Comprehensive Plan as Appendix E (copy attached to this letter). 4. The Goals Based Plan "identifies areas within the Quadrant which are appropriate for development and applies desirable DOWNS RACHLIN & MARTIN Mr. Joe Weith March 24, 1993 Page 2 neighborhood densities to those areas" (Comprehensive Plan, Page 95). The Goals Based Plan shows two development areas within the Nowland II tract. The proposed subdivision plan for the Nowland II tract provides for substantial development outside the development areas shown in the Goals Based Plan. 5. Both of the development areas are designated in the Goals Based Plan for neighborhood densities of "2 Res. Units/Developable Acre." Presumably, this means that development densities in the two development areas would be somewhat less than two units per acre, since developable land would exclude roads, common land and other non -buildable areas. The proposed subdivision plan for the Nowland II tract provides for densities within the two development areas substantially greater than two units per developable acre. 6. The Goals Based Plan also shows a large area in the middle of the Nowland II tract that should be left open to preserve views to the east. The subdivision plan for the Nowland II tract provides for substantial development within the open area shown in the Goals Based Plan. 7. Chapter XV of the Comprehensive Plan (Page 96) states that the neighborhood densities for development areas are based on the following relevant objectives: " - provide higher densities in development designated areas which are relatively small in size and well hidden from arterials. - encourage lower densities in larger development designated areas and in open areas." The Nowland II tract consists entirely of an open area visible from Spear Street, a major arterial. 8. The two development areas shown in the Goals Based Plan are designated for the lowest development density allowed in the Southeast Quadrant. The proposed subdivision plan for the Nowland II tract proposes the maximum zoning density available in the Southeast Quadrant (1.1 units per acre). The proposed subdivision plan does not conform to the letter or the spirit of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The subdivision proposal provides for relatively high densities and little open space; the City Plan calls for relatively low densities and a major open space in the middle of the Nowland II tract. DOWNS RACHLIN & MARTIN Mr. Joe Weith March 24, 1993 Page 3 It seems quite possible for the developers to present a subdivision plan with 40 to 50 units that does conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan. On Mr. Hackett's behalf, we urge the Planning Commission to consider whether the density of the proposed subdivision conforms to the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, or whether the density should be reduced to a more reasonable level. Very truly yours, BL'a William W. Schroeder cc: Lucy T. Brown, Esq. Mr. Fred Hackett 5585-1 B4/17.0324 Bc.17.0324 K SOUTHEAST QUADRANT GOALS BASED PLAN rl.r_1a PARK- P OME ACRE- ❑ NEIGHBORHOOD DENSITY - 2 Res. Units/Developable Acre DENSITY R-2 R-3 R-4 TOTAL DEVELOPABLE ACRES 514 573 202 1,289 (Cross -hatched) NEW RES. UNITS 1,028 1,719 808 3,555 + 560 Existing Res. Units 4,115 Total Units GRAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES T. SHEA 76 ST. PAUL STREET AREA CODE 802 STEPHEN R. CRAMPTON TELEPHONE 658-0220 STEWART H. MCCONAUGHY POST OFFICE BOX 369 FAX 658-1456 ROBERT B. HEMLEY WILLIAM G. POST, JR, BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0369 CRNG WEATHERLY CLARKE A. GRAVEL JAMES E. KNAPP COUNSEL JOHN R. PONSEITO DENNIS R. PEARSON NORMAN WILLIAMS PETER S. ERLY SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT F. O'NEILL MARGARET L. MONTGOMERY LVCY T. BROWN DAVID R. PUTNAM March 26, 1993. South Burlington Planning Commission Attention: Bill Burgess, Chairman South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Nowland II Preliminary Plot Submission Members of the Planning Commission: This letter responds to William Schroeder's letter dated March 24, 1993, submitted to the Planning Commission on behalf of Fred Hackett. Mr. Schroeder argues that the density of the subdivision, and the location of development within the subdivision, do not comply with "applicable standards." The Applicant disagrees with Mr. Schroeder for the following reasons. Mr. Schroeder is right when he says that both the City's zoning and subdivision regulations (the "Regulations") require that the Nowland II subdivision comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"). However, the Plan must be read in concert with the Regulations with the understanding that the Plan is a general guideline to the City Legislative Body and it is the Regulations which provide the details for implementation. In fact, the Plan does provide only general guidance on density, development location restrictions, and view protection. It is the Regulation that provides the details. Compliance with the Regulations must be deemed compliance with the Plan. What do the Regulations establish for density requirements in the Southeast Quadrant District? Section 26.401 provides: "The maximum development density for residential development on a parcel of land or a portion of a parcel of land located in the Southeast Quadrant District shall be 1.1 residential units per acre." Section 26.603 allows a Planning Commission to increase the density for a planned residential development within a Southeast Quadrant to up to 25%. Section 19.152 specifically provides that the formula used to calculate base density for a subdivision, which requires exclusion of land associated with steep slopes, wetlands, GRAVEL AND SHEA South Burlington Planning Commission March 26, 1993 Page 2 flood plains, and roadways, shall not apply in the Southeast Quadrant District. Base density in the Southeast Quadrant District is based on the total acreage of the subdivided tract or tracts. Accordingly, the Regulations allow a density of 73 units for the 66.7 acre Nowland II subdivision tract, which is what is proposed here. Contrary to Mr. Schroeder's assertion, the Applicant's plan does not maximize the density under the Regulations. Under Section 26.603, the Applicant could have proposed an additional 18 units. In addition to the density issue, Mr. Schroeder raises two other points regarding location of development within the Nowland II subdivision. First, he suggests that development may not occur outside of the "development areas" shown in the Southeast Quadrant Goals Based Plan. Second, he argues that an area proposed for development in the middle of the subdivision should be left opened to preserve views. Applicant's responses to these issues are that the Regulations authorize the Planning Commission to allow development, not otherwise specifically allowed by the Regulations, in restricted areas in connection with approval of a PRD. (See Section 26.602) With regard to the views issue, the Nowland II subdivision is located within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone. However, the Plan and Regulations control, but do not prohibit, development within the view protection areas. Within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone, the Regulations simply control the height of structures and landscaping. The Plan recommends that the City take action to preserve important views. The restrictions established by Article XXV of the Regulations (zoning) implement that recommendation. In response to the requirement of Article XXV, the applicant has submitted plans which demonstrate compliance with the view protection restrictions of the Regulations. It is applicant's position that read together, the Plans and Regulations do not conflict. In any event, if there is a conflict, under Vermont Law, the Plan must yield to the Regulations. In Smith v. Winhall Planning Commission, 140 Vt. 78, the Vermont Supreme Court settled the issue about which applies when there is a conflict between a town plan and its zoning regulations: "The Regulations as adopted may indeed be inconsistent with a Town Plan, but the total consistency upon which this argument is predicated is not a legal requirement. The Plan is a general guideline to the Legislative Body, an overall guide to community development. Partial implementation is not unusual; the specific implementation is a part that is GRAVEL AND SHEA South Burlington Planning Commission March 26, 1993 Page 3 adopted in the Zoning Regulations... The Regulations control the Plan." At 183. In summation, the Nowland II Subdivision fully complies with the density, restricted area, and view protection provisions of both the Plan and Regulations. Thank you for considering our response to Mr. Schroeder's comments. Very truly yours, GRAVEL AND SHEA John R. Ponsetto Stephen R. Crampton JRP:wbb cc: Mr. Gerald C. Milot William Schroeder, Esq. To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Arthur E. Boyd AlmonAtkin Jeff Chiu Douglas Meredith Fred Molthen/IBIS lr�AM7441101 WWPOW KA Date: Oral summary of this memo given to Planning Commission at its February 9, 1993 evening meeting. Re: Nowland Two Pro2osal Development Plan, which had a date stamp of 1-5-93 on "§offe` W1 s'i"-5cuments, as being the date received by the South Burlington Planning Commission. The five people listed above are all contiguous property owners on Spear Street and are adjoining property owners to the proposed Nowland Two Development. The evening of 9 February 1993 was the first time we had seen or heard of the details of the developers' latest proposed development plans. However, during the course of the previous year (1992) we had seen or heard of other preliminary layouts, presented by the developer, which were considerably different from the development presented by them on 9 February 1993. We strongly recommend you den v the applicants' approval for their proposed development of Nowland Two as presented by them on 2/9/93, for the following reasons: 1. The value of our five (5) properties will be considerably reduced due to the (a) extremely high density of the proposed building lots and buildings east of our five properties, (b) heights of some of the buildings proposed by the developers will cut off our easterly views of Mt. Mansfield, Bolton Mountain, Bolton Valley Ski Areas, Winooski River Valley Cut in Horizon and Camels Hump. The density of the buildings will also restrict our easterly views. Most of our lots on Spear Street are approximately 2 acres in size. Immediately east of our 2 acre lots the developer is proposing 1/4 to 1/2 acre lots. This is too drastic a transition. It will destroy the nature and character of the existing neighborhood, which has been in existence for about 30 years. We propose that the developers proposed lots adjoining us on the east be 1 1/2 to 2 acres in size; i.e. the numbered lots 1 thru 6 should be replaced with 2 lots Instead of the presently shown 6 lots. We then propose that the next row of lots to the east (lots presently numbered 1 1 thru 22 and lots presently numbered 51, 52 and 53) be increased in size to 1 acre lots. We further propose that the third row of lots in the easterly direction (lots presently numbered 23 thru 34 and lots presently numbered 49 and 50) be Increased in size to 1/2 acre lots. We have no objections to lots presently numbered 7 thru 10 on the developers proposed Overall Site Plan being sized and located as depicted. We suggest that the remainder of the proposed lots not enumerated above be 1/2 acre lots. 2. Even though the developers feel they might meet the numerical density requirements, there is much doubt that they really do. See Mr. William A. Gilbert's 7 page memorandum (plus attachments) to you dated 2/9/93. Even, if by some convoluted logic, it is determined by some that the developers do meet the density requirements, that is only one of the criteria to be considered in your deliberations. The Planing Commission, using its good judgement, must also take into account the following: a. Prevent existing developed property owners and existing neighborhoods from being savaged by proposed new developments; i.e. reduction of the value of our property, reduction of our scenic views, reduction of our open spaces, tremendously increased traffic density due to the new development, reduction of our privacy. b. We quote portions of Article XXIV, Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ) Section 26.00, Purpose of the Zoning Regulations in support of our previous paragraph. "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 agricultural use, and well planned residential use in the largely undeveloped area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The open character and spectacular scenic views in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique resources in the city and worthy of protection." The proposed development seems to violate all of the desirable characteristics enumerated in the introduction to Article XXVI of the Zoning Regulations mentioned above. Since the developers have been working on their plans for several years and we are just now seeing their preliminary proposal, we ask in all fairness that we, the 1 affected property owners, be given several months in which to review and evaluate their proposal and be given an opportunity in which to respond in more fullness and more detail to their proposal. 3. To briefly recap, we strongly recommend that the Planning Commission do not approve the proposed Nowland Two Development because: a. The value of our property will be reduced. b. The proposed lots immediately adjacent to our property are too small in size and too many in number. c. Our scenic views to the east will be destroyed. d. The increased traffic density will be too great. e. The height of the proposed buildings is too high. f. The character and nature of the existing neigh borhood/community will be too adversely affected. g. The proposed development will violate all of the desirable characteristics recommended in the introduction to Article XXVI of the City Zoning Regulations. h. All the reasons mentioned in Mr. William A Gilbert's 2/9/93 memorandum to you. Thank you for your courteous consideration of our strongly felt anxieties. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 L April 12, 1993 John Steele Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc. One Wentworth Drive Williston, VT 05495 Re: Nowland II & Southeast Summit, Bike Paths Dear Mr. Steele: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed for your information please find a copy of a memo to the Planning Commission from Bruce O'Neill dated 4/8/93. This memo is in regards to your meeting with the Recreation Path Committee on the above referenced projects. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincev4oly, Raymond J. Belaair Zoning & Planning Assistant RB/peh SOUTH BURLikGTON RECREATION DtkRTMENT 575 DORSET ST., SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 TEL: (802) 658-7956 ,d uWm uuiw„� BRUCE O'NEILL, CLP DIRECTOR THOMAS HUBBARD, CLP ASSI DIRECTOR TO: Joe Weith, City Planner FROM: Bruce O'Neill, Recreation Director RE: Project Review/Bike Path DATE: April 8, 1993 The South Burlington Recreation Bike Committee met with John Steele of Fitzpatrick and Llewellyn on Monday, April 5th at their regular monthly meeting. John presented plans for Nowland Two and Southeast Summit indicating the developer plans for Bike Paths. The results of our conversations are as follows: The City reviewed plans for Nowla.nd Two. This would show a path to be built by the developer that would go easterly, parallel to the extension of Deerfield Drive and then north along the back of the project, parallel to a wetland. This will be a 8' path with 2' shoulders. The north end of the path would terminate approximately 1/2 mile from Swift Street. There- was .some concern about Grades and crossing at-.-Sr�ear Street_ and Deerfield Drive and the developer is asked to stay in__contact_wi.lb_._the Committee to be sure that all safety issues are discussed and planned for The Committee gave t-hair_. y =Y-al to the Dro -QzsiJ . Southeast Summit. This project indicated two Phases. The committee requested to have a section of the path along property owned on the East side of Dorset Street. This will be done. This will allow for future connection of the existing Dorset Street Path and will go the South Burlington/Shelburne Line. The second Phase will be along what will be know as Allen Road Extension. The developer will build this to the end of the road that he is developing. This will be off road and will be constructed by the developer. In addition he will provide a 20' easement going north from Allen Road extension. The committee gave its approval to the plan. I hope this information is helpful to you and the Planning Commission. If ,you have any questions or concerns please let me know. MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Joe Weith, City Planner RE: Nowland II, Spear Street DATE: March 5, 1993 Provided below is a Staff response to several of the issues raised in Mr. Gilbert's letter to the Commission dated 2/9/93: I. Procedural Issues - Mr. Gilbert states that the current preliminary plat plan being reviewed should have first undergone a sketch plan review. As explained at the meeting, it is staff's opinion that the sketch plan requirement was met with the 12/8/92 sketch review. At that meeting, the applicant proposed a plan involving a development on both the Nowland parcel and Ramsey parcel and a transfer of density between the two. The applicant was informed by the Commission at the meeting that due to the proposed level of development on the Ramsey parcel, there was not any "extra" density available to be transferred to the Nowland parcel. The applicant since revised the Nowland plan accordingly and submitted a preliminary plat application. It is staff's opinion that the proper procedure was followed. I.A Notice of Hearing - The notice of hearing appeared in the 1/25/93 edition of the Burlington Free Press. This meets the statutory requirement of notice within 15 days of the hearing. The notice sent to the adjoining landowners incorrectly indicated that the notice appeared in the 1/30/93 edition. Neither State statute nor local ordinance requires notification of adjoining landowners. We do this as a courtesy and as an effort to obtain public input. I.B - I believe Mr. Gilbert is claiming that the applicant did not submit as part of the PRD application a statement setting forth the nature of all proposed modifications of existing zoning regulations as is required by state statute. This is true, however, the procedure that staff typically follows in these situations is that staff performs a preliminary review and identifies all proposed modifications. We then contact the applicant in writing and inform them of proposed modifications which will require approval by the Commission. The applicant has the opportunity to revise the proposal if so desired. Staff then identifies all proposed modifications in the memo to the Commission. I.D - A map depicting the "restricted areas" and "development areas" shown on the Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map and how the proposed Nowland II development compares to these designated areas was submitted by the applicant. This map dated 1/19/93 was distributed to the Commission prior to the 2/9/93 meeting. See letter dated 3/3/93 from the Johnson Company regarding the Planning Commission memo - 3/5/93 Nowland II Page 2 wetland delineation study issue. II. Densitv Issues Staff does not agree with Mr. Gilbert's interpretation of the ordinance in regards to density. The intent of the district in regards to maximum allowable density for a particular parcel is to calculate maximum density via a two step process. Section 26.401 determines the maximum density of development that a parcel generates for development somewhere in the SEQ district. This is determined by multiplying the total acres of a parcel times 1.1 units/acre. In the Nowland II case, the 66.7 acre parcel generates a maximum of 73 units for development somewhere in the SEQ district (66.7 acres x 1.1 u/a = 73 units). This example does not assume a 25% bonus which is provided for in Section 26.603. The maximum allowable density on a particular parcel is determined by Section 26.403. As provided, the maximum number of units potentially allowed on a parcel is determined by the number of acres of development designated land times 4 units/acre. In the Nowland case, this means a maximum allowable density of 123 units could be approved if all criteria are satisfied (30.9 acres development area x 4 u/a = 123 units). Section 26.302 - Mr. Gilbert claims that the applicant must follow the procedure provided for in Section 26.302 in order to get approval to develop within a restricted area. Staff does not agree with this opinion. Section 26.302 was included to offer an opportunity to clear up any confusion that may exist as to the location of a boundary between a restricted area and development area. There apparently is not any confusion as to the restricted area boundaries on this parcel. There are basically three restricted areas defined: 1) the 400 foot setback along Spear Street, 2) the restricted area following the limits of the wetland, and 3) the restricted area defining proposed arterial/collector streets. Since there is not any confusion, the applicant has not elected to request a clarification as provided for in Section 26.302. The applicant is proposing to develop within restricted areas which is allowed in Section 26.602. In order for the Commission to approve such development, the Commission must find that the proposal meets all the requirements for PRD's as defined. In presenting their case, the applicant has provided information including a wetlands delineation study, a relocated arterial/connector roadway r.o.w. and specific building envelopes on the lots along Spear Street. The Commission will take this testimony into consideration when deciding whether or not to Planning Commission memo - 3/5/93 Nowland II Page 3 approve development within the restricted areas as shown on the SEQ Official Zoning Map. Other Issues - Mr. Gilbert addresses a number of other issues which involve personal interpretations of how the proposal meets various PRD criterion. These include issues of aesthetic compatibility with existing buildings and site characteristics, protection of scenic views, etc. These criterion are somewhat harder to define and will require the Commission to formulate an opinion and make a finding on how the proposal addresses these issues. cc: William Gilbert (mem3-5) ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Ser One Wentworth Drive WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 (802) 878-3000 TO -" r WE ARE SENDING YOU eAttached ❑ Under separate cover via_ ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ LrFun ✓ O)F umzuznuuuQL DATE JOB NO. - / ATTENTION RE: the following items: ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 REMARKS COPY TO * ao % Pre -Consumer Content • 10% Post -Consumer Content SIGNED: PRODUCT2402 n a inc..croton,mass.olan. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at �)owLA,�j D J-1 fib I '00 �RL At d,,e, ,4- +4,,�4 S c�� l/%,a-�-� Gv�. ��v�c� � /'�'• is"/ oe__ 00 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services One Wentworth Drive • Williston • Vermont • 05495 • (802) 878-3000 March 30, 1993 Mr. Joe Weith South Burlington City Planner 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Nowland II Traffic Impact Analysis FILE: 92075 Dear Mr. Weith: A City of South Burlington Planning Commission meeting was conducted on March 9th, 1993 for the Continuance of the Preliminary Plat application for the above project. During that meeting Planning Commission members requested the following additional traffic related information: 1. Identify the traffic signal controller capabilities for the traffic signal located at the intersection of Spear Street and Swift Street. 2. Calculate the maximum amount of northbound Spear Street traffic during the AM peak hour that could be added to the projected design hour traffic volumes such that overall level -of -service C would be maintained. The following are responses to the above comments: 1. The traffic signal controller at the intersection of Spear Street and Swift Street is capable of time -of -day signal timing operation. Unfortunately, that capability was not utilized prior to last Thursday, March 25th, 1993. Before that time, the controller operated with one set of signal timings for the entire day. It appears that both Spear Street and Swift Street were set for equal green times of 35 seconds each, although the actual field measurement of green times appeared to be in the 25 to 27 second range. Construction & Engineering Associates (CEA) is under contract with the City of South Burlington for the maintenance of many traffic signals, including the traffic signal at the intersection of Spear Street and Swift Street. We have been in close contact with CEA with regard to optimizing the operation of that signal. Design 0 Inspection • Studies 0 Permitting 0 Surveying Mr. Joe Weith FILE: 92075 March 30, 1993 Page Two The following improvements have been made to that traffic signal: a. Vehicle loop detectors are located on the Swift Street approaches to the intersection. Vehicle loop detectors are wires embedded into the approach lane pavement and function to call the signal to change to green when a vehicle is on the loop. The optimum operation of the vehicle loop detectors is to call for the green only when a vehicle is stopped and waiting at the approach. Previously at this intersection, it was possible that a vehicle would sit on the loop detector for several seconds, then execute a right turn. Shortly thereafter, the traffic signal would become green for the Swift Street approach, even if no vehicle was waiting at the intersection. CEA noticed this problem and corrected the operation of the loop detector such that if a vehicle left the intersection by performing a right -turn and no other vehicle was present on the loop detector, the loop detector would reset and would not call a green on Swift Street. The effect of this modification is improved intersection capacity. b. The most dramatic improvement to the operation of is the new time -of -day operation as of March 25th. traffic signal now operates under two scenarios: i. AM Peak - 7:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Spear Street green = 35 seconds Swift Street green = 15 seconds ii. All other times Spear Street green = 35 seconds Swift Street green = 33 seconds this signal This It is important to note that the above signal timings are a "first -pass" at providing the best signal timings at this intersection. This traffic signal should be monitored to see if minor adjustments to the traffic signal timings are needed. The operation of this traffic signal was observed during the periods of 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Friday March 26 and 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. on Monday, March 29, 1993. Since only a minor timing change was made to the PM peak hour operation, no significant changes were noted and it appears the intersection operates at a good level -of -service with minimal delay to PM peak hour traffic. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Joe Weith FILE: 92075 March 30, 1993 Page Three The most significant improvement to traffic flow occurs during the AM peak hour. Northbound Spear Street queues have been significantly reduced and the overall operation of this intersection is markedly improved. Since this is the "first pass" at optimizing the operation of this traffic signal and it was noted that queues occasionally form along Swift Street, we have recommended to CEA that three seconds be added to the green time on Swift Street followed by field observations during the AM peak hour. It appears CEA will be making this modification within the next day or so. 2. Approximately 80 vehicles could be added to the northbound Spear Street traffic volumes during the AM peak hour for 1993 existing design hour conditions while still maintaining an overall intersection level -of -service C. A detailed intersection capacity analysis is attached. It is estimated that the full build -out of this project will result in a total of 31 vehicles travelling north during the AM peak hour. We trust that the foregoing information will assist the City of South Burlington in the review of this project. Should you have any questions, please contact us. Sincerely, FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Brendan Kelly, P.E. cc: Gerald Milot Michael Oman, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services � HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated ======================================================================= Streets; (E-W) SWIFT STREET (N-S) SPEAR STREET Analyst: B. KELLY File Name: 92075AE3.HC9 Area Type; Other 3-30-93 AM DHV Comment: 1993-EXISTING CONDITIONS W/ 80 ADD NB VEHICLES ======================================================================= | Eastbound | Westbound | Northbound | Southbound |L T R |L T R |L T R |L T R |____ ____ ____|____ ____ ---- 1---- ____ ____|____ ____ No. Lanes | > l < | > l < | > l < 1 > l < Volumes | 55 33 391 55 179 791 251 364 1471 5 53 25 Lane Width | 12.0 | ll .0 | ll .0 | ll .5 RTOR Vols | 6| 12| 20| 4 _______________________________________________________________________ Signal Operations Phase combination l 2 3 4 | 5 6 7 8 EB Left * |NB Left * Thru * | Thru * Right * | Right * Peds | Peds WB Left * 1S8 Left * Thru * | Thru * Right * | Right * Peds | Peds NB Right |EB Right SB Right 1WB Right 8reen 15A !Green 35P Yellow/A-R 6 !Yellow/A-R 7 Lost Time 3.0 !Lost Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 63 _______________________________________________________________________ secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 Lane Group: Mvmts Cap _____ ___..... Intersection Performance Adj Sat v/c g/c Flow Ratio Ratio Summary Approach; Delay LOS Delay LOS __.... ..... ..... ___ ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... _..... EB LTR 1036 296 0.45 0,29 14.8 B 14.8 B WB LTR 1512 432 0.81 0.29 23.5 C 23.5 C NB LTR 1450 898 0.98 0.62 28.5 D 28.5 D SB LTR 1413 875 0.10 0.62 3.7 A 3.7 A Intersection _______________________________________________________________________ Delay = 24.5 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services One Wentworth Drive • Williston • Vermont • 05495 a (802) 878-3000 March 30, 1993 Mr. Joe Weith South Burlington City Planner 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Nowland II Traffic Impact Analysis FILE: 92075 Dear Mr. Weith: A City of South Burlington Planning Commission meeting was conducted on March 9th, 1993 for the Continuance of the Preliminary Plat application for the above project. During that meeting Planning Commission members requested the following additional traffic related information: 1. Identify the traffic signal controller capabilities for the traffic signal located at the intersection of Spear Street and Swift Street. 2. Calculate the maximum amount of northbound Spear Street traffic during the AM peak hour that could be added to the projected design hour traffic volumes such that overall level -of -service C would be maintained. The following are responses to the above comments: 1. The traffic signal controller at the intersection of Spear Street and Swift Street is capable of time -of -day signal timing operation. Unfortunately, that capability was not utilized prior to last Thursday, March 25th, 1993. Before that time, the controller operated with one set of signal timings for the entire day. It appears that both Spear Street and Swift Street were set for equal green times of 35 seconds each, although the actual field measurement of green times appeared to be in the 25 to 27 second range. Construction & Engineering Associates (CEA) is under contract with the City of South Burlington for the maintenance of many traffic signals, including the traffic signal at the intersection of Spear Street and Swift Street. We have been in close contact with CEA with regard to optimizing the operation of that signal. Design • Inspection • Studies • Permitting • Surveying o Yy. hl .� .: y� �"{t�iWa4 F •'vi# W,. � �.tNb 4 J Mr. Joe Weith FILE: 92075 March 30, 1993 Page Two The following improvements have been made to that traffic signal: a. Vehicle loop detectors are located on the Swift Street approaches to the intersection. Vehicle loop detectors are wires embedded into the approach lane pavement and function to call the signal to change to green when a vehicle is on the loop. The optimum operation of the vehicle loop detectors is to call for the green only when a vehicle is stopped and waiting at the approach. Previously at this intersection, it was possible that a vehicle would sit on the loop detector for several seconds, then execute a right turn. Shortly thereafter, the traffic signal would become green for the Swift Street approach, even if no vehicle was waiting at the intersection. CEA noticed this problem and corrected the operation of the loop detector such that if a vehicle left the intersection by performing a right -turn and no other vehicle was present on the loop detector, the loop detector would reset and would not call a green on Swift Street. The effect of this modification is improved intersection capacity. b. The most dramatic improvement to the operation of this signal is the new time -of -day operation as of March 25th. This traffic signal now operates under two scenarios: i. AM Peak - 7:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Spear Street green = 35 seconds Swift Street green = 15 seconds ii. All other times Spear Street green = 35 seconds Swift Street green = 33 seconds It is important to note that the above signal timings are a "first -pass" at providing the best signal timings at this intersection. This traffic signal should be monitored to see if minor adjustments to the traffic signal timings are needed. The operation of this traffic signal was observed during the periods of 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Friday March 26 and 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. on Monday, March 29, 1993. Since only a minor timing change was made to the PM peak hour operation, no significant changes were noted and it appears the intersection operates at a good level -of -service with minimal delay to PM peak hour traffic. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Joe Weith FILE: 92075 March 30, 1993 Page Three The most significant improvement to traffic flow occurs during the AM peak hour. Northbound Spear Street queues have been significantly reduced and the overall operation of this intersection is markedly improved. Since this is the "first pass at optimizing the operation of this traffic signal and it was noted that queues occasionally form along Swift Street, we have recommended to CEA that three seconds be added to the green time on Swift Street followed by field observations during the AM peak hour. It appears CEA will be making this modification within the next day or so. 2. Approximately 80 vehicles could be added to the northbound Spear Street traffic volumes during the AM peak hour for 1993 existing design hour conditions while still maintaining an overall intersection level -of -service C. A detailed intersection capacity analysis is attached. It is estimated that the full build -out of this project will result in a total of 31 vehicles travelling north during the AM peak hour. We trust that the foregoing information will assist the City of South Burlington in the review of this project. Should you have any questions, please contact us. Sincerely, FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED j Brendan Kelly, P.E. cc: Gerald Milot Michael Oman, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services J HC•:M I GN AL I.ZED 1' 1\1TER _"EC:T 1 D JQ =:�_1r'AYiARY f'7.t• i'is+.t•t"'7.{=I:"-i_1ek+k.?1.lyn Incorporated t reet s : (E-14t ) _.; -! I F"T=;TF,,EE*l- (' N—S ) SPEAR STREET Arta 1 ys t.: B . KELLY File Name: 92 }75AE . HC'9 Area Type; Other - 3C?'-9*- AM DHV Ccairnet-t t• : iw,l;r _ C) ADD. NE: VEHICLE'=: i f=.asl.L-++..u-I-)d i I1Westh_+c+und i Nc+rt•f1b and c+ut.hL.oulld f I._ T F? ! f._ l" L T F i I L T R L.aries; +�. G-�.. �. 7 + rY -T+ - :d u r+i e s 5. ; _ ._ ' '1 + S E I r _� r _1 + � • ',1 _; i�,:1 1 . + 5 L. tr'ie Wiclt-f"1 f 12. C? f 1 1. [? ,:�dgrlal Operatic -Cris Phase cC+ttiL_+1i1l-tt: i+::+ii I _. '� I �. (-, 7 _ E L: L t:= f t• 1: i h`J E: L e 'f^ t• :#: _1..r_tt".L-1 Thr•u : I..+... . tr,���: i P e d s WE: Left k: I '_:L==; Left. =k: T1-;ru a: f F'hru #: R. t #: I h i gI-I t. I. e+.. , NI.*::: R J. gI it I IEB R i :gin t. Ft :i. g h t 111 B h j. g 4..t t 'i`eE.'il I SA ; Green 35P I try: l 1 +:++,M; A.....I- t f yi-7 :I. 1 h 7 Lost. Tj.riit ':. �? : L..=_+st• Tirite _; . C} L_ rtit t _1'k: h ; _ :> t.? c 1= 1-1 a t= {_ t +ril h,+ i i i r t t::i. +�t t't +_ r +a _: r : �# 1 44.ti Lane CCiIF' C.,U1:=+; 11vI'1-1t•s C.a!_ ...+. _ �. �•'t::r''f't_+i'I'ilatftct: f i v i't_ wl; c =Uritrilary WI:: LTF 1 ':15 C: =; f _• LT F: 7 5 1 C? Ci . r :1. 7 A 3.7 A Ii�t.ersect:i+:'+'t+ Dt: a<'.'',' - .'::1...G C='.t::r[::' ..i 'r In t•et sect•ic+ii t_OS = C: '-"c�°.'4tR?tn�?Ys3t?eh'4�yiC!�Wit�f?ii��i#�1riJ�i3>�#!FyKy"'<r. ;w�, •s �� FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services One Wentworth Drive • Williston • Vermont • 05495 • (802) 878-3000 March 30, 1993 Mr. Joe Weith South Burlington City Planner 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Nowland II Traffic Impact Analysis FILE: 92075 Dear Mr. Weith: A City of South Burlington Planning Commission meeting was conducted on March 9th, 1993 for the Continuance of the Preliminary Plat application for the above project. During that meeting Planning Commission members requested the following additional traffic related information: 1. Identify the traffic signal controller capabilities for the traffic signal located at the intersection of Spear Street and Swift Street. 2. Calculate the maximum amount of northbound Spear Street traffic during the AM peak hour that could be added to the projected design hour traffic volumes such that overall level -of -service C would be maintained. The following are responses to the above comments: 1. The traffic signal controller at the intersection of Spear Street and Swift Street is capable of time -of -day signal timing operation. Unfortunately, that capability was not utilized prior to last Thursday, March 25th, 1993. Before that time, the controller operated with one set of signal timings for the entire day. It appears that both Spear Street and Swift Street were set for equal green times of 35 seconds each, although the actual field measurement of green times appeared to be in the 25 to 27 second range. Construction & Engineering Associates (CEA) is under contract with the City of South Burlington for the maintenance of many traffic signals, including the traffic signal at the intersection of Spear Street and Swift Street. We have been in close contact with CEA with regard to optimizing the operation of that signal. Design 0 Inspection 0 Studies * Permitting 0 Surveying Mr. Joe Weith FILE: 92075 March 30, 1993 Page Two The following improvements have been made to that traffic signal: a. Vehicle loop detectors are located on the Swift,Street approaches to the intersection. Vehicle loop detectors are ment callthebsignalded itoothe changepttooach greenane whenaaevehicledisuontion the to call 9 loop. The optimum operation of the vehicle loop detectors is to call for the green only when a vehicle is stopped and waiting at the approach. Previously at this intersection, it was possible that a vehicle would sit on the loop detector for several seconds, then execute a right turn. Shortly thereafter, the traffic signal would become green for the Swift Street approach, even if no vehicle was waiting at the intersection. CEA noticed this problem and corrected the operation of the loop detector such that if a vehicle left the intersection by performing a right -turn and no other vehicle was present on the est and would loop Swifthe loop Streett.deThetor effecctlofrthis modificattiontisall a greenen on on improved intersection capacity. b. The most dramatic improvement to the operation of this signal is the new time -of -day operation as of March 25'th. This traffic signal now operates under two scenarios: i. AM Peak - 7:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Spear Street green = 35 seconds Swift Street green = 15 seconds ii. All other times Spear Street green = 35 seconds Swift Street green = 33 seconds It is important to note that the above signal timings are a "first -pass" at providing the best signal timings at this intersection. This traffic signal should be monitored to see if minor adjustments to the traffic signal timings are needed. •io of this traffic signal was observed during the The ofier8��..•• ►. �� and 7 • 30 periods of 4.00 P.M. to 4:30 p.m. on Friday March a.m. to 8:00•a.m. on Monday, March 29, 1993. Since only a minor timing change was made to the PM peak hour operation, no significant changes were noted and it appears the intersection operates at a good level -of -service with minimal delay to PM peak hour traffic. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Joe Weith FILE: 92075 March 30, 1993 Page Three The most significant improvement to traffic flow occurs during the AM peak hour. Northbound Spear Street queues have been significantly reduced and the overall operation of this intersection is markedly improved. Since this is the "first pass at optimizing the operation of this traffic signal and it was noted that queues occasionally form along Swift Street, we have recommended to CEA that three seconds be added to the green time on Swift Street followed by field observations during the AM peak hour. It appears CEA will be making this modification within the next day or so. 2. Approximately 80 vehicles could be added to the northbound Spear Street traffic volumes during the AM peak hour for 1993 existing design hour conditions while still maintaining an overall intersection level -of -service C. A detailed intersection capacity analysis is attached. It is estimated that the full build -out of this project will result in a total of 31 vehicles travelling north during the AM peak hour. We trust that the foregoing information will assist the City of South Burlington in the review of this project. Should you have any questions, please contact us. Sincerely, FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Brendan Kelly, P.E. cc: Gerald Milot Michael Oman, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services HC•M : SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY F:it.a:::;='atrici::-Llewellyn Incorporated Streets: (E-W ) SWIFT STREET (N-' , ) SPEAR STREET Analyst: B . KELLY File Name: 92075AE3 . HC:9 Area Type: Other 30-93 AM DHV C:+Jrtme4(t; I993--EXISTING C:ONDIT7.(JI'S W/ 30 ADD. NB VEHIC:LE=< Eastbound Westbound 1 Northbound '=ou�l hbound 1.._ T R 1 L T R { L T R 1 L T R ---- ---- ---- : ---- ---- ____. ------ No. Lanese 1 > 1 < 1 > 1 < > 1 < 1 > 1 Large Width 1 12.0 1 1 1. 0 1 1 1 .0 1 1 1. S r TOr Vo l s G ; 12 ; 201 a. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase combination 1 ,._ _. 4 1 S r-; •7 EC, Lef t• ::i:: 1 NB Left. ::I: ..rhr_.0 4: Tr,r•u I: R i ,n h t. :t: 1 Right. t: Peds Peds WE, Left :t: 1'_,B Left. :k: Th r u :f: 1. 1-1 r u :t: Right ::1: i Right 3: Peds Peds. NB Right :EB Ri.ght. B R i.ght 1W8 Ri.g1...rt Green 15A !Green 36P Yellow/A-R 6 !Yellow/A--I; 7 Lost Time 3.0 !Lost Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 63 secs ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phase combination order: #1 # • t r _r : t]? - Performance Summary Lane Group: AN Sat t1vmts C.::1p Flow Ratio Ratio Delay l... t..S Delay L1...1'.-; EB L"I h 1036 296 0.45 0.29 14.8 14.8 E' Wl ; LTF; 1512 432 0.81 0.29 _ . '., C: 23.5 C: S l=, LTF: 1413 876 0 . 1 r : 0.62 3.7 A 3.7 A intersection 1 Delay 24.5 ( s t::' rr.: v i= t : Intersection L_ 4.J S = .. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services One Wentworth Drive • Williston • Vermont • 05495 • (802) 878-3000 March 30, 1993 Mr. Joe Weith South Burlington City Planner 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Nowland II Traffic Impact Analysis FILE: 92075 Dear Mr. Weith: A City of South Burlington Planning Commission meeting was conducted on March 9th, 1993 for the Continuance of the Preliminary Plat application for the above project. During that meeting Planning Commission members requested the following additional traffic related information: 1. Identify the traffic signal controller capabilities for the traffic signal located at the intersection of Spear Street and Swift Street. 2. Calculate the maximum amount of northbound Spear Street traffic during the AM peak hour that could be added to the projected design hour traffic volumes such that overall level -of -service C would be maintained. The following are responses to the above comments: 1. The traffic signal controller at the intersection of Spear Street and Swift Street is capable of time -of -day signal timing operation. Unfortunately, that capability was not utilized prior to last Thursday, March 25th, 1993. Before that time, the controller operated with one set of signal timings for the entire day. It appears that both Spear Street and Swift Street were set for equal green times of 35 seconds each, although the actual field measurement of green times appeared to be in the 25 to 27 second range. Construction & Engineering Associates (CEA) is under contract with the City of South Burlington for the maintenance of many traffic signals, including the traffic signal at the intersection of Spear Street and Swift Street. We have been in close contact with CEA with regard to optimizing the operation of that signal. Design 0 Inspection 0 Studies 0 Permitting 0 Surveying Mr. Joe Weith FILE: 92075 March 30, 1993 Page Two The following improvements have been made to that traffic signal: a. Vehicle loop detectors are located on the Swift Street approaches to the intersection. Vehicle loop detectors are ion wires he sgnaltochange to green when avehicle isonthe diiothe ptoaaedutto call t loop. The optimum operation of the vehicle loop detectors is to call for the green only when a vehicle is stopped and waiting at the approach. Previously at this intersection, it was possible that a vehicle would sit on the loop detector for several seconds, then execute a right turn. Shortly thereafter, the traffic signal would become green for the Swift Street approach, even if no vehicle was waiting at the intersection. CEA noticed this problem and corrected the operation of the loop detector such that if a vehicle left the intersection by performing a right -turn and no other vehicle was present on the loop detector, the .Theeffectofthis modifica hStreetdetor lrtioneset and woultisall Swift a green on improved intersection capacity. b. The most dramatic improvement to the operation of this signal is the new time -of -day operation as of March 25th. This traffic signal now operates under two scenarios: i. AM Peak - 7:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Spear Street green = 35 seconds Swift Street green = 15 seconds ii. All other times Spear Street green = 35 seconds Swift Street green = 33 seconds It is important to note that the above signal timings are a "first -pass" at providing the best signal timings at this intersection. This traffic signal should be monitored to see if minor adjustments to the traffic signal timings are needed. The operation of this traffic signal was observed during the periods of 4:00 P.M. to 4:30 p.m. on Friday March 26 and 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. on Monday, March 29, 1993. Since only a minor timing change was made to the PM peak hour operation, no significant changes were noted and it appears the intersection operates at a good level -of -service with minimal delay to PM peak hour traffic. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services PI Mr. Joe Weith FILE: 92075 March 30, 1993 Page Three The most significant improvement to traffic flow occurs during the AM peak hour. Northbound Spear Street queues have been " significantly reduced and the overall operation of this intersection is markedly improved. Since this is the "first pass" at optimizing the operation of this traffic signal and it was noted that queues occasionally form along Swift Street, we have recommended to CEA that three seconds be added to the green time on Swift Street followed by field observations during the AM peak hour. It appears CEA will be making this modification within the next day or so. 2. Approximately 80 vehicles could be added to the northbound Spear Street traffic volumes during the AM peak hour for 1993 existing design hour conditions while still maintaining an overall intersection level -of -service C. A detailed intersection capacity analysis is attached. It is estimated that the full build -out of this project will result in a total of 31 vehicles travelling north during the AM peak hour. We trust that the foregoing information will assist the City Of South Burlington in the review of this project. Should you have any questions, please contact us. Sincerely, FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Brendan Kelly, P.E. cc: Gerald Milot Michael Oman, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services a ` HC::I' i : SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY FitzPat•rick-Llewellyn Incorporated Streets: C E-W :r SWIFT STREET c: N-' : i SPEAR STREET Analyst.: B . KELLY File Name: 92075AE3 . HC 9 Area Type: Other = i_r-; 3 AM DHV Comment: 19 3--EXISTING C:ONDITIOhiS W/ SO ACID. NB VEHICLES : Eastbound : Westbound 1 Northbound ound : _ out•rYtJCtl nd',' 1 1._ T R 1 L T R 1 L T R 1 1._. T F 1---- ---- ---- ; ---- ---- _____ , ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 . . _ 9 1 _ . _ : . 1 . : 1 1 1 y . o l limes 1 5 __ . 1 5 �_� i 79 7'_•� 1 25 1 64 1 4. 1 5 53 X.. Lane Width 1 12.0 1 1 1 . O 1 1 1. { r 1 1 1 . 5 RTOR Vo •l ss : 6 : 1 2: 20: 4 ignal Operations Phase combination I 2t _ 4 t S LB Left %I:: 1 NB Left. :#: Thra '#: 1 Thr:u :#: Right. is : Right. P en_is 1 Peds WE, Left. : f: 1 SB Left. _, T h r u :# 1 Thru Right 1 Right Peds 1 Peds N[: Right. 1EB Right. SB Right. 1W8 Right. Green 1 5A :Green 3 5F' Yellow/A-R F. : Yel l,.tw; A--R Lost Time 3.0 !Lost. Time 3.0 Cycle Length: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 63 secs Phase combination order: #1 #1:5 Int.k.:rser_t.i n Performance Summary Lane Group: AN _:at v/c g/c Approach: Mvni t: s:. Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay I.._C:lS Delay i_..i:::i!-:; ES i.._TF 1036 296 0.45 0.29 14.8 8 14.8 WB i TR 1512 432 0.81 0.29 _ . 6 r . 230 ,_ 1,QF: 1-1-R 1450 898 0.98 0.62 28.5 D 28.5 D =B LTR 1413 875 0.10 0.62 3.7 iy 3.7 Intersection Delay 24.5 (sec./veh) Intersection LO'= _ C:: BURLINGTON OFFICE Courthouse Plaice DOWNS RACHLIN & MARTIN Gary H. Barnes John H. Marshall COUNSEL. 199 Main Street Leo A. Bison, )r. Allen Martin John H. Downs Post Office Fox 190 PR0I'liS51ONAI. CORPORATION Andre D. Bouffard J Patricia M. Sabalis Paul H. Ode,Jr.Burlington, Vermont 05402.0190 Heather Briggs Bruce C. Palmer• Telephone (802) 863-2375 Gregory S. Clayton • Robert D. Rachlin Facsimile (802( 862-7512 t Kathleen H. Davis Priscilla K. Reidinger Telex 92 1857 Patricia Gabel Dale A. Rocheleau ST. JOHNSBUOFFICE: James C. Gallagher- William W. Schroeder 9 Prospect Street William A. Gilbert Anita R. Tuttle Past Office Box 99 Marc B. Hcath Peter D. Van Cot, St. Johnsburv, Vermont 05819 (NPN) Charles N. Burt. Jr.' Dennis W. Wells " Robert B. Luce James G. Wheeler. Jr. c l lcphonc �802i 7488324 Facsimile (802) 748-4394 ----- Telex 88-8659 Patricia E. Dillev Laune LeClair LTTTLFAUN OFFICE David 1,Grayck' Coddy Marx 127 AJaut Street Holly Ernst (;roschncr• Willemien Dingemans Miller Post Office lox 78 James R. I laug, Jr. "Thomas H. Moody Littleton, New I fampshire 03561 W78 Walter L. Judge, Jr. Christopher 1), Roy Telephone 13i 444 Peter B. Ki nin I�acsim plc (600-.fi 444-0768768 'Also Admitted in NH REPIN TO Burlington Office March 24, 1993 Mr. Joe Weith City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Nowland II Dear Joe: I represent Fred Hackett in connection with the "Nowland II" subdivision proposed by the Milot/Larkin partnership. Fred has attended the Preliminary Plat hearings on the project and has expressed his concerns regarding the density of the proposed subdivision. The purpose of this letter is to explain precisely why the proposed density does not meet applicable standards. We would like to draw the Planning Commission's attention to the following: 1. Both the South Burlington Zoning Regulations (Section 19.151(n)) and the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations (Section 417(m)) require that the proposed subdivision conform to the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. 2. The project is located in the so-called "Southeast Quadrant." The 1991 Comprehensive Plan was amended in June, 1992 to add Chapter XV, which governs the Southeast Quadrant. 3. Section D of Chapter XV discusses appropriate development densities in the Southeast Quadrant (Pages 95 and 96). Section D incorporates a development plan entitled the "Southeast Quadrant Goals Based Plan," which is attached to the Comprehensive Plan as Appendix E (copy attached to this letter). 4. The Goals Based Plan "identifies areas within the Quadrant which are appropriate for development and applies desirable l Mr. Joe Weith March 24, 1993 Page 2 DOWNS RACHLIN & MARTIN neighborhood densities to those areas" (Comprehensive Plan, Page 95). The Goals Based Plan shows two development areas within the Nowland II tract. The proposed subdivision plan the Nowland II tract provides for substantial development outside the development areas shown in the Goals Based Plan. foeA- 5. Both of the development areas are designated in the Goals Based Plan for neighborhood densities of "2 Res. Units/Developable Acre." Presumably, this means that develop_men densities in the two development areas would be somewhat �gss --- p _ _ _ _-- -- __-- than two units per acre_, since developableland_Would_e.cclude -- - roads, _commo_n_land an�.ot er non buildable areas. The proposed subdivision plan for the Nowland II tract provides for densities within the two development areas substantiall greater than two units per developable acre. (/ttiyrSFp 317.5A 0 - x Zti/A4,-'Wl (SECS ) 3o.9.1 4ry r 2v/4 Y 6. The Goals Based Plan also shows a large area in the middle of the Nowland II tract that should be left open to preserve views to the east. The subdivision plan for a ow an I tract to es for substantial development within the open area shown in the Goals Based Plan. Tr 7 �� �l•--� 7. Chapter XV of the Comprehensive Plan (Page 96) states that the neighborhood densities for development areas are based on the following relevant objectives: " - provide higher densities in development designated areas which are relatively small in size and well hidden from arterials. - encourage lower densities in larger development designated areas and in open areas." The Nowland II tract consists entirely of an open area visible3 from Spear Street, a major arterial. 8. The two development areas shown in the Goals Based Plan are designated for the lowest development density allowed in the Southeast Quadrant. The proposed subdivision plan for the Nowland II tract proposes the maximum zoning density available in the Southeast Quadrant (1.1 units per acre). The proposed subdivision plan does not conform to the letter or the spirit of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The subdivision proposal provides for relatively high dens' t-le omen T'� space; the City Plan calls for relatively low densities and a� major open space in the middle of the Nowland II tract. DOWNs RACHLIN & MARTIN Mr. Joe Weith March 24, 1993 Page 3 It seems quite possible for the developers to present a subdivision plan with 40 to 50 units that does conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan. On Mr. Hackett's behalf,_we urge the Planning Commission to co der whether the densitV of the .proposed subdivision conforms to the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, or whether the density should be reduced to a more reasonable level. very truly yours, ,( Q� 2 /a William W. Schroeder cc: Lucy T. Brown, Esq. Mr. Fred Hackett 5585-1 B 4 /17.0324 �i � Bc.17.0324 No Text i GRAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES T. SHEA 76 ST. PAUL STREET AREA D $TEPHEN R. CRAMPfON STEPHE TELEPHONE658-0220 STEWART H. MCCONAUGHY POST OFFICE BOX 369 FAX 658-1456 ROBERT B. HEMLEY WILGAM G. POST, JP- BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0369 CRAIG WEATHERLY CLARKE A. GRAVEL JAMES E. KNAPP COUNSEL JOHN R. PONSETTO DENNIS R. PEARSON NORMAN WuaLkms PETER S. ERLY SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT F. O'NEILL MARGARET L. MONTGOMERY LUCY T. BROWN DAVID R. PUTNAM March 26, 1993. South Burlington Planning Commission Attention: Bill Burgess, Chairman South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Nowland II Preliminary Plot Submission Members of the Planning Commission: This letter responds to William Schroeder's letter dated March 24, 1993, submitted to the Planning Commission on behalf of Fred Hackett. Mr. Schroeder argues that the density of the subdivision, and the location of development within the subdivision, do not comply with "applicable standards." The Applicant disagrees with Mr. Schroeder for the following reasons. Mr. Schroeder is right when he says that both the City's zoning and subdivision regulations (the "Regulations") require that the Nowland II subdivision comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"). However, the Plan must be read in concert with the Regulations with the understanding that the Plan is a general guideline to the City Legislative Body and it is the Regulations which provide the details for implementation. In fact, the Plan does provide only general guidance on density, development location restrictions, and view protection. It is the Regulation that provides the details. Compliance with the Regulations must be deemed compliance with the Plan. What do the Regulations establish for density requirements in the Southeast Quadrant District? Section 26.401 provides: "The maximum development density for residential development on a parcel of land or a portion of a parcel of land located in the Southeast Quadrant District shall be 1.1 residential units per acre." Section 26.603 allows a Planning Commission to increase the density for a planned residential development within a Southeast Quadrant to up to 25%. Section 19.152 specifically provides that the formula used to calculate base density for a subdivision, which requires exclusion of land associated with steep slopes, wetlands, GRAVEL AND SHEA South Burlington Planning Commission March 26, 1993 Page 2 flood plains, and roadways, shall not apply in the Southeast Quadrant District. Base density in the Southeast Quadrant District is based on the total acreage of the subdivided tract or tracts. Accordingly, the Regulations allow a density of 73 units for the 66.7 acre Nowland II subdivision tract, which is what is proposed here. Contrary to Mr. Schroeder's assertion, the Applicant's plan does not maximize the density under the Regulations. Under Section 26.603, the Applicant could have proposed an additional 18 units. In addition to the density issue, Mr. Schroeder raises two other points regarding location of development within the Nowland II subdivision. First, he suggests that development may not occur outside of the "development areas" shown in the Southeast Quadrant Goals Based Plan. Second, he argues that an area proposed for development in the middle of the subdivision should be left opened to preserve views. Applicant's responses to these issues are that the Regulations authorize the Planning Commission to allow development, not otherwise specifically allowed by the, r-r Regulations, in restricted areas in connection with approval of a PRD. (See Section -� 26.602) With regard to the views issue, the Nowland II subdivision is located within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone. However, the Plan and Regulations control, but do not prohibit, development within the view protection areas. Within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone, the Regulations simply control the height of structures and landscaping. The Plan recommends that the City take action to preserve important views. The restrictions established by Article XXV of the Regulations (zoning) implement that recommendation. In response to the requirement of Article XXV, the applicant has submitted plans which demonstrate compliance with the view protection restrictions of the Regulations. It is applicant's position that read together, the Plans and Regulations do not conflict. In any event, if there is a conflict, under Vermont Law, the Plan must yield to the Regulations. In Smith v. Winhall Planning Commission, 140 Vt. 78, the Vermont Supreme Court settled the issue about which applies when there is a conflict between a town plan and its zoning regulations: "The Regulations as adopted may indeed be inconsistent with a Town Plan, but the total consistency upon which this argument is predicated is not a legal requirement. The Plan is a general guideline to the Legislative Body, an overall guide to community development. Partial implementation is not unusual; the specific implementation is a part that is GRAVEL AND SHEA South Burlington Planning Commission March 26, 1993 Page 3 adopted in the Zoning Regulations... The Regulations control the Plan." At 183. In summation, the Nowland II Subdivision fully complies with the density, restricted area, and view protection provisions of both the Plan and Regulations. Thank you for considering our response to Mr. Schroeder's comments. Very truly yours, GRAVEL AND SHEA John R. Ponsetto Stephen R. Crampton JRP:wbb cc: Mr. Gerald C. Milot William Schroeder, Esq. MEMORANDUM To: Joe Weith, City Planner From: John Steele Date: November 18, 1992 Subject: Sketch Plan Review Project: Southeast Summit - Nowland Two PRD Zone: Southeast Quadrant Development Density: Maximum Proposed Parcel ID Size/Acres Density Units* Density Southeast Summit 202.2 278 237 Nowland Two 66.7 92 132 Combined Total 268.9 Acres* 370 Units 369 Units *268.9 Acres x 1.1 Units/ Acre = 295.79 Units 73.94 25% Increase in Density 369.73 Total Units Sketch Plans Compared: June 16, 1992/December 8, 1992 Unit Type Single Family Multi -Family Elderly Total Units Subdivision Jun 16/Dec 8 Jun 16/Dec 8 Jun 16/Dec 8 Jun 16/Dec 8 Southeast Summit 166/157 72/80 0/0 238/237 Nowland Two 90/92 0/0 0/40 90/132 Southeast Summit and Nowland Two 256/249 72/80 0/40 328/369 Note: Based on Class II Wetlands delineation and survey, the actual developable area on the Nowland Two parcel is 39.5 acres: 66.7 Acres total - 5.0 Class II Wetlands - 5.0 Wetlands buffer - 7.2 400' Spear St. setback -10.0 15% of 66.7 for roads 39.5 Acres Maximum density on Nowland Two parcel as per section 26.403 is: 39.5 x 4 units per acre = 158 The proposed 132 units is less than the maximum density of 158 units. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services n Ir 77 '�� 1 t�-'_�: R e� �--__ -\ � is � � I •� ��'�.1�t� �4 �1 � +. 1 • a IF to lx it At 1� + ll{{ 'r � t � � � +��NNH•+ r � �. p •� l / — •� i`• �� / 1 �' .1' "f� ;.�dt `"`r_ W � .•�.., � i'' a ,�' .. •Mw' � ��...._ � M'" 1 I `e 1 •S Aiµ n a 1 a ' " -iiTT fad S. "� 1.�,1 'i�a•ryr� �¢„ `1�1/l� - � ��.,•� � ",gyp � � /� r 77 +y v %. lip � ifi �: _. � .. , ,� fie• All AL lip At ,- ..,ram N1ry r 4 Z NOTES i. OWNER/APPLICANT- 410 SIP SHELBURNE ROAD 1� �__, / � 7 �• I BURLINCTOW, YERMONT % fC • l � S' \, / , •�:; ! 2 ZONED: SOUTHEAST pUADRANT N� IBIS T � � . /F 4Th'rh.:• ",��• �`�\ �, \ •�` J. TOTAL PARCEL AREA: 66.7 ACRES t N1Y CHILI I ,\\T '7\ : • I:4. PERIMETER PROPERTY LINE 1NFGIRMA7IQN TAKEN FROM PLAN ENATLED 11 J a � � � �"�� S •o ' NOWLAND PROPERTY - SUBDINSION PLAN, BY F7TIPATRICK - ` / �r.�.w:'•1' s �- 1 ��\` ``` \\ / _ LL£W£LLYN INC NUMBER D-J879 /D-J88Q DATED MARCH 1991. • / N,,r GAGNQV I / ••• � / REC'NED S TOPOGRAPHIC AND EJOSANG FEATURES INFORMA7ION BY FIIZPA7RICK-LLEW£LL M / 1 / / s �Pj +• �� ».. _ 6 PROPERTY LINE INFORMSWIFT INFORMATION FOR ESTATES TAKEN FROM TAX a, N/F WERED,TH N/F A TkliqS;"J.r��• MAPS FRONDED BY 7NE CITY OF SOUTH BURUNCTON. `e `• �� ���� JAN2 9 1993 7. • PRO.ECT DESCRIPTION: r • � i �•'• • •�••�• '�`'�\ 7J SINGLE FAMILY L015 ON 66.7 ACRES ON THE EAST SIDE Of SPEAR • •�. �� STREET IN SOUTH BURUNCTON, VERMONT. / L1ty of So. Burlington 7066 (+, UNEAR FEET OF ROADWAY WAIN CURBS 80774 ti 0 6 1 ; / I1 ,51 r �• • Ire..ti'. 49 \ i EAYAITIi • 1 /j '46' 45 �✓ , SIDES AND SIDEWALK ONE SIDE WITNIN A PRQ°OSED CITY R.O.W. ri i0: I 6500 (+/-) LINEAR FEET OF 6' WATER MAIN FROM EXISTING % ,vv WATER MAIN ON SPEAR STREET AT THE DEERFIELD DRIVE INTERSECACN. 5500 (+-) LINEAR FEET OF STORM COLLECTION SEWER DISCHARGING TV THREE PROPOSED DETENTION BASINS I d STREET NAMES SHOWN IN PARENTHESIS ARE PROPOSED ONLY AND N/ HANSOON ARE SUB.,ECT TO OWNER / CITY APPROVAL. Q I .F. TT .T _• , DELINEATED MERAND UM/IS _ I4, ;'55 56' 57• 58. !'59 6q (CASTL£ROCK CIR(XE) _ STREET g• -� .,. _ . To' UnUTY EASVA NT (nP � \ :619 6a 7 67: -�66 ICOMMON LA Z J N/F ECONOMOU FARMS INC. , ��ou-rN-� d-s� Q�,�.�•ti.Y T j (;I?Al'lilC SCALY oo d IQ* too 4 po N/F FARRELL ET AL , I r0Ir • IMI II I REHffD RwWAY AND SCWE LOTS I. Na REN9ws - _ -f DATE IT IS THE USERS RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THESE DRAWINGS INCLUDE THE LATEST RENSIONS I PRELIMINARY PUT FINAL PLAT f CONSTRUCRCN NO LPL AND T W_ 0 OVERALL SITE PLAN r N/f !SHAM 92- E W EddYH INCORPORATED ;i J/LY 199-?LL 'BWD �.-,. ... D - 4362 t.. JAN w I17 . NALLISTON VERMONT J '^," 19 � GRAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES T. SHEA 76 ST. PAUL STREET AREA CODE 802 STEPHEN R. CRAMPTON TELEPHONE 658-0220 STEWART H. MCCONAUGHY POST OFFICE BOX 369 FAX 658-1456 ROBERT B. HEMLEY WILIJAM G. POST, JR BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0369 CRAIG WEATHERLY CLARKE A. GRAVEL JAMES E. KNAPP COUNSEL JOHN R. PONSETTO DENNIS R. PEARSON NORMAN WB.UAMS PETER S. ERLY SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT F. O'NEILL MARGARET L. MONTGOMERY LUCYT.BROWN DAVID R.:PUTNAM March 26, 1993 South Burlington Planning Commission Attention: Bill Burgess, Chairman South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Nowland II Preliminary Plot Submission Members of the Planning Commission: This letter responds to William Schroeder's letter dated March 24, 1993, submitted to the Planning Commission on behalf of Fred Hackett. Mr. Schroeder argues that the density of the subdivision, and the location of development within the subdivision, do not comply with "applicable standards." The Applicant disagrees with Mr. Schroeder for the following reasons. Mr. Schroeder is right when he says that both the City's zoning and subdivision regulations (the "Regulations") require that the Nowland II subdivision comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"). However, the Plan must be read in concert with the Regulations with the understanding that the Plan is a general guideline to the City Legislative Body and it is the Regulations which provide the details for implementation. In fact, the Plan does provide only general guidance on density, development location restrictions, and view protection. It is the Regulation that provides the details. Compliance with the Regulations must be deemed compliance with the Plan. What do the Regulations establish for density requirements in the Southeast Quadrant District? Section 26.401 provides: "The maximum development density for residential development on a parcel of land or a portion of a parcel of land located in the Southeast Quadrant District shall be 1.1 residential units per acre." Section 26.603 allows a Planning Commission to increase the density for a planned residential development within a Southeast Quadrant to up to 25%. Section 19.152 specifically provides that the formula used to calculate base density for a subdivision, which requires exclusion of land associated with steep slopes, wetlands, 1 GRAVEL AND SHEA South Burlington Planning Commission March 26, 1993 Page 2 flood plains, and roadways, shall not apply in the Southeast Quadrant District. Base density in the Southeast Quadrant District is based on the total acreage of the subdivided tract or tracts. Accordingly, the Regulations allow a density of 73 units for the 66.7 acre Nowland II subdivision tract, which is what is proposed here. Contrary to Mr. Schroeder's assertion, the Applicant's plan does not maximize the density under the Regulations. Under Section 26.603, the Applicant could have proposed an additional 18 units. In addition to the density issue, Mr. Schroeder raises two other points regarding location of development within the Nowland II subdivision. First, he suggests that development may not occur outside of the "development areas" shown in the Southeast Quadrant Goals Based Plan. Second, he argues that an area proposed for development in the middle of the subdivision should be left opened to preserve views. Applicant's responses to these issues are that the Regulations authorize the Planning Commission to allow development, not otherwise specifically allowed by the Regulations, in restricted areas in connection with approval of a PRD. (See Section 26.602) With regard to the views issue, the Nowland II subdivision is located within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone. However, the Plan and Regulations control, but do not prohibit, development within the view protection areas. Within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone, the Regulations simply control the height of structures and landscaping. The Plan recommends that the City take action to preserve important views. The restrictions established by Article XXV of the Regulations (zoning) implement that recommendation. In response to the requirement of Article XXV, the applicant has submitted plans which demonstrate compliance with the view protection restrictions of the Regulations. It is applicant's position that read together, the Plans and Regulations do not conflict. In any event, if there is a conflict, under Vermont Law, the Plan must yield to the Regulations. In Smith v. Winhall Planning Commission, 140 Vt. 78, the Vermont Supreme Court settled the issue about which applies when there is a conflict between a town plan and its zoning regulations: "The Regulations as adopted may indeed be inconsistent with a Town Plan, but the total consistency upon which this argument is predicated is not a legal requirement. The Plan is a general guideline to the Legislative Body, an overall guide to community development. Partial implementation is not unusual; the specific implementation is a part that is GRAVEL AND SHEA South Burlington Planning Commission March 26, 1993 Page 3 adopted in the Zoning Regulations... The Regulations control the Plan." At 183. In summation, the Nowland II Subdivision fully complies with the density, restricted area, and view protection provisions of both the Plan and Regulations. Thank you for considering our response to Mr. Schroeder's comments. Very truly yours, GRAVEL AND SHEA John R. Ponsetto Stephen R. Crampton JRP:wbb cc: Mr. Gerald C. Milot William Schroeder, Esq. GRAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES T. SHEA STEPHEN STEPHE. CRAMPI'ON 76 ST. PAUL STREET AREA CODE 802 STEWART H H. McCONnucHv POST OFFICE BOX 369 TELEPHONE 658-0220 ROBERT B. HEMLEY FAX 658-1456 WILLIAM G. POST, JR. BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0369 CRAIG WEATHERLY CLARKE A. GRAVEL JAMES E. KN,%PP COUNSEL JOHN R. PONSETTO DENNIS R. PEARSON NORMAN WILLIAMS PETER S. ERLY ROBERT F.. OINEILL SPECIAL COUNSEL MARGAREf L. MONTGOMERY Lucy T. BROWN DAVID R. PUTNAM March 26, 1993 South Burlington Planning Commission Attention: Bill Burgess, Chairman South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Nowland II Preliminary Plot Submission Members of the Planning Commission: This letter responds to William Schroeder's letter dated March 24, 1993, submitted to the Planning Commission on behalf of Fred Hackett. Mr. Schroeder argues that the density of the subdivision, and the location of development within the subdivision, do not comply with "applicable standards." The Applicant disagrees with Mr. Schroeder for the following reasons. Mr. Schroeder is right when he says that both the City's zoning and subdivision regulations (the "Regulations") require that the Nowland I1 subdivision comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan (the 'Plan'). However, the Plan must be read in concert with the Regulations with the understanding that the Plan is a general guideline to the City Legislative Body and it is the Regulations which provide the details for implementation. In fact, the Plan does provide only general guidance on density, development location restrictions, and view protection. It is the Regulation that provides the details. Compliance with the Regulations must be deemed compliance with the Plan. What do the Regulations establish for density requirements in the Southeast Quadrant District? Section 26.401 provides: The maximum development density for residential development on a parcel of land or a portion of a parcel of land located in the Southeast Quadrant District shall be 1.1 residential units per acre." Section 26.603 allows a Planning Commission to increase the density for a planned residential development within a Southeast Quadrant to up to 25%. Section 19.152 specifically provides that the formula used to calculate base density for a subdivision, which requires exclusion of land associated with steep slopes, wetlands, GRAVEL AND SHEA South Burlington Planning Commission March 26, 1993 Page 2 flood plains, and roadways, shall not apply in the Southeast Quadrant District. Base density in the Southeast Quadrant District is based on the total acreage of the subdivided tract or tracts. Accordingly, the Regulations allow a density of 73 units for the 66.7 acre Nowland II subdivision tract, which is what is proposed here. Contrary to Mr. Schroeder's assertion, the Applicant's plan does not maximize the density under the Regulations. Under Section 26.603, the Applicant could have proposed an additional 18 units. In addition to the density issue, Mr. Schroeder raises two other points regarding location of development within the Nowland II subdivision. First, he suggests that development may not occur outside of the "development areas" shown in the Southeast Quadrant Goals Based Plan. Second, he argues that an area proposed for development in the middle of the subdivision should be left opened to preserve views. Applicant's responses to these issues are that the Regulations authorize the Planning Commission to allow development, not otherwise specifically allowed by the Regulations, in restricted areas in connection with approval of a PRD. (See Section 26.602) With regard to the views issue, the Nowland II subdivision is located within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone. However, the Plan and Regulations control, but do not prohibit, development within the view protection areas. Within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone, the Regulations simply control the height of structures and landscaping. The Plan recommends that the City take action to preserve important views. The restrictions established by Article XXV of the Regulations (zoning) implement that recommendation. In response to the requirement of Article XXV, the applicant has submitted plans which demonstrate compliance with the view protection restrictions of the Regulations. It is applicant's position that read together, the Plans and Regulations do not conflict. In any event, if there is a conflict, under Vermont Law, the Plan must yield to the Regulations. In _Smith v. Winhall Planning Commission, 140 Vt. 78, the Vermont Supreme Court settled the issue about which applies when there is a conflict between a town plan and its zoning regulations: 7 "The Regulations as adopted may indeed be inconsistent with a Town Plan, but the total consistency upon which this argument is predicated is not a legal requirement. The Plan is a general guideline to the Legislative Body, an overall guide to community development. Partial implementation is not unusual; the specific implementation is a part that is GRAVEL AND SHEA South Burlington Planning Commission March 26, 1993 Page 3 adopted in the Zoning Regulations... The Regulations control the Plan." At 183. In summation, the Nowland II Subdivision fully complies with the density, restricted area, and view protection provisions of both the Plan and Regulations. Thank you for considering our response to Mr. Schroeder's comments. Very truly yours, GRAVEL AND SHEA John R. Ponsetto Stephen R. Crampton JRP:wbb cc: Mr. Gerald C. Milot William Schroeder, Esq. r CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - PRELIMINARY PLAT 1 ) Name of Applicant _Larkin-Milot Partnership,_ 410 Shelburne, Rd., S_ R� iirliagton, VT 2 ) Name of Subdivision lowland Two 3 ) Submit Subdivision Fee . 41 5_ (notes aT Ifrant paid $710 on 11-8-89) 40 Describe Subdivision (,i.e. total acreage, number of lots or units, type of land use, gross floor area for commercial or industrial uses) : 66.7 Acre, 73 unit PRD consisting of 73 single family, four bedroom house lots 5) Indicate any changes to name, address, or phone numbers of owner of record, applicant, or contact person since sketch plan application: no changes 6) Name, address, and phone number of: a. Engineer FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated One Wentworth Drive, Williston, VT 05495 878-3000 b. Surveyor FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated C. d. Plat Designer FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 7) Indicate any changes to the subdivision such as number of lots or units, property lines, applicant's legal interest in the property, etc., since sketch plan application: Single Family + Elderly Housing = Total Units 12-8-92 Sketch Plan 92 + 40 - 132 1-26-93 Preliminary Plat 73 + 0 = 73 1 S) List names and mailing addresses of owners of record of all contiguous properties: Underwood, Morton, Stevens,Jen Fu Chen, Gagnon, Meridith, Atkins, Denka, Farrell, Isham, Economu Farms Inc. (';ee attached list for complete addresses) 9) State title, drawing number, date of original plus any revisions, and designer(s) of the preliminary map(s) accompanying this application: Refer to separate set of preliminary plat drawings, sheets 1 through 19 10) COST ESTIMATES for Planned Unit Developments, multi -family and commercial and industrial complexes: a) Buildings b) Landscaping c) All other site improvements (e.g., curb work Paving, street trees and buffer plantings, lighting: $819,700. 11) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC for Planned Unit Developments, multi-' family projects, and commercial and industrial complexes (2-way traffic, in plus out): A.M. Peak hour 60 Average daily traffic 758 P.M. peak hour 80 % of trucks one percent 12) Attach FIVE copies and ONE reduced copy (11 x 17) of preliminary map showing the following information: a) Proposed subdivision name or identifying title and the name of the City.. b) Name and address of owner of record, subdivider and designer of Preliminary Plat. c) Number of acres within the proposed subdivision, location of property lines, structures, watercourses, wooded areas, and other essential existing physical features. 2 d) The names of all subdivisions immediately adjacent and the names of owners of record of adjacent acreage. e) The location and size of any existing sewers and water mains, culverts and drains on the property to be subdi- vided. f) Location, names and widths of existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts, paths, easements, parks and other public or privately main- tained open spacers as well as similar facts regarding adjacent property. g) Contour lines at intervals of five feet, based on United States Geological Survey datum of existing grades and also of proposed finished grades where change of exist- ing ground elevation will be five feet or more. h) Complete survey of subdivision tract by a licensed land surveyor. i) Numerical and graphic scale, date and truce north arrow. j) Details of proposed connection with existing water supply or alternative means of providing water supply to the proposed subdivision. k) Details of proposed connection with the existing sani- tary sewage disposal system or adequate provisions for on -site disposal of septic wastes. 1) If on -site sewage disposal system is proposed, location and results of tests to ascertain subsurface soil, rock and ground water conditions, depth to ground water unless pits are dry at depth of five feet; location and results of percolation tests. m) Provisions for collecting and discharging storm drainage in the form of drainage plan. n) Preliminary designs of any bridges or culvert which may be required. o) The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the Commission to locate readily and appraise the basic layout in the field. Unless on 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. p) All parcels of land proposed to be dedicated or reserved for public use and the conditions of such dedication or reservation. 3 13) Development timetable (including number of phases, and start and completion dates) : Two year construction period beginning 1993 and ending 1995: approximately 35 units per year. 14) List the waivers applicant desires from the requirements of these regulations: Section 26.606 calls for P.'C. review of proposed development in 400' wide restricted area east of Spear Street 15) 1) All existing subdivision, approximate tract lines and acreage of adjacent parcels, together with the names of the records owners of all adjacent parcels of land, namely, those directly abutting or directly across any street adjoining the proposed subdivision. 2) Locations, widths and names of existing, filed or pro- posed streets, curb cuts, easements, building lines and alleys pertaining to the proposed subdivision and to the adjacent properties as designated in paragraph 1 above. 3) An outline of the platted area together with its street system and an indication of the future probable street system of the remaining portion of the tract, if the Preliminary Plat submitted covers only part of the subdivider's entire holding. (Signature) 9*plic or contact person John Steele FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Inc. January 5, 1993 4 Nowland II Subdivision/PRD #92045 List of names and mailing addresses of owners of record of all conteguous properties: Marie T. Underwood 1589 Spear Street South Burlington, VT IBIS Corp Frederick T. Molthen 131 Elden St., Suite 200 Herndon, VA 022070 Richard P. and Julia S. Baker Box 4296 1560 Spear Street South Burlington, VT Rheal C. and Helen N. Gagnon 1520 Spear Street South Burlington, VT L. Douglas and Laura J. Meredith 1500 Spear Street South Burlington, VT Margreta D. Dencker 1430 Spear Street South Burlington, VT Karen A. Kevin J. Bent N. Farrell 1350 Spear Street South Burlington, VT Ila M. Isham 1225 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT Economu Farms Inc. Dean Economu Notch Brook Road Stowe, VT 05672 a, �1 f/f =«' l p { i• •`' • ram.•• ✓ at- y.rro-�:,.�.c.-•. •• '• r r��,4• „•yam•?-�` ,• f i ✓ �'�' ,+'�•�"'„' r ,� �l 'rff r f. 'ti •�1 � gk consisting of 73 single -I family lots on 66.7 acres" Of land located on the + ` east side of Spear Street opposite Deerfield Drive. mod• C .G�• 2) Appeal by J.W.J. Real - Inc. of decision by the;`•`+< r South Burlington Zoning Administrator denying apr Tit plicant's request to installtwo ?� signs2atfreestanding 1095Shelburne, Road. Copies of the applications are available for public inspsaction at the South Burlington City Hall. PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON William Burgess PLANNING Chairman: C0 MMI881ON South Burlington Planning Commission, The South Burlington" Planning Commission will January 25, 1993 I hold a public hearing at -_ the South Burlington City a ' Hall, Conference Room, + 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on ,•, .. ,n� �,, r s �!�t�;MIF lu w�: Tuesday, February g ,. s 1993 at 7:30 P.M. to con - Sider the following: 11 Preliminary Plat appli- cation r cation rr Partnership for ar planned residential development Continued Next Column FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORp(,n TED Engineering and Planning Ser, One Wentworth Drive WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 (802) 878-3000 TO � J I > WE ARE SENDING YOU f/ Attached ❑ Under separate cover via LEETT[E OF TURSEUTTM � r • � � � Ism WA the following items: ❑ Shop drawings C7' Prints ❑ Plans ❑ amples ElSpecifications ElCopy of letter ElChange order E!I/-�%11 • _ % ..�r•� _ I_� //if'� �. •! // / THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval V For your use IVAs requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Returned for corrections MY of So. Burlington ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US 4 E rRuuucl Z40-Z Inc., Cmtm, Mm 01471. TO: Planning Commission FROM: Natural Resources Committee DATE: 13 May 1992 1. RE: Nowland Property II The site was walked on 14 April 1991 by Cathy O'Brien and Shelley Snyder. We found several natural resources that need to be identified on the site plans. After reviewing site plans for development, the Natural Resources Committee continues to be concerned about this property. The Committee strongly urges careful inventory of the natural resources including the following: The 3600 vista identified on the Natural Resources Parks and Trails map. The swale that trends north -south, draining to the south contains a wetland. This is a hunting ground and nesting area for hawks and other birds including owls. In the northeast corner of the trees is low lying land and contains wetland vegetation. An old abandoned man- made farm pond -occurs in the area providing valuable habitat for animals including deer. Attention should be paid to the treatment of storm water prior to its entry to the wetland. Specifically restricting the accumulation of motor oil, antifreeze, and road salt. Traffic patterns on Spear Street need to be looked at regarding volume and safety. CITY OP SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application m SKETCH PLAN 1) Name, address, and phone number of: a. Owner of record MBL Associates and Larkin-Milot Partnership 410 Shelburne Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 864-7444 b. Applicant MBL Associates (Southeast Summit) L & M Patrnership (Nowland Two) C. Contact John Steele_, FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated One Wentworth Drive, Williston, Vermont 05495 878-3000 2) Purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development, including number of lots, units, or parcels and proposed use(s). —_ A combined 268.9 acre 369 unit PRD including 249 single family lots 80 multifamily units (20 fourplex buildings) and 40 units of elderly housing in 3-two story buildings 3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple, option, etc. Fee simple 4) Names of owners of record of all contiguous properties See attached lists for SOUTHEAST SUMMIT: O'Brien, Brior, Downing, Lang, Brady, Bliss, Ward, Northeastern Family Institute of VT Inc., Hill, Bolduc, Blair Leduc Chamberlain• NOWLAND TWO: Underwood Morton, Stevens, Jen. Fu Chen, Gagnon, Meridith, Atkins, Denka, Farrell, Isham, Economu Farms Inc. 5) Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on property such as easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc. 150' -VELCO R.O.W. Class 2 Wetlands; Droposed 80' arterial R.O.W. several minor streams. 1 6) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of municipal facilities such as sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc. project to be served by decicated roads, municipal water supply and sanitary sewer c 7) Describe any previous actions taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or by the South Burlington Plannipg Commission which affect the proposed subdivision, and include the dates of such actions: reviewed Sketch Plans for each individual PRD Droposal at its .June 16 h meeting The parcels are being combined into a "single project" to assign n i y from Southeast Summit to Nowland Two to permit construction of 40 units of elderly housing 8) Submit five copies and one reduced copy (8 1/2 x 11, 8 1/2 x 14 or 11 x 17) of a Sketch plan showing the follow- ing information: 1) Name of owners of record of contiguous properties. 2) Boundaries and area of: (a) all contiguous land belong- ing to owner of record and (b) proposed subdivision.: 3) Existing and proposed layout of property -lines; type and location of existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and covenants. 4) Type of location, and approximate size of existing and Proposed streets, utilities, and open space. 5) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic). 6) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. (Signature) appl' Aox� tact person Date John Steele Fitz_Patrick-Llewellyn Incorporated G in age / o f 3 s�6M.'fIed 3•�6•�3 i PETITION vv t h 4Y iv -a Me s 'Subject: Petition regarding Nowland II Proposed Development on Spear Street and Deerfield Road Extension To: South Burlington Planning Commission L The proposed housing development on Spear Street and Deerfield Road Extension of 73 units is too many units and too tightly spaced. It will adversely affect traffic, school system, sewage system, scenic views and some wildlife. We respectfully ask the Planning Commission to approve, at the most, 30 or 40 units for the proposed 66 acre development. NAME 1n.�� c� d Ae�e-,t, ADDRESS IsS a O _Spe r 5 f. S. 4/a t I �' Z 2 z " -Z� v'a'5 473 } Si -S-.�4 s 4/0 14F y >> 17 C:�,? 20 J 0 J `�2re/ O (kof o c) �Z13er�rlU..�v'� e2 c 3 Hems£ - 4y-�'0 SS.L� S f3 /SOCK Spear t i soil /l Bur- Illv PETITION of 3 3,A6,?3 &aMeS Subject: Petition regarding Nowland II Proposed Development on Spear Street and Deerfield Road Extension To: South Burlington Planning Commission The proposed housing development on Spear Street and Deerfield Road Extension of 73 units is too many units and too tightly spaced. It will adversely affect traffic, school system, sewage system, scenic views and some wildlife. We respectfully ask the Planning Commission to approve, at the most, 30 or 40 units for the proposed 66 acre development. NAME ADDRESS 1-44 M ca4 Uf ad 4 1 U r Ve S' 7' V 1 /, L r STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION Preserving Vermont's historic, architectural and archeological resources July 15, 1992 John Steele Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc. 1 Wentworth Drive Williston, VT 05495 Re: Nowland II Property, So. Burlington. Pre -Act 250. Dear Mr. Steele: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above -referenced project. The Division has reviewed this undertaking for purposes of Criterion 8, 10 V.S.A. Chapter 151 (Act 250). Project review consists of identifying the project's potential impacts to historic buildings, structures, historic districts, historic landscapes and settings, and known or potential archeological resources. The purpose of our review is to provide the Environmental District Commission with the necessary information for them to make a positive finding under the "historic sites" aspect of Criterion 8. David Skinas, on our staff, conducted a field inspection of the project area on July 8, 1992. Based on available environmental information, the project area was believed to be archeologically sensitive. The field inspection revealed that the drainage that flows through the project area was man-made. Therefore, we have no further concerns with archeological resources in relation to this project. Office location: 135 State Street (802) 828-3226 Mr. Steele Page 2 July 15, 1992 We conclude that the proposed project will not have an adverse effect on any historic or archeological properties that are listed on or eligible for inclusion in either the State or National Registers of Historic Places. Sin rely, Eric Gilbertson Director/ Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer EG/SCJ cc: South Burlington Planning Commission Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: Nowland and Southeast Summit Subdivisions Date: June 12, 1992 MILOT/LARKIN - NOWLAND PROPERTY II - 97 UNIT PRD This project consists of the subdivision of a 66.7 acre parcel into 97 single family lots. The lot being subdivided was approved by the Planning Commission on 2/4/92 (minutes enclosed). This property is located on the easterly side of Spear Street in the vicinity of Deerfield Drive. It is bounded on the west by Spear Street and several single family residences, on the north, south and east by undeveloped property. This property is located in the new Southeast Quadrant District. Access: The development is proposed to be served by one (1) access road from Spear Street. This access will be an extension of Deerfield Drive and is part of the east -west arterial shown on the Interim Official Map. The applicant is reserving a 60 foot r.o.w. connecting "Road A" with Spear Street for a possible second access if requested by the Planning Commission. This application is similar to the Village at Dorset Park and L&M Park developments where there are actually two (2) access points to the development off a collector road which is planned to continue as development on adjoining parcels occur. Therefore, until such time as the collector is continued, there will technically be only one access to the entire development. A 60 foot r.o.w. should be reserved for a future connection to the Economou parcel to the east. Density: The PRD provision in the proposed SEQ zoning may allow this property to generate 73 units (base density) plus 25% or 92 units maximum. The maximum number of units allowed is based on the developable area as shown on the SEQ zoning map multiplied by 4. The developable area in this project is 32 acres which results in a maximum of 128 units. The applicant is proposing 97 units and only 92 units are allowed. 1 Memorandum - Nowland and Southeast Summit Subdivisions June 12, 1992 Page 2 Nonbuildable area: Lots #7,8 and 9 along Spear Street are in a nonbuildable area under the proposed SEQ zoning. Applicant should review Section 26.606 of the proposed SEQ zoning and submit prior to preliminary plat review information to substantiate conformance with the criteria contained in this section. Staff recommends that lots and units not be placed within the 400 foot restricted area setback from Spear Street. There are also a number of lots shown within a -Ien wetland area (discussed below). The houses on lots #78 and 79 are proposed to be built in the 50 foot wetland buffer area. Wetlands: This site contains approximately five (5) acres of class 2 wetlands which is shown on the sketch plan along with a 50 foot buffer area. The location of the wetland on the sketch plan and its location on the proposed SEQ zoning map are different. This results in the sketch plan showing units in the wetland area as shown on the proposed SEQ zoning map. Applicant should provide information to substantiate building in this restricted area (i.e., wetland delineation study by qualified consultant). The Natural Resources Committee has reviewed this sketch plan (see enclosed memo). View protection: This property is located within the pxvre-s� Dorset Park View Protection Zone. Applicant should provide detailed information on the allowable height of each house within the development. North -South connector: The north -south connector which passes through this property on the Interim Official Map is not shown correctly. The applicant is proposing to relocate this major arterial to the adjacent Economou property to the east. Staff suggests that this roadway be placed along this property's easterly boundary and that it be equally shared between the two (2) property owners. Staff concurs that this connector should be relocated from where it is shown on the SEQ Official Zoning Map since it is proposed to cross the major portion of the class 2 wetland. 2 Memorandum - Nowland and Southeast Summit Subdivisions June 12, 1992 Page 3 Recreation Path/Recreation Trail: The Recreation Path Committee has reviewed these plans. They have recommended that an eight (8) foot wide paved path (similar to the one recently constructed along Kennedy Drive) be constructed along the north side of Deerfield Drive Extension from Spear Street to the Economou property. They have also recommended that a similar path be constructed on the east side of "Road D" from Deerfield Drive Extension to the end of the cul-de-sac. The applicant has been made aware of this recommendation. Other: --- Deerfield Road should be changed to Deerfield Drive. --- a traffic impact analysis should be conducted to determine this project's potential impact on the Spear Street/Swift Street intersection. 3) SOUTHEAST SUMMIT - 238 UNIT PRD - DORSET STREET This project consists of the subdivision of 202.2 acres into 166 single family lots and construction of 18 - four (4) unit multi- family buildings (72 units) for a total of 238 units. The lots will have a minimum lot size of 60'x120'. The Planning Commission reviewed a sketch plan for 31 lots on this same property on 2/19/91 (minutes enclosed). The project involves land on both sides of Dorset Street, 154 acres on the westerly side and 48 acres on the easterly side. The entire development is proposed for the westerly side. This property is located at the south end of Dorset. Street abutting the Shelburne Town line. It lies within the Agricultural and Rural Residential District and the proposed SEp District. See letter from Steve Stitzel regarding how this application should be evaluated. Access: Access to the development will be via an 80 foot r.o.w. which will bisect the project and eventually continue westerly to connect with Allen road. Off from the main access road will be 3 7, 2 5 S Ace—E C 1Z. UIJIT p -oeosp--n q-� Uu c T eLq o - F44IL y /Do' IAW. L.oT Fe014-r4cfE /�/fit u,cn Lo- s/ Z E loo' x moo' i3,ODo sF S•dG��y ter- w�TC��tilb5 �CG,4T� z CG6 Ie L , D �C ►moo �� C dJ� kI F 4 100.60*- e°uel-+"C,rOt4, vi', 05YO62 •gI93 So�-tT++ e,Ue2 ,1..ICOQf V7-- D�4o�j o o�c� waY�✓, w..Tr--►E 11 G� lTXg-`( �;Ew f,:rz- Gou e, ,rTjow To 15e, Moot 6VIO&O �DeeieFIMO 'D12 A..cae45- 4. OF VeeX.Fla4,> Dn -t lbw-( SE+owf� c .l WtOL,vi wo Fi,��.�.. lot-,�-r = 36.9 Ace6 GRAPHIC SCALE 200 0 100 200 400 800 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 200 ft. P R `'`�~�= M Y 2 1992 'SPEz _ TREE T ,, iZw J--R--S -- --- -- -- -- -- -- --- --- --27 47 57 w 630.04 (j) I Z' ►4 � .sue ` N s EN 2605648 E -- -- -- ,� � -y" `'" 448.10' to yr ICY . Ar 4-0 Eb PI -AY 74 �C 60.7 acres ly LAI - - PLAY? EL(2 - _ - / 66.7acr�s''�,� _ z TOTAL AREA— -7.4 ACRE - ,-- " C � 8� 4 ti ��e�oK.T ��w�( p�.a�.r -r��srD�4 121Gt-� OF w Y �' f6 �9 ca �p� - �, >�ti" r 1-'$•10 5� \ 07F," 7-6 e- L, IW 9 T ti S 83 • 35' 03� E 1170.40 Memorandum - Planning May 26, 1992 agenda items May 22, 1992 Page 6 4) MILOT/LARKIN - NOWLAND PROPERTY II - 93 UNIT PRD This project consists of the subdivision of a 66.7 acre parcel into 92 single family lots. The lot being subdivided was approved by the Planning Commission on 2/4/92 (minutes enclosed). This property is located on the easterly side of Spear Street in the vicinity of Deerfield Drive. It is bounded on the west by Spear Street and several single family residences, on the north, southandeast by undeveloped property. This property is located in the R1 (12 acres) and R2 (55 acres) Districts, and in the proposed Southeast Quadrant District. See letter from Steve Stitzel regarding how application should be reviewed. Access: The development is proposed to be served by two (2) access roads from Spear Street. The access to the south will be an extension of Deerfield Drive and is part of the east -west arterial shown on the Interim Official Map. Staff is concerned with the impact of the northerly access on Spear Street. This access is proposed to connect to Spear Street directly opposite a single family residence. This would result in headlights of vehicles exiting the development shining directly onto the house. Staff recommends that the access be moved to the south to avoid this problem. Density: The PRD provision in the proposed SEQ zoning may allow this property to generate 73 units (base density) plus 25% or 92 units maximum. The maximum number of units allowed is based on the developable area as shown on the SEQ zoning map multiplied by 4. The developable area in this project is 32 acres which results in a maximum of 128 units. The applicant is proposing 93 units. The R1 zone which comprises 12 acres would allow 12 units. The R2 zone which comprises 55.7 acres would allow Ill units. The maximum number of units under the current zoning is 123 units. L Memorandum - Planning May 26, 1992 agenda items May 22, 1992 Page 7 Nonbuildable area: Lots #6,7,8,11,91,92,93 and a portion of lot #9 are in a nonbuildable area under the proposed SEQ zoning. Applicant should review Section 26.606 of the proposed SEQ zoning and submit prior to preliminary plat review information to substantiate conformance with the criteria contained in this section. Staff recommends that lots and units not be placed within 400 foot setback from Spear Street. Wetlands: This site contains approximately five (5) acres of class 2 wetlands which is shown on the sketch plan along with a 50 foot buffer area. The location of the wetland on the sketch plan and its location on the proposed SEQ zoning map are different. This results in the sketch plan showing units in the wetland area as shown on the proposed SEQ zoning map. Applicant should provide information to substantiate building in this restricted area. The Natural Resources Committee has reviewed this sketch plan (see enclosed memo). View protection: This property is located within the proposed Dorset Park View Protection Zone. Applicant should provide detailed information on the height of each house within the development. North -South connector: The north -south connector which passes through this property on the Interim Official Map is not shown correctly. The applicant is proposing to relocate this major arterial to the adjacent Economou property to the east. Staff suggests that this roadway be placed along this property's easterly boundary and that it be equally shared between the two (2) property owners. This connector should be relocated from where it is shown on the SEQ Official Zoning Map since it is proposed to cross the major portion of the class 2 wetland. Pedestrian Trail/Recreation Path: The Comprehensive Plan's Recreation Map shows a proposed pedestrial trail and two (2) recreation paths crossing this property. Staff will consult with the Recreation Path Committee for advice on the preferred location of these paths/trails. This information will then be passed along to the applicant. 7 Memorandum - Planning May 26, 1992 agenda items May 22, 1992 Page 8 Recreation Feels: Applicant will be responsible to pay the per unit recreation fee in effect at the time the zoning/building permit is issued for each house. Other: The 2/4/92 subdivision approval of this lot required that if the approval for this development is for 50 units or more, the applicant is to construct the roadway from Spear Street (Deerfield Drive Extension) easterly to the applicant's land and then easterly through the entire length of the property to the easterly boundary. 5) PERRY'S FARMER'S MARKET = SITE PLAN - 1090 SHELBURNE ROAD This project consists of using a portion of Perry's restaurant and fish market parking area for a temporary farmer's market. The market will consist of five (5) farmer's trucks and one (1) lobster truck at the site on Wednesday, Friday and Saturdays from 11:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. from June 15th to October 15th. This property located at 1090 Shelburne Road is within the Commercial 1 District. It is bounded on the north by an auto dealership and Kwik Photo, on the east by the access road to Orchard School, on the south by Baldwin Avenue and on the west by Shelburne Road. Access/circulation: This property is currently served by three (3) curb cuts, a 34 foot curb cut on Shelburne Road, a 62 foot curb cut and a 24 foot curb cut on Baldwin Avenue. No changes are proposed to these accesses. Circulation of traffic on the site is acceptable. Coverage/setbacks: Current coverage and setbacks will not be affected by this application. Parking: This site currently has 94 parking spaces, 10 of which will be unavailable for use during the hours of operation for the farmer's market. Since this use will not operate during the hours the restaurant is open, there is adequate parking to accommodate the retail fish store and the farmer's market. TO: Planning Commission FROM: Natural Resources Committee DATE: 13 May 1992 RE: Nowland Property II The site was walked on 14 April 1991 by Cathy O'Brien and Shelley Snyder. We found several natural resources that need to be identified on the site plans. After reviewing site plans for development, the Natural Resources Committee continues to be concerned about this property. The Committee strongly urges careful inventory of the natural resources including the following: The 3600 vista identified on the Natural Resources Parks and Trails map. The Swale that trends north -south, draining to the south contains a wetland. This is a hunting ground and nesting area for hawks and other birds including owls. In the northeast corner of the trees is low lying land and contains wetland vegetation. An old abandoned man- made farm pond occurs in the area providing valuable habitat for animals including deer. Attention should be paid to the treatment of storm water prior to its entry to the wetland. Specifically restricting the accumulation of motor oil, antifreeze, and road salt. Traffic patterns on Spear Street need to be looked at regarding volume and safety. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 May 14, 1992 John Steele F.i-tzP-atr1.ck-T.:lwe11yn, Inc. One Wentworth Drive !Wiilis--on, Vermont 051*015 Re: PUD, Nowi and Property j.! DT ear Mr. Steele: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 ... I- I Encl---i Please find some prelimin-a— comments on the above jtppiicatirn from ("it-y Engineer Bill 0.:yma-ski, p4#L-e-- '!,ief Jim G,.-,r1dett.e and, my --,, e I f Please submi;4- addition-1::t- i - requested and/or revi,-.,ed plans no later than Tuesday, nay iy, 199*1 i, you have any questions, Plea-rc- give me ai 011. --'6 R a y m ) 7in C-1 �j e Zoning and Planning Assistant R,T�OJ/MCp I Gerald Mil,- ;t- ,T�,.hn Larkin Preliminary May 26, 1992 May 12, 1992 Page 2 Comments - Planning agenda items --- applicant should address the PUD criteria under section 19.15 and specific review standards under Section 6.50 of the zoning regulations and Section 16.60 of the proposeds SEQ zoning regulations. --- staff recommends using existing barn access road to provide emergency access. --- plan should show 60 foot r.o.w. to the north to connect. with Lang proeprty for future connection if and when this adjacent property is developed. --- some- ----development is proposed - outside-- o€-- designated developable areas, a detailed site analysis will have to be submitted which should include evaluations on wetlands, views, soils, etc. before a determination can be made as to the appropriateness of building outside of the designated areas (see Section 26.606 of the proposed new SEQ zoning). --- the applicant will be responsible to pay the per unit recreation fee in effect at the time the zoning/building Fermi-1- .is issued. MILOT/LARKIN - NOWLAND PROPERTY II - PRD --- since the zoning in this area is currently being revised, the project will be evaluated for conformance with the current Residential 1 and Residential 2 standards and the proposed Southeast Quadrant District standards. --- the PRD provision in the proposed SEQ zoning may allow this proeprty to generate 73 units (base density) plus 25% or 92 units maximum. The maximum number of units allwoed is based on the developable area as shown on the SEQ zoning map multipled by 4. Applicant should revise plans to show limits of development designated areas and indicate the number of acres in this area. --- the house on lot #73 is located within the 50 foot wetland buffer area. --- staff is concerned with the impact of the northerly acccess on Spear Street., provide information on proeprty and house locatons on the westerly side of Spear Street in the vicinity of this access. --- this property is located within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone. Applicant should provide detailed intorma'-ion on how high each house on each lot will be. 2 Preliminary memo - Planning May 26, 1992 agenda items May 12, 1992 Page 3 --- many of the uits are in a wetland area as shown on the SEQ zoning map, applicant should provide information to substantiate building in this restricted area. --- applicant should address why this plan does not conform with the Interim Official Map with regards to the north -south connector road. --- lots #6,7,8,11,91,92,93 and a portion of lot #9 are in a nonbuildable area under the proposed SEQ zoning. Applicant should review Section 26.606 of the proposed SEQ zoning and submit at preliminary plat review information to substantiate conformance with the criteria contained in this section. --- the 2/4/92 subdivision approval of this lot required that if the approval for this development is for 50 units or more, the applicant is to construct the roadway from Spear Street easterly to the applicant's land and then easterly through the entire length of the eighty (80) foot strip to the easterly boundary of the strip of land. -- the applicant will be responsible to -pay the per unit recreation fee in effect at the time the zoning building; 'permit /is issued. { GARY BOURNE -- AUTO REPAIR - 31 SWIFT STREET Addit.ion.�l _i i format -ion required cu-i site plan: --- propert-, line dimensions. Other: -- provide square footage breakdown for entire building; for existin-g and proposed uses. --- applican'- would have to provide $240 of additional landscaping or request a credit for existing landscaping. --- provide number of employees in auto repair portion of the building. --- this property is if-i Traffic Overlay Zone 1 which limits this property to f.57 vehicle trip ends (vte's) during the P.M. peak hour. Applicant estimates this propert._, to generate 10 vte's and staff will make it's own estimate based on the I.T.E. manual once the above information is received. K I � _ M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer Re: May 26, 1992 Preli::. ..".�, Comments Date: May 12, 1992 BUSINESS PARK NORTH - LOT #3 KIMBALL AVENUE 1. Existing curb cuts not to be used shall be closed by removing the existing depressed curb and constructing a regular curb. 2. Existing sidewalk thickness at proposed driveways shall be 8 inches. VERMONT GAS SYSTEMS GARAGE 31 SWIFT STREET Site Plan dated April 22, 1992 is acceptable. PERRY'S FISH HOUSE SHELBURNE ROAD - BALDWIN AVENUE 1. The planter at the corner of Baldwin Avenue is almost entirely within Shelburne Road r.o.w. The radius of the curb at this corner is planned to be increased to accommodate school busses. The owner should anticipate moving this planter whe:i this work is done. NOWLAND PROPERTY. SPEAR STREET 1. The area should be sewered to the Bartlett Bay sewage treatment plant by a gravity line. Any temporary hookup to the Airport Parkway piant should be maintained by the developer or an association of home owners inc-1,uding the pumping station. If this is done it will require the upgrading of the Swift Estates pumping station to a--commodat.e the increased flow. It may also require a larger force from that. station. When the Bartlett Bay plant is increased in capacity the work required to connect. this development to the plant shoul-, be the responsibility of t.:e developer. This may require the upgrading of Preliminary Comments - Planning May 26, 1992 agenda items May 12, 1992 Page 4 --- details on existing and proposed exterior lighting should be, submitted. --- if the site will have a dumpster, it should be shown on the plan and screened. PERRY'S FARMERS MARKET.- 1090 SHELBURNE ROA --- provide square footage of retail floor area. in, fish. market. --- plan submitted does not reflect current parking layout arotind fish market, planter at the corner of Shelburne Road and Baldwin Avenue not correctly shown and parking spaces located in northeast corner of lot not shown at all. Plans must be revised to show current conditions. DORSET STREET PARK - SITE PLAN --- letter describing project indicates that the park will be eeveloped irf-phases, it would be helpful if the plan would outline exactly what .is to he constructed in each of the phases or verbal description.. --- if the parking area lecatt-_d between the ice rink and gym and - the track are part of this application, then the individual parking spaces must be shown (also overflow parking area). --- --if dumpster<, are to be provided, they must be shown and screened. --- provide number of seats being provided for each phase. --- staff c�.:, not determine which light on the plan matches which cut sheet nor the wattage of each light, provide further information. --- provide parking assessment. 0 I 4� Fo2 C.t M- 4- TO Ht1A�wgR7 pK. � s.lcl4xt rr.Ny ru,rr N/F GGAVOM DU Ff.K/d S NG `` � 1 1' LEGEND PERIMETER PROPERTY -LINE ---- --- oTHER PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED LOT LINE ------- — PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF ROADWAY — —_ -_ — P.0.W. / EASEMENT LINE O 0ON PIN FOUND 0 CONCRETE MONUMENT FOUND • CALCULATED POINT 0 FENCE POST CORNER RECEIVED .1UN 091199Z City of So. Burlington LOCUS N. T. S. _6107', • aITb AKEA �o(u 7 AG126g •BONING C Z fi 5 AC,rC6ep L Du Oct Acpue I I I L."rrSi R / I Z fCKEP> / au /GC AC+C.G 1z LNJIT-i •P,��oro�o 97 uulT 21D - �,v�c,s F.wr�c.y neja7�r+e� 90' C4-4, Vw -,A4- 6-otow (vG6CfieLV c1t. /00' MI/J. LOr FCO"TA1:E MINIMUM L� SiZB 100' K 1',50' /3000 BF /Z A4CnKC4. Oert" SAG G//QEG�� 477110/! //JCC (JOtrs 'SiGt(�i DPWGTL-6-N05 (CLASS 2) • 01Wf J05 OF kedOtD ,410 A.011- •Nr6 : _ C.G"L.0 M�L-OT - _10Mu Lt2W Po. 60K 4193 1+10 4MEL5J9/J6 AD 6Utt.11J&p", VT. OcvoV -Nqi sop rw 6uKUUC�X1, vr. P9gw> . 1G7L0wI.yy, WX704 sw'tty aw 5aur{uc( Stwt#L- COI,,tc"ro" t'.v�IM.f To 66 MU{J1"P4W LY 0"&0 - GRAPHIC SCALE ( 01 rflr 1 I k - am ft FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services One Wentworth Drive • Williston a Vermont • 05495 • (802) 878-3000 6 January 1993 Mr. Robert Gardner South Burlington Water Department 403 Queen City Park Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Nowland Two Subdivision, Spear Street, South Burlington FILE: 92045 Dear Mr. Gardner: On behalf of the Larkin-Milot Partnership, we are requesting a water allocation for the above -referenced Project. Our Clients propose to develop 73 single family house lots on 66.7 acres east of Spear Street across from Overlook Park. The estimated average daily water demand is based on the flow quantities established in Chapter 21, Table 5 - "Unitized Average Day Flows" of the "Vermont Water Supply Rules", and are as follows: 73 four bedroom units at 600 gpd per unit = 43,800 gpd Total average daily demand for water = 43,800 gallons per day Pursuant to criteria 2 & 3 of Act 250, we need a letter regarding your ability to serve the development without encumbering durrent users. Should you have any questions, please contact us. Sincerely, FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED John Steele cc: John Larkin Gerry Milot JAS#4/baf:92045-5 Design 0 Inspection 0 Studies 0 Permitting 9 Surveying S 2656'56' 40.04' N/F UNOERW000 o-leroT1 R.1000'- T 159.47' L-316.28' 0 p IBIS ( N/F CHI U .W I O �4,z N11F-0ABiIrBp/VV�- 1 N/F MEREDITH / F ATKINS , / N v — 31 32 - STREET 8*6 ---- ---- -- - _ - ---- • STREET �. `\ 85 - 84 67 68 -A - — ~`69~ - =a 70 OP N 6 2457' E 1526, 11' N/F ECONOMOU FARMS INC. N/F ATKINS m S 61 :38'55' E 0.35' i n $ NIP HANSON NN +N N/F FARRELL ET. AL. NO TES 1. OWNER / APPLICANT. LARKIN MILOT PARTNERSHIP 410 SHELBURNE ROAD BURLINGTON, VT 2. ZONED: SOUTHEAST QUADRANT 3. TOTAL PARCEL AREA: 66.7 ACRES 4. PERIMETER PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION TAKEN FROM PLAN ENTITLED ' NOWLAND PROPERTY ll - SUBDIVISION PLAN' BY FITZWELL. DRAWING NUMBER D-3879 / D-J880, DATED MARCH 1991. 5. TOPOGRAPHIC AND EXISTING FEATURES INFORMATION BY FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN 6. PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION FOR SWIFT ESTATES TAKEN FROM TAX MAPS PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON. Z PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 92 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 66.7 ACRES ON 7HE EAST SIDE OF SPEAR STREET IN SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT. 8350 (+/-) LINEAR FEET OF 30' WIDE ROADWAY WI7H CURBS BOTH SIDES AND SIDEWALK ONE SIDE WiTH/N A 60' R.O.W. 5550 (+/-) LINEAR FEET OF 8' GRAVITY SANITARY SEWER TO A PUMP STATION. 5200 (+/-) LINEAR FEET OF PRESSURED SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN TO AN EXIS77NG MANHOLE AT SWIFT ESTATES 6500 (+/-) LINEAR FEET OF 8- WATER MAIN FROM EXISTING WATER MAIN ON SPEAR STREET AT THE DEERFIELD DRIVE INTERSECTION. 10 HYDRANTS PROPOSED. 5500 (+-) LINEAR FEET OF STORM COLLECTION SEWER DISCHARGING To TWo PROPOSED DETENTION BASINS. GRAPHIC SCALE x ,t ( W FEET ) 1v 1 i-h - 100 M AO F IT /S THE USERS RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE 7HESE DRAWINGS INCLUDE THE THE REVISIONS PRELIMINARY PLAT ACT 250 _- FINAL PLAT I I CONSTRUCTION SOLID BON INDICATES APPROVALS STAGE THE DESIGN IS CURRENTLY IN. 92 NOWLAND TWO SOUTH BURLMG70N -. ---- - WRMONT --= ---.V, 0 VERALL SITE PLAN — MOICf NuuBEl1 -.- F Ll Imo% �L �� � 92045 —78- LLEVELL IVj�fj J!/LY 1992 FU INCORPORATED DN.wND Nuueu EHGNEERING AND Y��nnING YRNCES D - 4382 ISHAM WILLISTON VERMONT 3 '�" 23 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services One Wentworth Drive • Williston • Vermont • 05495 • (802) 878-3000 6 January 1993 Mr. James Fay Champlain Water District 403 Queen City Park Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Nowland Two Subdivision, Spear Street, South Burlington FILE: 92045 Dear Mr. Fay: On behalf of the Larkin-Milot Partnership, we are requesting a water allocation for the above -referenced Project. Our Clients propose to develop 73 single family house lots on 66.7 acres east of Spear Street across from Overlook Park. The estimated average daily water demand is based on the flow quantities established in Chapter 21, Table 5 - "Unitized Average Day Flows" of the "Vermont Water Supply Rules", and are as follows: 73 four bedroom units at 600 gpd per unit = 43,800 gpd Total average daily demand for water = 43,800 gallons per day Pursuant to criteria 2 & 3 of Act 250, we need a letter regarding your ability to serve the development without encumbering otirrent users. Should you have any questions, please contact us. Sincerely, FITZPATRICK-LLEW LLYN INCORPORATED ohn Steele cc: John Larkin Gerry Milot JAS#4/baf:92045-5 Design • Inspection 0 Sludies 0 Permilting • Surveying FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services One Wentworth Drive • Williston • Vermont • 05495 • (802) 878-3000 6 January 1993 Mr. Lawrence LeCours Superintendent of Schools South Burlington School District 550 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Nowland Two Residential Subdivision Spear Street, South Burlington, Vermont FILE: 92045 Dear Mr. LeCours: On behalf of the Larkin-Milot Partnership, we are seeking State Act 250 and City approvals for a 66.7 acre, 73 lot residential subdivision. In accordance with Criterion 6 of Act 250, we request that the School Board review this Project with respect to its impact on the City's School System. Using data contained in "The Practitioners Guide to Fiscal Impact Analysis" published by the Center for Urban Research, Rutgers University, 1983, the following multipliers were used to estimate the number of school -age children generated by this Project: GFIA MULTIPLIERS AND ESTIMATES FOR SCHOOL -AGE CHILDREN #UNITS HOUSING TYPE K-6 7-9 10-12 K-12 73 Single 4 BR x .845 = 61.7 x .343 = 25.0 x .281 = 20.5 107.2 Total school -age children generated by Project is 107. The Planning Commission is holding a public hearing on January 26th to review preliminary plat drawings for this Project, and they have asked that we obtain a response from the School Board. Therefore, we are hopeful that the Board will review this Project at its January meeting and send us its comments in advance of the Commission's second hearing in February. Design • Inspection • Studies • Permitting • Surveying Mr. Lawrence LeCours FILE: 92045 6 January 1993 Page Two If you need us to meet with the Board, please call. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED ZO.A. Steele cc: Gerald Milot Enclosure JAS#4/baf:92045-6 11 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 December 9, 1992 John Steele FitzPatrick-Llewellyn, Inc. One Wentworth Drive Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: Southeast Summit and Nowland II PRD ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Dear Mr. Steele: Enclosed please find a copy of a memo to the Planning Commission from the Recreation Path Committee, regarding the above project. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sin rely, o Ray and J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant 1 Encl RJB/mcp cc: Gerald Milot John Larkin ti,.�t ���'a t k � +., , . % � J ,. �. � � ems: r f.... 1 ��+ �y�s��� ���� . i :. 3. V r :yam^�,��r,,,1•Y,., ,e�•:,�•�{���;- • v . .-� _ !. .. � .M1. r a �: � i�`�7!'ti� t� 7':. t' tit .ts tr , .;�i���t}f , 7.r7���tar t .� .. .s.� .ti, �`��: a }tRa. �. � r iks - .. ._.._ i �! . ... a �.. . . F �. �� f ��:;�'�4+':'�1rr:.7.ro':}�ss�tthhw.,s.r.:•.:;.�...:,r�r,>>.i�33�i•i&:5�. ,,ar�a►taa y�u»��f' ��y t:�7 r r" ti •. r r J f I.- r l - -_ _ ��� �-� -. � ���.v.+ww�.u�W.Y1..V,.M �.i �.�J' Nw...r, Ir � •w,w .� .r,•ww.,•y. r rt ..4ti6. Y.�.. .r• � I Snut1� iviuOingtvn +Rire +9Pgttrtment 575 l3nrset Street Suutb Nurlingtun. Uermnnt 0540 FAX: (802) 658-4748 TO: SO. BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CHIEF GODDETTE RE: TUESDAY DECEMBER 8,1992 AGENDA ITEMS DATE: MONDAY NOVEMBER 16,1992 i., O'DELL PARK BANK: 2. 3. PCD SITE PLAN PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND DUE TO THE SIZE OF BAMBINO'S, WVNY AND THE BANK AND THE LAY OUT OF THE NEW ROAD WAY AND PARKING 1-HYDRANT IS NEEDED AT A LOCATION BEHIND THE BUILDINGS APPROVED BY THIS.' OFFICE. S.B. COLLINS GAS STATION WILLISTON RD. & PATCHEN ROAD PLANS WERE REVIEWED ON THE 11'4" X 18' ENCLOSED DUMPSTER SHEAD AND AT THIS TIME I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM IN GIVEN EMERGENCY SERVICE. SOUTHEAST SUMMIT PROJECT # 92039 OFF DORSET STREET DATED 10/92 ON 11/16/92 I HAD A MEETING WITH MR STEEL AND THE ONLY PROBLEM I HAD WAS THE LAY OUT OF HYDRANTS WHICH WAS APPROVED BY MR. STEEL TO BE LOCATED AS MARKED ON THE PLAN PROJECT # 92039 DRAWING # D-4409 4. NOWLAND TWO PROJECT # 92045 SPEAR STREET ON 11/16/92 I HAD A MEETING WITH MR. JOHN STEEL BECAUSE THE HYDRANTS WERE NOT LOCATED WHERE WE HAD REQUESTED. THEY HAVE BEEN RELOCATED ON DRAWING # D-4381 & D-4382, AND APPROVED BY MR STEEL. r (802)658-7960 a